True History Of Pakistan
INDIA THAT IS BHARAT
What is history? It depends. On what? Of course, on which history books you read. And this is precisely where Satiricus’s knowledge of history is pitiably poor. Clearly, he must have read the wrong history books. Still more clearly, he must not have read the right books. How else was it possible that for Satiricus the history of India three thousand years ago was a golden age of progress and prosperity, while for Rahul Gandhi it was a period of a hopelessly Hindu rate of growth of poverty? Obviously, where Satiricus went wrong was that while Rahul Gandhi read history, Satiricus read itihasa. This Sanskrit word for history means “it so happened”. Isn’t that unnecessarily narrow minded? For why should history limit itself to only what happened rather than what should have or may have happened? And even if we accept that history means only what happened, why must we be so ridiculously rigid as to say that a certain history happened at a certain time?
An illustrious illustration of this confusion worse confounded in our Bhartiya bird-brains is the history of Pakistan. Take, for instance, the starting question: When did Pakistan come into existence? In 1947, right? Wrong. That is idiotic Indian ignorance. The Pakistanis know better, because the history textbooks prepared by the Government of Pakistan for their schools and colleges reveal delightfully different details of history. According to these officially certified history books believe it or not, oh, ye, Indian idiots! Muhammad bin Qasim was “the First Pakistani Citizen”! You think only stupid Satiricus would say so? Well, Satiricus is not the Government of Pakistan, which authoritatively asserts: “As a matter of fact, Pakistan came to be established for the first time when the Arabs led by Muhammad bin Qasim occupied Sindh.” Well now, when Satiricus came to his senses after a dizzy fit he found that Qasim was here in 712 AD, which means he established Pakistan 1400 years ago, not just 66 years ago. Not content with giving this historic historical detail the Pakistani textbooks even add a geographical detail for the education of Pakistani children as also for the edification of Indian ignoramuses like yours truly by adding: “Pakistan under the Arabs comprised the Lower
See? Satiricus knew about an Indus Valley Civilization, but all along he was labouring under the moronic misapprehension that it was a Vedic civilization, which was naturally a na-pak civilization. He never knew there was an Indus Valley Pakistani Civilization. Neither does he know how splendidly it grew from century to century after this First Pakistani Citizen laid its foundation in the beginning of the 8th century. That continuous growth, in a neat nutshell, is as follows: During the 11th century the Ghaznavid empire comprised what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan. During the 12th century the Ghaznavids lost Afghanistan and their rule came to be confined to Pakistan. By the 13th century Pakistan had spread to include the whole of northern India and Bengal. Under the Khiljis Pakistan moved further southward to include a greater part of Central India and the Deccan. During the 16th century Hindustan disappeared and was completely absorbed in Pakistan! Under Aurangzeb the Pakistan Spirit gathered its strength. The shape of Pakistan in the 18th century was more or less the same as it was under the Ghaznavids in the 11th century. Thus, to conclude the official Pakistani history of Pakistan, although Pakistan was created in August 1947, as stupid Satiricus supposed, yet except for its name the present-day Pakistan has existed, more or less as a single unit, for centuries. Wait, wait! Did Satiricus say centuries? Wrong. For the texts say, for more than a millennium Muslims of the (Indian) sub-continent as well as those living beyond have striven to create Pakistan. Sorry, sorry! Wrong again! If Satiricus is to believe it as the Believers are taught to believe Pakistan has been the aim of all Muslims from times immemorial. What does Satiricus say to that? He is too dumbstruck to say anything.
What the devil! Satiricus thought the new pope Francis, head of the world’s Christians, would be more concerned with God in Heaven and his Son Jesus Christ. But if a recent report is to be believed, “Francis is obsessed with the devil, a frequent subject of his homilies.” As if this is not strange enough, Pope Francis is not only verbally obsessed with the Devil, he even fights him by way of exorcism. For that was what he was doing when newspaper pictures recently showed him placing his hands on a man’s head. Was that exorcism or not? The answer seems to be yes and no. For the Vatican cautiously said Francis “didn’t intend to perform any exorcism, only to pray.” The TV station of the Italian Bishops’ conference asserted that Francis “definitely performed an exorcism” to free the man from the devil.” Whatever the truth, the devil lies in the detail, and as the details of Christian theology are beyond the hopelessly Hindu birdbrain he wonders if Pope Francis is a man of God or is balefully bedevilled.