Last updateMon, 13 Nov 2017 4am

History, Textbooks and Distortion

History Textbooks and Distortion

Vedic era and Vedic society

The most ancient literary evidence in Indian history is the Veda. The ancient archaeological sites are that of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. Unanimously all history textbooks tell that both of them are distinct. Why they have to be distinct? Nobody knows. There is no primary evidence for the distinction of the two.

In the context of religion of Harappans, the very history textbook says that they worshiped Mother Earth, Shiva, Shiva linga and gods in the form of animals, trees and human beings. I don’t know in what way this is different from Vedic worship. The Vedas too talk about Shiva, Mother Earth and gods in the form of animals, trees and human beings. Taittiriya Brahmana uses the word Shiva linga too.

There is a huge attempt to differentiate Hinduism and Shaivism. This must be due to the discovery of Shiva worship in Harappan civilization. Such attempts to differentiate Hinduism and Shaivism can be noticed in the history textbooks as well. For example, our history textbook says: Early in his life, he (Harsha) was a follower of Hinduism. Later he followed Shaivism and Buddhism.

What does it indicate? A non-existent distinction between Hinduism and Shaivism is being fed into the minds of the students, the children of Hindus, the majority of this nation.


Education System before British Raj

Education System befor British Raj

Ancient India was celebrated for its learning all over civilized Asia and Europe. Megasthenese (ca. 302 BC) was struck by the depth of this learning during his mission to the court of Chandragupta. Fa-hien, the famous Chinese traveller (399-413 AD) spent some years at the Pataliputra and Tamralipti monasteries. He also spent two years in Ceylon which too had its monasteries after the India fashion. These monasteries were a big affair, housing and teaching several hundred monks each. Two centuries after came Hiuen Tsang undertaking a hazardous journey across Central Asia and northern parts of India. During the seventeen years he spent in India (629-645 AD) he visited many monasteries belonging to the Mahayana and the Hinayana schools. He visited Hiranyaparvata, the Golden Hill (Munghir), a city on the bank of the Ganges, which had 10 Sangharamas with 4,000 priests, and 12 Deva temples. At Tamralipti (at the mouth of Hoogly), there were 10 monasteries with a thousand monks. The same story is told of many other towns he visited.

I-tsing (671-695 AD) came to India by sea-route. He spent ten years studying at the Nalanda University, the most dominant at his time. It was supported by a revenue of 200 villages and housed more than 3,000 monks. The building contained eight halls and three hundred apartments. On the way back, he spent seven years in Sribhoja (Sumatra), which was a cultural extension of India.


Bollywood As A Mix Of Junk Food And Islamism

 BBollywood as a mix of junk food and IslamismBollywood today has hijacked the identity of Indian cinema to such an extent that people hardly realize that there is more to Indian cinema. 

We eat junk food with the full knowledge that it is, well, junk. We crave it, gorge on it, all in the name of taste and don’t care how much of a land whale and waste dump it makes out of us. We justify it even in the name of having “fun.”

Junk food has its equivalent in the Indian entertainment scenario in the form of the Mumbai film industry, better known by its cheap, plagiarized moniker of Bollywood. For more than six decades now, it has done the same thing to the brains of the Indian people what junk food does to the bodies of people worldwide.

What can one say about the creativity of an entertainment entity whose name itself is an imitation? 

A surfing tour of various entertainment television channels will reveal that more than half of the ginormous number of channels typically air the abhorrent visage of a Bollywood personality. What is shown does not matter. It might be an interview of a 40 something actor (?) who still enjoys playing the roles half his age, or an actress (?)


Hinduphobia: Mocking hindus, their politicians & gurus


It is sad that the Supreme Court has again opened the case of the Babri Masjid against LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi. Whatever can be said about the merits of razing the Ayodhya mosque, no Muslim was killed there, whereas the ‘revenge’ bombings of Mumbai killed scores of innocent people, mostly Hindus, without speaking of the thousands of Hindu temples razed in Bangladesh and Pakistan post Ayodhya.

I have known these two men for more than 30 years. Mr Advani is an upright, honest, dedicated and non-corrupt politician who has been labelled all kinds of names by the media. Yet, I have never seen him ask anything for himself or his family and he always lived a simple life. Indeed, his spartan habits have carried him to an advanced age, where he still has all his physical and mental abilities intact.

Politics is something of a Russian Roulette: sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. There is no doubt that Mr Advani would have made a good Prime Minister. But Mr Vajpayee always kept him in check, and when Mr Modi came on the scene, Mr Advani was already in his 80s. This is why I would have liked to see Mr Advani as the next President of India, for he would be an honourable, active and pro-India one. Let us see what the future holds, but I want to pay my respects to Mr Advani and Joshi, because 30 years ago, when it was not fashionable, they were pioneers of Hindu power and led the way for the coming of the BJP and Mr Narendra Modi to form this strong government that is now spreading its wings all over India.


Why Are Modi Haters Turning Into India Haters?

Why are Modi haters

Ever since Narendra Modi was declared the Prime Ministerial candidate of the BJP and opinion polls started hinting that he had an edge over others, his so-called critics turned into compulsive haters that they always were (but masqueraded as neutral commentators).

These haters fall into various groups and they could have different reasons to hate Modi – the common factor being an intense loathing for Hindutva – but now they have started hating India itself after Modi became the Prime Minister of the country.

That they would start hating India itself was indicated when many started issuing statements about them leaving India if Modi became the Prime Minister. The implicit message was “I will hate a country that is represented by Modi.”

Consider these three major events in the last three months that would still be fresh in your memory:And now they have started hating the country. Recent events confirm this development.

  1. Openly distrusting and attacking the navy and the coastguard of India when a rogue Pakistani boat sank in the Indian Ocean. The Modi haters were more vocal and passionate in supporting Pakistan than the Pakistani establishment itself. Pakistan never claimed that India killed its innocent citizens, but Modi haters painted India as a nation that carries out extrajudicial murders without any provocation.
  2. The widespread cheering of Indian culture as “rape culture”. While no one can deny that a lot needs to be done for improving the condition and status of women in our society, calling Indian culture as “rape culture” was as hateful as it can get. Statistics show that rapes cases are higher and conviction in those cases arein many Western and developed countries (even if we factor in for underreporting of cases), still Modi haters cheered and clapped when India was painted as the global den of rapists.
  3. Stupid wish to see India fare poorly at the Cricket World Cup. As per Modi haters, a World Cup victory will fuel “extreme nationalism”could spoil Indian harmony. This is as ridiculous as it can get. On the contrary, Cricket is the only thing that unites Indians of all ethnic backgrounds together. When India wins, and people hug each other to celebrate, they don’t care for the religion and caste of fellow supporters. Wishing for defeat of India only shows how a person has started hating the idea called India.


Why Sanskrit Is A Superior Language – Rajeev Srinivasan

why sanskrit

“From several points of view, Sanskrit is not only the one candidate that deserves to be the national language – much as Israelis resurrected the once-moribund Hebrew – but it is by many measures the most perfect language ever invented: trulysamskrt or civilized. There should be no reason to fuss even if it is imposed; much less when it is merely being put back into the syllabus where it used to be.” – Rajeev Srinivasan

There is an unfortunate hoo-haa about German and Sanskrit in Kendriya Vidyalayas (KV), which is putting a negative spin on generally-positive Indo-German relations. It has even prompted German Chancellor Angela Merkel to question whether their language is being disrespected in India. Which of course is far from the truth, and is a storm in a teacup raised by the usual malign suspects in the media. Best to consider the forest (the desirability of Indo-German ties) over the trees (an ill-advised, illegal move by the UPA in 2011 to mess with the three-language formula, and its inevitable reversal now).

For several reasons, I find the fuss baffling. First, this is merely the reversal of an ill-considered and harmful – therefore typical UPA – step, dissing Indian tradition and replacing it with something European. Second, there is considerable value to Sanskrit that most of us are unaware of, especially if you look at the technical aspects of formal language theory.

People have thundered that the Sanskrit decision is preventing Indian students from aspiring to go to German universities, which is not true – most university education in Germany is conducted in the medium of English. Besides, if you want to learn German, you can still opt for it: it is not banished from the KVs.


The Confused Hindu : Victim Of Macaulayism By Sita Ram Goel

The Confused Hindu

The term derives from Thomas Babington Macaulay, a member of the Governor General’s Council in the 1830s. Earlier, the British Government of India had completed a survey of the indigenous system of education in the Presidencies of Bengal, Bombay and Madras. A debate was going on whether the indigenous system should be retained or a new system introduced. Macaulay was the chief advocate of a new system. This, he, expected, will produce a class of Indians brown of skin but English in taste and temperament. The expectation has been more than fulfilled.

There is a widerspread impression among “educated” classes in India that this country had no worthwhile system of education before the advent of the British. The great universities like those at Takshashilã, Nãlandã, Vikramashîla and Udantapurî had disappeared during Muslim invasions and rule. What remained, we are told, were some pãthashãlãs in which a rudimentary instruction in arithmetic, and reading and writing was imparted by semi-educated teachers, mostly to the children of the upper castes, particularly the Brahmins. But the impression is not supported by known and verifiable facts.

Speaking before a select audience at Chatham House, London, on October 20, 1931, Mahatma Gandhi had said: “I say without fear of my figures being successfully challenged that India today is more illiterate than it was before a fifty or hundred years ago, and so is Burma, because the British administrators when they came to India, instead of taking hold of things as they were, began to root them out. They scratched the soil and began to look at the root and left the root like that and the beautiful tree perished.”

What the Mahatma had stated negatively, that is, in terms of illiteracy was documented positively, that is, in terms of literacy by a number of Indian scholars, notably Sri Daulat Ram, in the debate which followed the Mahatma’s statement, with Sir Philip Hartog, an eminent British educationist, on the other side. Now Shri Dharampal who compiled Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century: Some Contemporary European Accounts in 1971 has completed a book on the state of indigenous education in India on the eve of the British conquest.