Colour of India

Colour of India

Friday, March 11, 2011

I have explained how Professor Makkhan Lal and Professor Rajendra Dixit have in their book very clearly brought out the denigration of India and its ancient history and culture (very much like the Marxists and Communists and other pseudo-secular politicians of today!) by ‘eminent’ British administrators, British Indologists and British historians like Sir William Jones (1747-1794), James Mill (1773-1836), Mountstuart Elphinstone (1779-1859) and Lord Macaulay (1800-1859). Following the essentially ANTI-HINDU lead followed by these Britishers, in the latter half of the 19th century major efforts were made to prove that India was neither a country nor a nation. British administrators and scholars replaced the ancient and time-sanctified term such as rashtra (nation) with the term ‘sub-continent’ and THESE COLONIAL SCHEMERS AND PLOTTERS PUT FORWARD THE THEORY THAT INDIA WAS NOT A NATION BUT A CONGLOMERATION OF NATIONS.

Front cover of the book

This trend of denigration of India became more pronounced after the Great Indian Mutiny in 1857 and reached its climax in 1880. John Strachy (1823-1907), Finance Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council observed as follows in 1880:This is the first and foremost thing to learn about India that there is not, and never was an India, or even any country of India possessing, according to European ideas, any sort of unity — physical, political, social, and religious, no Indian nation, no ‘people’ of India, of which we hear so much”.

Sir John Strachey (left) with his brother Sir Richard Strachey in 1876.

John Strachy’s view was fully endorsed by British historian E.J Rapson who edited ‘Ancient India : from Earliest Times to the 1st Century AD’ (Cambridge History Series 1914). He expressed the view that India was not a country but consisted of “several large countries and a multitude of smaller communities with each having its own complicated racial history and each pursuing its own particular line of development independently of its neighbours”.

In the footsteps of James Mill, Mountstuart Elphinstone and others came another historian called V.A Smith who was an ICS officer serving the British Government in India. He prepared a textbook titled ‘Early History of India’. In this book he gave pride of space, place and importance to Alexander’s invasion of India in 326 BC. This is enough to show his sense of proportion as a historian of India. After devoting one-third of the book to this insignificant Greek invasion, V.A Smith himself concluded: India continued to live in her splendid isolation and soon forgot the Macedonian storm”. And yet at the same time he displayed his racial arrogance apart from ignorance in these words: The triumphant progress of Alexander from the Himalayas to the sea demonstrated the inherent weakness of the greatest Asiatic armies when confronted with European skill and discipline”. Smith seems to have completely overlooked the fact that Alexander touched only the North-Western part of India and not the whole of India as he would have us to believe. Contemporary sources of history clearly indicate that Alexander’s army mutinied against him and refused to fight the powerful Nandas of Magadh on the East. It was the sole privilege of racist, omnipotent and omniscient British historians not even to get hold of basic and fundamental facts before they played the dirty colonial game of distorting them to suit their imperial interests!

Even in the last quarter of the 19th century well-informed and highly educated Indians who had come out of the universities of Bombay, Bengal and Madras created by the British after the 1857 mutiny had started questioning the prejudiced ways of writing Indian history by the Western scholars. 

Bankim Chandra Chatterjee (1838-1894)

Bankim Chandra Chatterjee (1838-1894) of Bande Mataram fame had observed as early as in 1882: “There are distortions and systematic suppressions of the achievements and physical prowess of the Hindus in the country of Western scholars. None of the books on Bengal written by British authors contain a true history of Bengal. The Bengalis have to write their history themselves, from their own viewpoint and relating to their own interests. We need a history of Bengal; otherwise there will be no hope for Bengal. But who will write it? You will write it, I will write it, every one will write this history. Whoever is Bengali will write it.

Swami Vivekananda
(1863-1902), Lala Lajpat Rai (1865-1928), Sri Bipin Chandra Pal (1858-1932), Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950) — all of them shared the above thoughts, feelings, emotions and sentiments of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. All of them were of the view that the western scholars in general and English scholars in particular had completely twisted, maligned and distorted the history of Ancient India.

Today, even 62 years after our independence, there are many pseudo-secular anti-Hindu Indians who are full of lavish praise for the British Orientalists on the plea that it is because of them that we know our history and that it is they who made us aware of our real heritage and history. But these Indian toadies of British rule do not say what kind of Indian history the British Orientalists finally reconstructed for us.

Professor Makkhan Lal and Professor Rajendra Dixit have brought out an interesting fact about KARL MARX (1818-1883). After discussing the havoc played by the Arabs, Turks, Mughals, Afghans etc, on the Hindus of India, Karl Marx wrote as follows on June 10, 1853 in the ‘New York Daily Tribune’: “There cannot, however, remain any doubt that the misery inflicted by the British on Hindostan is of essentially different and infinitely more intensive kind than all Hindostan had to suffer before. ... All civil wars, various invasions, revolutions, conquests, famines, strangely complex, rapid and destructive as successive action in Hindostan may appear, did not go deeper than its surface. England has broken down the entire framework of Indian society, without any symptom of reconstitution ever appearing. This loss of his old world, with no gain of new, imparts a particular kind of melancholy to the recent misery of the Hindoo, and separates Hindostan, ruled by Britain from all its ancient traditions and the whole of its past.

Karl Marx 



Having taken the above patently anti-British position, on June 10, 1853, Karl Marx suddenly somersaulted within a period of 42 days!. In his second despatch in the ‘New York Daily Tribune’ on July 22, 1853, Karl Marx showed that he had no sympathy for the Hindus of India. In this later despatch he tried his best to justify the British destruction of Hindu society, polity and economy. What brought about this radical turnaround change in the mind of Karl Marx? Karl Marx was driven out of Europe and forced to take refuge in England in the first week of July 1853. He was forced to take an openly pro-British position vis-à-vis their policy towards India. Thus Karl Marx shamelessly sold his soul as an independent scholar for a mess of pottage---nay patronage--in England.

Karl Marx was the earliest Marxist precursor of today’s anti-Hindu Marxist historians---shameless slaves of either the Congress Party or Communist Parties--- of Jawaharlal Nehru University. Karl Marx became a toady of British rule for mercenary reasons. Marxist historians of today are the paid toadies of the Congress Party, CPI (M) and CPI. Shame is viewed by them as a bourgeoisie quality and shamelessness as the hall mark of high Marxist culture!

Professor Makkhan Lal and Professor Rajendra Dixit have referred to the Nationalist Approach to Indian History made by scholars like R.G Bhandarkar (1837-1925) and V.K Rajwade (1863-1926) in the last quarter of the 19th century. Their successors in the 20 century were D.R Bhandarkar (1875-1950), H.C Raychaudhuri, R.C Majumdar, P.V Kane, A.S Altekar, K.P Jayaswal, K.A Neelakantha Sastri, T.V Mahalingam, H.C Ray and K.K Mukherjee. D.R Bhandarkar reconstructed the History of Ancient India on the basis of epigraphic and numismatic evidence. His books on Ashoka and on Ancient Indian polity helped explore a number of myths created by the imperialist historians. In the realm of political ideas and institutions, the biggest blow on the imperialist school was inflicted by K.P Jaiswal (1881-1937) in his book ‘HINDU POLITY’ published in 1924. H.C Raychaudhuri (1892-1957) in his book ‘Political History of Ancient India’ reconstructed the history of Ancient India from the time of the Mahabharata war to the Gupta period and practically blew off the colonial clouds created by V.A Smith. R.C Majumdar edited the ‘History and Culture of the Indian People’ from pre-historic times to India’s independence in 11 volumes. K.A Neelakantha Sastri (1892-1975) contributed immensely towards our understanding of South Indian history. All these nationalist-minded historians and truly patriotic Indians have been treated as communal’ untouchables by the Marxist inspired Government of India after our Independence.

Rabindranath Tagore


I call the savage Muslim invaders and destroyers of our temples from 1100 AD to 1800 AD as Muslim Marauders. I call the Marxist scholars and historians of today, who are trying to demolish the reasoned and reasonable structure of history of Ancient India as the Malicious Mendacious Marxist Marauders of Ancient Hindu History.

To conclude in the words of Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) spoken in 1903: “By not viewing BHARATVARSHA from Bharatvarsha’s own perspective, since our early childhood, we learn to demean her and in consequence we get demeaned ourselves”.

I have already observed that Post-Independence decades in India have only seen further progressive consolidation of the Macaulay system of education in India, totally divorced from the cultural and spiritual roots of India
I fully endorse the view of Professor Makkhan Lal when he says that in post-independent India, political ideologies, insensate bureaucrats and vested interests are doing everything possible within their might to perpetuate a status quo, continue with the same self-hate and nation-hate system of colonial education that defiles almost every bit of Indianness and distorts all its traditions and traditional glories and gains. Social scientists and historians professing Marxist ideology have come to dominate the Indian academia and they have been brazenly—no less adamantly—advocating the continuation the colonial system of education. The shameful practice of denigration and distortions of the Hindu past of India has been carried forward to absurd limits after the Islam-embracing, Christianity-coveting and Hindu-baiting UPA Government of Sonia Gandhi came to power in May 2004. Sonia Gandhi’s political stooge and national betrayer Arjun Singh gave a death blow in 2004 to the new and carefully prepared balanced NCERT text books brought out during the preceding NDA regime of Atal Bihari Vajpayee strictly with reference to the NATIONAL CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION-2000 (NCFSE-2000) drawn up by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).

In Chapter 4 Professor Makkhan Lal and Professor Rajendra Dixit have dealt with in detail as to how the toadies of  Communist traitors in active collusion with the Sonia Congress traitors failed in their attempts in September 2002 to persuade the Supreme Court of India to declare that NCFSE-2000 drawn up by NCERT was against the Constitution, anti-secular, and without the mandate of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) and, therefore, it was necessary in the larger public interest to be set aside. Let me make this more clear. In February 2002, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court of India by Aruna Roy, B.G.Verghese and others. They contended that the NCFSE-2000 published and fully adopted by the NCERT was against the Constitution, Anti-Secular, and done without the approval of the CABE and therefore the NCFSE-2000 has to be set aside.

In its historic Order on 12th September 2002 the Supreme Court of India not only dismissed the PIL Petition of Aruna Roy and others, but also echoed the sentiments on National Education that were expressed by Swami Vivekananda in 1898. The three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India rejected the contention of the petitioners that Value-based Education was against the “rubrics of secularism” and against Articles 21, 27 and 28 of the Constitution. On the contrary, the Supreme Court said that in the present violence-ridded world, and totally devoid of any morality, the value-based education and education about religions is the most desirable thing that needs to e incorporated in school education system. It also rebuked the Petitioners for raising the bogey of “SECULARISM” without understanding its meaning.

The PIL Petitioners representing the known anti-Hindu forces of Marxism, Macaulayism, Nehruvian pseudo-secularism, Islam and Christianity had the temerity to contend before the Supreme Court that the teaching of Sanskrit Language would encourage communalism and, therefore, it should not be taught. Perhaps for world famous intellectual giants like Aruna Roy, B.G.Verghese and other Petitioners, URDU, PERSIAN AND ARABIC are the only languages that would promote true secularism and communal harmony. They went to the extent of saying that Persian and Arabic should also be taught alongside Sanskrit and all the 3 languages should be treated at par. The Supreme Court in its Order already referred to above not only rejected this contention but also reminded the Petitioners—known Hindu baiters—of Sanskrit’s unique place in the history, culture, heritage and daily life of the Indian people. The Supreme Court also reminded the Petitioners that Dr. B.Ambedkar, himself along with a large number of Members of the Constituent Assembly, wanted Sanskrit to be the National Language in place of Hindi. The Supreme Court asked the question :”HOW CAN THE TEACHING OF SUCH A LANGUAGE BE TREATED AS A COMMUNAL ACT AND HOW CAN SANSKRIT BE TREATED AT PAR WITH ANY OTHER LANGUAGE LIKE PERSIAN AND ARABIC?”

The Supreme Court totally rejected the contention of the Petitioners against the promotion of the Sanskrit language. Referring to the Petitioners, the Supreme Court called them a band “of self-appointed secularists and conscience keepers of the Nation” who think that they are enlightened enough to preach that the teaching of Sanskrit will promote communalism. What can one say about them, to use their own language, that they are ‘uninformed’, ‘illiterate’, ‘ignorant’, ‘woolly headed’ and haters of everything Indian? Firangi Memsahib—the vicious Black Spider from Italy—has used her unchallenged authority as super-Prime Minister of India to nominate only such Indians as members of the National Advisory Council of which she is the Chairman. This catholic impostor from Italy—this betrayer of India and Indian Nation—has given to herself Cabinet rank which involves no taking of oath. This Black Spider’s informal oath of allegiance to the Pope in Rome and the European Union is too well known to merit any detailed observation.

Finally the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rejected the pleas of the Petitioners against “Religious Teaching” and “Vedic Astrology” very clearly, observing that either they had misread the contents or they had not understood them correctly. The Supreme Court reminded them that what was indicated in NCFSE-2000 was not ‘religious teaching’ but teaching about religion which no society can afford to ignore. The Court also said that what NCFSE-2000 had in mind was ‘Vedic Astronomy’ and not ‘Vedic Astrology’. Likewise the contentions of the Petitioners about ‘Vedic Mathematics’ and ‘Hindu Festivals’ were also dismissed.

In this context, it has to be stated that the NCFSE-2000 was drawn up by NCERT completely on the basis of Report submitted to the Parliament on 22nd January, 1999 by the S.B. Chavan Committee   which   was   appointed   by the Parliament in 1996. The report of the Committee is based on earlier reports submitted by various Committees, namely, the Radhakrishnan Commission (1948-49), Kothari Commission (1964-66), National Policy on Education (1986), Ramamurti Committee (1990), Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) Committee on Policy (1992), Planning Commission Core Group on Value Orientation of Education (1992), which have highlighted the urgent need for making the educational system value-based.

NCFSE-2000 finalized by Professor J.S.Rajput, former Director NCERT was completely based on items 8 and 9 of S.B. Chavan Committee. I am citing below the relevant portions from this Report to prove my point:   
“8. Truth (Satya), Righteous Conduct (Dharma), Peace (Shanti), Love (Prema) and Non-violence (Ahimsa) are the core universal values which can be identified as the foundation-stone on which the value-based education programme can be built up.  These five are indeed universal values and respectively represent the five domains of human personality: intellectual, physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual. They also are correspondingly co-related with the five major objectives of education, namely, knowledge, skill, balance, vision and identity.”


“13.  Another aspect that must be given some thought is religion, which is the most misused and misunderstood concept.  The process of making the students acquainted with the basics of all religions, the values inherent therein and also a comparative study of the philosophy of all religions should begin at the middle stage in schools and continue up to the university level.   Students have to be made aware that the basic concept behind every religion is common, only the practices differ.   Even if there are differences of opinion in certain areas, people have to learn to co-exist and carry no hatred against any religion.”

The S.B. Chavan Committee’s report on value based education was tabled in Parliament; on 26-2-1999 and after its approval, (since there was no opposition) NCERT was asked to implement this report. What should be noted is that many of the recommendations in the curriculum proposed by NCERT in NCFSE-2000 are virtual and verbatim copy of the report of the S.B. Chavan Committee.

Professor Makkhan Lal and Professor Rajendra Dixit have rightly pointed out that B.G.Verghese is a whole time turncoat. In 1998 he had pleaded for the introduction of teaching of Comparative Religions and Culture, and requesting the Government to even endow Chairs and a series of Lectures. The very same B.G.Verghese along with Aruna Roy and others went to the Supreme Court of India in 2002 against the NCFSE-2000. They also serve who somersault!

Whenever I read about exciting exploit of turncoats, I am reminded about the following limerick on another turncoat called Pavar:

There once was a turncoat named Pavar
Whose constituents said he must go
But he kissed Sonia’s head
And the Spider said
Pavar we need you up here, don’t you know!

No comments: