By Sujay Adukia

Arrogance and elitism are the hallmarks of the India’s leftist intellectuals.Marxist historians of India out to have been an empty land – filled by successive invaders.

They have made present-day India, and Hinduism even more so, out to be a zoo – the agglomeration of assorted, disparate specimens.No such thing as “India”, just a geographic expression, just a construct of the British; no such thing as Hinduism, just a word used by Arabs to describe the assortment they encountered, just an invention of the communalists to impose a uniformity – that has been their stance. For this they have blackened the Hindu period of our history, and, as we shall see, strained to whitewash the Islamic period. They have denounced ancient India’s social system as the epitomy of oppression, and made totalitarian ideologies out to be egalitarian and just.

These intellectuals and their patrons have worked a diabolic inversion: the inclusive religion, the pluralist spiritual search of our people and land, they have projected as intolerant, narrow-minded, obscurantist; and the exclusivist totalitarian, revelatory religions and ideologies – out to be the epitomes of tolerance, open-minded, democracy, secularism!((source: A Secular Agenda: For saving our country, For welding it – By Arun Shourie p. x-xi).)

Romila Thapar, Gyanendra Pandey, Aijaz Ahmed, Achin Vanaik, Partha Chaterjee, Bipan Chandra, K. N. Panikkar and others. Labeled “eminent historians” or eminent political scientists” by the Indian media and by Western academics who have collaborated in their work, these scholars have carried out a sustained attack on the traditional reading of Hindu philosophy, religion, and history, and an equally sustained attempt at redeeming the attacks on Hinduism, both ancient and modern by Islamic, Christian and Communist forces and ideologies.((source: Secular “Gods” Blame Hindu “Demons” – By Ramesh N. Rao )

Romila Thapar, the doyen of Communist historians, has characterized in her (History of India) of the Rig-Veda as “primitive animism”, of the Mahabharata as the glorification of a “local feud” between two Aryan tribes, or of the Ramayana as “a description of local conflicts between the agriculturists of the Ganges Valley and the more primitive hunting and food-gathering societies of the Vindhyan region” (source: A reply to Frontline’s story by Profs. Michael Witzel, Steve Farmer & Romila Thapar – By Michael Daninio)


India’s “Sickular” (sic) thinkers, writers, artistes and politicians

Abuse of the word Hindu

The word Hindu is being used as a term of abuse. Hindu fanatic, Hindu fundamentalism, Hindu nationalist, Hindutva. Mostly, that is how the word Hindu gets used and nearly always pejoratively.

It bothers me that I went to school and college in this country without any idea of the enormous contribution of Hindu civilisation to the history of the world. It bothers me that even today our children, whether they go to state schools or expensive private ones, come out without any knowledge of their own culture or civilisation. I believe that the Indic religions have made much less trouble for the world than the Semitic ones and that Hindu civilisation is something I am very proud of. If that is evidence of my being ”communal”, then, my inner voice tells me, so be it.(source: This inner voice too needs hearing By Tavleen Singh

Jawaharlal Nehru considered the induction of Hindu women in Muslim harems as the cradle of “composite culture” (his euphemism for Hindu humiliation. Time and again, the negationist historians - Romila Thapar, Harbans Mukhia, Bipin Chandra, K.N. Panikkar, S. Goyal, Irfan habib, Asghar Ali Engineer, Gyanendra Pandey, R. S. Sharma, Sushil Srivastava – all professors at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU, the Mecca of “secularism” and negationism write that the medieval wars were not religious wars.(source: Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam – By Koenraad Elst)

- Muslims were mere visitors to India. (When Romila Thapar tries to make gullible readers believe that Mahmud Ghaznavi only desecrated temples for their wealth she must know (assuming, as all her quoters do, that she is competent historian) that Mahmud is revered by the Muslims as a devout Muslim, that he calligraphed Quran text “for the benefit of his soul”, and that he actually refused a huge ransom which Hindus were ready to pay if he agreed to give back an idol, instead of breaking it. Mahmud preferred breaking idols to selling them, even if that meant foregoing wealth. So her theory of Mahmud’s economical rather than religious motives is at best an unscientific imposition of Marxist dogma upon the facts of Indian history, otherwise a deliberate lie.

- Incest was common in Vedic period.

- Aurangzeb was a good king. His atrocities does not go beyond damaging some temples.

- Akbar was a GREAT king.

- Ram never existed. His temple was not there in Ayodhya.

- Aryan were outsiders who came to invade India.

- Jinnah was a secular person to the core of his heart who wanted Hindu-Muslim unity with Sarojini Naidu describing her as “Ambassador” of Hindu-Muslim unity.

- For special guests beef was served as a mark of honor” by none other than Brahmins.

- Sanskrit and Arabic are ancient languages of India.

It is nothing short of astonishing that these are the people who have been allowed to mould India’s children for the past half-century. India’s citizens have clearly failed in their duty of vigilance. Why won’t India’s leftists then accept Naipaul’s opinions? (source: Historicide: Censoring the past… and the present – Rajeev Srinivasan and Ayodhya and After – By Koenraad Elst).

By denouncing Hinduism day in and day out, these ‘eminent historians’ deny the land itself. They leave the people no sense of self-worth. will a society bereft of self-worth do anything worthwhile? Will a people deprived of self-worth stand by any norms? Do our commentators not see that by the rhetoric they espouse not one leader of our reawakening – Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Tilak, Gandhi, Ramana Maharshi – NOT ONE is anything but a Hinduism monger? (source: Indian Controversies – By Arun Shourie South Asia Books 1993 ASIN 8190019929 p. xiv – xv and Eminent Historians - India Connect).

K. N. Panikkar and Sanskrit

A friend sent me information about the appointment of K N Panikkar, former professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, as the vice-chancellor of the Adi Sankara Sanskrit University at Kaladi, Kerala, the birthplace of Adi Sankara. K N Panikkar (or is it K N Pannikar, I forget) is an extreme, radical Marxist whose utter contempt for Hinduism is legendary. He knows no Sanskrit either. He has been foisted on this university by the ruling Marxists of Kerala: widespread protests have had no effect. Only in the Nehruvian-Stalinist Alice-in-wonderland world of India would such a thing be possible! This appointment is roughly the equivalent of Osama bin Laden being made the head of the Vatican’s main seminary! He was recently given the position of Vice chancellor of a Sanskrit University in Kerala; the appointment was made by the Marxist government in Kerala. There has been some negative repercussions about this appointment because Professor Panikkar does not know Sanskrit and has never studied Sanskrit. (source: Puzzling Dimensions and Theoretical Knots in my Graduate School Research – By Yvette Claire Rosser - Infinity and Postscript – By Rajeev Srinivasan

2,164 total views, 1 views today