Twisted history by Marxist historians

Discussion in 'Religion & Culture' started by parijataka, Jun 28, 2014.

  1. parijataka

    parijataka Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,893
    Likes Received:
    3,688
    Location:
    Bengaluru
    Destruction of Nalanda in 11 cent is attributed by Marxist historian D.N. Jha based on Buddhist accounts of 17-18th century in which Hindu ascetics through their `miracles` burnt down the entire university while ignoring the contemporary accounts of destruction of the university in Tabakat-i-Nasiri by Maulana Minhaj-ud-din detailing the burning down of the university with special attention being given to burning all the books in the library and slaughter of all the monks and teachers by the army of Bakhtiyar Khilji.

    D.N Jha, president of the Indian History Congress, in his presidential address attributes the destruction of Nalanda to `Hindu fanatics` !

    How history was made up at Nalanda
    Arun Shourie, 28 June 2014

    “The mine of learning, honoured Nalanda” — that is how the 16th-17th century Tibetan historian, Taranath, referred to the university at Nalanda. At the time I-tsing was at the university, there were 3,700 monks. The total complex had around 10,000 residents. The structures housing the university were as splendid and as extensive as the learning they housed. When excavations began, the principal mound alone was about 1,400 feet by 400 feet. Hieun Tsang recounts at least seven monasteries and eight halls. The monasteries were of several storeys, and there was a library complex of three buildings, one of them nine storeys high.

    As the Islamic invaders advanced through Afghanistan and northwestern India, they exterminated Buddhist clergy, they pillaged and pulverised every Buddhist structure — the very word “but”, the idols they so feverishly destroyed, was derived from “Buddha”. Nalanda escaped their attention for a while — in part because it was not on the main routes. But soon enough, the marauders arrived, and struck the fatal blow. The ransacking is described in the contemporary Tabakat-i-Nasiri by Maulana Minhaj-ud-din.

    Minhaj-ud-din rose and came to the notice of the rulers of the time — Qutb-ud-din Aibak and others — because of his raids and depredations, and because of the enormous booty he gathered, booty sufficient for him to set himself up as a plunderer in his own right. “His reputation reached Sultan (Malik) Qutb-ud-din, who despatched a robe of distinction to him, and showed him honour,” the historian writes. With its high wall, its large buildings, Nalanda seemed like a well-endowed fortress to Ikhtiyar-ud-din and his force. He advanced upon it with two hundred horsemen “and suddenly attacked the place”. Minhaj-ud-din continues,

    “The greater number of inhabitants of that place were Brahmans, and the whole of those Brahmans had their heads shaven, and they were all slain. There were a great number of books there; and when all these books came under the observation of the Musalmans, they summoned a number of Hindus that they might give them information respecting the import of those books; but the whole of the Hindus had been killed. On being acquainted (with the contents of the books), it was found that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and in the Hindu tongue, they call a college, Bihar [vihara].”

    “When that victory was effected,” Minhaj-ud-din reports, “Muhammad-i-Bakhtiyar returned with great booty, and came to the presence of the beneficent sultan, Qutb-ud-din I-bak, and received great honour and distinction…” — so much so that other nobles at the court became jealous. All this happened around the year 1197 AD.

    And now the Marxist account of the destruction of this jewel of knowledge. In 2004, D.N. Jha was the president of the Indian History Congress. In the presidential address he delivered — one to which we shall turn as an example of Marxist “scholarship” — this is the account he gives of the destruction of Buddhist viharas, and of Nalanda in particular:
    “A Tibetan tradition has it that the Kalacuri King Karna (11th century) destroyed many Buddhist temples and monasteries in Magadha, and the Tibetan text Pag Sam Jon Zang refers to the burning of the library of Nalanda by some ‘Hindu fanatics’.”
    “Hindu fanatics”? The expression struck me as odd. A Tibetan text of the 18th century using so current an expression as “Hindu fanatics”? Especially so because, on Jha’s own reckoning, Hinduism is an invention of the British in the late 19th century? So, what is this “Tibetan text”?

    What does it say? Had Jha looked it up?
    Pag Sam Jon Zang was written by Sumpa Khan-Po Yece Pal Jor. The author lived in 1704-88: that is, 500 years after the destruction of Nalanda. That is the first thing that strikes one: our historian disregards the contemporaneous account, Tabakat-i-Nasiri, and opts for a text written 500 years after the event. But had he read the text at all? Could a self-respecting Marxist have at all believed what is written in it?
    This is how Sarat Chandra Das, the translator and editor of Pag Sam Jon Zang, sets out the account of the destruction of Nalanda as given in this text:

    “While a religious sermon was being delivered in the temple that he (Kakuta Sidha, a minister of a king of Magadha) had erected at Nalanda, a few young monks threw washing water at two Tirthika beggars. The beggars being angry, set fire on the three shrines of dharma ganja, the Buddhist university of Nalanda — that is, Ratna Sagara, Ratna Ranjaka including the nine-storey building called Ratnadadhi which contained the library of sacred books” (pg 92).

    Two beggars could go from building to building of that huge campus and, with all the monks present, burn down the entire, huge, scattered complex?

    And, the account of the relevant passage reproduced above is the one set out by Sarat Chandra Das in his Index. That is, it is just a summary of the actual passage — in an index, it scarcely could be more. What does the relevant section, and in particular the passage about the burning down of the library, say?

    The author is giving an account of how Dharma has survived three rounds of destructive attempts. One round was occasioned by the fluctuating relations between Khunimamasta, a king of Taksig (Turkistan?), and Dharma Chandra, a king of Nyi-og in the east. The latter sends gifts. The former thinks these are part of black magic. He, therefore, swoops down from “dhurukha” and destroys “the three bases” of Magadha — monasteries, scriptures and stupas. Khunimamasta drives out and exiles the monks. Dharma Chandra’s uncle sends many scholars to China to spread the teaching. He receives gold as thanksgiving. He uses this and other gifts to appease rulers of smaller kingdoms to join the fight against the king of Taksig (Turkistan?). The uncle thereafter revives “the three bases”. Almost all the shrines are restored and 84 new ones are built. And so, the dharma survives.

    In the next round, “the teacher who taught prajnaparamita for 20 years is assassinated by burglars from dhurukha. His blood turned into milk and many flowers emerged from his body. (Thus) he flew into the sky.”

    We now come to the crucial passage, the one that Jha has ostensibly invoked. I reproduce the translation of it by Geshe Dorji Damdul in full:
    “Again at that time, there was a scholar by the name Mutita Bhadra, who was greatly involved in renovating and building stupas. Eventually he had a vision of Bodhisattva Samantabhadra. He flew to Liyul by holding the garment (of Bodhisattva Samantabhadra) and there he made great contributions to the welfare of sentient beings and the Dharma. Reviving the Dharma that way, the Dharma flourished for 40 years in the Central Land (Magadha?). At that time, during the celebration over the construction of a shrine in Nalanda by Kakutasita, a minister of the king, some naughty novice monks splashed (dish) washing water on two non-Buddhist beggars and also pressed (the two) in-between the door and (the door frame.) Angry over these gestures, one (beggar) served as the attendant to the other who sat in a deep pit for 12 years to gain the sidhi of the sun. Having achieved the sidhi, they threw ashes of a fire puja (havan) they did, on 84 Buddhist shrines. They were all burned. Particularly, when the three dharma ganja of Nalanda — the shrines which sheltered the scriptures — as well got consumed in fire, streams of water ran down from the scriptures of Guhyasamaja and Prajnaparamita, which were housed in the ninth storey of the Ratnadhati shrine. This saved many scriptures. Later, fearing penalty from the king, the two (beggars) escaped to Hasama in the north. However, the two died due to immolation, which happened on its own.”

    Surely, no self-respecting Marxist could have made his account rest on not just one miracle — acquiring sidhis and raining fire on to the structures — but two, for we also have the streams of water running down from the scriptures.

    But we strain unnecessarily. There is a clue in Jha’s lecture itself. He doesn’t cite the Tibetan text, he does what Marxists do: he cites another Marxist citing the Tibetan text! To see what he does, you must read the lines carefully. This is what we saw Jha saying:
    “A Tibetan tradition has it that the Kalacuri King Karna (11th century) destroyed many Buddhist temples and monasteries in Magadha, and the Tibetan text Pag Sam Jon Zang refers to the burning of the library of Nalanda by some ‘Hindu fanatics’.”

    As his authority, Jha cites a book by B.N.S. Yadava, Society and Culture in Northern India in the Twelfth Century. What did Yadava himself write? Here it is: “Further, the Tibetan tradition informs us that Kalacuri Karna (11th century) destroyed many Buddhist temples and monasteries in Magadha.”

    Jha has clearly lifted what Yadava wrote word for word — at least he has been faithful to his source. But in the very next sentence, Yadava had gone on to say: “It is very difficult to say anything as to how far this account may be correct.”
    Words that Jha conveniently left out!
     
  2.  
  3. Manas7

    Manas7 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    244
    Time to put the record straight. Also deeply needed purging of JNU.
     
    maomao, TrueSpirit1 and Tshering22 like this.
  4. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    History is written by historians with their own personal agendas.

    The history they so produced need not be on facts and more on the figment of their imagination, warped agenda or merely to malign and incite.
     
    TrueSpirit1 and Sameet Pattnaik like this.
  5. ITBP

    ITBP Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    131
    Location:
    .
    Marxist historians are too simpleton minded, only $$$$ and class struggle based.
     
  6. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Right, Karl Marx was born in the 16th Century. So was Fred Engels. They both published the Communist Manifesto in the 16th Century, where they urged all Tibetan historians to pin all the blame on the Hindus. They had somehow foreseen that Nalanda was going to be destroyed.

    When the Pag Sam Jon Zang was compiled, the Tibetan historians, who were indoctrinated by Marx, did exactly that.

    This is a revelation, that none other than Arun Shourie could have brought up to us.

    The fact of the matter is, anyone who does not agree with the re-construction of history to suit the Saffron narrative, is branded a "Marxist," regardless of whether that history has anything at all to do with Marx.
     
    Peter likes this.
  7. Manas7

    Manas7 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    244

    No Pag Sam Jon Zang of Tibetan historians knew exactly who were the " Hindu Fanatics " that destroyed Nalanda by 11th century as do their counterparts the secular Indian Marxists of 21st century . Great .
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2014
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  8. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    There were Hindu 'fanatics' then?
     
  9. Abhijat

    Abhijat Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2014
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    350
    Location:
    Nothingness
    You think Mr. Arun Shourie is blaming Karl Marx for the twisted history , as written by our present JNU professors? :laugh: .

    He is referring to the ideology followed by present people as "Marxist" , which actually is nowhere related to ideas of Marx , but these people like to call themselves as follower of Marx , so "Marxist" .
     
    hit&run, apple and TrueSpirit1 like this.
  10. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    1,410
    Marxist historians and writers work for Marxist politicians and marxist agenda

    If Marxists had succeeded in transforming Bengal then they would have become
    successful elsewhere too

    In India they wanted to create a new society based ONLY on Class
    ie Rich and poor and remove other differences such as caste and religion

    In theory it is a good idea but practically it has failed in India

    But since Marxism has failed in India these historians will also fade away
     
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  11. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Want to know what I think? I think Arun Shourie is an idiot.

    When Pag Sam Jon Zang was compiled, there was no Marx, or Marxism. What Mr. Jha did was simply cite Pag Sam Jon Zang. He did not invent anything.

    So, when Arun Shourie says "Marxist account," he is only displaying his ignorance.

    Whether Marxism is a good idea or bad idea is a completely different discussion, and has nothing to do with my comment.
     
  12. Abhijat

    Abhijat Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2014
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    350
    Location:
    Nothingness
    This is an excerpt from NCERT class VIII - "Our Past III ( Part 1)" . It is a source adopted from a book- " Sepoy to Subedar , Sitaram Pandey , pg. 162-63" .

    [HR][/HR]

    Another account we have from those days are the memoirs of Subedar Sitaram Pande. Sitaram Pande was recruited in 1812 as a sepoy in the Bengal Native Army. He served the English for 48 years and retired in 1860. He helped the British to suppress the rebellion though his own son was a rebel and was killed by the British in front of his eyes. On retirement he was persuaded by his Commanding Officer, Norgate, to write his memoirs. He completed the writing in 1861 in Awadhi and Norgate translated it into English and had it published under the title From Sepoy to Subedar.

    Here is an excerpt from what Sitaram Pande wrote:

    It is my humble opinion that this seizing of Oudh filled the minds of the Sepoys with distrust and led them to plot against the Government. Agents of the Nawab of Oudh and also of the King of Delhi were sent all over India to discover the temper of the army. They worked upon the feelings of sepoys, telling them how treacherously the foreigners had behaved towards their king. They invented ten thousand lies and promises to persuade the soldiers to mutiny and turn against their masters, the English, with the object of restoring the Emperor of Delhi to the throne. They maintained that this was wholly within the army’s powers if the soldiers would only act together and do as they were advised.

    It chanced that about this time the Sarkar sent parties of men from each regiment to different garrisons for instructions in the use of the new rifle.These men performed the new drill for some time until a report got about by some means or the other, that the cartridges used for these new rifles were greased with the fat of cows and pigs. The men from our regiment wrote to others in the regiment telling them about this, and there was soon excitement in every regiment. Some men pointed out that in forty years’ service nothing had ever been done by the Sarkar to insult their religion, but as I have already mentioned the sepoys’ minds had been inflamed by the seizure of Oudh. Interested parties were quick to point out that the great aim of the English was to turn us all into Christians, and they had therefore introduced the cartridge in order to bring this about, since both Mahommedans and Hindus would be defiled by using it.

    The Colonel sahib was of the opinion that the excitement, which even he could not fail to see, would pass off, as it had done before, and he recommended me to go to my home.

    [HR][/HR]


    This was the first time I read "this version" of 1857 revolt. I was shocked to see how ignorant I was not knowing the true reasons for the revolt . This had laid me respect the Britishers more as "Britishers were always protecting the interest of our common sepoys" . I am very grateful to our "JNU professors" , for revealing the truth.

    So I thought that I must read the original source , so as to get great insight in our history and develop an alternative version as taught by "saffron historians" .

    So I searched for the book "Sepoy to Subedar" .

    But interestingly to my surprise I found this link "http://www.urdustudies.com/pdf/25/07Safadi.pdf" .

    Here is an excerpt from the above mentioned article :

    [HR][/HR]

    By October 1910, however, the Government of India had decided that it was desirable to secure uniformity in the text-books for both civil and military officers (India. Government 1910, n.p.) and had arranged in consultation with Colonel Phillott to adopt a text book which will be prepared by him (ibid.). Quite what influence Phillott had on the Government of India's decision is unclear from the available correspondence, but it was at this point that Sepoy to Subadar was approved as Part 1 of the new Higher Standard textbook entitled Khvāb-o-Khayāl

    As the story of a sepoy who was not only loyal during the "Mutiny" but who also apparently admired the British in many ways, Sepoy to
    Subadar was clearly an eminently suitable text to be prescribed for the (Hindustani) examination syllabuses (Shackle and Snell 1990, 117).


    Khvāb-o-Khayāl remained in use as a textbook until 1947, thus ensuring that it became widely known to civil service and military candidates, both British and Indian.

    Problem of Authenticity:

    Phillott himself says that he translated it since he was unable to trace the original . In the absence not only of the original manuscript,
    but also of Norgate's supposed 1863 edition and the review in The Times of the same year, such arguments ultimately tend to rely on subjective opinions and belief rather than hard evidence.


    Problems of Content and Attitudes:

    The events of 1857–1859 induced a flood of Victorian mutiny novels and by the time Norgate's translation of 1873 was published a number of these had already appeared. That Norgate was familiar with the work of at least one of these novelists is clear from this reference in his preface.Other precedents also existed for books written by British authors as if they were written by natives.

    [HR][/HR]

    After reading it , I was shocked again. The book "Sepoy to Subedar" , was part of curriculum of Brtitsh India , to teach their civil and military officer, of loyalty to British crown.

    But here I am in an "independent" India , reading the same as the "reliable source" of account of revolt of 1857. What intrigues me more that , their was no original source to refer to as shown above.


    So my question is : Are we learning same version of history which was used by Britishers to subjugate Indians. And if anyone object to this version of history , with evidence and logics, should s/he be branded as "saffron historian" ?


    @Ray Sir, @parijataka , @pmaitra , @tarunraju , any comment on above.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  13. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    The pig and cow fat angle of the mutiny is a well established fact.

    All these details that come out from time to time are controversial. There were many Indians who would swear by the British. There was this "loyalty" bug that bites people. Do not forget that soldiers are recruited at a young and impressionable age. So, if any soldier was indeed loyal to the British, it is quite possible. Personally, I do not agree with him, but that does not change the fact that not all humans think alike.

    Now, as much as we are aware that history as written by British historians was presented with the aim of making them look less worse than they actually were, we need to be careful that the right wingers have their own agenda, and they have been trying to re-write and manufacture history, and then peddle it, in the garb of cleansing Indian history for the British historians' propaganda.

    It is a slippery slope.

    I have also read somewhere that the pig and cow fat idea was propagated by Russian spies (not necessarily Russians, but spies working for the Russians). Whether this pig or cow fat things is true or not, I don't know. What is true is that the soldiers believed that the cartridges were greased with pig and cow fat.
     
  14. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    This is more because in those days to be labelled a Namak Haram was a personal insult that would haunt in the villages.

    Personal integrity and word given was taken to be supreme.

    Jaan jaye, lekin vachan na jaye things like that.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2014
  15. Abhijat

    Abhijat Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2014
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    350
    Location:
    Nothingness
    @pmaitra , question is not here about reason of mutiny , but the source from which this excerpt is taken and taught to young mind. The source is neither reliable and nor verifiable . But we are teaching the same to the students. How can someone defend this in the name of teaching "right type of history"?

    History taught should be objective , but here we see one version of history written by someone(unverifiable) and repeated reference to it to make it appear as right. This is the tactic adopted by out "leftist" historian and this is what is been objected by Arun Shourie and many others.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  16. anoop_mig25

    anoop_mig25 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    shooting the messenger instead of message

    Well so called Indian maxrist always found problem with Hindu religion and so always in search of Hindu fransitics
     
    Abhijat likes this.
  17. Virendra

    Virendra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    2,923
    Location:
    Delhi, India, India
    Contemporary accounts of an event are swept aside and a text late by 500 years is picked up. That is the first historiographical mistake (or was it deliberate).
    Sarat Chandra Das annotates a passage from this text and includes an English summary of the same in his index.
    Yadava satisfies himself with the summary only (which naturally leaves out telling components of the original passage).
    By the time we reach from SaratChandra to Yadava, 'non-Buddhist beggars' have become 'Hindu Fanatics'.
    He refers to the source like this : "The Tibetan text Pag Sam Jon Zang contains a doubtful tradition of the burning of the library of Nalanda by some Hindu fanatics.”
    He finishes by saying "It is very difficult to say anything as to how far this account may be correct.”
    Now comes Jha, sourcing Yadava, eats up the word "doubtful" - The Tibetan text Pag Sam Jon Zang contains a tradition of the burning of the library of Nalanda by some Hindu fanatics.”
    Yadava's own finishing line is nowhere to be seen in Jha's scholarly selective re-use.

    If Shourie is an idiot for calling these historians Marxist, then these eminent historians are criminals for concealing the truth and twisting the narrative like this.
    And all this happening in a Presidential address to Indian History Congress, leaves one wondering about the credibility of research, nay, intent in the academic circles.

    Regards,
    Virendra
     
  18. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    The messenger here is the person who posted the opening post.

    Regarding Arun Shourie, of course, he is also shooting the messenger, Mr. Jha.

    Nobody has a problem with Hindu religion. It is the right wingers who see a Marxist in any historical account (in this case, Pag Sam Jon Zang) that does not agree with their version of history.
     
  19. Archer

    Archer Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    538
    Are you being provocative or deliberately obtuse - because its hard to see why you wish to call Shourie names because he uses the term Marxist for those who identify themselves as such.
    Or is it that you dont live in India? Spend some time here & you'll see the CPI-ML, CPI-M and their supporters/idealogy in full flow.

    It is not Arun Shourie who is an idiot - in fact, you are using ad hominems on a topic you clearly don't get. He is merely using the term these self proclaimed experts themselves use - they cite Marxism and "class struggle" as a defining method to analyze each & every topic, irrespective of whether these are established methods of analysis or not.

    As regards Pam Sam whatever, Shourie makes the clear point, concisely that its not a text which can be treated as a primary source, but it is deliberately picked up as such to make an imaginary case about hindu fanatics which is well in line with previous "scholarship" by the same bunch of fellows.

    Whether it be the Babri Masjid issue or NCERT textbooks - the Left has a stranglehold on "academia"/ICHR and other affiilated orgs & push the communist agenda, which as they interpret it is to rid the country of "superstition and embrace modern scientific enquiry", which mean Hinduism is targeted for its "ritualistic brahminical structure", and class struggle means that again Hinduism is a no-no, thanks to the "caste system and its intolerance of minorities" (read, dalits, women, islam, who have you), never mind any evidence to the contrary.

    Marx himself had made several comments on India - some of which can be used to claim he saw the British as a civilizing mission; others which can portray the exact opposite. That's irrelevant though to these modern day "Indian marxists".

    Net - these folks call themselves Marxists, loudly proclaim their affiliations at internal events and ostracize anyone who points out logical flaws in their approach as being "rightwing" -something which you seem to be unconsciously, repeating.

    Claiming they are not marxists in the true sense either would be equivalent to the No True Scotsman fallacy. These folks call themselves leftists/marxists/of the leftist inclination and effortlessly segue/switch between these terms irrespective of the nuance or distance between these terms. Shourie is merely referring to them by their own names.

    If you wish to understand where he is coming from, spend some time with these worthies at their haunts. They make no bones about their identity and their dogma about Hinduism & why they believe, what they believe (the ends justify the means, and facts be darned).
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2014
    apple, TrueSpirit1, arnabmit and 2 others like this.
  20. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Neither.
    Yes, it is indeed hard for you to see what I am saying. It is obvious from your long winded post even after I have explained my point.

    I get it that you don't get it.

    Move on.
     
  21. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Are you sure Mr Jha is the last word in history?
     
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.

Share This Page