Twisted history by Marxist historians

[pmaitra]

Aah, so you are back to your parlor tricks again!

You might be used to parlors, Sir, I am not.

And again, stop lying!

You stop lying, and you ask your beloved Arun Shourie to stop lying.

Arun Shourie never claimed that Karl Marx was born before the 16th century or that those 16 century historian were Marxists.

He did blame those 16th century accounts as Marxist accounts. So, yes, he directly called those 16th century historians Marxists, and he indirectly claimed that Marx was born before the 16th century.

This is entirely your claim.

Not at all. I didn't ask Arun Shourie to write the codswallop that he has written. He is responsible for what he has written.

So, stop lying!

I cannot stop lying if I am not lying in the first place.

 

[arnabmit]

You might be used to parlors, Sir, I am not.

Oh yes you do, whenever you are on the backfoot. I can list a hundred examples from as many threads, but that would be OT.

No, you stop lying, and you ask your beloved Arun Shorie to stop lying.

You have been caught lying and no amount of quid pro quo would help you now.

He did blame those 16th century accounts as Marxist accounts. So, yes, he directly called those 16th century historians Marxists, and he indirectly claimed that Marx was born before the 16th century.

No he didn't. It is your lack of comprehension skills that led you to your conclusion.

Arun Shourie questioned the conclusion the Marxist Historians like Jha and Thapar drew out of incorrect interpretation of 16th century texts.

Was the above sentence too complex for you to comprehend? If it is, let me know, I will break it down for you.

Not at all. I didn't ask Arun Shourie to write the codswallop that he has written. He is responsible for what he has written.

Stop trying to cover up your lies with more inanities.

I cannot stop lying if I am not lying in the first place.

You are still lying. Again, stop lying.

 

[pmaitra]

Oh yes you do, whenever you are on the backfoot. I can list a hundred examples from as many threads, but that would be OT.



You have been caught lying and no amount of quid pro quo would help you now.



No he didn't. It is your lack of comprehension skills that led you to your conclusion.

Arun Shourie questioned the conclusion the Marxist Historians like Jha and Thapar drew out of incorrect interpretation of 16th century texts.

Was the above sentence too complex for you to comprehend? If it is, let me know, I will break it down for you.



Stop trying to cover up your lies with more inanities.



You are still lying. Again, stop lying.

Mate, defend Arun Shourie if you must. I don't care.

Since you are devotedly defending Arun Shourie claiming he never said that Marx was born before 16th century, then please explain to me as to why he labelled those 16th century accounts as Marxist accounts?

His own article bears testimony to the fact that he did label those 16th century accounts as Marxist accounts.

 

[Zebra]

Oh yes you do, whenever you are on the backfoot. I can list a hundred examples from as many threads, but that would be OT.

You have been caught lying and no amount of quid pro quo would help you now.

No he didn't. It is your lack of comprehension skills that led you to your conclusion.

Arun Shourie questioned the conclusion the Marxist Historians like Jha and Thapar drew out of incorrect interpretation of 16th century texts.

Was the above sentence too complex for you to comprehend? If it is, let me know, I will break it down for you.

Stop trying to cover up your lies with more inanities.

You are still lying. Again, stop lying.

:thumb:



Lie and Lying! Nothing new for him.

 

[arnabmit]

Mate, defend Arun Shourie if you must. I don't care.

Since you are devotedly defending Arun Shourie claiming he never said that Marx was born before 16th century, then please explain to me as to why he labelled those 16th century accounts as Marxist accounts?

His own article bears testimony to the fact that he did label those 16th century accounts as Marxist accounts.

He didn't. You are saying he did. Show me where he says that 16th century accounts were Marxist.

He said that the Marxist historians distorted the interpretations of 16th century texts.

 

[pmaitra]

He didn't. You are saying he did. Show me where he says that 16th century accounts were Marxist.

He said that the Marxist historians distorted the interpretations of 16th century texts.

Doesn't answer my question. Try again. To help you, I have made the fonts larger.

Mate, defend Arun Shourie if you must. I don't care.

Since you are devotedly defending Arun Shourie claiming he never said that Marx was born before 16th century, then please explain to me as to why he labelled those 16th century accounts as Marxist accounts?

His own article bears testimony to the fact that he did label those 16th century accounts as Marxist accounts.

 

[arnabmit]

Doesn't answer my question. Try again. To help you, I have made the fonts larger.

Sorry buddy, your cheap parlor tricks won't work. Or, you have some serious comprehension issues.

Here, let me increase the font size as well as highlight the text to help you comprehend better.

He didn't. You are saying he did. Show me where he says that 16th century accounts were Marxist.

He said that the Marxist historians distorted the interpretations of 16th century texts.

Your claim that Shourie called 16th century texts as Marxist is a blatant lie.

Now stop lying and quote where Shourie said what you claim.

 

[pmaitra]

He didn't.

He did.

Instead of claiming you read the article, why don't you actually read the article for a change?

You are saying he did. Show me where he says that 16th century accounts were Marxist.

Read post #55. Read the exact quote. Get help if you have comprehension issues.

Here is the entire paragraph, since you won't read the article.

Spoiler

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"?

Where is this "interpretation" thingy coming from?

He said that the Marxist historians distorted the interpretations of 16th century texts.

Congrats. Nice deflection.

Isaac Newton said that mass attracts mass, does not prove that he did not talk about rectilinear propagation of light.

I know what he said. You should too.

Sorry buddy, your cheap parlor tricks won't work. Or, you have some serious comprehension issues.

Here, let me increase the font size as well as highlight the text to help you comprehend better.



Your claim that Shourie called 16th century texts as Marxist is a blatant lie.

Now stop lying and quote where Shourie said what you claim.

Let me point out the blatant lies here:
You claimed that you had read the article. That is a blatant lie.
Arun Shourie labelled those 16 century historical accounts are Marxist accounts. That is a blatant lie.

 

[arnabmit]

He did.

Instead of claiming you read the article, why don't you actually read the article for a change?


Read post #55. Read the exact quote. Get help if you have comprehension issues.

Here is the entire paragraph, since you won't read the article.

Spoiler

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"?

Where is this "interpretation" thingy coming from?


Congrats. Nice deflection.

Isaac Newton said that mass attracts mass, does not prove that he did not talk about rectilinear propagation of light.

I know what he said. You should too.



Let me point out the blatant lies here:
You claimed that you had read the article. That is a blatant lie.
Arun Shourie labelled those 16 century historical accounts are Marxist accounts. That is a blatant lie.

You seem to have dyslexia!

Instead of blatantly and constantly lying, why don't you read what you yourself have quoted yourself?

Here is what you quoted

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:

Did you see the parts made bold??? Did you see??? Now as per your many lies, unless you want to somehow prove that D. N. Jha lived in the 16th century, HOW is Shourie calling 16th century texts as Marxist???

 

[pmaitra]

Demolition of Arun Shourie's rhetoric

The operative accusation from Mr. Shourie is, "And now the Marxist account of the destruction of this jewel of knowledge." The text Pag Sam Job Zang will be referred to as PSJZ.

First, Mr. Shourie goes on to explain how "Islamic invaders" destroyed Buddhist clergy, idols, etc.. Then, he goes onto explain how these "Islamic invaders" attacked Nalanda. Personally, I believe in this version of the history, and we would never know what exactly happened. The problem is not with the version of history. The problem is calling a different version of history "Marxist," by none other than Mr. Shourie.

On reading the article, the reader will notice that the passage is broken into two parts. The first part being the "Islamic" attack. The second being the "Hindu" attack.

While Mr. Shourie explains the "Islamic" attack first, he then introduces the "Marxist account" of history, which is basically the "Hindu" attack on Nalanda, and struggles to somehow explain what is so "Marxist" about it. He finds it odd than an "arsonist" is called a "fanatic," yet, the second of the two themes presented in his article, is thoroughly corroborated by historical Tibetan accounts from PSJZ.

The relevant portion of the text is reproduced below, with commentary in maroon:

Spoiler

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" [What exactly is a "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'." [PSJZ clearly uses the term tirthika, which is used to refer to Hindus. The word tirtha refers to pilgrimage. Hindu ascetics are known to ask for alms, so they can legitimately be called beggars. A person who sets fire to buildings is an arsonist, and calling him a fanatic isn't unreasonable. How is calling an arsonist a fanatic a "Marxist" account? How is calling a tirthika a Hindu a "Marxist" account?]

"Hindu fanatics"? The expression struck me as odd. [What is so odd about it, Mr. Shourie? And what is "Marxist" about it?] 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). [So, Mr. Shourie, you rely on Mr. Das' translation, which indeed states that it was the "Hindu fanatics," or to keep you happy, "Hindu arsonists" who burnt down Nalanda. Is using the term "Hindu arsonist" sufficiently "non-Marxist" for you?]

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? [The question is not whether two beggars could do what they did. The question is, whether the actual translation of the PSJZ indeed corroborates what Mr. Jha allegedly said. It did, except that the transliteration of tirthika, beggars, and their subsequent actions of allegedly burning down the buildings, would be more appropriate as "Hindu pilgrim arsonists" instead od "Hindu fanatics." Since you, Mr. Shourie are so particular about word to word translation, nay, transliteration, I hope you will be particular enough to explain his accusation as to what is "Marxist" about using "Hindu fanatics" instead of "Hindu pilgrim arsonists?"]
​

Full article: How history was made up at Nalanda | The Indian Express | Page 99

Original Tibetan text:

Spoiler

Original English Translation Index by Mr. Das:

Spoiler

 

[pmaitra]

You seem to have dyslexia!

Instead of blatantly and constantly lying, why don't you read what you yourself have quoted yourself?

Here is what you quoted


Did you see the parts made bold??? Did you see??? Now as per your many lies, unless you want to somehow prove that D. N. Jha lived in the 16th century, HOW is Shourie calling 16th century texts as Marxist???

Once again, read what you are debating about. My post above clearly exposes Arun Shourie's inane rants. Sorry if my hawk eye makes you froth in the mouth. Blind faith is not a virtue. Arun Shourie is a senile old man, who sees a Marxist everywhere.

Arun Shourie's logic:

• Arun Shourie steps on a banana peel, slips, falls, and hurts himself. The banana peel must be Marxist.
• Arun Shourie is walking in an orchard, and a bird poops on his head. The bird must be Marxist.
• Arun Shourie is bitten by a stray dog. The dog must be Marxist.

 

[arnabmit]

Once again, read what you are debating about. My post above clearly exposes Arun Shourie's inane rants. Sorry if my hawk eye makes you froth in the mouth. Blind faith is not a virtue. Arun Shourie is a senile old man, who sees a Marxist everywhere.

Arun Shourie's logic:

• Arun Shourie steps on a banana peel, slips, falls, and hurts himself. The banana peel must be Marxist.
• Arun Shourie is walking in an orchard, and a bird poops on his head. The bird must be Marxist.
• Arun Shourie is bitten by a stray dog. The dog must be Marxist.

So finally showing your true colors like any commie who resorts to inane trolling when run out of arguments.

How about you read about what is written, and not assume about what is never written anywhere? I can help you there. I have experience in imparting education to "special children", who posses similar mental faculty as you.

Your and mine, both sets of posts clearly exposes your juvenile attempts to cover up your compulsive hatred and blatant lying.

Ask any other normal person, they will laugh at you and your conclusions.

 

[pmaitra]

So finally showing your true colors like any commie who resorts to inane trolling when run out of arguments.

How about you read about what is written, and not assume about what is never written anywhere? I can help you there. I have experience in imparting education to "special children", who posses similar mental faculty as you.

Your and mine, both sets of posts clearly exposes your juvenile attempts to cover up your compulsive hatred and blatant lying.

Ask any other normal person, they will laugh at you and your conclusions.

Sure, call me a commie, if you would allow me to call you a bhakt. I suppose name-calling is the only think you could learn from Arun Shourie the Insane's article.

 

[arnabmit]

Sure, call me a commie, if you would allow me to call you a bhakt. I suppose name-calling is the only think you could learn from Arun Shourie the Insane's article.

Mirchi laga? Need Burnol? Even Congress would be ashamed of your hypocrisy when you accese me of name calling after indulging in name calling since the last few pages.

Go on, keep on lying and calling names. I know you are not man enough to accept your mistake.

BTW, you have yet to meet my challenge to show where Arun Shourie called 16th century texts as marxist. Not D. N. Jha, but 16th century texts.

Hope your limited comprehension can differentiate between 16th century texts and D. N. Jha?

If you squint your eyes and look at the following 2 images for a few hours, you might, despite your limited mental faculties, just might be able to tell the difference.

Here is D. N. Jha. Shourie called HIM a Marxist. He is not a 16th century text.

These are what 16th century texts look like. Shourie NEVER called such 16th century texts as Marxist.

I have included images this time. This should help you to comprehend a little better.

 

[pmaitra]

Mirchi laga? Need Burnol? Even Congress would be ashamed of your hypocrisy when you accese me of name calling after indulging in name calling since the last few pages.

Go on, keep on lying and calling names. I know you are not man enough to accept your mistake.

BTW, you have yet to meet my challenge to show where Arun Shourie called 16th century texts as marxist. Not D. N. Jha, but 16th century texts.

Hope your limited comprehension can differentiate between 16th century texts and D. N. Jha?

If you squint your eyes and look at the following 2 images for a few hours, you might, despite of your limited mental faculties, just might be able to tell the difference.

Here is D. N. Jha. Shourie called HIM a Marxist. He is not a 16th century text.

These are what 16th century texts look like. Shourie NEVER called such 16th century texts as Marxist.

I have included images this time. This should help you to comprehend a little better.

Nice pictures. Now go and read that idiotic article by Arun Shourie.

Arun Shourie should be put into a lunatic asylum.

 

[arnabmit]

Nice pictures. Now go and read that idiotic article by Arun Shourie.

Arun Shourie should be put into a lunatic asylum.

Your short term memory might be bothering you, scroll back a few pages and read where I mentioned multiple times that I have read the article.

You on the other hand, despite the inane rants coming from your frothing mouth, have still not been able to quote the statements where Shouri calls 16th century texts as Marxist.

Of course you would not be able to, cause such a statement is not there in the article. It exists only as a figment of your imagination.

Has to be very good quality of weed that you smoke, if you mix up between a living person (D. N. Jha) with some 16th century texts (Pag Sam Job Zang).

 

[arnabmit]

I am not going to read this post. Not because I don't want to.

Just that I cannot be bothered to read the reference material you posted as a quid pro quo of you not bothering to read the reference material I posted.

Demolition of Arun Shourie's rhetoric

The operative accusation from Mr. Shourie is, "And now the Marxist account of the destruction of this jewel of knowledge." The text Pag Sam Job Zang will be referred to as PSJZ.

First, Mr. Shourie goes on to explain how "Islamic invaders" destroyed Buddhist clergy, idols, etc.. Then, he goes onto explain how these "Islamic invaders" attacked Nalanda. Personally, I believe in this version of the history, and we would never know what exactly happened. The problem is not with the version of history. The problem is calling a different version of history "Marxist," by none other than Mr. Shourie.

On reading the article, the reader will notice that the passage is broken into two parts. The first part being the "Islamic" attack. The second being the "Hindu" attack.

While Mr. Shourie explains the "Islamic" attack first, he then introduces the "Marxist account" of history, which is basically the "Hindu" attack on Nalanda, and struggles to somehow explain what is so "Marxist" about it. He finds it odd than an "arsonist" is called a "fanatic," yet, the second of the two themes presented in his article, is thoroughly corroborated by historical Tibetan accounts from PSJZ.

The relevant portion of the text is reproduced below, with commentary in maroon:

Full article: How history was made up at Nalanda | The Indian Express | Page 99

Original Tibetan text:

Spoiler

Original English Translation Index by Mr. Das:

Spoiler

 

[pmaitra]

Your short term memory might be bothering you, scroll back a few pages and read where I mentioned multiple times that I have read the article.

You on the other hand, despite the inane rants coming from your frothing mouth, have still not been able to quote the statements where Shouri calls 16th century texts as Marxist.

Of course you would not be able to, cause such a statement is not there in the article. It exists only as a figment of your imagination.

Has to be very good quality of weed that you smoke, if you mix up between a living person (D. N. Jha) with some 16th century texts (Pag Sam Job Zang).

Post some more pictures bro. Those pictures were cool, but that is not what Arun Shourie was using. I got the correct source. You got some distraction (no surprises).

Again, read the article. Sure, post cool pictures, but read the article.

 

[arnabmit]

It is not about what Marx wrote.

It is about Hinduphobic Indian Marxists who have a near monopoly on academia in India, who invents stories out of thin air to deride Hinduism by hook or crook.

One D. N. Jha wrote that Nalanda was burned down by "Hindu Fanatics" (This Jha suggested that the term "Hindu Fanatics" was in a 16th century Tibetan text). This same guy also made claims like "Hinduism is a 19th century British invention"

One Arun Shourie punched holes in D. N. Jha's arguments and proved that the term "Hindu Fanatics" does not appear on the original 16th century Tibetan text. Shourie also called this Jha character as a Marxist Historian.

Now our in-house commie, who I am debating with, is utterly convinced that Shourie's label of Marxist is not on Jha, but on the 16th century Tibetan text.

And based on this deluded conviction, our in-house commie wants to convince others that Shourie is senile, and should be put in an mental asylum.

And in fear that his bubble of deluded convictions would burst, he refuses to read any reference materials provided.

[MOD Edit: Deleted quote violated forum rule.]

 

[arnabmit]

Post some more pictures bro. Those pictures were cool, but that is not what Arun Shourie was using. I got the correct source. You got some distraction (no surprises).

Again, read the article. Sure, post cool pictures, but read the article.

That is exactly what Shourie was saying. Ask anyone whose comprehension abilities are not compromised by compulsive hatred like yours.

I would count the times I said that I read the article, but I am not sure you cognitive abilities would allow you to decipher such large numbers.