Twisted history by Marxist historians

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Are you sure Mr Jha is the last word in history?
I am not sure who is the last word in history.

I am certain Arun Shourie is not.

What is your opinion? Who is the last word in history?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Why would you call Arun Shourie an Idiot he has more credibility than you ?
Why would you ask a question when it is already answered?

I called Arun Shourie an idiot because he wrote gibberish like an idiot. Read the thread.

I think I have more credibility than Arun Shourie. If you want to worship his words as heavenly manna, by all means do so.
 

rusellviper89

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
31
Likes
30
Why would you ask a question when it is already answered?

I called Arun Shourie an idiot because he wrote gibberish like an idiot. Read the thread.

I think I have more credibility than Arun Shourie. If you want to worship his words as heavenly manna, by all means do so.
No offense you are neither a public figure you are some one who resides out side India then how come you have more credibility than him.
There is a reason I have great respect for MR Shourie & find him far more credible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62k8ojLS51E
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
No offense you are neither a public figure you are some one who resides out side India then how come you have more credibility than him.
There is a reason I have great respect for MR Shourie & find him far more credible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62k8ojLS51E
None taken.

Sorry, not interested in his gibberish. I would rather spend my time listening to someone who has some worth in my eyes.
 

rusellviper89

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
31
Likes
30
None taken.

Sorry, not interested in his gibberish. I would rather spend my time listening to someone who has some worth in my eyes.
I am sorry to hear that, its your loss if you want to miss out on what the good gentleman wants to say.
Though what is the reason that you called Mr Shourie an Idiot, can you enlighten me regarding it ?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
I am sorry to hear that, its your loss if you want to miss out on what the good gentleman wants to say.
Though what is the reason that you called Mr Shourie an Idiot, can you enlighten me regarding it ?
I called him an idiot because - well, just follow the instructions.

  • Scroll to the top of the page and click on '<< First'. This will take you to the first page.
  • Read every single post.
 

rusellviper89

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
31
Likes
30
I called him an idiot because - well, just follow the instructions.

  • Scroll to the top of the page and click on '<< First'. This will take you to the first page.
  • Read every single post.
That is a very unsatisfactory & defensive explanation. Never mind I am going of to Bed.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
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.
I don't think history has multiple versions. There is just one - the true version.
It is a given that an allegorical text may be interpreted in many ways (as Wendy does) based on the approach of the interpreter.
But there is no such riddle here. Jha is not interpreting or translating something, neither is Yadava.
They are dropping facts and selectively quote mining a text (no, an English sumary of its passage) 500 years late than the event in question. That, when there are plenty of contemporary accounts clearly explaining the events already.
As if these weren't enough for historiographical blunders, Jha doesn't say it is his belief/opinion or theory.
He is a historian (not a novelist) and he presents this distorted picture like it were history put down as is. That is what is incriminating (specially when done from the podium of Indian History Congress' presidential address) .

Coming to the late text, Pag Sam Jon Zang is not the creation of a Marxist and problem here is not with the text. Period.
Problem really is with the kind of games played on top of it. This was an abuse of the text instead.
Even a word to word rendering of that text (by any wing left/ring/center) would be acceptable. Sadly that wouldn't help Jha prove what he wants to prove and hence the jugglary.

Now about the passage in question. It says the beggars set fire (to entire compound?) by using their fire siddhis and the scriptures in Nalanda gushed out streams of water to extinguish that fire. If Jha buys that account, then I'd like to free Puranic sources from all the suspicions laid on them till date by the same eminent historians.

Differences exist in opinions / view points / interpretations - not in truth. It has only one version.

Regards,
Virendra
 

PredictablyMalicious

Punjabi
Banned
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
1,715
Likes
648
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.
Marxism is an ideology. When someone is called a Marxist, he/she is being accused of adhering to the Marxist ideology and not of being a direct disciple of Marx.
 

Abhijat

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
648
Likes
840
Country flag
Guys why do you want to convince a person who wants to be shut in a closed box? . Their is a famous saying for this - " kue ka mendak " .
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Guys why do you want to convince a person who wants to be shut in a closed box? . Their is a famous saying for this - " kue ka mendak " .
Sure, you are most welcome to continue to believe that Pag Sam Jon Zang was written by a disciple of Karl Marx.

I promise I will not attempt to convince you otherwise. Continue croaking inside that derelict well of yours.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
I don't think history has multiple versions. There is just one - the true version.
It is a given that an allegorical text may be interpreted in many ways (as Wendy does) based on the approach of the interpreter.
But there is no such riddle here. Jha is not interpreting or translating something, neither is Yadava.
They are dropping facts and selectively quote mining a text (no, an English sumary of its passage) 500 years late than the event in question. That, when there are plenty of contemporary accounts clearly explaining the events already.
As if these weren't enough for historiographical blunders, Jha doesn't say it is his belief/opinion or theory.
He is a historian (not a novelist) and he presents this distorted picture like it were history put down as is. That is what is incriminating (specially when done from the podium of Indian History Congress' presidential address) .

Coming to the late text, Pag Sam Jon Zang is not the creation of a Marxist and problem here is not with the text. Period.
Problem really is with the kind of games played on top of it. This was an abuse of the text instead.
Even a word to word rendering of that text (by any wing left/ring/center) would be acceptable. Sadly that wouldn't help Jha prove what he wants to prove and hence the jugglary.

Now about the passage in question. It says the beggars set fire (to entire compound?) by using their fire siddhis and the scriptures in Nalanda gushed out streams of water to extinguish that fire. If Jha buys that account, then I'd like to free Puranic sources from all the suspicions laid on them till date by the same eminent historians.

Differences exist in opinions / view points / interpretations - not in truth. It has only one version.

Regards,
Virendra
Karl Marx's ideology, i.e., Marxism, has absolutely nothing, and I repeat, absolutely nothing to do with whatever is written in Pag Sam Jon Zang about burning down of Nalanda. Therefore, Arun Shourie's use of the term "Marxist account" is either a proof of his ignorance, or proof of his willful dishonesty (pick one).

If this is not simple enough, pardon me, I cannot make it any simpler.
 

Abhijat

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
648
Likes
840
Country flag
@pmaitra , you actually are not able to understand what we are discussing here :doh: .

The discussion is not about Pam whatever , but the people like Mr. Jha , who uses a twisted tactic and call themselves as "Marxist". :namaste:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Karl Marx's ideology, i.e., Marxism, has absolutely nothing, and I repeat, absolutely nothing to do with whatever is written in Pag Sam Jon Zang about burning down of Nalanda. Therefore, Arun Shourie's use of the term "Marxist account" is either a proof of his ignorance, or proof of his willful dishonesty (pick one).

If this is not simple enough, pardon me, I cannot make it any simpler.
Ok lets say none of these historians is Marxist and Marxism has nothing to do with this source or its (mis) use.
Lets also assume Shourie is ignorant that these historians aren't Marxists. (In my entire post I never went after Marx anyway).
My point is, being Marxist or not doesn't have any bearing on what Jha and Yadava have done as historians in this case.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
@pmaitra , you actually are not able to understand what we are discussing here :doh: .

The discussion is not about Pam whatever , but the people like Mr. Jha , who uses a twisted tactic and call themselves as "Marxist". :namaste:
I know what I am talking about. I am not sure you do.

I am talking about Pag Sam Jon Zang, whatever is written there, and Arun Shourie, knowing fully well that Mr. Jha is citing that source, calling it a "Marxist account."

If you are not talking about what I am talking about, why bother responding?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
137
Despite twisted history of Marxist historians, I must acknowledge emergence of state, this thing, can be only properly understood in Marxist way.

Marxist historiography is fine in One Language, One Religion, One Culture country like France, Germany but not in diverse country like India.

I prefer Nationalist school more.
 

Abhijat

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
648
Likes
840
Country flag
I know what I am talking about. I am not sure you do.

I am talking about Pag Sam Jon Zang, whatever is written there, and Arun Shourie, knowing fully well that Mr. Jha is citing that source, calling it a "Marxist account."

If you are not talking about what I am talking about, why bother responding?

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.

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! .

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!



So tell me Mr. Smart , where does Mr. Shourie called tibetian text as "Marxist Account" ?

He is calling Mr.Jha's account as "Marxist Account" , because of deliberate omission of part of original text by Mr. Jha , so as to present a twisted account of history.


If you still don't get it , then I won't bother talking to a ideologically blinded fellow.
 

parijataka

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
4,916
Likes
3,751
Country flag
The said historian is being economical with the truth when he ignores contemporary accounts of the sacking and slaughter in Nalanda university and choosing to selectively lift a few sentences from a centuries later account that too about a `miracle` by Hindu sadhus that is supposed to have brought destruction to the great center of learning !

Karl Marx had a dim view of Hinduism and Eastern religions in general. and therefore Marxists in India have taken it upon themselves to denigrate the native religions, Hinduism in particular.

Interesting to note that Marxist thought has taken root in the two areas of India where Hindus have been emasculated and outnumbered - Bengal and Kerala.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
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.

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! .

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!



So tell me Mr. Smart , where does Mr. Shourie called tibetian text as "Marxist Account" ?

He is calling Mr.Jha's account as "Marxist Account" , because of deliberate omission of part of original text by Mr. Jha , so as to present a twisted account of history.
Make sure you look under your bed before you go to bed. There might be a "Marxist" hiding in there.

Also, get well soon.

If you still don't get it , then I won't bother talking to a ideologically blinded fellow.
There is no question of "if." I don't get it. I have a problem "getting" idiotic arguments as presented by Arun Shourie.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top