The Syrian Christian Association (SCA), based in South, and Biblical
Research Institute, Padua, Rome have almost unanimously concluded that one of
the twelve apostles of Jesus, Thomas, never came to India. He's believed to
have come to India in 52 AD to spread the Gospel. His putative visit to India
was long disputed. One more historical myth has been laid to rest. Modern findings
have detonated so many legends and myths. Shahjahan never got the hands of
the artisans of Taj choped off. This is apocryphal.
Alexander the great was so ill when he invaded India in 327 BCE, that
the famous battle between Alexander and Porus never took place and this was
corroborated by legendary Indian, British and Greek historians like
Sacchidanand Sinha, Dr Muhammad Habib, Muhammad Mujeeb, R C Majumdar,
Collingwood and Greek historian and ambassador to India Vasillus Vitsoxis,
Dharmanand Kosambi, the greatest scholar of Pali and Rahul Sankrityayan
categorically proved that Buddha wasn't born into a royal family, contrary
to the general perceptions. His father Shuddhodan was a chieftain, a kind
of zamindar (a wealthy landlord) and that he never
saw four disturbing spectacles of death and sufferings to relinquish
home and hearth.This is all symbolical.
There're so many such myths which have become acceptable truths with the
passage of time. Here's a very relevant question: When a very big chunk of
history's facts agreed upon what's the use of studying it which
takes one back and clutters the mind with facts that have very shaky
foundations? When modern findings question Akbar's secular credentials and
put him ahead of Aurangzeb in fanaticism with written proofs and documents to
buttress the point, shouldn't history be rewritten? Why should one read
and eulogise Akbar's perceived 'qualities' when historical circumstances
of that time suggest that his 'policy of appeasement of Hindus' was politically
motivated?
When Gandy, Subimal Dasgupta and world's leading researchers,
archaeologists and anthropologists clinchingly proved in 1980 that
except for Muhammad, no Ram, Krishna, Moses or even Jesus ever existed, why
were their findings never made available to public? They further said
that though Muhammad did exist but one must look at his life
stripping him of any ' insane divinity.' ' He was just a
competent tribal leader, whose greatest contribution was to integrate
embattled tribes into a cohesive unit. That verses from heaven descended upon
an unlettered man like him is the biggest joke of human civilization' (Gandy
and Dasgupta, 1982). Why don't verses descend upon anyone in this
scientific and rational age? Who was there to vindicate and verify the veracity
of Muhammad and his cohorts' fabrications?
History makes us aware of our heritage and 'rich' past but at the same time it also creates a false aura that blinds us to facts and
realities. It also deifies and demonises many
individuals. The legendary Somnath temple was plundered by
Mahmoud Ghaznavi, who came from Ghazni in Afghanistan. This's a fact. That
he invaded Somnath 17 times is not a fact. He just came came twice
and the Hindu priests plundered and profaned Somnath more than any Muslim
invader ever did. History's always a veiled subject to be studied by scholars.
I've never understood, why history, the dubious history at that, is taught at
schools and colleges to students who've not yet learnt to question. Why do we
pollute impressionable minds with 'facts' that are so ramshackle and wilt under
scrutiny?
-----Sumit Paul
