Aryan Problem

Monday, August 17, 2015

Aryan Problem

Political Motivations and the Aryan Race Theory

Atul Rawat

The so called Aryan race theory was first born in the minds of some European indologists. Various Aryan hypotheses have been part of a very long surviving controversy regarding history. Many questions regarding cultural affinities, identities, and various kinds of ideological and national interests have their roots in them. They have been some of the cornerstones of the present day understanding of history and culture in a very large part of the world today. The geographical region that is involved is large parts of Eurasian continent besides parts of Americas and Australia.

Who were the Aryans and where did they originate? These have been the major questions of this old riddle of history. The questions of cultural and national identities besides political and other interests have been involved. Many generations of historians have perceived this complex problem interwoven with their own contemporary issues. At the same time they have also tried to solve the riddle with the best and most modern tools available to them. But all the historians have not been that impartial to facts either. Like in any other sphere here also the standpoints have decided the viewpoints. Ideologies and preconceived notions besides personal interests have colored visions of many, if not all.

It began with a very interesting finding on part of a Florentine merchant Filippo Sassetti in 1588 AD when on a business trip to India he found that the Hindu classical language Sanskrit had some deep relation with major languages of Europe. The easiest example that can be cited is that these languages have very similar looking words for the closest relationships like mother, father, brother and daughter etc. But the British interest awoke almost after two centuries after Sassetti, when the father of Indology and a linguist par excellence, Sir William Jones, suggested in 1786 that the relation was due to origin from a common source. Sir William Jones and his studies gained a lot of importance because a very interesting and a powerful connection was proved between the Europeans and the Hindus. 

This is all the more significant because when the languages evolve, initially they are spoken by a closely knit group of people of the same ancestry. It is at the later stage that more people are added and the demographic base of a language widens. Eighteenth century was an era when the concept of race was very popular and the concept of evolution (Darwin) was still almost a century in future. The creationism essentially meaning that the man was made by God in 4004 BC, was in vogue in the academic circles. When the Western scholars came face to face with the Hindu knowledge, they could naturally not believe in the astronomical numbers of years that were ascribed to various events or persons. They thus naturally disbelieved the Sanskrit literature as a source of any serious history writing. 

            Rig-Veda is not only the oldest book of Sanskrit but is the oldest book available in any language.  The western scholars picked up a word Aryan from the Rig-Veda and used it as nomenclature for the speakers of this ancient language which they named Indo-European.  These conjunctures were followed by another one ( described above) according to which the Sanskrit speakers i.e. the Aryans were living at some point of time in the past at one place from where they spread to other parts of the world.  This was broadly how the Aryan race theory slowly emerged.  It has many strong influences of the nineteenth century stereotypes.  The European scholars of those days seriously believed the mankind to be divided in various races and it was due to this particular view that Aryans were also broadly termed into a race.  Though, initially the Aryan race theory emerged on the basis of linguistic similarities but it was not considered necessary to go into the origins of the word Aryan itself in the Sanskrit language to which it belonged.  The word ‘Aryan’ comes from the root which is closely related to “knowledge”—both giving and partaking.  This shows the importance of knowledge in the Vedic culture.  The Sanskrit words for knowledge i.e. Vidya and Veda both have similar origin.  Thus Aryans or Sanskrit speaking people were a “knowledge based society” where the nobility was based upon knowledge. It was because of this factor that the connotation of the word Aryan is also taken as superior turning it into a cultural term.  There do not seem to be any racial meanings of Aryan in Sanskrit, the language from which the word was picked up. 

 The Aryan race/invasion/immigration theory from the beginning was used for political purposes as it is still being used. That is why the nineteenth century stereotypes of race were fully applied on the Aryans and they were accordingly presented as fair in color, having long nose, broad forehead and large black eyes etc.  The recent researches are pointing on the other hand towards a direction where it seems that the civilizations described in the Rig-Veda was the part of an ancient layer of civilization [consisting of most of the so-called races] and which was in existence before the emergence of Ancient Egypt Sumeria and the Indus Valley civilizations.  These researches are buttressed by the new researches in the field of pre-historical Archaeology of Europe and that is why the rewriting of not only the Indian history but even the European history is becoming more and more necessary by the day.

            It is to be noted that scholars like N S Rajaram and David Frawley believe that the Aryan invasion theory is much more deeply related to the nineteenth century European politics than the Indian tradition and its records.   They have raised basic questions on the methodology of those western scholars who believe in the Aryan invasion of India.  They believe that the methodology of the “invasionists” was not capable to be applied universally to the ancient history.  Though the linguistics is certainly very important and the first signs of similarities between the Europeans and Asians were traced in their languages and later in myths, but other broader dimensions like the history of science and technology especially mathematics have to be included into the methodology. Those branches of knowledge do not testify or even disprove the basic contentions of the invasionists.  Rajaram and Frawley rightly believe that the Aryan Invasion theory is still being taught in the history text books not due to any academic reasons but due to political ones.

            From the very beginning The Aryan race/Invasion/migration theory had inherent contradictions in it. That is why it could never become a universally accepted fact of history.  It was at the most accepted as a hypothesis.  But from the very beginning and till this date this theory received patronage from various political groupings.  Those groupings included such divergent political entities like the British rulers in India before 1947 and the communist elite of post independence India. Each of these groupings had their own political interests.  Initially the political use of the theory was the brainchild of the English.  It was used to the hilt in their strategy to divide India in North and South, in Aryan and Davidian, in Brahmin and non-Brahmin, in higher and the lower castes and no less in black and white.  Even after the departure of the British from the Indian politics the theory was exploited politically to the maximum by deepening the divides and converting each section into a vote bank.  The Dravid movement used it in the South; the communists used it all over India.  The socialists used it to create vote banks on the basis of caste and the Christian missionaries used it to break Hindu society on the basis of caste to find converts to christianity.  The “White man’s burden” was also a fallout of this theory it was only the basis of the White man’s burden that the British gave rationale to there imperialism and colonialist expansionism.  They sought to justify their expansionism by declaring the Muslims and Aryans also to be invasionists.   They could present India as a country which had no original inhabitants.  This theory presented everyone as an invader.  This would justify the British right to rule meaning that the nationalist upsurge against the British had no justification.  This was a shameless attempt to legitimize the foreign British rule in India.  The British got one more advantage of this theory.  This theory helped them in their project of creating “Brown Englishman” who, even if would not be able to call themselves white per se, but still could feel themselves nearer to the Englishman due to knowing their customs and language.  The descendants of such Brown Englishmen are visible throughout India even today who not only have inferiority complex about being Indians but also hold the white skin in undue respect.  The linguistic similarity which proved the immigration of Aryans into India could equally easily prove the Aryans to be originally Indians and spreading into the other parts of the world from India.  But naturally this could have been of no use to the British.  So all such references which could substantiate the view that Aryans were originally Indians who spread to the other parts of the world were either suppressed or ignored.  If these references were difficult to be ignored, they were laughed away.  The sarcasm hidden in this laughter was more on the present condition of the Indians than on the arguments of history thus presented.  This was obviously a more effective way to silence the critics.  The way the Brown Englishman have been using the similar tactics against the Indian scholars particularly the scholars with Aryan Samaj background is a perfect example of this mentality.

            During almost last one and a half century since the Aryan invasion theory has been in politico-academic use; there have been many important changes in the academic atmosphere though some stereotypes have stubbornly continued also.  The changes are reflected in the use of scientific methodology and also in the new interpretations of the ancient literature in the light of the new methodology.  Today we can understand the relation between the Vedas and Puranas in a much better manner.  The combined result of scientific and mathematical concepts on the ancient literature cleared that it was not sufficient to base the Aryan race/invasion theory on mere linguistics.  This theory had never been able to explain the history ofIndia although it had to explain the history of the whole of ancient civilization.  A whole new generation of historians is now using astronomical, literary, environmental and metallurgical data with satellite images to understand the history in a better manner.  They are now getting convinced that the Rig-Veda had been completed by 3,750 BC which is broadly the period when silver began to be produced in India.  Many scholars believe that if some more technical data comes to light the date may further be revised backwards.

            The Aryan race/invasion theory was always challenged by a Indian scholars and the historians have never been unanimous on this theory.  That is why the advent of the Aryans into India was never accepted as a historical fact and was at best a hypothesis but due to the state patronage this was always a part of the text-books as a fact of history.  When the historians belonging to the left captured the writing of Indian history and they began writing the school text-books under the state patronage, they also continued with the nineteenth century stereotypes. As Dinanath Batra has noted the extraterritorial loyalties of the communists come in the way of Instantiation of history writing.  He notes:           “Since all of them have been foreigners either by descent or by ideology, their basic interest is in humiliating their Indian subjects of yesteryears so as to continue to remain in power. The Marxists have never directly ruled India. But they have been in an even better position. They could navigate the Indira Gandhi government and they are doing the same with the Manmohan Singh government now. The communists have never believed in academic honesty. There are statements by great communist historians which may testify to that. Academic honesty was never a criterion while writing the text books for schools which were published by the NCERT. The political and ideological requirements received better attention. In such a situation where academic dishonesty coupled with an arrogance to humiliate the majority of Indians, history was written in which Guru Teg Bahadur was described as being involved in “plunder and rapine” and Aurangazeb was presented as “Zinda peer” (a living saint); where the Aryans were foreigners,  while Mughals, (particularly Akbar) were presented as very much  Indians.”

Thus, the unity of the India has been the greatest political challenge for them as it has been for the other foreign rulers of this country. 

            Despite a clear cut absence of any archaeological evidences and also in absence of the internal literary evidences of the Vedic literature the anti-India historians in general and the communists in particular refuse stubbornly to see the reason and continue to hold the Aryan race/invasion theory to be correct.  Prof. R.S.Sharma in his controversial text book Ancient India has explicitly accepted this fact.  In the June 1999 reprint of the text book he writes “A little earlier than 1500 BC the Aryans appeared in India.  We do not find clear and definite archaeological traces of their advent.”  (Page -71)  But when the objection was raised on the context he merely changed the language to escape criticism.  On the one hand he is accepting that there are no clear and definite archaeological traces of the Aryan advent in India, on the other hand despite this absence of archaeological evidences he is still teaching the Aryans to be foreigners. It should be remembered here that Prof. Sharma takes pride in calling his brand of history writing as scientific.  He prefers archaeological evidences much more than the literary ones.  In this book also he has emphasized the importance of archaeological sources more than once.  The author rather than accepting this contradiction in the book chose to find a way out of it by thinly veiled sophistry of words.  In the latest reprint of the book i.e. the March 2005 reprint now he is teaching as follows:  “A little earlier than 1500 BC the Aryans appeared in India.  We have fair archaeological traces of their advent.”  (Page-71)  One is at a loss to understand that what were these “fair archaeological traces” which have been found within last six years without making any noises in the newspaper while the subject is so important.  Prof. R.S.Sharma is one of the leading historians of the communist camp who have always claimed his writings to be scientific and archaeological evidences to be the most important ones for reconstructing the past.  Neither in the earlier version of the book he said anything about the evidences per se when he spoke of their absence nor does he tell us now about them when he claims that a fair amount of them is now available.  His language is again deceptive and unclear and that is why when he speaks about merely three items viz, socketed axes, bronze dirks and swords, he is using a big “Possibly” before mentioning them.  Then he goes on describing about the evidence of horse and cremation etc in Tajikistan in Central Asia.  How without any new discovery he has begun to claim that now there is a fair amount of archaeological traces of Aryan advent is beyond understanding.  In reality when the contradiction was pointed out it seems the author decided to wriggle out of the contradiction in the earlier reprints of the book by a slight change in the language but this is no academic honesty.  He seems to be bent upon teaching the students that Aryans came into India from outside, evidence and no evidences, period.  Some how they appeared in India and it is a fact of history!

            Despite all sorts of evidences these scholars stubbornly believe and want everybody to believe that the Aryans cannot be the original and inhabitants ofIndia.  Evidences were in any case the last priority. These claims rested on the strength of the state patronage.  Prof. R.S. Sharma’s attempt is just one such example of recent times. Misinterpretation at the level of language is an old technique in this game.  The Vedas were misinterpreted and new meanings were invented for the Vedic words.  Great Aryan institutions like Sabha, Samiti, Vidhata and Gana were declared to be tribal pastoral and barbaric groups.  The word Aryan itself was thoroughly misinterpreted.  The original meaning of Aryan is knowledgeable, noble and superior.  It was a cultural term.  The Aryan was language was called Sanskrit which means cultured as opposed to Prakrit or natural. Vedas were the origins of all the knowledge which is vidya but see have been degraded when the Aryans were called the Pastoral nomads and their literature was called the songs of the shepherds.  It’s a hundreds of year old conspiracy historiography  in against the Mother India.   The main aim of all those who believed in this historiography was to disintegrate India—At least disunite this great nation.  The British wanted to rule India on the basis of the disunity thus achieved. The Marxists have similar objective. The  vision and philosophy of history has been inherited by the Marxists from the English through their ideological founding father Karl Marx who also believed that India had no history of its own and even if it did have any, it was the history of a conquered nation.  The modern Marxists have never negated Marx seriously. 

             The Aryan race/invasion theory received political and state patronage from the very beginning.  That is why it never had to compete on a level playing field as other theories have to do to survive in the highly competitive academic world.  It was never tested thoroughly on intellectual grounds. The reasons were more political than academic.  It is the similar reason why this theory was presented in many books and textbooks as a fact of history rather than a hypothesis.  This illogical situation was carried to such an extent where the later discoveries were explained on the basis of this theory as if these discoveries were being explained on the basis of some established facts of history.  Usually new discoveries can underline a theory but a theory should not be stretched to include the new discoveries as its evidences.  During last almost one and half century of its existence this theory has begun to be used as evidence in itself.  In this context Dr. S.R. Rao one of the most eminent archaeologists of India has criticized Mortimer Wheeler’s explanation of the excavation at Harappa.  How this theory became the proof of the invasion is clear by the following tautology or a circular argument given by Wheeler.  Rao writes:  “... as time passed, a restudy of the stratigraphy of Wheeler’s excavation of Harappa revealed that there was a time gap between the mature Harappan (cemetery R 37) and later ‘Cemetery H’ cultures.  Wheeler had treated the latter as invaders and the former as the invaded.  But stratigraphy clearly indicated that the so-called “invaded” were not present when the so-called “invaders” arrived.  Fresh excavation in Mohenjo-Daro by G.F. Dales and a study of the artifacts … confirmed that the “massacre” [due to the invasion] was a myth.”  To understand the whole thing in simple language one can say that the attackers and those who were attacked belonged to different times.  The attacked were not there when the attackers came.  Wheeler had over-looked the different stratas due to being overwhelmed by the Aryan invasion theory.

            There are many fundamental contradictions within the Aryan race/invasion theory.  If one had to prove that the Aryans really came from outside then one has to negate a lot of literary and archaeological evidences.  Many of these contradictions will also have to be “adjusted” by resorting to outright intellectual dishonesty.  The claims of the theory are so much opposed to the available literary and archaeological data that an American scholar Vyas Huston has exposed some of the contradictions one by one.   He has noted that the language of Rig-Veda is infinitely more sophisticated than even one modern languages.  The Aryan race theory says that the Aryans were barbaric pastoral nomads from the north.  How could such barbaric people have such a sophisticated language?  He has further noted that Aryans could not have been barbaric tribal people but part of a sophisticated and developed civilization.  The same claim seems to be true for the language and literature in the later times.  Scholars believe that even the modern linguistics have not reached such levels of sophistication which Panini had reached almost 3000 years back.  Modern computer scientists have just now begun to reveal the linguistic treasure that is hidden in the Ashtadhyayi of Panini and Mahabhashya of Patanjali.  Today it is becoming more and more clear that this Aryan race/invasion theory has got entangled in a web of contradictions of history without literature and literature without history.

            The same seems to be true about technology also.  Some modern scholars have very rightly pointed out that Aryans are believed (even by the Aryan invasion theory believers) to have introduced chariots in India.  Actually it is claimed that they came on Chariots to invade India.   Looking at the geography of their both routes of their so called invasion, this seems to be impossible.  Riding and fighting from a chariot is possible in plains of north India but not in hilly terrain of Afghanistan.  Chariot riding Aryans could never be victorious in battles in those areas.  Interestingly just opposite to this common sense understanding the Aryan race theory claims that the use of Chariots was a cause of their victories against original inhabitants of India. 

            Another aspect of the same contradiction is that the Indus valley civilization was spread in a million square kilometer of area. The people from such a large area have left us no literature though they have left seals which prove that they knew writing.  Initially it was claimed that they were Dravidians.  Now it is believed they were not because there is a long gap of 2000 years between their last seals and the earliest Tamil literature.  As we know the Harappans were literate and must have had some literature.  If the Tamils were their inheritors, where has the literature of these people for 2000 years gone without a trace?  On the other hand if the Aryan race theory was to be believed the Vedic Aryans were illiterates and had no civilization of their own.  They believe that the Aryans were pastoral nomads and their Vedas were merely some songs of the shepherds, but interestingly we find the greatest and largest amount of literature of the contemporary world as their heritage.  Another aspect of the same contradiction is that a lot of archaeological evidences are available for the Indus valley civilization while for the Aryan Invasion theory there are no uncontested archaeological evidences.  If the Aryan race/invasion, theory were to be believed historical and archaeological legacy of a great civilization is very much available which leaves indication that it continued for thousands of years but doesn’t leave any literature as heritage and on the other hand we have pastoral nomads called Aryans who have left a highly sophisticated language, a large amount of a great literature but no archaeological evidences.

            Another similar contradiction is regarding the knowledge of sciences particularly the mathematics.  The scholars supporting the Aryan race/invasion theory want us to believe that the knowledge of astronomy and geometry was imparted by the Indians from the Greeks after the invasion of Alexander. But seeing the city planning of the Harappan culture it becomes more than clear that the inhabitants of these cities not only had a very good knowledge of fundamental mathematics and geometry but also they could apply it quite effectively.  From a distant past the planned cities, straight roads and excellent drainage system had been in use in that civilization which could not have been evolved in a day, nor it could have evolved without the basic knowledge of geometry.  Scholars believe that a similar kind of city planning and sanitation system could evolve in Europe only after 2000 years of the Harappan cities when during the Roman Empire such cities are seen in the west for the first time.  Now the important question is if the Ancient Indians learnt geometry from the Greeks at the time of Alexander than, could they plan such wonderful cities thousands of years before Alexander?  Where did the Indians get this knowledge of Mathematics?  It is interesting to find that right from Baluchistan and Gujarat down to Uttar Pradesh all over the region of the Harappan civilization we find the Vedic Altar and Yajnyashalas which make it clear that the inhabitants of the civilization were Vedic people as far as their culture and religion was concerned.  The construction of the Vedic Altars was quite an intricate geometrical affair and the availability of these Altars show that the Vedic Harappans were proficient in geometry and thus could construct the cities that we have found.  The post Vedic shulvasutras give us detailed technical knowledge of geometry.  A western scholar Seidenberg has compared the Shulvasutras with Egyptian and ancient Babylonian records and has found that the mathematics that is described inshaulvasutra must have been in existence much before 2000 BC.  He has also claimed that all the ancient mathematics have evolved from the Vedic mathematics.  Rajaram and Frawley have even claimed that the Egyptian pyramids were also based upon a Vedic Altar which is called Shmashan Chiti.  It can easily be claimed on the basis of all the above mentioned discoveries that the knowledge of geometry was much much older than Pythagoras who is wrongly believed to be the father of geometry.  This begins to open the knots of another interesting contradiction.  The believers of the Aryan race/invasion theory considered the Harappan civilization to be a Dravidian civilization. But the remains of their cities and Altars clearly indicate that the knowledge on the basis of which they were constructed is available in the Sanskrit literature which in turn is believed to be that of the Aryans who have left no archaeological remains for us.  To top it all the Aryans are even claimed to be the destroyers of the Harappan civilization.  The truth on the other hand seems to be that the Vedic Aryans and the authors of the Vedic civilization were one and the same people who had first evolved the Vedic mathematics on the basis of which they constructed the greatest cities of their times.

            The believers in the Aryan race theory have never directly or categorically negated the existence of Saraswati as a very major river as described in the Rig-Veda.  They took recourse to the second best available method and that was to pick up a small river in Afghanistan called Helmond to identify the once mighty Saraswati.  Although, it has been described very clearly that it was a perennial river which began in the Himalayas and finally fell into the sea; was a mighty river which was miles broad at places; and used to flow between Sutlaj towards the west and Yamuna towards the east.  The river later dried up due to tectonic activities and its water was drained by Yamuna in East and Satluj in the west.  That is probably the reason that it is still believed that at Sangam in Allahabad Ganga, Yamuna and Saraswati meet.  The tradition and the literature give ample references to drying up of Saraswati which the invasionists had always sought to ignore.  But now with the availability of satellite images and other scientific data the lost course of Sarawati have been identified.  The new scientific data has endorsed the Vedic description of the perennial mighty Saraswati.  It is also now clear that the river Saraswati had dried by the beginning of the second millennium BC i.e. around 2000 BC.  If the Aryans were to appear in India around 500 years later i.e. in 1500 BC, how could they inhabit on the banks of the dried river?  According to the invasionist idea they would have taken another two hundred years to write Rig-Veda. How could Rig-Veda describe the perennial mighty river Saraswati in so accurate details after 700 years or its drying up?  Moreover the river had not gone dry in a day or two.  As the internal evidence within Mahabharata tells us that the process would have taken hundreds of years.  So the perennial mighty river Saraswati which is described in Rig-Veda must have existed hundreds if not thousands years before its final drying up in 2000 BC or so.  The new satellite data has endorsed the existence of Saraswati and has thus taken the winds off the sails of the Aryan race/migration/invasion theory.

            The Aryan race/invasion/migration theory claims that the Vedic texts speak about the spoked wheel which was absent during the Harappan Times.  Prof.  R.S.Sharma has advanced this view and Dr. B.B Lal has countered with terracotta figurines of the spoked wheels from Rakhigarhi, Kalibangun and Banwali, where the painted lines do convert in the central hub and thus leave no doubt whatsoever about their representing the spokes of the wheel.  All these examples are from mature Harappan phase.  This proves that the spoked wheel which is described in the Vedic literature was very much present in the Indus Saraswati Civilization and underlines that in reality both were same civilizations.  Similarly the Aryan race/invasion/migration theory had been much dependent on the history of the Indian horse.  According to the invasionists the horse came into India with the Aryans and the Indians before them did not know horse.  On the other hand the Indians tradition believes that the horse came from the sea which may mean that it came from South East Asia from the sea-route.  This meaning of the myth ofSamundra Manathan was underlined recently by some horse anatomists who have brought forward the interesting fact that the Indian horse is anatomically different from the Central Asian horse and is akin to the South East Asian horse. Whereas the Central Asian horse has eighteen pairs of ribs, the Indian/South East Asian horse has merely the sixteen pairs of ribs.  Rig-Veda describes the horse in great details and fortunately it also describes the anatomy of the horse and it describes it with sixteen pairs of ribs.  It is clear that the Rig-Vedic horse is not the Central Asian horse but an Indian variety which might have in hoary past come from East Asiagiving rise to the myth that it came from the sea.  Moreover, there are many varieties of horse and its extended family like Wild ass etc. which might have been domesticated in India and as EF Brynt has rightly pointed out that if the Indo-Europeans knew the horse before their dispersal and must therefore have inhabited an area wherein the horse is native (and eliminating other areas where the evidence for the horse is a later phenomenon) is barking up the wrong tree.

            He has also pointed out that though the high quality horses have always been imported in India it would be dangerous to make the Indo-Aryans overly synonymous with the horse since the horse could have been imported in the proto-historic period, just a it has been throughout the historic period.

             The Vedas mentioned a word called Dasyu which is opposed to Aryan.  The believers in Aryan invasion Theory turned the Dasyus also into a race just as they had done with the Aryans.  If the Aryans had long nose the Dasyus had flat nose.  If Aryans were tall the Dasyus were short.  If the Aryans were fair in color Dasyus were dark.  Since they wanted to prove the Aryan to be foreign invaders, the Dasyus were imagined to be Indian aboriginals.  Just as they had ignored the internal evidence of Vedas while explaining Aryans, similarly they refused to see what the Vedas were to say about Dasyus.  Yajurveda explains the Dasyu to be Akarma -- the one who doesn’t work or the one who depends on the fruits of labour of others.  That seems to be the reason why the word was later used for Dacoits.  Swami Agnivesh explains the difference between the Aryans and Dasyus as follows “Aryan means someone who works and depends on his own labour, while Dasyu is the one who plunders the fruits of labour of others.  Clearly if the internal evidence of the Yajurveda were to be believed neither the Aryans were a race nor the Dasyus were a race.  The British wanted to base their rule in India on this theory as it could divide Indians.  The leftists are also depending upon the same tactics.  It has been proved many times over that this theory was merely a hoax. The westerners that included opponents like the British, the communists and the Nazi Germany, all used it for their own purposes. Now the communists and other politically motivated groups are doing the same.  Navaratna S. Rajaram has very rightly pointed out that:

In the final analysis, the Aryan invasion theory was the result of a century long striving by the Christian Europe to give itself an identity that was free from the taint of its Judaic heritage.  The resulting historical scenario was also seen as an expedient device that was seized upon by the British colonial authorities to control India by dividing her people.  It has now acquired a life of its own and a following of intellectuals with a strong political stake in the status quo.  Its shelter was politics then and it is politics today.  It never had anything to do with the history of the ancient world, let alone of India.

Anger

Anger

While writing the daily 'Eternal Quote' for the Face Book for the next day I am stuck with a Sloka on 'Anger'.  Anger is not any Piza or Burger which we eat knowingly that it tarnishes health. Anger is a devastating Weapon used by one who aims at killing thousands in his suicide attack. Anger gives the result then and there. Therefore it can be considered as  our deadliest enemy.
The spiritual traditions of India are firmly based on a detailed understanding of the mind, its states, impulses, operations, functions and reactions to stimuli. One of these guidelines is repeatedly stated:

akodhena jine kodham (Pali),
akrodhena jayet krodham (Sanskrit)

One should seek to conquer anger with non-anger What are the tools one may employ to improve oneself?

The first step is atmavalokana, self-observation. Through self-observation one pulls oneself out of the delusion of denial, ‘Oh, I never get angry’- uttered in the most angry voice! This is not self-criticism, but simply self-critique.

Self-observation helps one to observe oneself getting angry, realize its futility and note its results in the form of unhappiness caused to loving ones, and damages invited to oneself from the reactions of others – for which one commonly blames those very same ‘others’. Then all it takes is sankalpa, a decision, a resolve, to make oneself sweeter with Upanishadic prayers like: 'Jihva me madhumattma'  May my tongue be a most honeyed one. Normally the youth always feel they are best. They are knowledgeable, then can guide the friends around. But at the outset they should realise  who are the enemies within and around. The actual enemies are with in you and they are not external. The friendship  or the enmity mostly depends on your tongue. ' మాటవలన జరుగు మహిలోన కార్యముల్ రామమోహనుక్తి రమ్యసూక్తి' is what I wrote in some other context. i.e your dialogue brings you success in all you endeavors in the environment you live.

In this context let me narrate a small story : 

Once there was an young Sanyasi who preaches knowledge to the society for which he goes to various places. After going there depending on the invitation of the 'Grihastha' the head of the house he stays with the Grihastha and his family. Likewise he became a guest to a Grihasta who was living with his wife. He was as much as their son's age, had they had.

one day in the house after having dinner the Sanyasi and the Grihastha were discussing on certain philosophical matters and it so happened , the Grihastha shouted at the Sanyasi loudly. The Sanyasi also did not spare and he retaliated. However the discussion ended at a heated note. The Sanyasi went to bed. Then the 'Grihini' went into the Sanyasi's bed room and tried to cover him with a blanket with all her motherly affection. Then she noticed blood coming out of his nose. She immediately put her hand on his head and brushing so soothingly told him "My child you are practicing sanyasa and you did not care to shun anger which is the first step on the pedestal to Sanyasa.  He felt as if  It was like Goddess Lalitha telling him. He abruptly got down from the bed, knelt before her by touching her feet and confessed " Mata your  advice is an eye opener for me. From now on my task is to gradually obliterate my anger. Thus he could overcome it with in an year and with all ecstasy he went to her to convey the same to her. Then again the Grihastha  had philosophical discussion with this Sanyasi and out of over emotion he slapped him. The Sanyasi kept silent with a smile. Then he prostrated before the Sanyasi confessing for his deed and surrendered himself accepting the Sanyasi as his Guru. The Sanyasi in turn told him "My guru is your Grihini. It is due to her simple guidance I could overcome this complex emotion." 

If we observe this story carefully we understand that the young Sanyasi  could overcome his anger by sheer commitment and self-confidence.

 He felt he could conquer. Once you have conquered a new territory in the spiritual realms, you gain a belief, shraddha, in your capability to continue making progress. But that was not the final accomplishment. Winning one battle doth not a conquest make. Our kleshas(sufferings), afflictions, lurk in us in pra-supta i.e.  dormant states. They wait for the right stimuli to manifest themselves in the (udaara) wide open form as soon as they are presented with the corresponding instances that had excited them. They have to be attenuated, thinned down deep within, till they lie dormant no more. The masters of the yoga tradition often expose their trainees to excitants ( which are instrumental to excitement )and then expect to see that the disciple shows his mettle in conquering these challenges and maintains equanimity.

Listen. Listen to others when they say ‘You are getting angry’. Do not be trapped by the mind’s habit of denying its diseases. Remember, that of the 10 defining characteristics of dharma (dashakam dharma-lakshanam) in the Laws of Manu, the tenth is a-krodha, non-anger.One needs to remind oneself:" I believe in being a spiritual person, dharmic by nature; then how can I infringe the dharma code by being angry?"

The further suggestion given in the texts is: if you must be angry, be angry with anger which destroys so much within you and at the same time robs you of your loved ones. If you slap on somebody out of anger you may invite to get yourself slapped. Than that if you slap yourself for your behavior then you are on the path of reforming yourself. Swami Rama’s two books, The Art of Joyful Living, and Creative Use of Emotions can guide you to the upper rungs of tranquility. 

Do not attempt to handle anger by suppressing it at any cost. This leads to depression. Note that Suppression is not conquest.  Seek not to suppress but to replace. Patanjali calls it prati-paksha-bhavanam, cultivating the opposites.

Just ask yourself that how could you provide space in the mind to lodge destructive enemies like anger?
Swasti.

'Defalsification of Indian history 
is the first step for our renaissance.' - Dr. Subramanian Swami

'In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic invaders. But on 

the contrary,unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the country capitulated to 

become 100 per cent Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80 

per cent Hindu.The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.

The accepted history of no country can be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru

and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been

brainwashed by this falsified history of India.

The UPA has succeeded in persuading more state governments to accept the NCERT

texts. A report on Monday (January 5, 2009) said 12 more state governments have

accepted to teach NCERT texts in their schools.For the last two weeks the Organiser is

carrying a series of articles on the NCERT textbooks prescribed for students at 

the primary, secondary and higher secondary schools. We have found these books written

with a peculiar mindset, to denationalise and deculturise the young Indian. These books

fail to make the children aware of their true heritage. 

These books seem to distort even India's freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi's role and try

to divide the society into different caste and class segments. Their idea is to convince the

children that India as a nation came to exist only after August 15, 1947.

We request the parents, teachers, students and scholars to join this academic exercise to

expose the shenanigans behind promotion of these books in Indian schools. ?Editor

The identity of India is Hindustan, i.e., a nation of Hindus and those others who

acknowledge with pride that their ancestors were Hindus. Hindustan represents the

continuing history of culture of Hindus. One?s religion may change, 

but culture does not. Thus, on the agenda for a national renaissance should be the

dissemination of the correct perception of what we are. This perception has to be derived

from a defalsified history. However, the present history taught in our schools and colleges

is the British imperialist-sponsored one, with the intent to destroy our identity. India as 

a State is treated as a British-created entity and of only recent origin. The Indian people

are portrayed as a heterogeneous lot who are hopelessly divided against themselves.

Such a ?history? has been deliberately created by the British as a policy. Sir George

Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, wrote to the Home Office on March 26, 1888 

that ?I think the real danger to our rule is not now but say 50 years hence?.. We shall

(therefore) break Indians into two sections holding widely different views?.. 

We should so plan the educational text books that the differences between 

community and community are further strengthened?.After achieving Independence,

under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru and the implementing authority of the 

anglicized ICS, revision of our history was never done, in fact the very idea was

condemned as ?obscurantist? and Hindu chauvinist by Nehru and his ilk.The Imperialist

History of India .

What is the gist of this British imperialist-tailored Indian history? In this history, India is

portrayed as the land ?conquered? first by the ?Dravidians?, then by the ?Aryans?, later

by Muslims, and finally by the British. Otherwise, everything else is mythical. 

Our history books today exhibit this obsession with foreign rule. For example, even though 

the Mughal rule from Akbar to Aurangzeb is about 150 years, which is much shorter than

the 350 year rule of the Vijayanagaram empire, the history books of today hardly take

notice of the latter. In fact the territory under Krishna Devaraya?s rule was much larger

than Akbar?s, and yet it is the latter who is called ?the Great?. Such a version suited 

the British rules who had sought to create a legitimacy for their presence in India.

Furthermore, we were also made to see advantages accruing from British rule, the primary

one being that India was united by this colonialism, and that but for the British, India

would never have been one country. Thus, the concept of India itself is owed to the

plunder of colonialists.In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to

Islamic invaders. But on the contrary, unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the

country capitulated to become 100 per cent Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal 

Islamic rule, remained 80 per cent Hindu.These totally false and pernicious ideas have

however permeated deep into our educational system. They have poisoned the minds of

our younger generations who have not had the benefit of the Freedom Struggle to awaken

their pride and nationalism. It has thus to be an essential part of the renaissance agenda

that these ideas of British-sponsored history of India, namely, (1) that India as a State was

a gift of the British and (2) that there is no such thing as a native Indian, and what we are

today is a by-product of the rape of the land by visiting conquerors and their hordesand 

(3) that India is a land that submitted meekly to invading hordes from Aryan to the English,


are discarded. Falsification of Chronology in India?s History The fabrication of our History

begins with the falsification of our chronology.The customary dates quoted for composition

of the Rig Veda (circa 1300 B.C.), Mahabharat (600 B.C.), Buddha?s Nirvana (483 B.C.),

Maurya Chandragupta?s coronation (324 B.C.), and Asoka (c.268 B.C.) are entirely wrong.

Those dates are directly or indirectly based on a selected reading of Megasthenes?

account of India. In fact, so much so that eminent historians have called if the ?sheet

anchor of Indian chronology?. The account of Megasthenes and the derived 

chronology of Indian history have also an important bearing on related derivations such as

the two-race (Aryan-Dravidian) theory, and on the pre-Vedic character of the so called

Indus Valley Civilization.

Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the


court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called ?Sandrocottus?. He was stationed

in ?Palimbothra?, the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years

Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika. The

manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available. However, during the time it

was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works.

These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth

century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient

India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian).The founder of the Mauryas, however, is

not the only Chandragupta in Indian history, who was a king of Magadh and founder of a

dynasty. In particular, there is Gupta Chandragupta, a Magadh king and founder of the

Gupta dynasty at Patliputra. Chandragupta Gupta was also not of ?noble? birth and, in

fact, came to power by deposing the Andhra king Chandrasri. That is, Megasthenes?

Sandrocottus may well be Gupta Chandragupta instead of Maurya Chandgragupta 

(and Xandremes the same as Chandrasri, and Sandrocryptus as Samudragupta).

In order to determine which Chandragupta it is, we need to look further. It is, of course, a


trifle silly to build one?s history on this kind of tongue-gymnastics, but I am afraid we have

no choice but to pursue the Megasthenes evidence to its end, since the currently

acceptable history is based on it.In order to determine at which Chandragupta?s court

Megasthenes was ambassador, we have to look further into his account of India. We find

he was at Pataliputra (i.e. Palimbothra in Megasthenes? account). We know from the

Puranas (which are unanimous on this point) that all the Chandravamsa king of Magadh

(including the Mauryas) prior to the Guptas, had their capital at Girivraja (or equivalently

Rajgrha) and not at Pataliputra. Gupta Chandragupta was the first 

king to have his capital in Patliputra. This alone should identify Sandrocottos with Gupta

Chandragupta. However some 6-11th century A.D. sources call Pataliputra the Maurya

capital, e.g., Vishakdatta in Mudrarakshasa, but these are based on secondary sources

and not on the Puranas.Pursuing Megasthenes? account further, we find most of it

impossible to believe. He appears to be quite vague about details and is obviously given to

the Greek writers? weakness in letting his imagination get out of control. For example, ?

Near a mountain which is called Nulo there live men whose feet are turned back-wards

and have eight toes on each foot.? (Solinus 52.36-30 XXX.B.) ?Megasthenes says a race

of men (exist in India) who neither eat or drink, and in fact have not even mouths, set on

fire and burn like incense in order to sustain their existence with odorous fumes?..? 

(Plutarch, Frag. XXXI). However, Megasthenes appears to have made one precise

statement of possible application which was picked up later by Pliny, Solinus, and Arrian.

As summarized by Professor K.D. Sethna of Pondicherry, it reads:?Dionysus was the first

who invaded India and was the first of all who triumphed over the vanished Indians. From

the days of Dionysus to Alexander the Great, 6451 years reckoned with 3 months

additional. From the time of Dionysus to Sandrocottus the Indians reckoned 6452 years,

the calculation being made by counting the kings who reigned in the intermediate period

to number 153 or 154 years. But among these a republic was thrice established, one 

extending?..years, another to 300 and another to 120. The Indians also tell us that

Dionysus was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except for him no one

made a hostile invasion of India but that Alexander indeed came 

and overthrew in war all whom he attacked.?While there a number of issues raised by this

statement including the concoction that Alexander was victorious in battle across the

Indus, the exactness with which he states his numbers should lead us to believe that

Megasthenes could have received his chronological matters from none else than the 

Puranic pundits of his time. To be conclusive, we need to determine who are the ?

Dionysus? and ?Heracles? of Megasthenes? account.Traditionally, Dionysus (or Father

Bachhus) was a Greek God of wine who was created from Zeus?s thigh. Dionysus was

also a great king, and was recognised as the first among all kings, a conqueror and

constructive leader. Could there be an Indian equivalent of Dionysus whom Megasthenes

quickly equated with his God of wine? Looking through the Puranas, one does indeed find

such a person. His name is Prithu.Prithu was the son of King Vena. The latter was

considered a wicked man whom the great sages could not tolerate, especially after he told

them that the elixir soma should be offered to him in prayer and not to the gods

(Bhagavata Purana IV.14.28). The great sages thereafter performed certain rites and killed

Vena. But since this could lead immediately to lawlessness and chaos, the rshis decided

to rectify it by coronating a strong and honest person. The rshis therefore churned the right

arm (or thigh; descriptions vary) of the dead body (of Vena) to give birth to a fully grown 

Prithu. It was Prithu, under counsel from rshi Atri (father of Soma), who reconstructed

society and brought about economic prosperity. Since he became such a great ruler, the

Puranas have called him adi-raja (first king) of the world. So did the Satpatha Brahmana

(v.3.5 4.).In the absence of a cult of soma in India, it is perhaps inevitable that

Megasthenes and the other Greeks, in translating Indian experiences for Greek audiences,

should pick on adi-raja Prithu who is ?tinged with Soma? in a number of ways 

and bears such a close resemblance to Dionysus in the circumstances of his birth, and

identify him as Dionysus. If we accept identifying Dionysus with Prithu, then indeed by a

calculation based on the Puranas (done by DR Mankad, Koti Venkatachelam, KD Sethna,

and others), it can be conclusively shown that indeed 6,451 years had elapsed between 

Prithu and a famous Chandragupta. This calculation exactly identifies Sandrocottus with

Gupta Chandragupta and not with Maurya Chandragupta. The calculation also identifies

Heracles with Hari Krishna (Srikrishna) of Dwarka.This calculation must be necessarily

long and tedious to counter the uninformed general feeling first sponsored by Western

scholars, that the Puranas spin only fair tales and are therefore quite unreliable.However,

most of these people do not realise that most Puranas have six parts, and the

Vamsanucharita sections(especially of Vishnu, Matsya, and Vagu) are a systematic

presentation of Indian history especially of the Chandravansa kings of Magadha.In order to 

establish these dates, I would have to discuss in detail the cycle of lunar asterisms, the

concept of time according to Aryabhatta, and various other systems, and also the

reconciliation of various minor discrepancies that occur in the 

Puranas. Constraints of space and time however, prevent me from presenting these

calculations here.However, on the basis of these calculations we can say that Gupta

Chandragupta was ?Sandrocottus? c.327 B.C. His son, Samudragupta, was the great king

who established a unified kingdom all over India,and obtained from the Cholas, Pandyas, 

and Cheras their recognition of him. He also had defeated Seleucus Nicator,while his

father Chandragupta was king. On this calculation we can also place Prithu at 6777 B.C.

and Lord Rama before that. Derivation of other dates without discussion may also be

briefly mentioned here: Buddha?s Nirvana 1807 BC,Maurya Chandragupta c. 1534 BC,

Harsha Vikramaditya (Parmar) c. 82 BC.The European scholars have thus constructed an

enormous edifice of contemporary foreign dates to suit their dating. A number of them

are based on misidentification. For instance, the Rock Edict XIII, the famous Kalinga edict,

is identified as Asoka?s. It was, however, Samudragupta?s (Samudragupta was a great

conqueror and a devout admirer of Asoka. 

He imitated Asoka in many ways and also took the name Asokaditya. In his later life, he

became a sanyasi). Some other facts, which directly contradict their theories, they have

rather flippantly cast aside. We state here only a few examples ? 

such facts as (1) Fa-hsien was in India and at Patliputra c. 410 AD. He mentions a number

of kings, but makes not even a fleeting reference to the Gupta, even though according to

European scholars he came during the height of their reign. 

He also dates Buddha at 1100 BC. (2) A number of Tibetan documents place Buddha at

2100 BC. (3) The Ceylonese Pali traditions leave out the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras

from the list of Asoka?s kingdoms, whereas Rock Edict XIII includes them. In fact, as many

scholars have noted, the character of Asoka from Ceylonese and other traditions is 

precisely (as RK Mukherjee has said) what does not appear in the principal edicts.

The accepted history of no country can be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru

and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been

brainwashed by this falsified history of India.

The time has come for us to take seriously our Puranic sources and to re-construct a

realistic well-founded history of ancient India, a history written by Indians about Indians.

Such a history should bring out the amazing continuity of a Hindu nation which asserts its

identity again and again. It should focus on the fact that at the centre of our political

thought is the concept of the Chakravartian ideal ? to defend the nation from external

aggression while giving maximum internal autonomy to the janapadas. A correct,

defalsified history would record that Hindustan was one nation in the art of governance, in

the style of royal courts, in the methods of warfare, in the maintenance of its agrarian

base, and in the dissemination of information. Sanskrit was the language of national

communication and discourse. An accurate history should not only record the periods of

glory but the moments of degeneration, of the missed opportunities, and of the failure to

forge national unity at crucial junctures in time. It should draw lessons for the future

generations from costly errors in the past. In particular, it was not Hindu submission as

alleged by JNU historians that was responsible for our subjugation but lack of unity and

effective military strategy.Without an accurate history, Hindustan cannot develop on its

correct identity. And without a clearly defined identity, Indians will continue to flounder.

Defalsification of Indian history is the first step for our renaissance.

English Medium – Indian Education

English Medium – Indian Education

Before we get into the subject I would like to bring a fact before you regarding our body. The body is always prone to sickness once an antibody enters into our system. Our white cells may confront the alien but at times the get defeated. Then the antibody takes the reins and starts directing the body it likes till the body perishes.

British replaced the indigenous education system and Sanskrit gurukulas with English education. The main contributor for the same being Thomas Babington Macaulay. With this idea as the base the British Government wanted to create a class of Indians who think like the British and in this way weaken India. The main intention of Macaulay is to demolish the Sanskrit culture and Vedic knowledge which were the backbones of Indian creed. With a committed intention to break this backbone English medium education was introduced with all the earnestness. This did all the damage it was meant for.

Indians were cut off from the roots of their precious tradition, and they had to study in a completely foreign language, as if this was an easy thing to do. Somehow, the children of the tiny elite managed. They were motivated to make it into colonial government jobs and English was the only gateway. Naturally, these westernised students and their offsprings, who had no roots any more in their own culture, influenced the future of independent India in a big way. So it is no surprise that even after Independence, English medium in higher education and in the “better schools” which were often run by missionaries continued with the argument that English is the necessary link-language between the states.

 It was in the interest of this elite and the Churches to continue with the status quo, where jobs at the top require fluency in English, as for this tiny minority English is their mother tongue. They are not fluent in the language of the region where they were born. And they are still successful in convincing the policy makers that English medium is the way to go in education—to the detriment of India.

There is no doubt that Indian children are intelligent—in all likelihood more intelligent than their western counterparts. An NRI based in Seattle and Gurugram, Sankrant Sanu, tested the intelligence of Indian and American children via a non-verbal IQ test. Village children from Haryana came out on top. They outperformed their peers in Delhi and in the US. In one village over 30 per cent scored over 90th percentile which means that out of 100 Indian children over 30 were as intelligent as the topmost 10 out of 100 American children. It was an extraordinary result.

Yet in 2009, India got a severe shock, which should have woken her up, but this wake-up call was not heeded. For the first time, India took part in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Secretariat (OECD). Around half a million 15-year-old students from 74 countries were tested for two hours in maths, science and reading skills. Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu students were chosen to take part, as these states were doing well in education.

When the results were out, there was celebration in Asia. Asian countries were leading the list and had much higher ranks than Europe or USA—with one shocking exception: India came on rank 73, second last, beating only Kyrgyzstan. The best Himachal kids were 100 points lower than their average peers in Singapore and 250 points lower than the top performers. It was a huge embarrassment. Indian experts explained that the students faced “language difficulty”. It was true. The problem was the language. The tests were held in the mother tongue of the respective countries: German in Germany, Japanese in Japan, but English in India. Yet there was no serious introspection.

Ever since, India did not take part in the 3-yearly PISA test, but in 2021 Kendra Vidyalayas are expected to take part—again students in English medium. There is probably the hope that these students will do better, as their parents, being in government service, are likely to speak good English. Yet is this representative for India? Is it not cheating India?

Fluency in English doesn’t come easy. But when sometimes some educationalists dedicated to the nation, when advocated that Indians should study in their mother tongue including in higher education, there was always opposition from Indians fluent in English that English is universal language. This is a tale stranger than a fiction. They don’t seem to get the difference between studying in English medium and studying English as a subject. Nobody advocates not learning English. But having to read textbooks, question papers, and write essays in an alien language is too much for students and the PISA (Programme for Internal Student Assessment) study proved the obvious.

  If we need more proof, Sweden and Germany had a significant drop in their ranking in the latest PISA test in 2015 among the migrant children. There is scope that Germany will drop even further in 2018. German is not such an easy language to be adept to it.

These migrant children at least attend German lessons for one year before they can join the regular classes. In India, children from homes where parents don’t speak any English are put into English medium schools with no preparation whatsoever. This is a disaster. It is a bare fact that the children neither be conversant with their mother tongue nor with English as they can nether speak English at home nor the mother tongue as it is not taught at any level.

Is it not a wonder as to how this can be allowed? It should be obvious that it is a huge blunder. Yet it is not only allowed but was even encouraged. Millions of students changed from government schools to third-rate, private “English” schools, by their middle class parents who know only their mother tongue, which popped up everywhere. This craze for “English schools” may have been deliberately fanned by interests who don’t want a strong India, for example the Church. Parents, who do not know English, were made to believe that “English school” is the best for their children. Another important thing is that the children are becoming aliens to their customs or traditions as the parents do not know English and the children do not know the equivalents of the words used in their customs, in English.

It looks very strange where the children be sent to a school where the local teachers having their own mother tongue speak in a foreign language? Just imagine the plight of the kids. They learn to spell and can read after a while, but they don’t know the meaning of what they read. They will be left in a limbo. They are neither good in English, nor in their mother tongue. Forget about a happy childhood where it is fun to learn. It is a perfect recipe for teaching in vain, because no learning happens in either levels to speak of the truth. How many mediocre English Schools have qualified teachers who are thoroughly convergent with English at least to the extent of the lessons prescribed in the texts meant for the particular class they are allotted.

Any surprise that even in 5th standard, kids cannot form simple English sentences and just stare at their textbooks when their parents tell them “to study”. They may not miss much if they don’t understand their social study or history books, because the content is often not worth learning. But the situation is serious when it gets to maths and science. Kids cannot solve even the simplest of tasks in maths like “put the numbers in ascending order”. The textbook authors cannot imagine that the instruction is not clear. The Student may find it easy if he is asked to put ‘number order ascending’. The teacher does not have the skill to make that correction. They only know to give food but in what form, of what taste and the quantity required. This being the case the children naturally lose self-confidence.

Yet India is huge and the majority of people managed to keep their culture and India’s strength alive and their innate intelligence and competence intact. Their children went to schools where mother tongue was the medium of instruction. They understood what they read and could freely express themselves.

In the past, It would be interesting to find out, how many ISRO scientists, or generally students in the science and maths stream had studied till 12th class in English. It would definitely less in number as, compared to their age there were no so many English Schools nor did their parents have enough money to send them to cities where that schooling is available. It would also be interesting to find out how students from Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, who attend vernacular schools, fare in the PISA test. They surely would not be at the bottom of the ranking list.

Indians have brains and the world knows it. But in English medium their great potential is suppressed and not tapped. Except for the tiny minority who speak English at home, the great majority of Indian students are at a huge disadvantage compared to students in other countries vis-a vis a huge disadvantage also for India.

Isn’t it about time to phase out this colonial hangover of English medium schools? The argument that English is needed as link language is no argument in favour of English medium.  Why can’t Indian students learn English like students all over the world do—as a subject? Sanskrit, too, needs to be revived in a big way to open up the treasure that is hidden in the Vedic texts. The value of Sanskrit is recognised all over the world. It is the most perfect language, and especially suitable in fields like IT. It has strength, dignity, beauty. It develops the brain and improves the character. Indians have a great advantage here, as their regional languages are connected with Sanskrit and it is much easier for them to learn it. It is truly incomprehensible why Sanskrit was/is sidelined—of all places in India.

Even Sanskrit medium education would be much easier than English medium and far more beneficial for an all-round development of the students. It would be worthwhile to find out whether in the long run, Sanskrit can be introduced as the medium in education. It is not yet too late to realise the greatness of Sanskrit and get back its glory.

Imagine if India had IITs and IIMs in Hindi, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam or Marathi the technical terms could be sourced from Sanskrit and would be the same all over India. Students would have an advantage in many fields, for example in artificial intelligence, which is an important issue today. They would be free from the burden of English textbooks, and could freely express themselves. There is a lot of talk about “the right to freedom of expression”.  Yet the greatest curb on freedom of expression is ignored. Those, who have a natural talent for languages, can learn as many foreign languages as possible become translators. In the absence of any such flair, translation apps, too, can be used to facilitate communication.

Committees have been instituted who look into improving the education, yet they deal mostly with the content. But what is the use of good content when the students don’t understand it? The most important issue is the language issue. The result of the PISA test, too, must be analysed honestly and consequences be drawn. That will enable to find the root cause of the sickness among the student children.

Before Muslim invaders destroyed the centers of learning, India was known as a knowledge hub. She was the Vishwaguru that is the preceptor of the world. To reach this status again, common sense demands that students need to understand what they are taught and be able to reproduce what is taught. It means they need to study in their mother tongue. Further, Sanskrit should be taught right from the start as it optimally develops the child’s potential.

Let there also be some international schools and courses at universities in English medium for expats or those who want to go abroad, like in European countries.

If even tiny Denmark and Israel manage to teach higher education in their mother tongue, surely the big Indian states will be capable to do this and translate the existing syllabus or even better, source new material including for higher studies. Only then justice is done to the great potential of Indian youth. Only then India will truly shine. It is only the concern and commitment, devotion and dedication, enthusiasm and earning that enable to restore the legacy and leadership to India.

Jai Bharat.