Yet Another Lok Sabha Session : Part 1

The first question raised was about the artifacts and treasures that will be arriving back. Along with the question about Kohinoor's delay.

Satyankar answered the questions, "For the time being, they will be stored in Delhi museum and Ujjain's Bharat museum. Various museums will be constructed across the country, and they will be put to display in their appropriate regions.

And regarding Kohinoor's delay, there wasn't much of a choice. Elizabeth is the sitting monarch of a kingdom which is unusually infatuated with monarchy.

This is the about the most reparation we could get. If someone else believe they could do better, I wounder why they opposed straining relations with UK over our treasures? We were willing to strain our diplomatic relationship to the point of complete non-interaction, not to the extent of a war."

The congress guy didn't give any answers to the jibe that his party was against straining relationship over treasures.

"Moving onto the next question. What problems do you have with history books? All the sources are cited in the glossary section after each chapter. If there are some mistakes, raise it through official channels in the education department. Though, we will like to hear your problems since you have raised them here."

A Marxist congress guy who calls himself historian started, "There are many problems. I will like to point out a few, that are the most pressing issues.

In medival history, there are four Kesalays. Rani Padmini, Akbar, Dara Shikoh, and Shivaji.

In the Kesalay of Rani Padmini, Allauddin Khilji is portrayed as a degenerate monster, and Raja Ratan is portrayed as a fool for following Rajput honor.

The scenes in them are very brutal, especially the Jouhar.

In the Kesalay of Akbar, he is also being portrayed as a cause of many Queens committing Jouhar, and him being a typical villain as well. Despite the fact that we know that he was a secular king.

In Dara Shikoh's Kesalay, he is being portrayed as someone that if he became the Emperor, India wouldn't fall into European hands easily. Despite him also shown as spoiled and incompetent in warfare. And in that, Aurangzeb is portrayed as the clear villain. And the war of succession is too gruesome, especially at the end where he executes Dara Shikoh.

And in the Kesalay of Shivaji, Aurangzeb is, again, portrayed as a clear villain. And Shivaji is glorified as the one of the first freedom fighters. Why? Mughals weren't colonisers. If Akbar was controversial, why wasn't Shivaji?

Aurangzeb issued fatwas to protect the temples and Hindus of Benaras. He also made donations for many temples. But he is portrayed as an intolerant, insufferable fanatic.

There is a clear pattern here. All Islamic rulers a portrayed in a negative light.

And, is there a need for such gruesome comics? Books are enough for studying. Comics should have no place in schools."

Then, an RJS member questioned the history books.

"It is stated in the books about the stupidity of kings like Raja Ratan, Prithviraj Chauhan, and even mentioned about Marathas pillaging Bengal, Hindu rulers destroying Hindu temples to take gold and idols, Hindu kings destroying Buddhist and Jain temples, Buddhist and Jain kings destroying Hindu temples, and all that.

All of this did happen. But, not on the scale of Islamic invasions. How is it that we don't find much of ancient temples in North India?

And, why even mention such things?"

This time, it was a member of BJS itself that questioned the History books. Ambedkar.

"Didn't Ashoka convert to Buddhism after Kalinga war? How is it that he is also portrayed as a controversial figure, even though he did so much for India?

And why is Indus Valley civilisation called Hindu? They didn't follow Hinduism."

Satyankar listened to everyone, and started answering.

"While the more technical details will be expanded upon by our Education ministry Tukaram ji, I have read the books myself as well, so I will try to answer it to my best ability.

First of all, our history has never been peaceful. Compared to other parts of the world, yes. By a very large margin. If the religious persecution in any region outside India was level 100, in India, it was level 1.

Destroying religious institutions of enemy kings and rivals was a common practice. All kings were violent, no matter how much anyone tries to glorify them. But, it's how they used violence was how someone became great, controversial, or a monster.

First of all, I will answer the question about the trend of Islamic rulers being villainized. That is simply not true. Not one major king before and after Chhattrapati Shivaji Maharaj has a clean image. So, the argument is baseless. And it IS true that India suffered a lot under Islamic rule.

Germany suffered Holocaust under Nazi rule. Would it be better for German kids to not know about how Christian fanaticism led to genocide? No.

History isn't a way for propaganda. History is a way for the present and future to realise what was done wrong in the past. How it was done. And what were the affects. So that the bext generation can prevent things like that from happening again.

Aurangzeb issuing fatwas to protect Varanasi doesn't make him secular. Its politics. He went back on those fatwas to demolish temples made by his rivals later anyway. A bad person who kills thousand people and saves one doesn't become good.

And Akbar was also not always secular. He became one after some point in his life. He did cause multiple queens to commit jauhar. Even if he didn't want to commit such horrifying crimes, his army wasn't disciplined enough, which he could have done.

Dara Shikoh's story is very necessary for our kids. The number of good people far outweigh the number of bad people. But, bad people are more likely to be committed to what the believe is right.

Your thinking may be right. You may truly be a better person. But, if you don't stand up for yourself, and don't work hard, the bad guy will kill you.

And Chhattrapati Shivaji Maharaj was someone who wanted Swaraj. He had disciplined his army, which most kings weren't willing to. He respected every religious institution. It's not like pillaging didn't happen under his rule. It's that he stood by his morals and was against any atrocities.

And most importantly, he wasn't a fool. He didn't foolishly walk into enemy's trap due to some worthless ego, which would have caused his people to suffer.

Raja Ratan of Mewar, Prithviraj Chauhan, and countless other kings may have been brave. But, they were too egoistic in their moral code. When an enemy, who you know will go to the absolute bottom any human can go to, is defeated, you kill them. If you don't, they will only kill your people in the future-"

Savarkar interrupted Satyankar,

"So, did you not learn anything from history? Why did you not kill all those Pakistani? What assures you that they wouldn't come to bite like Ghazni and Khilji?"