Descriptions of the kings of Magadh in the Puranas were fabricated,
historic records were destroyed, false synchronization of edicts and
coins were created to connect them to Ashok of Maurya dynasty, and in
this way misguided the whole world.
The example of the mutilation in the Bhavishya Puran is
one of the most potent evidences that reveal the style of the working of
the British. It evidently surmises that first they fabricated and
incorporated the desired date of an historical personality in the original
manuscript, whatever they wanted. Then they employed efficient scholars to
write the full page or the full chapter that had the fabrication by
exactly imitating the writing style of the original. In this way when the
imitation was ready to the desired standard, they destroyed the original
sheets and replaced them with the imitated ones. Now an
original-looking manuscript was ready for circulation which was in fact
the fabricated one.
When the Venkateshwar Press printed the Bhavishya
Puran, as a general professional policy, they must have looked into more
than one manuscript to ascertain the correctness of the matter, and
because that was the only kind of manuscript available, so it was printed
that way. Other printers copied the same thing which was printed by the
With this reference it becomes evident that the
dynastical discrepancies in the descriptions of the rulers of Magadh,
which are found in the printed volumes of the Puranas like Vishnu,
Matsya, Vayu and Brahmand, may also be the work of the
There is also a possibility that in certain old
manuscripts, while copying, the person may have made some minor mistakes
in rewriting the names and the ruling period of the kings. But, in that
case, there must also have been such ancient manuscripts of the same Puran
that would have correct names and figures, because there were a number of
copies available of all the Puranas at that time. So it was fully possible
to get the correct version of the names and the ruling period of the kings
of the dynasties of Magadh by comparing all the available manuscripts of
those Puranas which describe the dynasties of Magadh. But it was not done,
because the English people were not interested in correcting the dynastic
statements; they were interested in damaging the statements so that they
could find an excuse to disregard the authenticity of the descriptions of
They had almost all the available manuscripts of the
Puranas in their vast libraries and they had all the possible facilities
to reconstruct and fabricate the manuscripts. Thus, under the above
circumstances, it is most logical to believe that they must have destroyed
these manuscripts (the entire manuscript, or only the required part of it)
which had the correct statements of the kings of Magadh and kept those few
which had some discrepancies; and, at the same time, they must have also
added new discrepancies and fabricated the manuscripts of the Puranas
according to their desired scheme. In this way, they created a master copy
of each Puran with those dynastical discrepancies and, accordingly,
fabricated the rest of the copies of those Puranas that were in their
possession. These copies were made available for circulation. Later on
these fabricated copies were published which are available nowadays.
There are only eight dynasties from Brihadrath to
Andhra that are described in the four Puranas with the names of the kings
and their reigning period. But in the existing available copies they
donít exactly match with each other. The pronunciation of their names
and their reigning period varies. They are supposed to be
exactly the same, but they are not. At some places this discrepancy is
For example: In the Matsya Puran there is a description
of only 6 kings in Maurya dynasty whose names are mostly unmatched and are
not in proper sequence and who ruled for (6 + 70 +36 + 8 + 9 + 70) 199
years. But the concluding verse at the end of this description and in the
same chapter tells that the total number of Maurya kings was 10 and their
reigning period was 137 years. Such drastic discrepancies can never be the
copying mistakes even if the most sloppy person is doing this job. Itís a
clear case of deliberate fabrication.
The last thing is that, except the dynastical
discrepancies, all the available Puranas are still in a perfect shape.
Their Divine references, stories, teachings, technical descriptions,
philosophy and the ancient history, everything is well coordinated and
When were these fabrications done?
You may be interested to know when was that done? Itís
easy to find out. Jones gives his last statement in 1793, and after 39
years in 1832 H.H. Wilson, the President of the Asiatic Society of London,
publishes his commentary on the Vishnu Puran in which he gives a
comparative view of the dynastical discrepancies of all the four Puranas.
In this way he establishes a ground to criticize all the Puranas. Thus,
it is clear that these fabrications to distort the dynastic dates and the
pronunciation of the names of the kings of Magadh were done in the early
19th century. Thirty-nine years were good enough time for
them to fabricate the Puranas.
The ingenious trickeries.
(1) The fabrication and the mutilation in the dynastic
records of the Puranas, and its subsequent presentation by H.H. Wilson in
his commentary on the Vishnu Puran, was such an ingenious work of trickery
by the English people that confused every Indian writer and they couldnít
detect the fraud. The writers like Narayana
Sastry and Krishnamacharar also got confused by this trickery
and all the writers thought that the dynastic descriptions of the Puranas
(2) Not only that, they did something more which was
worse than that. They promoted and produced some of the religious books
(the Smritis and Grihya Sutras etc.) that had certain impious
interpolations which showed that Hindu Sages killed and ate animals. They destroyed the
true originals, kept the corrupted copies of those books for circulation
and publication, and then said, ďSee, your own books are saying that,Ē and
in this way all the western writers got the license to openly abuse the
Hindu religion. This trickery also befooled the whole world.
Such interpolations would have been done by the Chatriya Kings of olden
days as they loved to eat meat. So, to justify their such habits, they
employed Sanskirt scholars to add such passages of meat eating in our
hand-written religious books, which later on remained as collections in
the Hindu society.
When the English people came to India and started
collecting our handwritten scriptures they discovered those impious
interpolations of meat eating in the religious books of rituals and
Smritis etc. It was in their favor, because they wanted to destroy our
religion and culture. So, using the influence of their ruling power, they
enormously collected our books and employed hundreds of scholars to
reorganize and sort out the books according to their choice. In that
collection there must have been some non-interpolated books in their
unblemished form. Those books would prove hazardous to their scheme, so
they were later on carefully destroyed.
This was the period when the members of the Asiatic Society of Bengal
were actively involved in producing such literatures that degraded and
abused Hindu religion, and its president Sir William Jones, the obedient
servant of the British, was wholeheartedly busy finding ways of how to
blemish the greatness of Hindu scriptures and condemn the Divine history.
It is thus very obvious that those people, to achieve
their aim of defaming Hindu religion, must have also done a lot of
fabrications and would have interpolated such verses in Hindu religious
books wherever they would have found it convenient to do so; and later on
they must have destroyed the true and uninterpolated handwritten books.
They knew that Hindus adore their Sages, Saints and
acharyas. They are vegetarian and have great regard for the cow. Thus,
with one blow, they tried to crumble the faith of the Hindus in their
Vedic Sages. They vigorously promoted such ideas which showed that Vedic
brahmans not only ate meat but they loved to eat meat as a must. In
this way they imposed their personal characteristics upon Hindu Sages.
The Greek gods and goddesses were pleased with animal
sacrifices, Roman gods were of the same kind, and the God of OT loved to
demand frequent animal sacrifices from each and every house. Thus, because
such things were in their own religion, the English people, tried to abuse
the Vedic yagyas and the Vedic religion in a similar way. Could any
sensible person imagine the depth and the extent of the wilfulness of
those people who promoted such frauds to delude the minds of the Hindus
from their own religion?
In those days, in the late 19th century, there were
three major publishing companies in India, Shree Venkateshwar Press of
Bombay (1871), Nirnaya Sagar Press of Bombay (1864) and
Chaukhamba Vidyabhavan of Varanasi (1892). Most of the religious books
and scriptures were originally published by them. It should be noted that
it was the prime ruling period of the British in India. So it must be
understood that the manuscripts that were produced by the English people
were unhesitatingly printed by these publishers. Whether they did it
knowingly or unknowingly, it canít be said, but the fact was that for them
only those copies were available for printing.*
Thus, on one side, the English people got those
fabricated religious books published and destroyed the true originals;
and, on the other side, they showed to the Hindu community that it
is their own religious books that say such things. In this way, their
ingenious trickery befooled the Hindu society, Hindu scholars and also
befooled the whole world.
Now you know the truth. So, wherever such impious verses or passages
are seen in our printed religious books you must know that they are the
malicious gift of the rulers of India of those days.
False synchronization of edicts and coins.
To support their fabricated ideology of Chandragupt
Maurya being in 300ís BC, they did a lot more fabrications and
manipulations. There were two kings in Magadh dynasties: Ashokvardhan, the
grandson of Chandragupt Maurya, who was in the 15th century BC, and
Samudragupt Ashokaditya (Priyadarshin), the son of Chandragupt of Gupt
dynasty, who was in 4th century BC.
Samudragupt was called Samudragupt Ashokaditya,
or Ashok, or Ashok-the-Great or Ashok Priyadarshin.
He was called Priyadarshin after adopting the Buddhist religion. But he
was generally known as Ashok. He had a huge empire that stretched up to
Punjab, whereas Ashokvardhanís kingdom was very small. It was the existing
Bihar province of India. Ashok (Samudragupt Ashokaditya) established a
number of monuments throughout his kingdom.
Taking advantage of the similarity of their name, the
English people, manipulatingly ascribed all the edicts of
Samudragupt Ashokaditya to Ashokvardhan who was the grandson of
Chandragupt Maurya. The period of Chandragupt Maurya was already pulled
down from 1541 BC to 312 BC by Jones and it was subsequently followed by
the other European writers. So, whatever ancient coins and
edicts of that period (3rd to 4th century B.C.) were found, they tried
to patch it up with Ashokvardhan (Maurya), which, in fact, were
related to Samudragupt Ashokaditya. In general, they
fabricated and created such records that showed wrong historic dates
of all of the important historical figures like Panini, Buddh
and Shankaracharya etc.
In this way their writers constructed an enormous
amount of biased literature against Indian religion and history that
flooded all the libraries of India and of the world, which became the
basis for all other writers to follow the same line of negative concepts
about India; and thus, the glory of our scriptural Dignity was suppressed
under the weight of their fabricated net of forged ideologies.
They spoiled the social structure of India
along with its national developments.
The policy of the Britishers to create personal embitterment in the
community, the emphasis on the English education, to represent the Vedic
religion in a most demeaning manner, to keep the Indians under the grip of
poverty by not promoting the industrial developments of India, and to own
the big commercial companies themselves, damaged the entire social
structure of India. As a result, the common people of India lost their
national consciousness. They forgot that the welfare of India is their own
welfare and the damage to India is their own damage; and thus, a deep
instinct of personal selfishness grew in the hearts of the Indians from
which they couldnít recover.
The nineteenth century and the twentieth century were
the prime time in the history of the world when major social, industrial
and scientific developments happened and the prosperity of a country
touched its heights. But, during that time India was only sucked of its
resources and was left far behind because of the ruling policy of the
British. Two hundred years of loss in the field of commercial,
industrial, technological and
scientific development is such a big thing which can hardly be recouped.