The Divine knowledge of Hindu (Bhartiya) scriptures could have benefited the aspirants of God of the whole world. But, the diplomats of the British, who were ruling India in those days, clouded this opportunity by extensively launching their deliberate false propagation about India and its universal Hindu religion, and not only that, they degraded Hindu culture by all means, and thus, hampered the spiritual growth of the whole world. A fair example is the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1854 itself in which they fed such derogatory statements about Hindu (Bhartiya) religion.

“In architecture, in the fine arts, in painting and music, the Hindus are greatly inferior to the Europeans. ‘The columns and pillars,’ says Tennant, ‘which adorn their immense pagodas, are destitute of any fixed proportions; and the edifices themselves are subjected to no rules of architecture.’ He afterwards adds that the celebrated mausoleum at Agra has little to boast of either in simplicity or elegance of design.”

“The music of the Hindus is rude and inharmonious. They have numerous instruments, but those are preferred which make the most noise.” (p. 477)

“In the medical art: charms, incantations, exorcisms and the shallowest tricks are substituted for professional skill; and other imposters, generally Brahmins, practise astrology, and cheat them out of their money by pretended prophecies.”

“The literature of the Hindus has been generally rated very low by European writers, and has been represented as consisting in long desultory poems, inflated, and extravagant in their style, containing, under the idea of a history, a tissue of absurd fables.” (pp. 474, 477)

“Their religion is that of a rude people, consisting in an endless detail of troublesome ceremonies.”

“The state of morals among the Hindus is such as might be expected from a religion so impure.”

“The historical poem, the Mahabharat, is a tissue of extravagant fables.” (pp. 467, 470, 478)

“The Hindus are by no means a moral people. According to the observation of Orme, the politics of Hindustan would afford in a century more frequent examples of sanguinary cruelty than the whole history of Europe since the reign of Charlemagne.” (p. 472)

“The Hindu rulers, however ignorant in other matters, thus appear to have been familiar with all the most approved modes of plundering their subjects. Power was here a license to plunder and oppress. The rod of the oppressor was literally omnipresent; neither persons nor property were secure against its persevering and vexatious intrusions.” (p. 476)

“Sevajee, the founder of this new state, was the chief of the Rajpoot princes. In his youth he resided at Poonah, on a zemindary estate obtained by his father. Here he collected around him a numerous banditti, and plundered the country.” (p. 479)

It is thus evident that the English people misguided the entire world by giving a false image of Hinduism and the universal Hindu religion.

While going through the Bhavishya Puran at one place I found some discrepancy in the contents of the verses. Again, when I looked at it carefully, I discovered that some of the verses are fabricated. It was not difficult to find out as to who would have done that, because the direct beneficiary of this fabrication was Sir William Jones.

Jones, in his tenth presidential speech in 1793, stressed on the period of Chandragupt Maurya to be 312 BC and mentioned that Chandragupt had a treaty with Seleucus. The derived date of Chandragupt in these fabricated verses comes to exactly 312 BC. Thus, to justify his false statement of 1793, this fabrication must have been done according to his instructions. Jones died a year later, so it may have been done after his death.

It’s a general understanding that crime always leaves some clue, but here we have more than that. It appears that the learned pandit who was doing this job for the people of the Asiatic Society, was doing it under some kind of social or family pressure and against his conscience. So he did the job and created the verses with the desired dates, whatever they wanted, but he fully messed up the genealogical description of Buddh and Chandragupt.

The general meaning of the verses of Chapter 6: “Sage Kashyap begot Gautam who was Hari. Gautam introduced Buddh religion and reigned for 10 years. His son Shakya Muni ruled for 20 years and then his son Shuddhodan ruled for 30 years. Shuddhodan’s son was Shakya Singh who was born at the elapse of 2,700 years of kaliyug. This king was the destroyer of Vedic religion. He ruled for 60 years and converted everyone into Buddhism. Shakya Singh’s son was Buddh Singh who ruled for 30 years. Buddh Singh’s son was Chandragupt who ruled for 60 years. His son Bindusar ruled for 60 years. Bindusar’s son was Ashok…”

Comments: These verses were fabricated by the English people. It is an historical fact that Gautam Buddh did not rule any kingdom as he had renounced the world, and the second thing is that he was the son of Shuddhodan. But here Shuddhodan is shown as the grandson of Gautam. Gautam Buddh was during the time of King Bimbsar of Shishunag dynasty in 1800’s BC. But here Buddh’s time comes to 462 BC [2,700 years of kaliyug (-) 60 (10 + 20 + 30) years = 2,640, and subtracting 2,640 years from 3102 BC, which is the beginning of kaliyug, it comes to 462 BC] which was the desired figure by the English people.

Another thing is, that each and every writer has accepted Chandragupt as the son of Nand. But here Chandragupt is shown as the son of Buddh Singh and the great-grandson of Shuddhodan (who was the historically known father of Gautam Buddh). The actual period of Chandragupt is 1500’s BC. But here it comes to 312 BC [2,700 + (60 + 30) = 2,790]. Deducting 2,790 years, (the elapsed period of kaliyug) from 3102 BC (the beginning of kaliyug) comes to 312 BC which was especially desired by Jones.

From the above discussions it is thus clear that the obedient servants of the British regime, the people of the Asiatic Society and East India Company, fabricatingly muddled up the historic dates of important personalities in our original records.