Very, very rarely have I come across such a muddled mind. Bless you and may you stay safe. The world is a truly dangerous place.It is a complex issue. I'm not entirely sure Chanakiya belongs to coterminous Pakistan, however, many notable pre-Islamic figures do. Other threads have mentioned such cases and are better verified than Chanakiya, so please refer to them. If it is proven that Chanakiya belongs to us, we will certainly claim him. We are for now well aware of how dangerous our enemy has become because of his teachings - perhaps that is part of why we reject such an individual at present. He himself is not "traitorous" towards the IVC per se, but certainly those hindutva who reference him today are very much hell bent on destroying the descendants of their great rivals, the IVC.
Sadly, Pakistan's history was stolen by the same people who appropriated the word "India". True - we didn't fight much over it at the time - perhaps we were more occupied with the traumatic pogroms being initiated by the secular republic. Certainly, history matters, but lives matter first.
When hindutva is finally unravelled and the ghosts of the Jammu and Kashmir pogroms are vanquished by virtue of truth, destructive vengeance and reconciliation in equal measure, then and only then we can reclaim our history and leave the gangetic city states to squabble over their miserable past.
It would be no surprise at all if more thinkers of yesteryear turned out to be Pakistani and not gangetic in origin. The IVC was the main target of the steppe land Aryans who swept in from the Caucasus. We were the target because we were on the map. To the east of the Indus were elephants and those who rode elephants. Alexander turned back. The Aryans campaigned against the IVC and simply enslaved the gangetics. Time after time, history has ignored everything east of the Indus Valley.
This my friends, is why the inferiority complex persists to our east.
The Pakistani author of this article has created a "click bait" opinion piece. He has not bothered to ask us - the sons of IVC - what we actually feel about our IVC heritage. He has simply regurgitated the secular republic's myth so that secular republicans from the gangetic plains will click on his article.
Had he spoken the truth, or had I written the article, it would get fewer clicks for speaking the truth in the face of gangetic mythology.
Having read the comments and posts up to this point, I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.
You are getting better and better.His teachings are simply too dangerous to mankind in hindutva hands. Once hindutva is eliminated, decisions can be taken on which parts of his philosophies will be rejected and which can be preserved. Certainly, there will be no need to deny his impact on history as a son of Indus soil.
You have to think at a deeper level than that.More like uniting everything under the Mauryas. That is hardly national integration. That is establishing hegemony.
All regions, all individuals were members of a single culture. There was nothing left to unite other than political sovereignty. Establishing hegemony meant precisely national integration, in those terms. Other than dissolving political cells and membranes that separated individuals, families and groups from other individuals, families and groups, nothing was left to be done.
Chanakya? Not to anyone's knowledge. What he did refer to himself as is not known to history.
Kautilya, within the Arthasastra? No. Nowhere.
Chandragupta Maurya? He didn't have too much time for these refinements; he was dedicated to other, brutal goals, that might or might not have other beneficial effects.
Ashoka, his grandson? Read any one of his edicts. He speaks of himself as Devanampiya, the beloved of the gods.
A good analogy, and one that can be used against you in a most appropriate manner.There are plenty of documents that can support the argument about the latter two. Do you have anything to support the first? Especially considering that documents so far back are limited.
I am hesitant to support the thought that every empire had a unifying idea behind it. That would mean that the Congolese wholeheartedly supported the idea of a Belgian Empire, or the Algerians supported the idea of a United France or, more closer to us, that Indians supported the idea that the Sun never sets on the British Empire.
Imagine now an empire of the Congolese headed by one who is himself Congolese, and imbued in the culture of the Congo. Or an Algerian realm, minus Metropolitan France, ruled by an Algerian. Or an India united under an Indian.
Does it look different now?
If lying and deceitfulness is the learning of the Arthasastra, you really need an education. Read it first, then come to conclusions about what it teaches. You are confusing the popular Indian image of Chanakya as a ruthless, infinitely wily conspirator with the teachings of the Arthasastra. Even that popular image is wrong, and is based on a degree of myth-building, compounded with ignorance, compounded with psychological insecurity.And what exactly is that essential Education which you can get from Chanakya which you can not get it from someone from the Islamic History ? If Lying and deceitfulness means Education for you than be my guest and go learn it , As Muslim we are not to lie or Deceit or being Dishonest even if we all are in danger, Truth and justice that is fundamental of our Faith that stretches to all the way back to Adam A.S from which all your so called Educators find their ancestry .
LOL.I don't know which world you're from but we were taught about history of the geographical land of Pakistan, from the very start. Why would we though teach people about a philosopher whose ideas go against the idea of a Two Nation Theory?
Seriously. Tell me what the **** are we supposed to do with this information. Put up a fucking statue? Bigger issues at hand.
And you don't even have a clue about what we are discussing. What did you learn about 'history of the geographical land of Pakistan', by the way? And how did you know what Kautilya was trying to say in the Arthasastra?