What's new

Why is great philosopher Kautilya not part of Pakistan’s historical consciousness?

You presume that 100% People in Pakistan / India / CHINA rallied behind Jinnah, Nehru or Mao respectively.
They Didnt.

Idea : One nation
Leader : Maurya

Idea : Islam
Leader : Mr. Jinnah

Idea : Socialism
Leader : Mao

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.
 
Man, did any Mauryan King even referred himself as Indian, Arya or Bhartiya King? Nehru called him Indian Prime Minister - similarly others knew their 'titles'.

Did I claim it ?
Or did i mention that Chankya claimed to be INDIAN ?

He wanted a UNITED NATION. INTEGRATED rather divided in smaller kingdoms.
 
If we can get education from china then why not chankiya?

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 .
 
Which Teachings ?

He Never Talked about HINDUTVA. All Were Hindus in his Time.
He talk about UNITING INDIA / National Integration.

He was worried about lack of Unity in India and Powers like Alexander.
What do you mean "what teachings"? Chanakiya itself is a word used to describe both the teacher and his teachings: subterfuge, deception, Machiavellianism.

The reason I like your post is that by feigning ignorance on the matter, you yourself are displaying "chanakiya" with aplomb.

Well done to you.

Not entirely accurate. All those who you cite above represented an idea, that people rallied around.

I do not believe that establishment of an empire was an idea that everyone rallied around, especially those that were defeated by Chandragupta Maurya, like the Nandas or the kingdoms in the South and East (sorry don't know their names). Don't get me wrong, I don't think any less of the Mauryas and their empire. But I differ with your characterization of national integration, when it really was empire-building.
Absolutely the right analysis. The Mauryans were an empire, seizing power from subcontinental city states. The only thing "Indian" there was the apparent IVC heritage of Chanakya.

Several posters here will relentlessly describe ancient empires as Indian this or Indian that, when they were no such thing.

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.
Sir, you have brutally laid bare the Chanakiya at the heart of Delhi's revisionist historical narratives.

Their history is not as pure and natively saffron as they would like to present. There is no smooth transition from native Hindustani precursors and primordials into the modern secular republic. On the contrary! The history of the gangetic peoples is simply one of numerous gangs of invaders mixing blood with the genuinely "native" animists and vying for power against one another in an orgy of propaganda, confused syncretism and simple opportunism. One gang (Aryans or brahminists or hindutva depending on your interpretative origin point) came out on top and subjugated whatever and whomsoever they could. Because brahministan perfected a system of control and manipulation of masses like no Mughal, Afghan, Brit or Portuguese could, they ultimately are still in power today.

The narrative that brahminists are legitimate rulers of India while mughals are not is truly the most laughable aspect of hindutva when the whole gamut of facts is viewed objectively. Hindus gladly razed Hindu temples under the patronage of Muslim rulers when it was required in their efforts to seize power (famous example during the Mysorean wars with Marathas). Would legitimate sons of the soil really engage in such chanakiya?
 
Thank you for bringing him to my attention, I was unaware that he was also a Pakistani.

It seems for whatever reason, despite having a profound history of our own, we tend to mostly ignore it. At the same time Indians often proudly claim it as their own. I don't know what to make of it... In any case, I am quite happy to accept our ancient history and believe it should be taught to every Pakistanis.

The reasons are because a large part of our populace has been brainwashed by the mad mullahs that anything non muslim is not worth associating with. Then there are others who don't have a profound and ancient history as the rest of us and it makes them feel insecure so they too try to down play it by hiding behind the religious garb.

I said before in another thread until and unless the literacy rate goes up and people become more educated and thus are in a position to reclaim our heritage, this state of affairs will persist.
 
Which Teachings ?

He Never Talked about HINDUTVA. All Were Hindus in his Time.
He talk about UNITING INDIA / National Integration.

He was worried about lack of Unity in India and Powers like Alexander.

Then good riddance. Why would we celebrate such a figure? Happy to be the land of Indus Valley Civilization either way.

What all past do you acknowledge between the Indus Valley Civilization and Muhammad bin Qasim.

What the **** do you want us to do with this past? It's gone and forgotten, grow out of it. It's the 21st century.
 
Chandragupta employed female bodygaurds. He had a weird fetish of them. I won't be surprised if he was involved in some Kinky Stuff with them.

And that is what comes to mind, after reading about universities, and learning, and a panoply of stellar talent educated there, and a master statesman and his master-class in statecraft in book form?

Kinky stuff indeed.
 
And that is what comes to mind, after reading about universities, and learning, and a panoply of stellar talent educated there, and a master statesman and his master-class in statecraft in book form?

Kinky stuff indeed.

Even greek philosophers despite all their work had some interesting things to say about females and their "inferiority."
 
2017 article.


Ah, now we have the key. It is obsolete information.

Anyways though, it's not that we don't acknowledge this past. We do. It goes way further back, all the way back to the Indus Valley Civilization. It's all good, we don't despise, we acknowledge, but what do you want us to do with them?

They have their historical sites and stuff, because they're history, and our current identity coupled with our new history has nothing to do with them. Why should we celebrate this figure who has nothing to do with our current identity and history, rather than our leaders who saved us from Indians, you will find plenty of philosophers in there too.

Yes, absolutely. Junk the old lot and let's not waste time on them. What do you want to do with them?
 
The reasons are because a large part of our populace has been brainwashed by the mad mullahs that anything non muslim is not worth associating with. Then there are others who don't have a profound and ancient history as the rest of us and it makes them feel insecure so they too try to down play it by hiding behind the religious garb.

I said before in another thread until and unless the literacy rate goes up and people become more educated and thus are in a position to reclaim our heritage, this state of affairs will persist.

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?

Ah, now we have the key. It is obsolete information.



Yes, absolutely. Junk the old lot and let's not waste time on them. What do you want to do with them?

Seriously. Tell me what the **** are we supposed to do with this information. Put up a fucking statue? Bigger issues at hand.
 
"kautilya" or "kau dalla" even the name makes you throw up.

Chanakya was the advisor to Chandragupta Maurya. Kautilya was the author of the Arthasastra. It is not established that Chanakya and Kautilya were the same person.

It is interesting that even a name, whatever might have been the meaning behind it, nauseates you because it is unfamiliar to you. Long may you prosper; as long as you and your like are prosperous, your country's neighbours are safe.
 
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.

Look I don't expect you to agree with me, but I will say what I said before there is nothing wrong with accepting our own past. As far as the 2 nation theory is concerned then if religion was alone enough to bind people together then Bangladesh wouldn't have happened.
 
Thank you for bringing him to my attention, I was unaware that he was also a Pakistani.

It seems for whatever reason, despite having a profound history of our own, we tend to mostly ignore it. At the same time Indians often proudly claim it as their own. I don't know what to make of it... In any case, I am quite happy to accept our ancient history and believe it should be taught to every Pakistanis.

Perhaps I could help?

Take it that there was no Pakistani history or Indian history in the sense of the history of either of these modern nation-states. Take it that you are a resident of one river-valley out of nine that formed a composite culture, where ideas and concepts were held in common right across. Take it that learning about this composite culture will give you back your legacy, and fill you with pride at being the descendant of a very evolved culture and civilisation. Take it that learning these things should not nauseate you, as it has already nauseated another member, or alienate you from your present culture, the one in the middle of which you are alive and aware of your social relations.

Good luck. If you do set out on this journey, it will be a long and elaborate one, but full of rich rewards.

dont think kautilya maybe from Pakistan. what supporting evidence is presented in claiming his heritage from present day pakistan?

regards

Nothing is known about Kautilya. What we know about Chanakya is a mish-mash of the most horrible fairy tales from Buddhist and Jain accounts. It is known that he studied at Takshashila.

Since you don't know much about him, and since nobody else does either, it is quite safe to claim him, body, soul and heritage.
 
Thank you for bringing him to my attention, I was unaware that he was also a Pakistani.

It seems for whatever reason, despite having a profound history of our own, we tend to mostly ignore it. At the same time Indians often proudly claim it as their own. I don't know what to make of it... In any case, I am quite happy to accept our ancient history and believe it should be taught to every Pakistanis.
Not a Pakistani. He was born in present day bihar and his father was head minister in the court of Dhan-Nanda, had primary education there but later fled to Taxila, which is in present day pakistan, after his father publicly rebelled against policies of king and his court which went against the benefit of people.

But yeah, for all intents an purpose, he gained his knowledge in Taxila.
I have always wondered why Pakistani members here dont like to listen to that.
 

Back
Top Bottom