How Indian History Was Distorted, The First History Of India

British rule of India has made Indians doubt their own culture, civilisation.

Seemingly well qualified scientists and others dismiss India’s rich culture, History and the icons of India, Rama, Krishna,Shiva, despite being presented with astronomical archeological evidence.

Such is the entrenched misinformation by the British in their about 350  years of Rule of India.

If one were to look for information on India and Hinduism, references pop up written by Western Authors, most of them self-proclaimed Missionaries, starting from Robert De Nobili of Tamil Nadu, Bishop Caldwell, Max Mueller, right to our secular educated Indians.

Ancient India.jpg

Indian sources do not get any importance at all nor were they available in one place.

You find only westwern authors books as ‘Auhentic source”

Just who stated this whole business of rewriting Indian Histroy?

And who wrote this First Indian History ?

It was by James Mill who wrote the First Book, ‘History of British India’ in  1806.

( His son John Stuart Mill was a great Western Philosopher)

“James Mill began his History of British India in 1806, expecting it to take him about three years, but its completion proved to take instead twelve years, with three substantial volumes at last being published early in 1817. The work was immediately successful among British imperialists and secured for Mill for the first time a degree of prosperity. It led, with the support of David Ricardo andJoseph Hume, to Mill’s appointment in 1819 in United_Kingdom as assistant (later chief) examiner of correspondence at the imperialEast India Company at an annual salary of £800. By 1836, when he died, this income had become £2,000”


The book begins with a preface in which Mill tries to make a virtue of having never visited India and of knowing none of its native languages. To him, these are guarantees of his objectivity, and he boldly claims –

A duly qualified man can obtain more knowledge of India in one year in his closet in England than he could obtain during the course of the longest life, by the use of his eyes and ears in India.

However, Mill goes on in this preface to say that his work is a “critical, or judging history”, encompassing singularly harsh attacks on Hindu customs and a “backward” culture which he claims to be notable only for superstition, ignorance, and the mistreatment of women.

From the historical perspective, Mill tells the story of the English and, later, British acquisition of wide territories in India, severely criticizing those involved in these conquests and in the later administration of the conquered territories, as well as illuminating the harmful effects of commercial monopolies such as that of the imperial East India Company.[3] As a philosopher, Mill applies political theory to the description of the civilizations of India. His interest is in institutions, ideas, and historical processes, while his work is relatively lacking in human interest, in that he does not seek to paint memorable portraits of Robert Clive, Warren Hastings, and the other leading players in the history of British India, nor of its famous battles.[1] Indeed, the History has been called “…a work of Benthamite ‘philosophical history’ from which the reader is supposed to draw lessons about human nature, reason and religion”.[6]

Despite the fact that Mill had never been to India, his work had a profound effect on the British imperial system of governing the country, as did his later official connection with India”

James Mill & Mr. Charles Grant from Helebary College, wrote History of India and classified most of the literature of India as Mythological..

And the grounds for calling Indian History as Mythology.

The events in these texts seemed to go before the date of creation of the earth as fixed by Father. James Usher as 9 AM, 23rd Oct, 4004 BCE. Hence these texts which describe India and the existence of its civilization prior to this time could not be real and must be mythical or imaginary. A fact that has now been proven wrong by modern cosmology and traditional archeological finds. Hence this premise of Mr.Mill & Mr. Grant has been found to be flawed.

2. It was held by the colonial British that Alexander defeated Porus in 326 BCE and spread culture and civilized thought to India and that until then Indians were uncivilized barbarians. So the civilization described in these texts which seemed to be more advanced in science, technology, culture, philosophy and linguistics could not have existed prior to the arrival of Alexander and hence the texts are mythical. Not only has the existence of a civilized India prior to the arrival of Alexander been proved beyond an iota of doubt, the talk of the defeat of Porus in the hands of Alexander is also now being questioned with the uncovering of various pre biblical texts and piecing together various circumstantial evidences which point to the contrary namely, Alexander being wounded and defeated by Porus . Hence this premise of Mr.Mill & Mr. Grant is also flawed.

3. The British came up with the concept of the Aryan Invasion of India which spread culture and civilized thought to India and that until then Indians were uncivilized barbarians. Hence, again, the civilization described in these texts, which seemed to be more advanced in science, technology, culture, philosophy and linguistics could not have existed prior to the Aryan Invasion and hence the texts are mythical. The Aryan Invasion has now been dismissed by the Western historians as a figment of concoction by the British to justify their occupation of India as a rightful occupier of this Indian territory and beneficiary of its natural resources by painting the Indians themselves as belonging to the Aryan race in reality who had invaded and settled in India and set aside the original inhabitant Dravidian race as lower castes. This Aryan – Dravidian classification has now been proven to be racially incorrect as the entire Indian population has been found to belong to the same race despite their differences in features and complexion. Also the study of traditional Indian text has thrown to light how the terminologies Aryan and Dravidian were based on geographical division and not racial, cultural or civilizational. Thus this premise of Mr.Mill & Mr. Grant also seems to be flawed.

4. They held that the Genealogies were incoherent and hence the texts were imaginary or mythical. It is to be noted that while texts contained Genealogies, their focus was on key human achievements, Dharma and Principles to be followed – basically lessons for life. Given this, there is a therefore a good possibility for gaps or inconsistencies in discussing the order in Genealogy, but that cannot detract from the historicity of the texts.”

All the four reasons are false and wilfully incorporated.

Alexander did not win the war against Porus.

And Chandra Gupta never met Megasthanes!

  1. Megasthenes has nowhere mentioned the word Maurya
  2. He makes absolutely no mention of a person called either Chanakya or Kautilya.
  3. Indian historians have recorded two Chandra guptas, one of the Maurya dynastyand another of the Gupta dynasty. Both of them had a grandson called Ashoka. While the Mauryan Chandragupta’ s son was called Bimbasara (sometimesBindusara), The Gupta Chandragupta had a son called Samudragupta. Interestingly Megasthenese has written that Sandrakuttos had a son called Samdrakyptos, which is phonetically nearer to Samudragupta and not Bindusara.
  4. The king lists given by the Puranas say that 1500 years elapsed from the time of the Kurukshetra war to the beginning of the Nanda dynasty’s rule. If one assumes the Nandas’ period to be 5th century BCE, this would put the Bharatha war around 1900 BCE whereas the traditional view has always been 3100 BCE. This gives a difference of 1200 years which go unaccounted.
  5. Megasthanese himself says 137 generations of kings have come and gone between Krishna and Sandrakuttos, whereas the puranas give around 83 generations only between Jarasandha’s son (Krishna’s contemporary) to the Nandas of the Magadha kingdom.. Assuming an average of 20 to 25 years per generation, the difference of 54 generations would account for the gap of the 1200 years till the time of Alexander.”

This link from wikipedia says that “After victory, Alexander made an alliance with Porus and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom”. This is difficult to believe: IMO no noble king would accept his kingdom back after being defeated.

Also claimed there: “Exhausted and frightened by the prospect of facing another giant Indian army at the Ganges River, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern Beas), refusing to march further East. Alexander, after the meeting with his officer Coenus, was convinced that it was better to return.” Did that mutiny actually occur?

After traveling hundreds of miles from Greece and even winning the battle, why would Alexander return without conquering India?

Specifically, I want to know what actually happened in the battle between Alexander and Porus: Who won? Was it true that King Porus defeated Alexander and made him flee back to Greece ? Whoever won the battle, Alexander or Porus, what historical evidence is there regarding what actually happened in that encounter?”

And the Myth of ryan Invasion.

Please read my post on this which conclusovely disproes Ayan Dravidian Theory.


One thought on “How Indian History Was Distorted, The First History Of India

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s