Posted on: 2 October 2016

Digital Rare Book:
The Plot in Indian Chronology
By Pandit Kota Venkatachalam
Published by the Author in Vijayawada - 1953

Read Book Online:

http://bit.ly/2dHg4GZ

Download pdf Book:

http://bit.ly/2dmBarl

"The present volume is a mine of information which may benefit all sorts of readers, particularly those in the field of Indological research. There is a common notion among our research scholars in Indian history that it is a sacrilege to question the chronology determined by the European Indologists. These scholars forget that the early European Indologists themselves were conscious of the weakness of their theories and most of the dates that they assigned were, in their own opinion, tentative. The subsequent scholars, with superstitious loyalty to their predecessors, accepted the latters’ theories as gospel truths. Thus what were once guesses or tentative hypotheses were later considered to be sacred gospels. Sri Venkatachelam Garu’s works cannot deter those students and scholars of our ancient history who bear in mind the following memorable words of the late justice Kasinath Triyambak Telang, who is noted for his sobriety and openmindedness in Indological research. "It appears to me, I confess, that it is these ‘likings’ and ‘satisfactions’ and ‘foregone conclusions’ lying in the back of most of the logical artillery which European scholars have brought to bear upon the chronology of our ancient literature, it is this that is temporarily doing damage to its antiquity...Not only hypotheses were formed on the weakest possible collection of facts, but upon such hypotheses further superstructures of speculation are raised. And when it is done, the essential weakness of the base is often effectually kept out of view."

Foreword:
KOTA VENKATACHALAM
By Jatavallabhula Purushottam

The venerable author of this book, Sri Kota Venkatachalam Garu, has been working with single-minded devotion to salvage the ancient history of India from the ravages of modern Indologists, both European and Indian. He has shown, in this and in his sixteen volumes preceding this, that a fairly accurate history of our country can be constructed from the material available in the Puranas and other ancient literature and that the innumerable errors and deliberate distortions of facts in what now passes for Indian history are due to the prejudice of foreign Indologists against our Puranic and other indigenous literature and the consequent neglect of the historical material contained therein, during their attempts to construct Indian history.

The author and many others that are critical of these Indologists should have bowed at their feet if they had achieved the little bit that they have done in constructing our genuine history without the aid of the Puranas. All that is worth anything in the history they have written is drawn from the Puranas. Sir William Jones, who laid the foundation of Indian history, openly acknowledged his indebtedness to the Puranas. It is no exaggeration to say that without the aid of the Puranas even the outlines of Indian history could not be drawn.

It is a pity that all old records in the world, except the Indian, were ransacked and given credence to, by our Indologists and it is this misplaced hope and trust that were responsible for the imperfectness and incorrectness of Indian history as it now obtains. If the Indologists had shown to Indian literature at least half the respect that they have shown to foreign records, their labours would have been a thousand times more successful.

Why, then, should the Indologists discard the Puranic accounts generally? The reason is not far to seek. The European scholars who were accustomed to the Biblical idea of the age of the world and the chronology of Greek and Roman histories that are matters of less than three thousand years were stunned at the Puranic chronology that dealt with lakhs and crores of years, which sounded more astronomical than historical, to their ears. It is this that was mainly responsible for their attempt to cut down our chronology without any compunction. Crores of years were all of a sudden reduced to thousands and hundreds and dire historical facts were represented as primitive myths. Not a few of the early European Indologists were influenced by imperialistic motives in their attempt to minimise the hoary antiquity and greatness of India which was just then becoming a subject nation. A superiority complex in the subject nation might one day lead to a rebellion against its masters and an attempt to regain its greatness.

The logic with which Sri Venkatachelam Garu has proved the genuineness of the three post-Mahabharata eras is irrefutable. The Yudhishtira Era, the Kali Era and the Saptarshi Era have been continuously and consistently followed in our country and the author asks what prevents the historians from pursuing the history of Bharat along these Eras. By summarily repudiating these Eras, the historians could effect a cut of 1200 years in the post-Mahabharata chronology. The author, in a closely reasoned discourse exposes the hollowness of the theories of our Indologists in this regard.

Equally admirable is the author’s attack (in his work on Kashmir history) on the date of birth of Buddha so boldly asserted in our text-books on history. He unfolds to us evidence from a number of ancient sources which carries Buddha so far back as the 19th Century B.C.

By disproving the identity of Chandragupta Maurya with the Sandrokottas of the Greeks and by carrying back Chandragupta Maurya to the 16th century B.C., the author has cut at the sheet-anchor of the Indian chronology of European Indologists.

The author proves with incisive logic and glaring illustrations the hollowness of the common charge that Indians sadly lack historical literature. He shows that Magadha, Kashmir and Nepal have got historical records, which are as reliable as any other historical material in the world.

The author has shown that the Yavanas, Sakas and some others, that were supposed to be nations or tribes outside India, were the original inhabitants of India in the provinces bearing the respective names of these peoples and that the so-called Yavana and Saka lands etc., outside India took their names from their inhabitants that migrated from India and occupied those lands. This is one of the original theories of the author.

Read more:

http://bit.ly/2dv7Bpa


 View Post on Facebook
 Download the Book from RBSI Archive

Comments from Facebook

IV. The Aihole Inscription Now we shall take up the Aihole Inscription and show that the 'Saka used in it is only that of 78 A.D. and not the other one alleged by TSN and echoed by certain other scholars. Discussing the age fo VM in his Age of Sankara, Pt.I-D, pp. 224ff., TSN takes up the Aihole Inscription for consideration, and tries to show that the 'Saka Era mentioned therein is his own 'Saka of 550 B.C. from the synchronism found in it between the 'Saka Era and the Bharata War. The portion of the inscription relevant to our discussion is the following: [trim'satsu trisahasresu bharatad ahavaditah/ saptabda'satayuktesu 'sa (?ga) tesvabdesu pancasu/ panca'satsu Kalau Kale satsu panca'satasu ca/ samasu samatitasu 'Sakanam api bhubhujam]// In trying to interpret this passage, Dr. Fleet at first (Indian Antiquary, V(1876)67-73) made the mistake of thinking that the time of the inscription is given in three eras, viz. [Bharata War, the Kali and the 'Saka. Perhaps he was led into this mistake by the word 'sata' occuring thrice (sapataba'satayuktesu, 'satesvabdesu, and panca'satasu) and the statement in the Puranas that the Kali epoch is different from the Bharata War. But subsequently, in IA VIII (1879) 240-41, Dr. Fleet acknowledged his mistake and gave the correct reading by emedning 'satesu into gatesu (for, in the Kanarese-Telugu script in which the inscription is engraved on roch, ga, with a horizontal stroke across would become 'sa and the engraver might have been misled into adding the stroke here by the large number of 'sa letters occurring the context; or it might have been caused by weathering) and interpreting the passage as 3735 years from the Kali epoch, after the Bharata War, and 556 years 'Saka kings, i.e. 556 years in ('Salivahana) 'Saka Era. This interpretation is accepted by all scholars (see for instance, Kielhorn, Ep. Ind., VI (1900-01) 1-12), except TSN and KV. But the emendation of 'satesu into gatesu is accepted by TSN. He also accepts the fact that only two dates are given, of which one is 'Saka Era. This necessitates the two expressions 'after the [Bharata War]' and 'from the Kali epoch' to be taken together, as giving one date. If the Kali epoch is meant as important and the [Bharata War] is mentioned here simply to described it, without any more troble we get the interpretation, '3735 years from the Kali epoch', which beautifully synchronises with the 'Salivahan 'Saka year 556 given, (about this number there is no dispute), for if we deduct from 3735 the wellknown converter 3179 we get 556, which itself proves that this must be the 'Salivahana 'Saka of 78 A.D. If, on the other hand, the [Bharata War] is taken as important, and also that the War was fought 36 years earlier (TSN makes it 38 to suit his calculations) according to one sub-school taken advantage of by TSN, then there is trouble, for the War took place in 3140 B.C. according to TSN. 3735 years from this date there is no 'Saka epoch to synchronise with. But TSN sorely wants it to synchronise with the 'Saka of 550 B.C. postulated by him. He clutches at an error committed in a collection of old records publihed for literary study, the [Pracinalekhamala, (N.S. Press, Bombay, Kavyamala Series 16), thinking that it will help him. In the [Pracinalekhamala, saptabda'sata] is printed as [sahabda'sata]. Whether this is a misprint or an intended emendation, we do not know. But this much we can say, that the letter is certainly pata and not ha, as anyone can verify from the photo-print of the inscription reproduced in IA V (1876) op.p.69,ib.VIII (1879) op.p.241, Ep.Ind.VI (1900-01) op. p.7, etc.) and comparing the letters. Not only this; the word [saha] will be a repetition, because there is the word [yukta] giving the same meaning; also [saha] requires an instrumental to govern, which is not available in the verse. In spite of all this, TSN takes this [saha] instead of [sapta] and gets the number 31355, of course, as we have pointed out, with a duplicate [saha] serving no purpose in the interpretation ) and begins to effect the sybchronisation thus (see p.189, plot in Indian Chronology);The Aihole Inscription is 3135 years frm the War, viz. 3140 B.C. So the date of the inscription is 5 B.C. And then the inscription is 556 years from the 'Saka epoch (of TSN), viz. 550 B.C. 556 years from 550 B.C. is 6 B.C. (so says TSN), for he wants it, and wish is father to thought). 6 B.C. is only one year off 5 B.C. (obtained above), which can be easily accounted for, and the synchronism established; which shows that the 'Saka mentioned in the inscription is his 'Saka of 550 B.C. But TSN and KV who quotes him seem to be unaware of the blunder in the calculation, and that 556 years from 550 B.C., is not 6 B.C., but 7 A.D.; and this date is 11 years off 5 B.C., and no amount of jugglery can spirit this period of 11 years off and the synchronism is far from being establised. Waht is more, having failed to prove the 550 B.C. 'Saka, but thinking that it has been proved, TSN indulges in a tirade against Orientalists and their ways (see p.190, ibid.), unconscious all the while, that it all applies to TSN himself!: "Alas ! it is a great pity that these Orientalists should at first conceive a theory of their own, and then actively set themselves to work out the same by hook or by crook, by changing every authority to suit their own favourite hypotheses, and by hoisting up the fabricated text as the only true version, while they perfectly know all the while in their own heart of hearts that they have been able to achieve their objects only by fabricated evidence and meddling with the original authorities..... The Orientalists simply beg the question, and beat about the bush in discussing such matters (here, explanation of the word 'Saka), blowing hot and cold at the same time, misjudging themselves, and misleading others, and thereby keeping back the Truth as far away as possible from the ken of ordinary public." How aptly these words apply to TSN himself! Source: http://bit.ly/2dd8OxT

Thanks to Gurunath Kanathur for sharing this book with us.

HISTORY IS THE WITNESS OF THE TIMES – KOTA VENKATACHALAM Sri Kota Venkatachalam is the founder of a new historical research methodology of adducing our puranas as source material and reconstructed chronology of Bharatiya history from the date of Mahabharata war (3138B.C) to 1193A.D. The credit of establishing historical authenticity of the puranas mainly goes to Sri Venkatachalam. He proved that 3138B.C.was the year of Mahabharata war and 1534B.C. was the real date of chandragupta Maurya. There is a difference of 1210 years between the date of 1534B.C. and the date 324B.C. fixed for Chandragupta Maurya by European Indologists. Sri Kota venkatachalam has corrected this blunder by quoting in detail from our puranas as well as from Jain and Buddhist texts. Thus twelve centuries of time after Mahabharata war and ten centuries before that are set right and our entire history has been put on right track again by him through his 24 volumes of monumental research wok. He proved with irrefutable evidence that Chandragupta (Sandracottus) of Gupta dynasty was ruling from pataliputra as his capital when Alexander invaded Bharat. Read more: http://bit.ly/2dmDbUq

Just a few inane questions from an ignoramus. When and how did the Puranas come into being? Does any of them have any mention of Chandragupta Maurya? If so, why? What deeds of this supposedly 3600 year old character brought him to the limelight? And by the way, where was Chanakya all this time? And which Chandragupta met Alexander, married Selucus' daughter and was written about by Megasthenes?

Where can I buy this book on line

It's a privilege to come across these rare books. Thanks to the Rare Book Society of India. :-)

I have read his book in Telugu, which I bought from Abids footpath book vendor. One of my friends took it & gone! He is master of Hindu chronology,

1534 B.C. was the year of Chandragupta Maurya's WHAT? Birth? Marriage? Death? Introduction to Google? What?

Ninish .. Ifu jus buy n keep.. U sure will have a intelligent bookshelf. Lol

Thanks!

present history thought

OK I buy it

Good one to buy and keep it in collection

the Mahahharata war took place in 3138 B.C, and that Kalidasa existed in the Ist century B.C. The author shows that those scholars who would not accept these dates chose to read "Saptabda" in the place of "Sahabda" in the original inscription. - fascinatingly true

Good information.. Thanks for sharing...

Caught in dismay... The European historians' dates for Budha /Chandragupta vs those of K. Venkatachalam's research show unbelievable differences.....

??????? ,?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? !!!

Thx. Some 1 truly cares

Thought worthy

Kish Pankhania

Sagar

INTELLIGENT! AUTHENTIC! ! LOGICAL!!! SIMPLY . ... .... "SUPERB"!