History can never be false. History itself is an irrevocable truth which has been engraved in some aspect of the cycle of time. But history is made false. The facts of history were always distorted by leftist historians and academics. Bharat has always had the same problem that all the influential scholars among the interpreters of history were leftists. They tried to display history in such a way that the whole of Bharatiya history seems complete with casteism and social evils. In fact, from the time of the British, the work of twisting Bharatiya history was started institutionally which continued uninterrupted even after independence. Even in the mughal period, the work of tarnishing the great history of Bharat began, but the mughals were not able to understand the great significance of Bharatiya Sanatan. While paying tribute to their efforts, the historians of modern Bharat have given these cruel mughals a superior place in history which we are still finding today.
There was a common problem of leftist historians and intellectuals that they had great hatred for the Brahman. Hearing the words of Brahman, these intellectuals get distracted like a snake seeing a mongoose. The result of Brahman hatred is the demise of a great ruler of Bharatvarsh, a ruler who did uncountable attempts to fulfill the dream of Akhand Bharatvarsh and fought for the protection of the integrity of our great nation. This great ruler of Bharatvarsh was not even given a place equal to one tenth of the mughals in history. His crime was such that he was a Brahman and he dreamed of the restoration of the eroding Sanatan Dharm in the land of Maa Bharati.
This ruler was Pushyamitra Shung who founded the Shung dynasty. In this article, we will consider the false facts and information based on which Pushyamitra was called a narcissist and a fanatic.
Weakness of Maurya dynasty, growing crisis of intrusion on Bharatvarsh and rise of Pushyamitra:
The vision of the Akhand Bharat which was conceived by Acharya Chanakya began to fade after his death. The rulers of the Maurya dynasty became indifferent to the Vedic Dharm. Chandragupt Maurya became a follower of Jainism. Chandragupt’s son Bindusar himself took initiation from the Ajivik sect. After this, Bindusar’s son Ashok ascended the throne. Emperor Ashok, who expanded his empire by fierce violence, became non-violent. He was initiated into Buddhism. After this, Ashok’s entire life was spent promoting Buddhism. When the whole world was grappling with the crisis of border expansion, Ashok’s non-violence struck a deep blow on the valor of Bharat. Ashok ruled as a Buddhist emperor for 20 years. For this reason, the whole of Bharat’s governance fell to weakness. The rulers of the Maurya dynasty towards other creeds were not wrong. This was his personal matter but it was wrong to act to undermine the Sanatan Dharm of Bharat with the help of governance. It was wrong to impose the teachings of the Buddhist sect on the Vedic existence of Bharatvarsh. Bharatvarsh was getting hit by non-violence. This process of detachment from Bharatiya Sanatan Dharm continued till Brihadrath, the last ruler of the Maurya dynasty.
The Harshacharit composed by Banabhatt has also been called Brihadrath, Pratigya Durbal because Brihadrath failed to fulfill the promise of protection of his empire while sitting on the throne.
The Maurya Empire was becoming increasingly weak and this weakness reached its peak during the reign of Brihadrath. Most of the Magadh Empire had become Buddhist followers.
Amidst all this came the news that the Greek rulers were planning to attack Bharat. Pushyamitr Shung, who was the general of Brihadrath, was upset that on one side the enemy was advancing to attack and on the other hand his emperor was not showing any kind of activism. Pushyamitra started efforts at his level. He soon came to know from his detectives that Greek soldiers were hiding in monasteries disguised as Buddhist monks and some Buddhist religious leaders were also supporting him. Distressed by this information, Pushyamitra asked for permission to search Buddhist monasteries but Brihadrath was not ready for this. Nevertheless Pushyamitra acted on his own level. During this action, Pushyamitra and his soldiers encounter enemy soldiers hiding in the monasteries, in which many enemy soldiers were killed. Brihadrath was enraged by this action of Pushyamitra. He confronted Pushyamitra. On the one hand, the enemy was rising to the dream of victory of Bharat and here the Emperor of Bharat is engaged in a struggle with the general who is engaged in the protection of his borders. The emperor eventually succumbs to the conflict between the emperor and the general. The army was attached to Pushyamitra, so Pushyamitra Shung was declared king. Soon after becoming king, Pushyamitra Shung did all the reform work to rearrange the crippled empire. He drove out the Greek invaders moving towards the borders of Bharat and completely eliminated the Greek army from Bharat.
Thus Pushyamitra Shung again laid the foundation for a new united Bharat. An Akhand Bharatvarsh where Vedic Sanatan Dharm started returning to its original greatness. The Hindus who had gone to the Buddhist sect again returned to the shelter of Sanatan Dharm. Vedic education reached its peak during Pushyamitra Shung’s reign. He gave top priority to the importance of Sanatan Dharm among the elements of nation building. It is said that during the reign of Pushyamitra, almost all the inhabitants of Magadh Empire had access to Vedic education. The result of this was that Bharatvarsh was again attaining his eternal greatness.
The Mauryan empire was relaxed, as central control declined drastically, leading to a consolidation trend in many parts of the Magadh Empire. After Pushyamitra became the ruler, the task of correcting this weakness of the governance system was done. The system of appointing a governor and a co-ruler began during Pushyamitra’s reign. Villages were developed as the most subtle unit of governance. Thus Pushyamitra not only founded Sanatan Dharm but also did the work of streamlining the system of governance. This was the reason that Pushyamitra’s empire extended from the Himalayas in the north to the southernmost extent of Berar in the south and from Sialkot in the west to Magadh in the east.
Pushyamitra Shunga was a Brahman but not a fanatic:
Being a Brahman ruler does not mean that that ruler is a fanatic. If Pushyamitra was of a staunch instinct then his own army would have turned against him, which is not mentioned anywhere. Regarding Pushyamitra Shung, a Marxist historian Gargi Chakraborty set the agenda that he was a radical Brahman. It is well known that leftists and Marxists are fierce opponents of the Bharatiya Varn system and especially Brahmans. In such a situation, it cannot be expected that they will portray an unbiased character of a Brahman ruler. What kind of historian Gargi is, it is known from this that he has described Pushyamitra as a fanatic, on the basis of divyavadan.
Now let’s talk about divyavadan. Divyavadan means divine narrative. This implies that Divyavadan is a narrator who was a medium for the great characterization of Buddhists. In Buddhist creed, “Avdan” literature itself means great characterization of any person through stories. It is now pertinent that if a characterization of Buddhists would be done positively through a narrator, then who would be negative, certainly the same person who had a conflict with the Buddhists. That person is Pushyamitra Shung. How true Pushyamitra’s struggle with the Buddhists is being discussed further.
Pushyamitra Shung was neither anti-Buddhist nor the killer of Buddhists:
Imagine a cult that has been fully supported by the government for decades. Among whose followers was the ruler of a great empire. That cult is continuously thriving and becoming its followers in every corner of the nation. In the midst of all this, there comes a ruler who stops the government’s help for such works. In such a situation there is bound to be a conflict between that ruler and the sect. This is the truth of the struggle between Pushyamitra and the Buddhists.
From the time of Ashok’s reign, Buddhists continued to receive the support of the state and with the help of that support, Buddhists continued to grow throughout Bharat. This community-change continued until the reign of Brihadrath, but after Pushyamitra Shung was seated in the throne, this expansion of the Buddhists was curbed. This ban created a situation of conflict between the Buddhists and Pushyamitra.
The Buddhist monks for whom killing Pushyamitra was accused of were none other than Greek soldiers disguised as monks, who are mentioned in the article above.
Now compare this with the anti-Hindu riots in Delhi where the riots took place against the Hindus themselves. The rioters were Islamic fundamentalists who are now coming out in police investigations, but throughout the local media there were attempts to suppress Delhi riots in the name of CAA protest. Even the Delhi riots were given the name of suppression of Muslims by Hindus with the help of BJP government by the leftist international media. That is to say, it used to be that even before the breaking of facts against Sanatan Dharm and Hindus, it used to happen and is still happening today.
Pushyamitra is then accused of destroying Buddhist monuments.
There are also arguments against this charge.
First of all, it is known to all that most of the Buddhist stupas like Sanchi and Bharhut were rebuilt during the reign of Pushyamitra Shung. If Pushyamitra would have been so hostile to Buddhists, today Sanchi would not have seen a Buddhist stupa but a temple of Bhagwan Vishnu. A ruler who ruled for 36 years and who also owned a great army with a great empire could destroy one of the Buddhist identities from Bharat.
Compare the reign of Pushyamitra with the reign of the mughals who destroyed the places of worship of Hindus in Bharat. He targeted the most revered shrines of the Hindus. Among which Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura are prominent. The mughals not only destroyed these Sanatan centers, but also built mosques there. On the contrary, a staunch Brahmin like Pushyamitra could not destroy a stupa, forget to build a temple. The interpreters of history in Bharat have been just fair to the mughals who broke thousands of temples, but declared a Brahman ruler fanatic who only followed his Sanatan Dharm.
Pushyamitra is also accused of converting Buddhists, but it is completely misleading. Talking about the reign of the Mauryas, the Buddhists themselves inspired a large number of Hindus to adopt the Buddhist creed. Under the patronage of the reign, a large part of the Magadh Empire had become Buddhist. After Pushyamitra sat in the throne, the Hindus who became Buddhists started returning to the Sanatan Dhara. This is a natural process. When the faith in the Dharm of the people is strong, then in such a situation, these people return to their Dharm. In the present circumstances, RSS and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mahant Shri Yogi Adityanath have also been accused of conversion, which is completely baseless because a Hindu can never do the work of conversion but who leaves Hindu Sanatan Dharm and joins another sect, he definitely comes back one day. This is because no other creed has more freedom and thoughtfulness than Sanatan Dharm. The same happened during the reign of Pushyamitra Shung.
The greatest evidence of Pushyamitra’s not being staunch is the left historian Romila Thapar. Romila ji himself has clearly stated in his book “Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas” that there is no concrete evidence of the massacre of Buddhists by Pushyamitra.
Steven L. Danver in his book “Popular Controversies in World History” also expresses the possibility that Buddhists became hostile to Pushyamitra after the aid in the Mauryan Empire ceased.
Etienne Lamotte, who was a great scholar of Buddhist history, has stated in Steven’s book described above that even the great Buddhist thinkers and historians do not confirm that Pushyamitra was anti-Buddhist or in any way Massacred the Buddhists.
From all these facts and arguments, it can be concluded that Pushyamitra Shung was neither a fanatic nor a narcissist. The injustice, historians have done to Pushyamitra is not new and unexpected. This has been happening in Bharat. Today, when information technology has reached its peak, Kapil Mishra has been accused of Delhi riots and Narendra Modi of Gujarat riots just for making anti-Hindu narratives. Consider how the information system was not as modern as it is today, how Narrative was made against a great ruler. Modern historians have highlighted that Narrative and told how cruel the Hindu Emperor can be. Anyone who followed Sanatan Dharm in the history of Bharat was either tarnished in history or left marginalized. Bharatiya historians and intellectuals have a great love for Tipu Sultan who was truly cruel and made the life of Hindus like hell. This Tipu Sultan is the hero of today’s intellectuals and secular politicians, but Pushyamitra Shung is a staunch Brahman and murderer.
Pushyamitra’s crime is that he was a great Hindu emperor, in that too a Brahman and most importantly, he was a loyal follower of Sanatan Dharm. Now it is for you to decide whom you accept as your hero, to the mughals who broke our temples, raped our women, caused terrible loot, or the Pushyamitra who revived the dwindling Dharm.
Would you consider those Islamic fundamentalist rulers to be great who destroyed the great cultural and religious centers of Bharat, or the founder of the Shung dynasty under whose rule the literature of not only Hindu Dharm but other sects was developed. The Left will not tell you who freed Afghanistan from the Buddhist monasteries, but they will always tell you the false narrative of the massacre of Buddhists by Pushyamitra.
Today Bharat is awake and knowing its real history. It is expected that the citizens of Bharat will give due respect to their ruler, due to which the eternal Dharm of Bharat remained safe and is still moving towards its peak stage.
Pushyamitra Shung will remain immortal in the ideals of Hindus, throughout history.