On Chanakya

There were comments on a blog of mine which need some more arguments, I am writing it as a separate blog because it had nothing to do with the topic of Ayodhiya verdict of yesterday.

It is about Chanakya, and to share my opinion on him as I find it very often that people abuse that name and interpret him and his thoughts to be evil, and worst they call it a mentality and then try to impose it on Hindus as a nation or sect which is evil or cunning.

I think both approaches are wrong and mischievous and used as a tool by hate mongers who try to distort history by false claims and follow likes of Hitler and Goebbels (speak lie so regularly and with so patience and force that you yourself start to believe them) and people follow them without understanding and mostly without bothering to know more about that personality, his age and thoughts.

Chanakya was a worldly scholar, someone who was in a position of political command and manoeuvring and who did not told his thoughts from lips of a deity (as Hammurabi did), instead he presented them as of his own as teachings for those who are involved in worldly politics and power broking.

He was not the first, neither the last man to do so, Machiavelli is an example, Nizam ul Mulk Tusi wrote his Siyasatnama on same lines, Zia ud Din Barani has written Fatwa-i-Jahandari on same lines. So can we call all of them followers of Chanakya? were they all presenting a mean, cruel and cunning nation? And what about politicians and power brokers of today? do they all present their nations as a whole? is everyone in those people's nations is alike? Was every Muslim of Seljuk period was a Nizam ul Mulk? are those who live in that area can still be called Nizam ul Mulk? or all politicians of that part of world are Nizamis, following Nizamism? were all Sultans of India during time of Zia Ud Din were Ziai?

There had been Mir jafar and Mir Sadiq in Muslims, is every Muslim of India like them? if so, who was Tipu Sultan then? who was Bakht Khan? who was Sher Shah Suri?

I find it a very idiot argument to interpret whole nation or whole people on thoughts or actions of one personality. Most of the decisions made are based on the circumstances and interests of decision makers. of course decisions can be wrong and disastrous but we must not try to interpret everything as a conspiracy and preach hate and sectarianism.