are canakya and kautilya are one?

[Guest guest]

It is widely aknowledged that Maurya's empire owes its birth to

canakya. On the other hand, there is one Kautilya who has written

Arthasashtra.

 

I have received a querry whether both are same or not.

 

Artha sastra was discovered by Pt Shama Sastry(of Mysore) in 1905

and was published first in " Indian Entiquery'. AS was first published

as a book in 1908-09.

 

There are several western historians who have raised doubts over the

authorship of this great work and said Kautilya was a fictious

character. They have tried to fix the period of this book at

around 300 AD. However Dr Jaiswal and Jayachandra Vidyalankar have

refuted these claims, rather successfully.

 

On the other hand, AS was not really mentioned in any of the

classical works, including Mudra Rakshasa of Visakadatta. However,

the Niti sara of Kamandaka makes a mention of AS and identifies the

author with the one who has brought down the Nanda's empire. (400 ACE)

 

While Pancatantra makes a mention of Kautilya, there is no mention of

AS. However, Kalidas, Bharavi and Magha seem to be heavily

influenced by

the ideas of this work.

 

Dr Sivaprasad's rather authentic, if dramatic, historic

novel " canakya " in telugu mentions canakya retiring during the reign

of chandragupta himself, so as to complete Arthasastra in peace. This

seemed to have been influenced by the drama of Mudra raksasa.

However, history tells us that canakya continued to be a minister

well into the period of Bindusara who has killed him later.

 

Bindusara might have put an end to canakya due to his overplayed

intervention in the politic or jealousy, though revenging of his

mother's death is also mentioned as a reason.

 

Such tragic ends of machiavellian preceptors of huge empires do seem

to be a fad (and perhaps, poetic justice).

Another example in the case pertains to Thimmarusu or Appaji, who has

been put to heinious punishments in the hands of his ward Krishna

deva raya , to meet a pathetic death.

 

Interestingly,no such stories were ever thought of with regard to

the spiritual

preceptors of any of the empires, say for eg, Vidyaranya or Samardha

Rama.

 

 

kishore

[Guest guest]

Do you know if there is an english traslation of the

telugu novel by Dr. Sivaprasad ?

 

JK

 

 

--- kishore mohan <kishore_future wrote:

> It is widely aknowledged that Maurya's empire owes

> its birth to

> canakya. On the other hand, there is one Kautilya

> who has written

> Arthasashtra.

>

> I have received a querry whether both are same or

> not.

>

> Artha sastra was discovered by Pt Shama Sastry(of

> Mysore) in 1905

> and was published first in " Indian Entiquery'. AS

> was first published

> as a book in 1908-09.

>

> There are several western historians who have raised

> doubts over the

> authorship of this great work and said Kautilya was

> a fictious

> character. They have tried to fix the period of this

> book at

> around 300 AD. However Dr Jaiswal and Jayachandra

> Vidyalankar have

> refuted these claims, rather successfully.

>

> On the other hand, AS was not really mentioned in

> any of the

> classical works, including Mudra Rakshasa of

> Visakadatta. However,

> the Niti sara of Kamandaka makes a mention of AS and

> identifies the

> author with the one who has brought down the Nanda's

> empire. (400 ACE)

>

> While Pancatantra makes a mention of Kautilya, there

> is no mention of

> AS. However, Kalidas, Bharavi and Magha seem to be

> heavily

> influenced by

> the ideas of this work.

>

> Dr Sivaprasad's rather authentic, if dramatic,

> historic

> novel " canakya " in telugu mentions canakya retiring

> during the reign

> of chandragupta himself, so as to complete

> Arthasastra in peace. This

> seemed to have been influenced by the drama of Mudra

> raksasa.

> However, history tells us that canakya continued to

> be a minister

> well into the period of Bindusara who has killed him

> later.

>

> Bindusara might have put an end to canakya due to

> his overplayed

> intervention in the politic or jealousy, though

> revenging of his

> mother's death is also mentioned as a reason.

>

> Such tragic ends of machiavellian preceptors of huge

> empires do seem

> to be a fad (and perhaps, poetic justice).

> Another example in the case pertains to Thimmarusu

> or Appaji, who has

> been put to heinious punishments in the hands of his

> ward Krishna

> deva raya , to meet a pathetic death.

>

> Interestingly,no such stories were ever thought of

> with regard to

> the spiritual

> preceptors of any of the empires, say for eg,

> Vidyaranya or Samardha

> Rama.

>

>

> kishore

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

 

[Guest guest]

The puranas like Bhagavata, Vishnu,vayu,matsya and perhaps, Bhavishya

talks of Vrishala and Canakya @ vishnugupta but no artha sastra.

 

Shama sastri,Ganaptsastri,N N Law, VA Smith and KP Jayaswal held that

the work was indeed authored by the prime minister of chandra gupta

maurya.

 

But, Dr Winternitz, Jolly, Dr Keith and DR Bhandarkar negated this

but later had been overcome.

 

Dowson's encyclopaedia of religion and mythology talks of canakya as

a law giver and his work, Canakya sutra. But I do not think that this

is identical with Artha sastra.

 

 

In any case, most of the , historians agree to the identity, atleast

because the work acts as an important source about Mauryan Kingdom.

 

But who knows really?

 

 

kishore

[Guest guest]

, Jayakrishnan Nair

<tiptronicus> wrote:

> Do you know if there is an english traslation of the

> telugu novel by Dr. Sivaprasad ?

>

> JK

>

 

 

I do not think this novel has been translated. But one reference I

came across is a biographical novel on canakya by Dattatreya Kher in

marathi which has been translated into english. I understand this has

been recommended as a good introduction to canakya.

 

kishore

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY , " Mahavir " <msanglikar> wrote:

JatHistory , " Ravi Chaudhary "

<ravichaudhary2000> wrote:

JatHistory , " Mahavir " <msanglikar> wrote:

>

> re 1480

 

 

 

Chanakya the advisor to Chandragupta is depicted in our Histories as

a Machiavellian " Brahmin priest, who connived and conspired to bring

about the down fall of the Nandas, is also, said to have actually

been a Jain from the Punjab

 

Is this really the case?

 

Satyalketu Vidyalkar, is his book " Maurya Samrajya ka Ithihas " in

Hindi (History of the Maurya Empire) 5th edition, 1996, Sri Saraswati

Sadan New Delhi, draws our attention to the tradition re Chanakya.

 

" He tells us, that in the Puranic lore there is little if any not

much information on the early life of Chanakya.

 

It is only in the `Mudra Rakshas' that Chanakya is given a " life " .

 

The " Mudraraksha " is an 8th /9th century play/drama composed by one

Visakhdatta, some 1000+ after these events are supposed to have

occurred.

 

This is not the case with the Buddhist and Jain traditions.

 

According to the Vansthakaliani (Sinhali edition pp 119, Chanakya was

born in Taksashila (Taxilla) - north West Punjab, now in Pakistan).

There is no doubt that he spent much of his younger life in

Taksashila, where he taught `Dhanda-niti'- the ethics of governing.

 

Chandragupta was a student of his.

 

The Buddhist tradition is silent.

 

According to the Jain tradition, Chanakya was born in the Janpada

(republic " of Goll " , in a village called Charnye, where Brahmin

called Charnak used to live. Charnak's wife was Charnkekshawri.

 

They were both inclined towards the teachings of the Jain rishis

(sages), and were followers of the Jain religion. Many Jain Sages

would stay at their residence. Charnekswari had one son who was named

Charnakaya. His child had one tooth existing since birth. Seeing this

the Jain Rishis foretold that when he grew up he would be a King. On

hearing this Charnak was very disturbed for he wished his son to

become a Jain Muni (Sage). He then had this birth tooth broken off.

 

The result of this was that Charnakaya himself did not become king,

but became a King- maker.

 

In another Jain Granth (text) Charnakaya's father is given as Kapil.

and his birthplace is given as Pataliputra ( Barhatkathakosa,

cxliii,3). The Goll republic is mentioned in another written text,

(see Cunningham – Stupa of Bharhut pp 140), however no geographical

location is given.

 

Though he was a follower of the Jain religion, he studied all

branches of knowledge and became an expert. When he came of age he

married a Girl of a Brahmin family, named Yashomati according to the

text, ` Brahatkatha Kosh' (cxlii, 5). The Jain texts are silent on

whether Chanakya had any children by this marriage.

 

The Jain texts also refer to Chanakya being instrumental in the

downfall of the Nanda Dynasty, and putting Chandragupta on the

throne. (Brahatkatha Kosh, cxliii, 5). In the final stages of his

life Chanakya became a Jain Muni (or sage), and he died by consuming

himself in a sacrificial fire. His fellow minister of state lighted

this fire.

 

It is clear that Chanakya was a follower of the Jain religion and

tradition. It is then curious that in the " Kautilya Arthashastra " ,

the work ascribed to Chanakya, there is no reference to Jainism, and

there is much emphasis on the " Triad " religion, of the three Vedas "

Rig, Yajur, Sam, " and the Varanasharam (caste) system. "

 

 

Comments:

 

1. Chanakya and Charnkay are used interchangeable. In the Hindi

script, the sound " rn' is usually avoided in the English texts, and

only the letter n is used. There is a difference an the `rn' sound

should be properly used.

 

 

2. Dr Vidyalkar's book is a prescribed text in U.P. He was a D.Litt

( Paris). . He was also the Vice Chancellor of . the Gurukul Kangri

University, Haridwar, and was the winner of many wards including the

Motilal Nehru award, Gobind Ballabh Pant award etc.

 

Dr. Vidhyalkar is not the only one to note the discordance between

the Arthasatra , its ambience, and its alleged authorship, and the

equivalence made of Kautiliya = Charnakya( Chanakya)

 

K D Setha wrote a rather interesting little book " Ancient India In

a new light " Voice of India , New Delhi, which questioned the time

period allocated to Chandra Gupta the 1st( allocating it to the 2nd

Chandragupta, who lived some 600 years later).

 

The same critical analysis showed that the ` " Arthasastra' could not

have been composed in the time of the Ist Guptas circa 325 BCE, and

was not an account of the governing system of those times. Rather it

was a document composed in the 4th/5th century AD, and did not really

have an historical basis per se. and could not be ascribed to the

famous " Chanakaya/charnakya "

 

This is one of the reasons Dr. Vidyalkar expresses his puzzlement

that the Arthasasthra doe not refer to Jainism, but to the

Varanashrama, and the triad of the three Vedas, and not the quartet

of the four Vedas which would be properly be expected.

 

This would naturally also throw more confusion in the current

version of the " history of the Maur or Maurya rulers.

 

Ravi

--- End forwarded message ---

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Many thanks for your time, DL. But, I can see that you are not open.

Nor you are well versed with Indian traditional texts either.

 

The date of 3138 bce is assigned to Mbh war by the great astrologers

of yesteryears, Mihira and Aryabhat. Mihira was conversant with no

less than five systems of astronomy, two of them being foreign- Roman

and Paulish. (St. Paul?) {ref. Wonder that was India, AL Basham}

(the date of 3102 bce was assigned to the death of Sri Krishna)

 

All the puranas as well as Kaliyuga rajya vrittanta (KRV) were

unanimous in the 1500 years period between MBh war and coronation of

Nanda. (re: Matsya, Vsnu). The ten Nandas have ruled Magadha for 100

years. These are all accepted Puranic chronology.

 

Since you seem to be unaware of these arguements, you are asking for

substantiation. You are holding onto the standard chronology, which

has been perpetuated by imperialists and later, their followers.

 

The britishers have obvious vested interests in fixing an abridged

chronology of India. They have rejected anything that has not fallen

into their line of thought, as simply bogus. For eg., KRV mentioned

above was rejected as a bogus work. Reason given? the manuscript is

dilapidated! You mean, an ancient work should be found cutely bound

and neatly printed???

 

The racist- esp the feelings of mythical aryan superiority-

considerations and religious dogma , the biblical genesis in

particular, have prompted these people to perpetuate falsehoods about

Indian history and unfortunately, today even the unbiased are hanging

onto this.

 

I reject this chronology, which you find in any of the sixth class

text books. For eg., can you show me one valid reason how Sandro

cottus can be identified with CGM and not with DL or Kishore mohan???

(For the contrary, you can refer ' who is sandro cottus?' by sri ram

saathee) Dont ask me to go and refer romila thapar, I did! Right from

Max Mueller to Satish chandra, noone has ever bothered to reply even

Taylor, leave alone modern nationalist historians, so far as

Sandrocottus is concerned. And sandrocottus is the anchorsheet of

Indian history!! some anchor in troubled seas!!!

 

On the other hand, I reject the continous egalitarian society theory

of the nationalists. I strongly believe that the nationalists lack a

sense of social consciousness that is so very necessary when you

observe Indian history.

 

In the absence of detailed archaeological studies, we can only rely

on the literary sources. However, the good news is that you will find

that the archaeologics are slowly moving towards what has been said

in literature. (Beginning of Iron age could be one point in example)

 

You are talking of newspaper publications. History cannot be studied

from newspaper publications and newsgroup discussions.( i suggest you

study puranas and rg veda before coming to conclusions regarding the

chronology , or atleast, please read venkatachalam or SD Kulkarni.)

 

Now, coming to KA, Arthashastra is also known as

Rajnitishastra, Nitishastra and Dandashastra. Brihaspati is said to be

the original proponent of Arthashastra.(ref Sid Harth or ask Y

Malaiya)

 

it is astonishing that you are not aware of the other work by

canakya. Dowson has referred to the Canakya sutra. You can refer to

chanakya sastra, {Sri K. Raghunathaji's version of " Vriddha-Chanakya -

The Maxims of Chanakya " (Family Printing Press, Bombay, 1890)} There

is also 'caa.nakyaniiti`saastra and Caa.nakyaraajaniiti`saastra'

(Calcutta Oriental Series, No. 2. 1926).

 

Now, in this regard, my logic is very simple.

 

1. A 1929 paper by Johnston ( can be found online) as well as a 1985

seminar headed by RT (as referred to by Rangarajan in his text book)

have concluded that the present work known to us has been written in

the early centuries of common era. I quote from a post by Y Malaiya

which substantiates this view:

 

" http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0001 & L=indology & P=R9139

 

I will have to dig out the shloka by Hemachandracharya.

 

The Arthashastra available today is likely not the one composed by

Kautalya,

but another text composed later based on Kautalya's.

It is speculated that the author of available Arthashastra and

Kamasura might be the same person.

 

The Jain tradition about Kautalya is given in Hemchandracharya's

Parishistaparvan, which has recently been published as The Lives of

the Jain

Elders (Oxford World's Classics) by R. C. C. Fynes,

Trans.

 

In Avashyakachurni, Chanakya is said to have been born in the Golla

country,

which some scholars have placed in somewhere

in South, perhaps in Godavari region. About his final days we are

sure that spent in Magadh. If he did study at Takshshila as some

sources suggest, then he had covered the three corners of India,

which is interesting to note.

 

In Jain tradition, both Chandragupta Maurya and Chanakya are

said to have become monks in the later part of their lives.

 

Yashwant "

 

I have given a pvt. mail to mr Yashwant and his reply is awaited.

 

Based on their conclusions , we can conclude that the present book we

are reading as KA has been rewritten in 150 AD.

 

2. It is not very coincidental that several other nitisastras have

been written during the same time- for eg., such as Yajna valkya

(refer sureshwar jha, sahitya akademi, who has concluded that YV

smriti has been written in the magical year 150 AD) or Manu smriti. (

i have posted a paper by PATRICK OLIVELLE

(ref ///message/49)

 

 

It is possible that Musaraksa has rewritten all these smritis. For

this simple reason alone, YV (who traditionally belonged to Mithila

court which has not existed after Buddha's time; so how could he

write in 150 ACe?)was in agreement with canakya yet, no reference was

made to canakya (or vice versa). ( i.e . since both the books have

been reconstruced by the same person)

 

On the other hand, there is evidence in Puranas and other sources to

this fact. Masuraksa has hardly any independent slokas to his credit.

Yet, he has been eulogised along with canakya, asvalayana, and other

great smriti writers in Lankavatarasutra (outer limit 443 Ace)

 

The puranas have designated Masuraksa as the reincarnation of Vyasa.

This is done inspite of little known work(niti sastra, comprising of

some gnomic verses, ref Hugh flick,which I have not read). This is

because, Masuraksa has done to smritis , what VedaVyasa has done to

Vedas.

 

In other words, KA was written by Masuraksa in 150 ACE. From the

above discussion, we can safely conclude it has been rewritten from

what is the work of Canakya (Hence, the repeated saying in KA- " iti

canakya', thus said canakya, though this has been discounted on the

pretext of this being a usual practice)

 

3. Then, when did canakya write the KA?

 

The majority have concluded that KA in its original form was written

during the Mauryan times. I am not going into a detailed discussion

of this, since there is a majority opinion on this anyway.

 

I conclude that KA in its original form was written during Mauryan

times.

 

4. Now, the pertinent questions come: if KA was originally written

during the greek invasion, how is that it got so dilapidated in a

mere 500 years (which generally does not happen to a sanskrit text)

that it had to be rewritten? It only means it must have been written

much before that.

 

In other words, the mauryan times must have been much earlier than

the accepted 327 bce period.

 

Second question is that the kingdom canakya discussed does not go

with what has been described by Greeks. Thus, R C Majumdar comments

that the Mauryan kingdom may not be an empire but a small kingdom

which has survived on the tactics of canakya (and later, that of

Raksaka)and the love hate relationship with neighboring fiefdoms.

 

Ie if we accept that Canakya has indeed written about Mauryan kingdom

and it does not go with the accounts of the kingdom of sandrocottus,

that means it is not mauryas who were ruling at the time of greek

invasion.

 

{More over, the miserly nature of Nandas seem to be more that of

plunderers than of Kings who would like to maintain great empires.

This tallies with what R C Majumdar has commented)

 

In short, CGM has lived much before the greek invasion, he had a

small kingdom , established and sustained thanks to canakya. canakya

has written KA during this period, which , along with other works,

has been reconstruced by Masuraksa during 150

Ace.

 

Hope I am clear and substantiated my facts.

 

kishore

 

> INDOLOGY , " Dmitriy N. Lielukhine "

<lel@L...>

> wrote:

> In my opinion any discussion it is impossible. You simply have not

> answered

> any question, have repeated once again your fantasies, having named

> their as

> new ideas. Also you has added new fantasies. I want you afflict -

> that what

> you name as ideas - not ideas, as are taken from air, have no any

> relation

> to a history of India. From this I can draw only one conclusion -

you

> are

> simply badly familiar with a history of your own country. And

despite

> of it

> you try something to impose to participants of conference. To me it

> is the

> extremely surprising, why anybody except for me does not make

> comments on

> your fantasies - whether it means, that the history of own country

> became

> indifferent for indians ?

> I shall last time answer for your letter because I do not think

> serious to

> write more .

>

> You write:

> > I know we are working on different premises.

>

> No, you are not working - You only try to state your fantasies.

>

> You write:

> >But, I strongly believe

> > that you are unbiased and open to new ideas. Being a professional

> > historian yourself, I am sure you would work on any new idea to

> > substantiate or reject it with ease.

>

> In last letter I write: If you put forward the

> assumption - please, prove it by facts. (This is the norma for

> scholars) I

> am not find any ideas and facts, only fantasies.

>

> You write again:

> > Let me make clear what I have concluded on KA for the sake of

> > recalling.

> > 1. MBH war took place in 3138 bce.

>

> In last letter your write about 3102 BCE, you change your strong

> opinion ?

> This is not your idea.

>

> >1600 years hence, the Mauryan

> > kingdom has started.

> On what basis you assert it ? Why 1600, instead of 1500, 1400, 1200

> or 50 ?

> What is your date for Ashoka and his edicts ? Whether it means,

that

> he

> occured from other Maurya dynasty ?

>

> > 2. Kautilya, vishnugupta or canakya is a preceptor of the king.

> > (probably, chief/prime minster may be misnomers)

>

> Kautilya, vishnugupta or canakya ?

>

> >He has written no

> > less than three books on material and political sceinces. One of

> them

> > is arthasastra.

>

> Whence you have taken this information? I hope not from article

which

> is

> inaccessible to anybody? Please make reference to a concrete

source.

> About

> what books there is a speech? Why anybody about it till now does

not

> know

> anything? This is new findings? (About it certainly would know P.V.

> Kane and

> R.P. Kangle).

>

> > 3. During the first half of the first millennium ADE, there was a

> > heightening of interest in the Mauryan times. As I said, KA was

> > repeatedly accessed and referred. People wrote books on mauryan

> > times, atleast one of them being a drama. Kadamba kings took KA

as a

> > reference point. (if I am not mistaken, there is a page by you ,

DL,

> > on kadamba kings and KA, though you have mixed up subandhu and

> > vasubandhu) why, the chandela kings dedicated temples to

vatsayana's

> > work, who was almost after kautilya.

>

> You inattentively read the article. In an inscription from Gudnapur

is

> mentioned Subandhu. Some researchers consider possible to identify

> him with

> Vasubandhu. I personally think, that any bases for this purpose are

> not

> present. But the time of rule of Ravivarman - the end of V century

AD.

> Vishakhadatta drama dated more later time. Which other books (???)

> You try to assert, that growth of interest to Mauryas has led to

that

> Arthashastra " has been rewritten " in 150 AD. But all references to

> texts

> where are mentioned Mauryas concern to time considerably later.

Thus -

> the

> text has

> been recompiled till that time, when as you write, heightening of

> interest

> in the Mauryan times. And, the most important, how interest to a

> history of

> Mauryas and Arthashastra is connected? You probably do not know,

that

> in the

> text nor Mauryas, nor other historical kings simply are not

mentioned.

>

> > 4. Some where in the process of all this interest, KA was

> rewritten ,

> > perhaps during 150 AD by one Masuraksa.

>

> Whence you have taken this information? Why 150 AD and not 500, 900

> or 1500

> ?

>

> > { Masuraksa has been referred to .....know.

> > (INDOLOGY/message/4556)

>

> Again Masuraksa without any references, only to unavailable paper

> (but in

> you letter you write about 1985, not 1929).

> Being based on the name of article and that the author names the

date

> considerably later, than you, and speak about nitishastra, there is

> clear

> for me a sense of expression " has rewritten " . The question is about

> occurrence in V-VIII AD a new genre, nitishastra. First of such

texts

> known

> to us was Nitisara of Kamandaki. You probably simply do not know

about

> distinctions of Arthashastra and nitishastras. These are

essentially

> various

> texts.

>

> > Culturally, 150 CE is same as 1000 CE. (that is the culture is

same

> > through out the first millennium, hope I am clear in this

statement)

> > and hence, it is possible to mistake the dates on the basis of

> social

> > history. }

>

> Fantastic !!!! Whether you understand, what have written??? It

> seems, you

> have surpassed all " imperialists " and " colonial historiography " .

>

> > 5. This is the KA we are reading today and not the original one.

> ?????????

>

> > 6. You have asked about the gap from 327 bce.

> You inattentively read my letter. I write:

> And it makes (3102BC as the date of MBH war) clear essense of

> promotion of

> your fantasies. It is just necessary to fill a huge time interval

> from 3012

> by any events, kings, etc. Hardly it is necessary to remind, that

it

> is the

> next fantasy.

>

> > After Greeks have left this country, Samudra gupta got coronated.

> > After the guptas, India has been ruled by small satraps for

several

> > years till the times of Harsha.

>

> It seems for me, that it is necessary for you to read anything, may

> be even

> the school textbook before to write.

> You show, that you is completely unfamiliar with a history of India.

>

> > For eg., sandro cottus ( samudra gupta) was a very bad king as per

> > greeks and also, as per either Jaina or Buddha texts. The guptas

> > were so bad that there is a Saka(era) which has marked the end of

> > their kingdom.

>

> Why sandrocottus means samudra gupta and not Aurangzeb ? Do you

know,

> that

> Samudragupta lived in IV AD, established Gupta era (320 AD) after

> establishing Shaka era (78 AD) etc? Again, you is completely

> unfamiliar with

> a history of India.

>

> > This could be also seen from the fact that even though, Samudra

> gupta

> > has done so many yagas etc,(ie he has followed the vaidic

principles

> > very tightly), he has putdown the age old kingdom of Arjunakas

> > (vaishnavas) even before he became a king. The same kingdom has

been

> > cruelly annihilated by Alexander later. (Defeat has got to precede

> > the total annihilation. This is one strong reason why sandro

cottus

> > is samudra gupta and not CGM)

>

> You at all do not read attentively, what write yourself. See,

above.

> So in

> your fantasies Samudragupta ruled before or after Macedonian which

> you name

> Greeks?

>

> > Now, there are certain subastantiation that has to be done on

almost

> > all the points above. Let me reassure you, DL, that I am not

writing

> > anything without substantiation. I will unfold the Indian history

in

> > the coming days.

> > But, meanwhile, I am waiting for your comments.

>

> You are deeply mistaken. On the contrary, you have shown, that you

> simply

> not familiar with a history of India. Once again I shall repeat,

that

> I do

> not think possible to answer subsequent your letters.

>

> DL

> --- End forwarded message ---