An answer to Sankarshan Thakur's criticism of Modi

The Telegraph has published an article on Narendra Modi by Sankarshan Thakur titled "@#&**#*?N*%!* *Liar, illiterate, divisive, fraudulent, fascist and unfit to be Prime Minister: Hell hath no fury like a Nitish mocked.

The article had an infographic (shown on the left in the image below). It was completely inaccurate (as shown on the right in the image below).


Here are the details:

Sickular claim #:

Modi said "Takshila was in Bihar"

The Truth:

Narendra Modi did not say that "Takshila is in Bihar"! Watch the following video (@6:30) or read the transcript


This is the relevant portion:

"अगर ज्ञान युग की बात करें तो नालंदा और तक्षशिला का स्मरण होता है."
("If we talk about the age of knowledge, we remember Nalanda and Takshshila.")

Nalanda was in Bihar. Takshashila was located at the other corner, but it's unimaginable to mention one and not mention the other. A look at the Google queries, for example -

• "nalanda and taxila" - 2,000,000 results
• "taxila and nalanda" - 144,000 results
• "nalanda and takshashila" - 47,700 results
• "takshashila and nalanda" - 33,200 results

Sickular claim #2: Modi said "Alexander was defeated on the banks of the Ganga by the Biharis"

The Truth: Modi did not say "Alexander was defeated on the banks of the Ganga by Biharis". He quoted a poem the last line of which said "He [Alexander] drowned in the Ganges" (see YouTube video @35:40). The poem symbolically referred to Alexander's retreat when he heard that the army of the Nanda Empire (whose capital Pataliputra is the present-day Patna) was waiting for him on the other side of the Ganges.

Here is a description of how Alexander had to retreat because of the Magadha army - From the Greek historian Plutarch's The Parallel Lives:

"...they [the Macedonian soldiers] violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus [Chandragupta], who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India. At first, then, Alexander shut himself up in his tent from displeasure and wrath and lay there, feeling no gratitude for what he had already achieved unless he should cross the Ganges, nay, counting retreat a confession of defeat. But his friends gave him fitting consolation, and his soldiers crowded about his door and besought him with loud cries and wailing, until at last he relented and began to break camp, resorting to many deceitful and fallacious devices for the enhancement of his fame."

Sickular claim #3: Modi said "Chandragupta Maurya belonged to the Gupta dynasty. His rule was the golden era of India."

The Truth: Modi did not say "Maurya" at all! (See YouTube video @5:35 or read the transcript)

"अगर गुप्त वंश की याद करें, तो चंद्रगुप्त की राजनीति प्रेरणा देती है."
("If we remember the Gupta dynasty, the politics of Chandragupta inspire us") 

He was talking about Chandragupta II, who became an emperor after marrying into the royal family of Vaishali and whose capital was Pataliputra during his initial reign (he later shifted the capital to Ujjain after defeating the Shakas).

This point is a glaring example of the intellectually dishonesty of the "sickular" brigade and its supporter media. Modi did not even mention the word "Maurya". Nitish Kumar, Sankarshan Thakur and others added it on their own, and then made a "rebuttal" to this point!

So, basically, Nitish Kumar invented all these inaccuracies, and then he made a "rebuttal" to these alleged inaccuracies! Digvijay Singh, certain journalists like Sankarshan Thakur and other sickulars are publicizing these mistakes as that of Modi, although these are not even present in his speech!

What does this mean? Are these people...

1. so lazy that they did not even listen to Modi's speech before criticizing it
2. so incompetent that they do not have any comprehension skills?
3. Fekus? 

Take your pick.

Sickular claim #4:Modi said "Nehru did not attend Sardar Patel's funeral."

The Truth: Modi's Uadipur speech is available online - it does not have any such statement. The newspaper Divya Bhaskar has clarified that it wrongly attributed the statement about Sardar Patel's funeral to Modi.


Sickular claim #5: "fascist... Hitler... Goebbels..." The Truth: This point is not even worth a retort. Congress fanboys bring "Hitler" into every conversation about Modi (see Godwin's Law). Do they realize that it was Stefan Maino (Sonia ji's papa) who fought for Hitler's Wehrmacht in the World War II?

Source: http://fekukaun.blogspot.ie/