I haven’t read enough history to say this with authority, so correct me if this is untrue. This is in the context of the History we are taught in our schools.

While Alexander’s annexation of most of the world and his aggression are glorified by our historians (‘the great’ suffix is amplified through anecdotes and popular culture by throwing in benevolence here and there),

when it comes to someone like Ashoka, the warrior in him is looked down upon and his peace-making initiative is all that is highlighted. We aren’t given much context to his understanding of peace and the fact that it is profound primarily because he is a great warrior.

Our ‘eminent’ historians find it hard to glorify the ‘kshatra’ of our warrior class. That is why they relegate Shivaji’s and Maharana Pratap’s exploits to the margins, but extol the virility of the Turks and the Mughals etc.

The spillage can be seen in the world of cricket. The same people find it hard to come to terms with the new formidable and aggressive on-field Indian team, which gives back in equal measure. They will write op-eds about how the Indians monopolise the cricket market.

‘Sledging’ is suddenly taboo in the ‘gentleman’s’ game. These are the same people who ohh-ahed at the ‘virility’ of the Pathans and the aggression of the Australians in cricket.

These are the people who would lobby to ban Chanakya because they can never understand Dharma.