By Dr Manish Pandit
This is a rather curious story. In Jan 2020, Shri Nilesh Oak said in the 2nd round of the debate “Is the 3067BCE theory fraudulent or juvenile”.
It’s worth understanding the chronology and methodology used here is exactly as the Marxists have done for many years which is to question something as a possible fraud no matter how genuine it is and then label it a definite fraud in the following weeks. How does one do this: the very next day 20th Jan 2020, Rupa Bhaty conveniently labels the 3067BCE theory as a fraud. (No proof anyway but Overton Window shift )
Few weeks later, Shri Nilesh Oak labels the 3067BCE theory as a fraud.
See the chronology: Going from “Is it a fraud” to “It is a fraud” in a few weeks and of course the starting point is Balarama’s pilgrimage which by the way, Shri Oak himself admits he cannot verify (but he rather foolishly asserts that nobody else can verify it for their year of the war either”
Unfortunately for Shri Nilesh Oak, we can verify that theory of Balarama’s pilgrimage by two different methods with documented proof as shown below: In my modified 3067BCE theory, first day of war (25th Nov) is reverse counted from the last day of the war (Dec 12th) which is the primary point of fixation as opposed to Dr Achar’s theory where the first day of the war was taken as 22nd November (Shukla Ekadashi tradition was given greater importance in old theory). Thus Gita Jayanti is the 24th of November 3067BCE in this theory. (War timeline shifted ahead from old theory by 3 days)
Now let’s come to the reasons underpinning these ad hominem attacks: these are done as nothing is verified in the 5561BCE theory and hence the only option is to resort to labelling and name calling. I waited for 5 months post the debate to post this hoping that this was not going to be the intention of the 5561BCE researchers. But they have been exposed pretty badly now:
The reason is that the #5561BCE theory takes 14th night Moonrise + Balarama’s pilgrimage to be a conflicting observation: What does it mean? It means that you exclude these 100 base observations from research, you can use any start and end nakshatra/Moonphase for war/pilgrimage and no need to preserve the sanctity of the Mahabharata scripture.
To see a list of words and meanings twisted in 5561BCE research, do see an entire post on this by a Sanskrit researcher @pranasutra
To see a small list of blunders in 5561BCE theory with proof, (and what can be corroborated in the 3067BCE theory with proof) click on the link below:
You also see how the entire Adhika Masa theory has got feet of clay in 5561BCE, more importantly we can prove Adhika Masa by two separate methods in 3067BCE: