Archive for the ‘Rama’ Category

DMK, Dravida and Black Parivar have been anti-Hindu or not ?: “Mount Road Mahavishnu,” marital alliance with Iyengars, tirade against Rama and Ramayana [1]

September 28, 2018

DMK, Dravida and Black Parivar have been anti-Hindu or not? “Mount Road Mahavishnu,” marital alliance with Iyengars, tirade against Rama and Ramayana [1]

Stalin response to The Hindu 23-09-2018

Why DMK took difference stand in the General Council?: The Dravidian parties, particularly, the Dravidar Kazhagam and Drvida Munnetrak Kazhagam with all their splinter groups operating under different banners have been consistently, atheist, that too, anti-Hindu since inception. With the presence of BJP felt now, they have been jittery and tried to change their stand. In deed, the DMK was in NDA, in spite of their anti-Hindi, anti-north, anti-Aryan, anti-Hindu and so on. Now, also, the possibility of Dravidian parties aligning with BJP for the 2019 elections, as is openly discussed in the media, DMK tries to clarify its position. Under the circumstances, in “The Hindu,” the report / news appeared has been interesting and intriguing also, as it has not appeared in other newspapers[1]. “The Hindu” Reporter reportedly asked, “You have taken a stand on God in the party’s general council for the first time. Was it because you feel that it is difficult to run a campaign against God and religion especially after the BJP’s growth or are you seeking to put an end to the criticism that the DMK is anti-Hindu?”.  For this Stalin responded as follows[2]:

Cases on anti-hindu karu

Stalins’s detailed reply to the question as to DMK has been anti-Hindu: Stalin responded, “I would like to give a detailed reply. Anna proclaimed that there was “one God and one race”. He also said, “I would not break Pillaiyar, neither will I break coconut for him.” Kalaignarhas reiterated this point many times. But a section deliberately suppresses these facts and seeks to portray us as atheist and anti-Hindu. When Anna talked about God, he took a cue from Bharathiyar’s lines, “Oh ignorant! You are in search for a thousand Gods.” Kalaignar always had a non-partisan approach. He never imposed his ideas and beliefs on others. He was not against faith in God or in religion. Why should he desilt the Kapaleeswarar temple tank if he was against the faith? Would he have come forward to repair a portion of the Tiruvannamalai temple when it collapsed? Would he have taken efforts to run the Tiruvarar temple car in 1969 which remained idle for 20 years and allowed Mannai Narayanansamy, who was a minister in his cabinet, to participate in it?

Atheists exploiting Krishna etc

Karunanidhi’s stand on Hindu religion and Hindus: Stalin’s detailed reply continued, “Just listen to what Kalaignar had said about the Hindus: “If everyone followed the tenets of Hinduism, as preached by Vivekananda, nothing could be greater than it. I am not against it. Since Muslims and Christians are minorities we have to support them to instill confidence among them. At the same time it is wrong not to support the Hindus because they are a majority.” When I spoke about God, I kept in mind the ideas of Anna and Kalaignar. The DMK has never preached against the God and religion as you assume. Those who could not directly face the socio, economic and political ideas of the DMK indulge in a mischievous campaign that the party is against God and Hindus. Kalaignar has always respected faiths and beliefs of people of all religions. DMK has campaigned against those who propagate communalism and fundamentalism with a view to destroying pluralism and communal harmony and seek to divide the nation. It will do it in the future also.I can only laugh at your suggestion that the BJP has grown. You ask neutral people to find out whether it is growing or declining”. However, this has not been the first time to respond in this fashion, as almost, he responded in the same manner, in 2015 also.

Stalin response to The Hindu 23-09-2018.my reply appearing

Responses to “The Hindu” as appearing in the “online”: I responded as follows  under that report, “As I have been listening to them since 1960s, I know Stalin is telling lies. That EVR broke Vinayaka idols is well-known to all, therefore, what Anna said is immaterial. Karunanidhi drank gruel and ate cake, but not any prasad, but, abused Hindu God. Had they really understood Vivekananda, then Karunanidhi would not have attempted to evict “Vivekanda House” from Ice-house. EVR, Anna and Karunanidhi never questioned Mohammedan and Christian scriptures and Gods, as they did against Hindu. Even in atheism, they could not follow secular atheism and that only exposes their duplicity” and in Tamil also. The other replies appearing clearly prove that the readers have not believed the story, as all know the true colours of Stalin and DMK.

Stalin response to The Hindu 17-10-2015

Same reply came from Stalin in 2015 also and “The Hindu” published[3]: Refuting the allegations that the DMK was anti-Hindu, party treasurer M.K. Stalin said 90 per cent of the party cadres were Hindus and their family members had faith in religion and god[4].  “There is a well-planned campaign to project that the DMK is anti-Hindu. But the family members of party leaders and cadre have faith in god. Even my wife is visiting all temples across the State and I never once asked her not to go. We do not stand in the way of those who have faith,” he told  The Hindu . Stalin, who had a meeting with a team of temple priests in Kumbakonam, said he visited Thirukoshtiyur temple in the first phase of his tour because it was there Saint Ramanuja, ignoring the warning of his teacher, climbed the temple tower and spoke aloud so that everyone could know what he had been taught.

Stalin visited temple- 2015-Tirukostiyur-2

The claim of followers of Thirumoolar: “We, the followers of Anna, have faith in Thirumoolar’s dictum  Ontrey Kulam Oruvaney Devan  (There is one community and one God). Our leader Kalaignar wrote dialogues for the tele-serial Ramanuja, because it was he who had paved way for entry of all communities, including Dalits, into the temples,” he said.  Rejecting the allegation that he was visiting temples and meeting priests in view of the coming election, the DMK leader said that he respected the sentiments of all sections of people and even in the past had visited temples and accepted the  poorna kumbam .  “I began Namakku Naamey in Kanyakumari and there I called on leaders of all religions. I have visited mosques and I have been invited to visit the church at Velankanni. Our leader is always given warm reception at Saidapet temple during election campaigns,” he said.  Asked about the feedback to his tour, he said people in the State were looking for a change and the DMK was the only alternative.

Stalin visited temple- 2015-Tirukostiyur

The 2015-drama of meeting “Bhattars, Archakas” etc: Actually, for “Namakku Namee” program, he was campaigning im Thajavur areas in September 2015 with his party cadres. He suddenly entered Sowmya Narayana temple at Thirukostiyur. His party cadres were reportedly taken aback, as it was not of the program[5]. However, the priests there welcomed with “Purnakumbam,” the traditional way of welcoming VIPs[6]. After going through the temple, he also had a “darshan” of the 106 feet high Gopura from which Sri Ramauja preached[7]. Perhaps, he tried to repeat “Ramanuja” to fool others. Because of the “Ramanuja” teleserial, some Vaishnavites started praising Karunanidhi. But, later, they came to know his hatred against Vaishnavism, as he blasphemed Rama, Ramayana etc. He also supported the goups that burned Rama pictures and conducted “Ravana Leela”! Thus, it is evident that he had gone there as an enthusiast rather than a devotee. Then he had meetings at Tiruvarur and other districts. He also met Bhattars, Archakas  etc., in Kamatchi Amman Kalyana mantap[8].  He also met the Bishop and other Christian representatives. Therefore, it is typical “secular drama” played by the anti-Hindu Stain nothing else.

Stalin visited temple- 2015-Tirukostiyur-3

Stalin wanted to know about “Thirukulathar” etc – PTI news 2015[9]: M K Stalin, DMK Treasurer, paid a surprise visit to an ancient Vaishnavite temple here during his ongoing state-wide tour to connect with people ahead of next year’s assembly elections in Tamil Nadu. Stalin, accompanied by his wife Durga, was welcomed with “poornakumbha mariyathai” (temple honours) by priests and officials at the entrance of the famous Sri Sowmya Narayanaswamy temple here in Sivaganga District. It was from the top of this temple tower that the 11th century revolutionary Vaishnavite saint Sri Ramanuja delivered the sacred “Ashtakshara” mantra – “Ohm Namo Narayanaya” – to the entire people of the village, defying his guru’s direction not to reveal it to anyone.Incidentally, Stalin’s father and DMK chief M Karunanidhi has written the script for a serial on Sri Ramanuja which is being telecast on ‘Kalaignar TV’ Stalin was taken to the tower from which Saint Ramanuja preached the important mantra to all the people so that they could get the blessings of Lord Narayana. This was the first time that a top level leader of DMK openly visited the temple, its officials said. Temple’s traditional priest for reciting Tamil hymns Tirukoshtiyur Madhavan told PTI that Stalin sought to know about Saint Ramanuja’s visit to the temple and the saint’s gesture in revealing the mantra and its meaning to all people irrespective of caste[10]. The priest also said Stalin visited the shrines of Sri Ramanuja and his guru (Thirukoshtiyur Nambi). Stalin asked “whether is it not Saint Ramanuja who named the Dalits as “Thirukulathaar” (son’s of Goddess Lakshmi), thousand years before Gandhi called them “Harijan“(People of Lord Vishnu)“. The DMK Treasurer, considered political heir apparent to Karunanidhi, has been meeting various sections of people and hearing their grievances in his campaign which he launched on September 20, 2015 to cover all 234 assembly constituencies in the state.

© Vedaprakash

27-09-2018

Stalin visited temple- 2015-Vaishnava-Saiva priests meet

[1] The Hindu, Stalin sees a bid to portray DMK as anti-God, anti-Hindu; terms it mischievous, B. Kolappan, SEPTEMBER 23, 2018 22:34 IST; UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 18:29 IST

[2] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/stalin-interview/article25022253.ece

[3] The Hindu, DMK – not anti-Hindu, B. Kolappan, October 17, 2015 00:00 IST; UPDATED: October 17, 2015 10:30 IST

[4] https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/dmk-is-not-antihindu-stalin/article7772219.ece

[5]விகடன், மனைவியுடன் ஸ்டாலின் கோவிலுக்கு திடீர்வருகைசாமி தரிசனம்கட்சியினரிடையே பரபரப்பு!, Posted Date : 13:03 (29/09/2015)Last updated : 13:43 (29/09/2015)

[6]  https://www.vikatan.com/news/tamilnadu/53036.html

[7]தமிள்ஸ்.நவ்.நியூஸ், திமுக இந்து எதிர்ப்பு இயக்கம் அல்ல: மு  ஸ்டாலின், அக்டோபர் 17, 2015.

[8] http://tamilsnow.com/?p=62030

[9] The Hindu Businessline, TN: Stalin pays surprise temple visit, PTI, Published on September 29, 2015

[10] https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/tn-stalin-pays-surprise-temple-visit/article7702918.ece

Advertisements

The World Atheist Conference 2018 conducted on January 5th to 7th 2018 at Trichy – Kamimozhi’s dubious talk about her visit to Tirumala (3)

January 13, 2018

The World Atheist Conference 2018 conducted on January 5th to 7th 2018 at Trichy – Kamimozhi’s dubious talk about her visit to Tirumala (3)

Kanimozhi-went to Tirumala-biometric

Photo courtesy: TTD

Kanimozhi entering temple…

Nov.2012, Kanimozhi at Tirumala- Kalyanakatta

Photo courtesy: TTD

At Kalyana katta, where, devotees are given free tonsure – Kanimozhi seen listening to Venkauya Naidu.

Kanimozhi-went to Tirumala-standing at tonsure.2

Photo courtesy: TTD

The women members had symbolic tonsure just cutting few strands of hair-bits or touching with scissors!

Kanimozhi-went to Tirumala-standing at tonsure

Photo courtesy: TTD

The women members went in a queue – Kani in her turn!

Kanimozhi’s visit to Tirumala in 2012 and criticism made in 2017: Kanimozhi, the Rajya Sabha MP claimed that she visited Tirumala, as a member of the Committee under Venkaiah Naidu, during her controversial speech made at the WAC, Trichy on 06-01-2018. She had claimed that she had recently visited the popular Tirupati Tirumala temple in Andhra Pradesh[1]. Kanimozhi said she, along with some other MPs, was taken to the temple by Vice President Venkaiah Naidu, as a part of a Home Affairs Committee, through a special route arranged for the group[2].  “If you give more money and buy a ticket you get special dharsanam [visit]. If not, you stand for 10 hours, 20 hours or two days. That is god………He (accompanied MP) told me that all their wishes are being granted and they are being protected…I then asked him, there is a money collection box right in front of the god. Why is there a security personnel with a stun gun protecting it? People who run the temple are not confident that god can protect the money collection box. Why should I believe in god?”…..” When TNM contacted Kanimozhi she was unfazed by the opposition that the speech has garnered[3]. “Whatever happens, I will face it legally. I said this at an Atheist Conference,” she says[4]. This made me to dig into her visit, because, as an atheist, she should not have visited the temple. The background of the visit and the details are as follows.

Nov.2012, Kanimozhi at Tirumala- viwing queue

Photo courtesy: TTD

Why and how Kanimozhi visited Tirumala and also SHAR, and Kalpakkam in November 2012?: As a part of a Home Affairs Committee, kanimozhi visited the Tirumala temple on November 12, 2012. The team paid a visit to both –

  • the pilgrim-choked Vaikuntam queue complexes,
  • Kalyanakatta and
  • Matrusri Tarigonda Vengamamba free meals complex and
  • the TTD-run Aswini hospital[5].

Prominent among others who were present were included members of the committee –

  1. Kanimozhi,
  2. Raman Deka,
  3. Santosh Chowdary,
  4. Ravneet Singh,
  5. Neeraj Sekhar,
  6. TTD Executive Officer L.V. Subramanyam,
  7. JEO K.S. Srinivasa Raju,
  8. CVSO G.V.G. Ashok Kumar
  9. and others[6].

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs headed by BJP leader Venkaiah Naidu on Friday (November 12, 2012) expressed satisfaction over the security arrangements being made by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) atop the sacred shrine of Lord Venakteswara. Talking to media persons, Mr. Naidu said that the committee has been visiting several important places in the country, including Tirumala, SHAR, and Kalpakkam to study the existing security mechanism at all the places. He said that the committee was also scheduled meet the top brass of the TTD officials, intelligence officials and the officials of the State Home Department on Saturday in Tirupati wherein issues relating to disaster management and security mechanism will be discussed. Besides this, the committee will also discuss issues relating to the marine security in the coastal belt apart from the proposal to bring Tirumala under the ‘no-fly’ zone category. The TTD authorities on their part explained to the team the various initiatives being adopted by the temple administration towards crowd management, queue system and the amenities being extended to pilgrims visiting Tirumala.

Nov.2012, Kanimozhi at Tirumala- viwing queue-2

Photo courtesy: TTD

Kanimozhi had special darsham tirth, prasad and saree: There have been many official reports, videos of the TTD and TV channels, News reports in English and Telugu as to why she visited the temple, what she did and other details:

  1. Kanimozhi visited the Tirumala temple on November 12, 2012 as a part of a Home Affairs Committee, to inspect the security arrangements being made by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD).
  2. She met the top brass of the TTD officials, intelligence officials and the officials of the State Home Department on Saturday in Tirupati wherein issues relating to disaster management and security mechanism.
  3. She verified the various initiatives being adopted by the temple administration towards crowd management, queue system and the amenities being extended to pilgrims visiting Tirumala.
  4. She had gone to Kalyanakatta where tonsure is made that involves hygiene and other issues. When two women member had symbolic tonsure, she was there and joined them.
  5. Went to Pushkarni to note the maintenance, refilling of water etc.
  6. She had special darshan of Sri Venkatswara, had tirth and prasadam. She also received a saree given by the TTD.
  7. Went to free-meals section, inspected the vessels for the cooking of food that is fed to thousands daily.
  8. Went to laddu counter, where, laddu and other prasadams were given free to her.
  9. She visited the temple to pray Sri Venkateswara to clear all problems, she was facing.

 

 

Nov.2012, Kanimozhi at Tirumala- entering inside

Photo courtesy: TTD

Kanimozhi crossing Vaikundam entry entrance….

Nov.2012, Kanimozhi at Tirumala- way to Darshan

Photo courtesy: TTD

Reaching “Way to Darshan”!!!!

What Kanimozhi spoke on 06-01-2018 at the WAC: From 12-11-2012 to 06-01-2018, what happened to he exposes her psyche.

What Kanimozhi talked Comments
 “If you give more money and buy a ticket you get special dharsanam [visit]. First of all, as an atheist, you should not have visited the temple.

As even when non-Hindus visit, they sign a form that I believe in Sri Venkateswara, you must have signed.

If not, Venkaiya Naidu should be held responsible for violating the norms.

As they went to inspect, evidently, they signed.

 If not, you stand for 10 hours, 20 hours or two days. That is god……… You should have waited, paid and went side, but, you enjoyed VVVVIP darshan! Shame, atheist, shame!!
That is Kanimozhi, the principle-less atheist, and thus,anti-Hindu!
He (accompanied MP) told me that all their wishes are being granted and they are being protected…I then asked him, there is a money collection box right in front of the god. Why is there a security personnel with a stun gun protecting it? The Telugu people explicitly answered that people like you might loot, that is why they stand with guns.

Moreover, as you had gone there to inspect the security aspects, you could not have made such idiotic statement!

People who run the temple are not confident that god can protect the money collection box. Why should I believe in god?”….. Shame on you, idiotic that we have MP like you and allowing you inside the temple.
Perhaps, you had gone inside to know the security arrangement to attack!
If that God does not protect, I say that God is not there….. Had you gone there to inspect the security aspects, or the existence of Go?

Your blabbering exposes your honesty, integrity and sincerity as a MP.

Thus, it is evident that by all means, the MP has lost her credibility and she should be stripped of MP post or she should resign immediately.

Nov.2012, Kanimozhi at Tirumala- Annadhana

Photo courtesy: TTD

Inspecting the “Free Meals – Prasad Hall”….

Nov.2012, Kanimozhi at Tirumala- Laddu counter-

Photo courtesy: TTD

Posing for photo before “Annadhana Hall, building”

Kanimozhi-why you went to Tirumala

Photo courtesy: TTD

Coming out………………….”If you do not believe……why you enter the temple, had darshan, taken tirth and prasad, the saree……………..prayed to him to remove your problems?”. The AP people openly revealed that she came here to pray “Venkayya” to relieve her from 2G case!

Cong MLC, P Sudhakar Reddy condemns Kani on 12-01-2018

Complaints made against Kanimozhi: The local BJP leaders led by former TTD Board member G Bhanu Prakash Reddy submitted a written complaint to Urban ASP Srinivasulu against DMK MP Kanimozhi here on Thursday, (11-01-2018) for hurting the religious beliefs of Hindus[7]. She made adverse comments on the Lord Venkateswara at Tirumala at a Tiruchi meeting in Tamil Nadu[8]. Rayalaseema Porata Samithi (RPS) convener P Naveen Kumar Reddy has condemned the DMK MP comments against the presiding deity of Tirumala. He demanded that the state government’s Endowments department take legal action against Kanimozhi. The RPS activists staged a dharna near Alipiri. Ironically, in Tamilnadu, the so-called Hindutwavadis, Sangh-parivar, BJPwalas and other “Hindus” have been keeping quite for unknown reasons. The foreign delegates and other responsible delegates who attended the WAC should take care of the facts.

© Vedaprakash

11-01-2018

Nov.2012, Kanimozhi at Tirumala- Laddu counter-

Photo courtesy: TTD

[1] Scroll.in, Tamil Nadu: Complaint filed against DMK MP Kanimozhi for allegedly hurting religious beliefs, Published : 12-01-2018· 07:34 pm Updated 12-01-2018 · 07:58 pm.

[2] https://scroll.in/latest/864727/tamil-nadu-complaint-against-dmk-mp-kanimozhi-for-allegedly-hurting-religious-beliefs

[3] TheNewsMinute, Why does god need gunman to protect hundiyal?’: Kanimozhi’s speech rankles Hindu group, Priyanka Thirumurthy, Thursday, January 11, 2018 – 14:05.

[4] https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/why-does-god-need-gunman-protect-hundiyal-kanimozhi-s-speech-rankles-hindu-group-74554

[5] The Hindu, Panel inspects security measures in Tirumala, TIRUMALA:, NOVEMBER 10, 2012 03:29 IST; UPDATED: NOVEMBER 10, 2012 03:29 IST. UPDATED: NOVEMBER 10, 2012 03:29 IST

[6] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/panel-inspects-security-measures-in-tirumala/article4082515.ece

[7] THE HANS INDIA, Case against DMK MP for hurting religious beliefs, Jan 12, 2018 , 01:32 AM IST.

[8] http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Andhra-Pradesh/2018-01-12/Case-against-DMK-MP-for-hurting-religious-beliefs/351590

Ideological racism, linguistic fascism and negationism among the Indian politicians – Baahubali becomes touching stone overcoming caste interpretation also!

April 21, 2017

Ideological racism, linguistic fascism and negationism among the Indian politicians  – Baahubali becomes touching stone overcoming caste interpretation also!

Kannada activists against Sathyaraj

Business motive attributed to the controversy: Praveen Shetty, the president of the KRV, was quoted in The News Minute[1] as saying “Why are directors [sic] pleading with the film chamber and senior actors in Karnataka? He had called us dogs during the Cauvery issue. We want a public apology from Sathyaraj, only then will the film be allowed to release in Karnataka.”[2] A few months ago, Baahubali 2 became the hottest film in the Karnataka trade, and many tried to procure it. But the producers of the film could not get the price that they were asking[3]. This led to a lot of jealousy and rivalry in the local trade, which may have led to raking up a 10-year old issue, which nobody imagined. Whether, the opposition has linguistic chauvinism, financial intricacies and business rivalry or otherwise, the hidden truth cannot be brushed aside. Now the film is going to be directly marketed in Karnataka by Arka Media, the producers, via NM Entertainment Sudhir. Meanwhile hectic parleys are going on to sort out the issue over the ban, which has snowballed into a political row[4].

Kattappa kiiled Baahubali

The actor Sathyaraj and his political role: There has been a lot of furore over the release of “Baahubali: The Conclusion” in Karnataka (scheduled for April 28, 2017), based on certain statements made by Tamil actor Sathyaraj during the Cauvery water crisis[5]. Sathyaraj plays Kattappa, a pivotal character, in the two-part film[6]. Producer Prasad Devineni from Arka Media Works tells us, “We plan on coming to Bengaluru soon to interact with fans and thank them for the support. We also want to appeal to the protesting organizations to support us when we are in the city.” The involvement of actors in the social and political issues has turned into a new twist in this way, affecting the release of a film. Perhaps, the cine-world has to learn that their members should restrict their polemics within the studios and sets and they cannot go beyond such limits enter into other areas to give discourses. There have been actors, who want to become politicians have been playing sage diplomatically avoiding controversies, but, Sathyaraj has been of different kind. Baahubali might have made him national or even international actor known to many, but, once his background is known, the business partners may not be comfortable with his extreme views and ideology.

Satyuaraj speech - Kannadigas opposed

Sathyaraj, Nagaraj and Baaahubali: Director S S Rajamouli sought to distance himself and his Baahubali 2 team from comments allegedly made by actor Sathyaraj that have led to a protest against the film’s release in Karnataka[7]. Rajamouli said the filmmakers were in no way related to the remarks made by Sathyaraj. “The producer and I want to clarify on the issue… The comments must have pained some of you but we don’t have any relation to it. Those were (his) personal comments and were made some nine years ago,” the director said in a video message on his official Twitter page. The controversy broke out after a video in which Sathyaraj allegedly made “derogatory” comments against Kannada activists went viral[8]. What Sathyaraj spoke might be nine years ago, but, Nagaraj has made it current by responding point by point. However, his speech has no takers, as every one, who knows about Sathyaraja, knows very well, he has been a staunch Periyarist, atheist, pro-Tamil separatist and anti-Hindu ideologist. In fact, in his movies, he has always exhibited such ideologies from Vedam puthithu to others. In ine movie, he shoots an astrologer dead asking a question, “Tell me how long you will you live”, when replies that he would live more, he finishes him off, i.e, just to prove that astrology is bogus. He has even donned the role of EVR in “Periyar”. Very often, he used to speak in atheist forums against Hindus, Hindu religion and belief system. As for as Nagaraj is concerned, Tamil people knew nothing, but, only through Sathyaraj, as he himself talked about Katal Nagaraj.

Kattappa brings controversy - Baahubali

Rajamouli’s appeal to the opposing groups: In a statement, filmmaker SS Rajamouli had expressed his gratitude to the Kannada audience and said[9], “It’s known that actor Sathyaraj is playing a significant role in the film. It has come to my attention that a few of his earlier comments had hurt a large section of you. I feel it’s my responsibility to clarify the issue. Baahubali has no connection to Sathyaraj’s remarks. He has only acted in a role in the film. He took his remuneration for it. Sathyaraj’s comments are his personal opinion. Our view is that his personal opinion shouldn’t trouble the film that he acted in. Yet, as responsible people, we have spoken about the situation with Sathyaraj over the phone. We don’t have more power than this. Sathyaraj had made those remarks nine years ago. After that, several films of his have released. The films he acted and produced have been released in Karnataka. Baahubali: The Beginning had also released. We request you to receive Baahubali: The Conclusion as well as the earlier films. If Baahubali: The Conclusion is stopped, Sathyaraj won’t suffer any loss. The problem is for the technicians and producers who have worked hard for five years on the film and for Kannada distributors and movie audiences. I urge you to not show anger against Sathyaraj on Baahubali.”

Dr Sathyaraj - donning EVR atheist

The peculiar Tamilnadu politics with codified and well-scripted agenda: As for as Tamilnadu is concerned, the people connected with cine-field have been successful in becoming politicians, powerful politicians, chief ministers and Central ministers also. In turn, such political ascendancy has also helped their business prospective and hence, cinema and politics have become inseparable for the Dravidian ideologists. The strategy has to be inclusive Dravidian ideology, Tamil separatism, anti-north, anti-Hindi, anti-Sanskrit, anti-Brahmin principles incorporated wherever possible, even if not possible, they have to be included without fail. EVR, Anna, Karunanidhi, MGR, Jayalalita and others have risen to top only because of their political and cinema connections. Of course, the Karunanidhi family and now AIADMK feuds expose the lack of strong leadership and dilution of “dravidian ideology”. This has made others tempting join politics, but, Sivaji Ganesan, SSR, T. Rajendran have suffered a lot. Rajnikanth has been cautious without taking any final decision. Kamal Hassan has now showing his political intention, but, only exhibited through twitter postings. However, individual powerful leaders of whatever nature, their exclusiveness has proved the dangerous decline after their death.

Sc groups wanted to ban Baahubali in 2015

Caste interpretation appearing in 2017: The casteist interpretation has been given to Baahubali by some columnists[10]. The Quint has interpreted in a characteristic way, “SS Rajamouli’s blockbuster ‘Bahubali: The Beginning’ has won the national award for best flm. Congratulations to the team….Here’s a quick peep into our archives – an argument that the movie actually shows how to keep dalits, adivasis and women suppressed…… Remember Agent Orange and Napalm in the Vietnam war? Well, Baahubali has its own version of burning people alive, as long as they are dark adivasis… obviously named KALAkeyas. Katappa, a great soldier and leader even eats separately from his ‘masters’. Why? Because hum choti jaat ke hain.” Thus goes the comments[11]. Thus, in one stroke, it accused “Baahubali” for depicting all war crimes, social exploitation and nuclear to chemical weapon usage against the tribals and others for the survival of higher castes. Perhaps, none noticed such allegory, euphemism or joke!

Pagadaikku piranthavan - opposed by SCs in Tamilnadu 2015

Baahubali faced casteist wrath, but, susidised in JUly 2015 in Tamilnadu[12]: In July 2017, a movie theatre in Madurai playing the hugely popular South Indian hit Baahubali was attacked with petrol bombs by a Dalit group for featuring a line (Pagadaikku Pirandhavan) considered derogatory against a sub-caste of the Dalit community. Subsequently, writer Madan Karky apologised for any hurt caused. Baahubali may be in the news for featuring an anti-Dalit line in the climax, but Dalit activists, filmmakers and scholars point out caste-based slurs have always been a part of Tamil Cinema. “Caste-based slurs such as Chandala, which denotes a sub-caste of a Scheduled Caste community in Tamil Nadu, have been so casually used in comedy-sequences by Tamil comedians like Vadivelu and Vivek. In Ameer’s Paruthiveeran, a super hit song Yele Yelelo, the hero actually calls his girl friend Sandali – which means that she is a daughter of a prostitute. We live in a society where such songs are celebrated,” says Punitha Pandian, editor of Dalit Murasu, a magazine that writes critically about social issues. Pandian remarked that often ignorance is given as an excuse and urged the civil society – intellectuals, activists and media – to do more to sensitise the masses. “This is not a problem of Dalits alone. We have been constantly talking and writing about these things but we have reached a stage where only a petrol bomb can force the society to talk about it. Filmmakers must be sensitised about social issues,” he says. What does the film industry make of the accusation that caste-based slurs have always been a part of Tamil films? Film-maker S.P. Jhananathan says that most young and budding writers are seldom aware of social issues, and suggests that the writers’ union must be actively involved in raising consciousness. “Most film-makers and writers are not aware of social issues. Film-makers and writers are also cut from the same fabric of society; how can they be any different,” he asks. Asked if there is a tendency to smuggle in the idea of caste pride into the narrative to appeal to politically dominant communities, Jhananathan says it is very much possible. “If the film directly deals with the issue of caste rivalry between dominant castes and Dalits, one need not shy away from talking about caste. But I would urge film-makers to be open about it. The problem is when caste pride is inserted in a film which has nothing to do with it,” he says.  The interpretation continued[13].

© Vedaprakash

21-04-2017

Why Kattappa kiiled Baahubali

[1] Thenewsminite, ‘No Baahubali release without Sathyaraj apology’: Kannada groups refuse to budge, Wednesday, Aprul 19, 2017. 12:58.

[2] http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/no-baahubali-release-without-sathyaraj-apology-kannada-groups-refuse-budge-60602

[3] Firstpost, Baahubali 2’s Karnataka release in jeopardy; did trade disagreement snowball into political row?, Sreedhar Pillai, Apr, 20 2017 13:49:17 IST

[4] http://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/baahubali-2s-karnataka-release-in-jeopardy-did-trade-disagreement-snowball-into-political-row-3394296.html

[5] The Times of India, Don’t show anger against Sathyaraj on Baahubali, Sunayana Suresh| TNN | Apr 21, 2017, 12.00 AM IST.

[6] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/dont-show-anger-against-sathyaraj-on-baahubali-ss-rajamouli/articleshow/58277733.cms

[7] Hidusthan Times, Sathyaraj’s comments not related to Baahubali: SSRajamouli, Updated: Apr 20, 2017 17:20 IST

[8] http://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/sathyaraj-s-comments-not-related-to-baahubali-ss-rajamouli/story-CFXA2to86YiOIssO3j2gFK.html

[9]

[10] TheQuint.com, National Awards-Winner ‘Baahubali’ an Upper-Caste Male Conspiracy?

The Quint, March 28, 2016, 12:23 pm

[11] https://www.thequint.com/videos/2015/12/29/baahubali-the-beginning-caste-class-gender-satire-cinemcism

[12] The Hindu, Caste references polarise Tamil film fans, CHENNAI: JULY 27, 2015 01:56 IST UPDATED: JULY 27, 2015 01:56 IST.

[13] Subagunarajan, Editor of the Tamil film journal Kaatchi Pizhai, says the fundamental problem lies in the way such casteist slurs have been embedded in the Tamil language. “Words such as chandala and kepmari, both of which denote the name of a caste, have been used as swear words. This is why Periyar called Tamil a barbaric language,” he says. However, Subagunarajan fears that society may be heading to a stage where film-makers and writers cannot discuss caste issues at all. “The courts must be proactive and not admit such cases unless it is very pressing. If the film uses a casteist slur to underscore oppression, then it is not an issue. It becomes an issue when it is used to elicit laughs,” he says hoping that the film industry will take measures to correct itself. D. Ravi Kumar, general secretary of Viduthalai Ciruthaigal Katchi, says that while the issue needs to be debated in society, he disagrees with the form of protest. “The swear words have a connection to the specific social history of oppressed people. In a democratic society, we cannot continue to use it and we need to debate it. However, the form of protest is unacceptable. Democratic issues cannot be communicated in an undemocratic way,” he says.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/baahubali-in-caste-issues/article7467345.ece

Ramajanmabhumi-Babarimasjid, evidences and Court or Hisorians as witnesses and Sunni Wakf Board Experts!

October 16, 2010

Ramajanmabhumi-Babarimasjid, evidences and Court or

Hisorians as witnesses and Sunni Wakf Board Experts!

Vedaprakash

Ramajanmabhumi-Babarimasjid and eminent hisorians: The eminent historians would appear immediately, whenever “Rama” appears in the headlines of Indian media. They start interpreting historicity of “Ramayana” according to their own way without any regard for the other view or perspective[1]. Even in the case of Sethu-samuthram, they started writing in “the Hindu” and EPW grinding their mills as usual[2]. Of course, the left media does / did not want the opinion of the others[3]. They vociferously lecture and write that they would appeal against the judgment and so on, but disappear thereafter. They exploit every forum like IHC etc., only to project their viewpoint[4]. Romila Thapar roared, “We would appeal against this jugment”, when the so-called “Hindutva judgment” came[5], but nothing happened! And the faithful readers of “The Hindu”, Frontline, EPW and the devoted members of IHC etc., also do not bother as to why their eminent historians tell lies or play such dubious games? Why they believe the eminent historians, because of their eminence or for their duplicity? Have they ever thought about them as to why they behave like that? Now, again these left / eminent intellectuals / historians have been busy with issuing statements. Besides, historians and experts others too join!

130 experts sign – ASI report should be made public, says appeal to Chief Justice[6] (14-10-2010): Now 130 experts have come out with an open letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India! The news reports say like this, “The Allahabad High Court based a significant part of its judgment in the Ayodhya case on the evidence provided by the Archaeological Survey of India’s report on its excavations at the site, submitted to the court in 2003. They accuse that the report is still hidden from the public eye, and a virtual gag order placed on archaeologists who acted as observers during the excavation[7]. Now that the judgment has been pronounced, a group of 130 academics, activists and intellectuals have demanded that the ASI report be published. In an open letter[8] to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, they urged that the report “be made available for scrutiny in the public domain, especially to scholars, as it is now a part of the public judicial record.” The ASI report, which concluded that a temple had existed at the site, has been criticised by many archaeologists for ignoring evidence such as animal bones, which would not have been found in a temple for Ram, and the existence of glazed pottery and graves at all levels which indicated Muslim residence”[9].

Shereen Ratnagar and D. Mandal were slapped with contempt of court charges by the Allahabad High Court: “In May, archaeologists Shereen Ratnagar and D. Mandal were slapped with contempt of court charges by the Allahabad High Court for sharing their observations in a book, titled “Ayodhya: Archaeology After Excavation”, published by Tulika in 2007. The orders in that case have been reserved”. That means they know the implications of the law. That is why they have been keeping quite since 2003!

The open letter and signatories: “The open letter notes that, “the world at large is equally constrained to silence. Such a judicially ordained zone of uncertainty curbs freedom of expression and fair comment.” Indians have never seen them in other caes where such issues have been involved. Thus, they want to selective!

Signatories: “The letter was signed by well-known Indian academics such as Sumit Sarkar, Uma Chakravarti, K.N. Pannikkar, K. Satchidanandan, Ajay Dandekar and filmmakers such as Anand Patwardhan, as well as less well-known Indian citizens – a software engineer, a textile design consultant, a teacher[10]. Academics from abroad – including those from universities in London, Chicago, Stockholm and Copenhagen – have also signed the letter, as friends of India”. This type of letters have been issued since 1992 and many times, the so-called signatories say that they have simply agreed to include their names in such letters. In some cases, they did / do not know also about the inclusion of their names!

Romila Thapar and others: Statement issued through Sahamat (01-10-2010): Another report goes like this: “Questioning the verdict of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suits, a group of left-leaning intellectuals on Friday said the judgment was “yet another blow to the secular fabric of the country” and the “repute of our judiciary”.  The scholars, including Romila Thapar, K M Shrimali, K N Pannikar, Irfan Habib, Utsa Patnaik and C P Chandrasekhar, said in a statement through the platform of Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT) that the verdict had raised “serious concerns” because of the way history, reason and secular values had been treated in it. “The view that the Babri Masjid was built at the site of a Hindu temple, which has been maintained by two of the three judges, takes no account of all the evidence contrary to this fact turned up by the Archaeological Survey of India’s own excavations — the presence of animal bones throughout as well as the use of ‘surkhi’ and lime mortar (all characteristic of Muslim presence) rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque,” the statement noted.

The verdict on Ayodhya: a historian’s perspective[11] (01-10-2010): Under this caption, the view of romila thapar appeared in “The Hindu”. It goes like this, “It has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace it with religious faith.

“The verdict is a political judgment and reflects a decision which could as well have been taken by the state years ago. Its focus is on the possession of land and the building a new temple to replace the destroyed mosque. The problem was entangled in contemporary politics involving religious identities but also claimed to be based on historical evidence. This latter aspect has been invoked but subsequently set aside in the judgment.

“The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to commemorate the birth. This is in response to an appeal by Hindu faith and belief[12]. Given the absence of evidence in support of the claim, such a verdict is not what one expects from a court of law. Hindus deeply revere Rama as a deity but can this support a legal decision on claims to a birth-place, possession of land and the deliberate destruction of a major historical monument to assist in acquiring the land?

“The verdict claims that there was a temple of the 12th Century AD at the site which was destroyed to build the mosque — hence the legitimacy of building a new temple.

“The excavations of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and its readings have been fully accepted even though these have been strongly disputed by other archaeologists and historians. Since this is a matter of professional expertise on which there was a sharp difference of opinion the categorical acceptance of the one point of view, and that too in a simplistic manner, does little to build confidence in the verdict. One judge stated that he did not delve into the historical aspect since he was not a historian but went to say that history and archaeology were not absolutely essential to decide these suits! Yet what are at issue are the historicity of the claims and the historical structures of the past one millennium.

“A mosque built almost 500 years ago and which was part of our cultural heritage[13] was destroyed wilfully by a mob urged on by a political leadership. There is no mention in the summary of the verdict that this act of wanton destruction, and a crime against our heritage, should be condemned. The new temple will have its sanctum — the presumed birthplace of Rama — in the area of the debris of the mosque. Whereas the destruction of the supposed temple is condemned and becomes the justification for building a new temple, the destruction of the mosque is not, perhaps by placing it conveniently outside the purview of the case.

Has created a precedent[14]: The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law that land can be claimed by declaring it to be the birthplace of a divine or semi-divine being worshipped by a group that defines itself as a community. There will now be many such janmasthans wherever appropriate property can be found or a required dispute manufactured. Since the deliberate destruction of historical monuments has not been condemned what is to stop people from continuing to destroy others? The legislation of 1993 against changing the status of places of worship has been, as we have seen in recent years, quite ineffective.

What happened in history, happened. It cannot be changed[15]. But we can learn to understand what happened in its fuller context and strive to look at it on the basis of reliable evidence. We cannot change the pas[16]t to justify the politics of the present. The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence”.

Earlier stand – Irfan Habib (01-10-2010): “With the three judges pronouncing differing opinions on the historical and archaeological aspects of the case in the Allahabad High Court’s judgement on the disputed land in Ayodhya, many leading historians have been left bemused. “It’s not a logical judgement with so many parts going 2-1. One does not accept the logicality of the judgement,” said Irfan Habib, a noted historian and a former Chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research who earlier taught at the Aligarh Muslim University. He noted that the verdict seemed to legitimise the events of 1949[17], when an idol was placed inside the mosque, by constant references. On the other hand, by minimising any mentions of the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the court seemed to be disregarding it, he said. He also expressed surprise that two judges questioned the date of construction of the Babri Masjid, as well as the involvement of emperor Babar or his commander Mir Baqi, since there had been clear inscriptions to this effect before the demolition. “Things that are totally clear historically, the court has tried to muddy,” he said[18].

D. N. Jha: “The historical evidence has not been taken into account,” said D.N. Jha, history professor at the Delhi University. Noting the judgement’s mention of the “faith and belief of Hindus” in reference to the history of the disputed structure, Dr. Jha asked why the court had requested an excavation of the site.“If it is a case of ‘belief,’ then it becomes an issue of theology, not archaeology. Should the judiciary be deciding cases on the basis of theology is a question that needs to be asked,” he said.

Supriya Verma, one of the observers: Professional archaeologists also noted that the judges did not seem to rely heavily on the Archaeological Survey of India’s court-directed excavation of the site in 2003, at least in the summaries of their verdict available on Thursday evening. “Somewhere, there is doubt about the credibility of that report,” said Supriya Verma of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, who acted as an observer during the ASI excavation. She noted that neither Justice Sudhir Agarwal nor Justice Dharam Veer Sharma even referenced the ASI report to support his conclusion on the existence of a temple on the site before the mosque was built. “It is almost as though they themselves were not convinced by the evidence. They are clearly conceding that there was no archaeological evidence of a temple or of its demolition…It is a judgement of theology,” she said.

Jaya Menon, one of the observers: Another observer of the ASI excavation, Jaya Menon of the Aligarh Muslim University, noted that the ASI report itself did not provide any evidence of a demolition, and only asserted the existence of a temple in its conclusion. “So I don’t know on what basis they made their judgements,” she said. The ASI report had been criticised by many archaeologists for ignoring evidence such as animal bones, which would not have been found in a temple for Ram, and the existence of glazed pottery and graves which indicated Muslim residents.

The eminent historians as witnesses of Muslims in the Allahabad case: The eminent historians, historical experts  and leftist manufacturers never bother about their secular credentials.  It is not known as to why these coteries should always support for the Masjid or Muslim cause. Ironically, the following have been the witnesses of the case in question, which is criticised by them:

Sl.No Witness no Name of the witness
1 Witness No. 63 R.S. Sharma
2 Witness No. 64 Suraj Bhan
3 Witness No. 65 D.N. Jha[19]
4 Witness No. 66 Romila Thapar
5 Witness No. 70 Irfan Habib
6 Witness No. 72 B.N. Pandey
7 Witness No. 95 K.M. Shrimali
8 Witness No. 99 Satish Chandra
9 Witness No. 102 Gyanendra Pandey

Then, where is their loci standi in criticising the judgment and Court? As witnesses, definitely, they could have deposed before the judges presenting their “historical facts” as they only know how to interpret! The public perhaps, even today do not know that in secular India, these historians stood witnesses to the Muslims! Why none has appeared for Hindus or temple cause? When the cold-blooded terrorist and heinous killer like Kasab is given legal aid, why none appeared for the non-Muslim and non-mosque group? Where is secularism? Would they come out in the public what they told to the judges in the Court? However, the poor show showed in the court by them raises many questions.

HC judge exposed experts espousing Masjids cause: Waqf Board Line-Up Accused Of Having Ostrich-Like Attitude:  The role played by independent experts, historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim has come in for criticism by one Allahabad High Court judge in the Ayodhya verdict. While the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed objections raised by the experts to the presence of a temple, it was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny. Most of these experts deposed twice. Before the ASI excavations, they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and, after the site had been dug up,they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa. During lengthy cross-examination spread over several pages and recorded by Justice Agarwal, the historians and experts were subjected to pointed queries about their expertise, background and basis for their opinions.
To the courts astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, were withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displayed an ostrich-like attitude to facts. He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were connected one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.

The vociverous historians could not give evidences properly as witnesses with all their extertise[20]: Some instances underlined by the judge are[21]:

  • Suvira Jaiswal[22] deposed whatever knowledge I gained with respect to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told (other experts). She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department.

  • Supriya Verma[23], another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation. She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar.

  • Verma and Jaya Menon[24] alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not present at the time the actual excavation took place.

  • Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the introduction to the book of another expert who deposed, Professor Mandal. She admitted she had no field experience.

Normally, courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not, but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements…[25] the judge noted. He said opinions had been offered without making a proper investigation, research or study in the subject. The judge said he was startled and puzzled by contradictory statements.When expert witness Suraj Bhan deposed on the Babri mosque, the weight of his evidence was contradicted by anotherexpert for Muslim parties, Shirin Musavi, who told the court that Bhan is an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history[26]. Justice Agarwal noted that instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tends to create more complications, conflict and controversy. He pointed out that experts carry weight with public opinion.

When the matter is subjudice, one has to obey law: It is a simple matter that whenever, any issue / case is pending with the Court, as the matter is subjudice, it should not be discussed or the decisions cannot be drawn in favour of anybody. However, these left historians etc., have been always speaking and writing supporting for Muslim cause or against Hindus, as is evident from their own recorded / printed statements / articles always published in the selected in few journals / ndewspapers. Unfortunately, they have even agreed to be witnesses for the Wakf Board in the Allahabad Court as their names are figuring. Ironivcally, they are called as Sunni Wakf Board experts![27]

When religions rely upon belief system, so also secularism historians too belive so ignoring objectivity: Like believers and dis-believers historians too believe and compel others to believe their perspective without any objectivity. As their objectivity differes, their perspective also differ, but try to argue with ideology, as could be understood by others. With belief system, no two ideologists could come together; with objectivity no two historians could accept the same historical event in the same view or pwerspective; here, the media has been projecting only one view. So what about the other view and why the media does not provide opportunity to accommodate their view? Should “audi alteram partem – hear the other side and decide” be applicable only to the Courts according to the principle of natural justice or the historians do not want to follow?

The same pattern as noted in the case of DK, DMK and other rapid atheists and radical experts is noted in the case of these eminent historians or Sunni Wakf Board experts: As it is pointed out in the case of DK[28]-DMK[29] radicals and rabid atheist groups that they do not come to Courts or face courts, though, they used to cry and roar that they are not afraid of Courts and so on. Here, also, suppressing the facts, these historians talk and write one thing in the dailies and cover up their mumbling and bungling in the court. The court recordings of the witnesses have been actually exposing their hollowness of expertise, deceptiveness of historical knowledge and their dubious role as witnesses. That they accuse even without seeing, even without reading or just discussing with others etc, prove their capacity of manoeuvring and manipulation of academics. How they get PhDs etc., only prove such academic degradation and professional pampering without any shame or remorse. It is open secret that the JNU, AMU, DU, IHC, ICHR and others at one side and BMAC, Sunni Wakf Board, AIMPLB at the other side have been playing communalism under the guise of secularism. Just by accusing others they cannot live, survive and continue their careers in this competitive world.

Why the eminent historians and Sunni Wakf Board experts did not respond to the remarks of the Judge? Definitely, the remarks of the Judge have been questioning the integrity of the eminent historians and Sunni Wakf Board experts, who deposed before the court as witnesses! They cannot simply brush aside such exposure, as it casts aspersion on their position. The English reading Indians and Indian students may doubt their veracity, reliability and uprightness, as they read their writings or listen to them. Therefore, they should go to court to clear the mess instead of shooting out letters to the Chief Justice just like politicians.

Indians and Indian youth should note as to whether these Sunni Board experts should teach history. Very often, it is said, claimed and propagated that India is / has been secular. Yes, how then the eminent historians professional archaeologists acted as Sunni Wakf Board experts and deposed as witnesses to the Muslims? Why these retired historians, senile professors and their working agents always make clamor about history, historicity and historiography in India, as if they are the sole selling agents of such stuff? Nowadays, the fact is that a few have been takers for history and most of the universities have dispensed with history subject. Definitely, the so-called historians have lost their importance and thus they tried to struggle for survival with the political and communal support. Now, the documents are available to all and the facts are known to everybody who access them through internet or otherwise. Common people may not know or understand the deceptive talkings and writings of the eminent historians or Sunni Wakf Board experts, but slowly they come to know. They easily understand that who want to settle the dispute and who want to continue the dispute for their stakes. Definitely, Muslims and Hindus want to settle the issue once for all, but these history gamblers and politicians want to continue. Therefore, the will of people prevail.

Vedaprakash

16-10-2010


 

[2] Romila Thapar, “Where fusion cannot work – faith and history” (the Hindu, dated September 28, 2007).

…………………., Historical Memory without History, in Economic and Political weekly, VOL 42 No. 39 September 29 – October 05, 2007, pp.3903-3905.

K. N. Panikkar, Myth, history and politics, Frontline, October 5, 2007, pp.21-24.

Suraj Bhan, “Government should have stood by ASI”, Ibid, pp.19-20.

[4] During the 2007-IHC session, Suvira Jaiswal was making such satatements. Then, in Delhi also they tried take up the matter. Now, in February 2011 at Malda, they may raise the issue. However, the Indians have to weait and see.

[5] In “the Hindu”, as usual, the news appeared with her photo and all, but after that everbody would have forgot about it! However, their warrior-like talk, veiled threatening and tactics of suppression of facts cannot be acquired by others.

[6] The Hindu, ASI report should be made public, says appeal to Chief Justice, Published: October 14, 2010 01:54 IST | Updated: October 14, 2010 02:03 IST; http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/14/stories/2010101464751800.htm

[7] How this has been a blatant lie has been exposed by the judge and that is why these guys have now tried to save their image by writing such letters. Of course, the media gives due publicity to such hypes and gimmicks.

[8] However, their mumbling, jumbling and bungling deposes before the Court have been kept as closed secret!

[9] Thus the eminent historians look for a non-vegetarian kitchen of Muslims there instrad of a temple. The same experts declared that the 16” inscription was planted by the Karsevaks in 1992.

[10] When Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti works on the same lines, the same eminent historians make fun of having such diversified experts, but now they themselves have such signatories, just to project their strength.

[11] The Hindu, Published: October 2, 2010 00:41 IST | Updated: October 2, 2010.

[12] There is nothing new in Romila’s argument, as she repeats the same matter again and again. The unfortunate thing is that she like her friends always want others should accept their views!

[13] How they contradict in their views legally can be noted in such statements. When convenience comes, they forget law, when law is against them, they start talking generalization or raise the bogey of “Hindutva”!

[14] Law precedence is created in the Court. Yes, definitely, the judges are the persons to create and others have to accept. Of course, the appealable legal remedy is there.

[15] But whatever happened also cannot be forgotten. When the same historians want to whitewash the temple destruction of the Muslims and accept only the Muslim contribution, such type of exclusivist logic is not explained. Why the students should not know the facts? In law it is said audi alteram partem – hear the other side and decide. How then historians want to decide without knowing the other side?

[16] Why then the interpretation of the past is always different for different historians? Nowadays, historians do not want objectivity also. How then they woerry about accuracy, when they themselves are not worried about it?

[17] Acts and Rules are within the time frame work. All know that Places of Worship Act is there and it e3xempts only this place and not others. Why then they talk about pre-1947 and after 1947, when law its4elf  cannot do so?

[18]The Hindu, Historical evidence ignored, say historians, dated October 1, 2010, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article805087.ece

[23] It is interesting to note that the ASI report talks about a shrine followed by a temple with different structural phases, it also talks of “animal bones recovered from various levels of different periods”. If any shrine and a temple existed how can anyone account for the animal bones, Supriya Verma asks? She also maintains that stones and decorated bricks could have been used in any building, not necessarily only in a temple. Also, the carved architectural members have come from the debris and not from the stratified context.

[24] She got appointment in the AMU after she started supporting the cause of mosque and appeared as Sunni Wakf Board expert!

[25] The historians who deposed as witnesses and as well as others should carefully read this and understand their postion. They cannot pretend as if nothing happened or pose as great authorities and roam here and there in historical forums and conferences. Now Indians have also understood their double-games, double-speak and double-standards.

[26] Nowadays, just like medical experts or specialized doctors, these historians ad archaeologists trading charges like this – so-and-so is an expert in that field and he alone can know the truth and others cannot know the truth. Such type of exclusive mind-set exposes their arrogance and weakness and not the real expertise.

[27]Asghar ali Engineer, Archaeological Excavations and Temple, September 1-15, 2003,  http://www.csss-isla.com/arch%20150.htm

[28] Vedaprakash, Old Judgments and  New thoughts in the present context: S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker  others., http://vedaprakash.indiainteracts.in/2008/08/09/old-judgments-and-new-thoughts-in-the-present-context-s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others/

Atheist’s sermon on Ramayana!

May 17, 2007

Atheist’s sermon on Ramayana!

Three years back, I started blogging here, but, I switched over to http://www.indiainteracts.com.

However, as they stopped such facility suddenly, many of my writings, bloggig, comments etc., disappeared.

Therefore, I just want to revive, recollect and repost them, wherever possible.

This response was actually for one Nandivarman of Pondicherry, as he used to attack Hindus with his self-claimed atheism and so on.

My attention is drawn to your posting in WordPress.com.

I offer my comments to your post:

India was an island nation surrounded by seas hence it had the name நாவலந் தீவு.

Is to so? Kindly tell me, where the expression நாவலந் தீவு is found in the ancient Tamil literature or “Sangam” literature?

In such a scenario to claim that a Land Bridge built 1,750.000 years ago when no human being had inhabited the Earth

In haste, you are mentioning as 1,750 years (1,750.000 = 1750).

Paula Richman wrote a book titled “Many Ramayanas” Yes the question before us is to accept which Ramayana as true story?.

You claimed youself as a rationalist / atheist etc. Then, you have to be careful in quoting from secondary sources, because, non-Hindus or anti-Hindus can write anything and quoting such biased ideas make you unbecoming of a “rationalist / atheist”. You should have read H. D. Sankalia also before jumping into the so-called “debate”.

Your mention about Jain / Buddha Ramayanas: As Ramayana has become so popular, even Jains and Buddhists had to imitate Ramayana by changing the story, just like Kulandai. Therefore, there is nothing new in it. As a researcher or scholar or historian, you have to demythologize and find out the truth, instead of relying upon “such myth on myth”, straightaway.

[The biblical Adam and Eve’s story and its resemblance could also be taken note of] Sita becoming a monket after eating a fruit: This shows that either you have not read the story properly or misquoting or rather drawing wrong parallel with the biblical Adam and Eve (don’t try to escape by telling that I am a rationalist and all). I do not know as to whether Eve became monkey to have such forceful comparison!

You furthering the above story: Here, you are perhaps nearing the biblical fables, as Jesus also reportedly married to May Magdelene. Perhaps, you decided to not stretch it.

According to Thais, Hanuman had many affairs and children: Naturally, if the wishes are horses, even blind can fly. Why Thais, even Annba did it. As you are a rationalist and atheist, you quote all these things, so enjoy.Anna’s inconclusive debate on Kamba Ramayanam: “Navalar Somasundara Bharathiar and சொல்லின் செல்வர் R.P.Sethu Pillai debated with Anna and openly admitted they have lost the debate. This debate in Tamil Book “Let Fire Spread” தீ பரவட்டும் wants to illuminate Tamil hearts by symbolically burning Kamba ramayanam. Pulavar Kuzhanthai wrote இராவண காவியம் . Ravana Kavyam  can be considered as Dravidian version of Ramayanam”.No, they were ashamed of the perversity and vulgarity erupted in the name of literary flow and hanged their heads. Any Tamil knowing or reading person would hang his head after reading as it is just like “yellow journalism” circulated under the “Dravidian” banner, that too, coming from Anna, wjo became Chief Minister of Tamilnadu taking oath under the Indian Constitution, that has been written by Ambedkar. Anyway, the facts are as follows:

  • The so called debate was held in the auditorium of Law College, Madras on 09-02-1943 under Ramachandra Chettiyar.
  • Anna started speaking and took more than one and half hours leaving no time to others.
  • Pointing out the falsehood in his speech, R. P. Sethu Pillai openly spoke about his weakness in the argument. In fact, re ridiculed Anna for quoting from “Northern Nehru”, being a “Nakkiran” (one who always finds fault with others). Regretting that he could not speak for long time, he wound up his speech within ten minutes. He dared him that he would even come to Kanchipuram for another debate on the subject matter, if he would invite him.
  • Ezattu Adigal, who followed him, was asked to cut short his speech within five minutes.
  • Then Srinivasan started speaking, but he was prevented from speaking, as the DK activists created a riot-like condition. He had to stop his speech, because of the pandemonium created by them.
  • But, Anna was given a chance to speak again!
  • So that was the debate conducted with “freedom of speech” and respect for speakers!
  • However, winding up, C. M. Ramachandra Chetti concluded that he could not give his opinion, as the debate had been inconclusive.

The main point discussed was as to whether Ravana was an Aryan or Dravidian. Thus, the first debate had been the most undemocratic conducted under controlled conditions with rioters.

The second debate was conducted on 14-03-1943 at Devanga Padasalai, Sevvaipettai,  Salem. Salem College A. Ramasamy presided over Anna and Somasundara Bharathi spoke.

  • Anna spoke as usual taking full time
  • Somasundara Bharathi pointed out that Anna spoke as an orator with brimming emotion not as a debater. He then, however brought out his points refuting Anna;s talk.
  • He left, as his speech was over and moreover, he had to catch his train, as plannede by the organizers.
  • But, after his departure, Anna was given a chance and he stressed upon Ravana’s race and concluded with the demand of burning “scriptures of Aryans”.
  • A. Ramasamy, though did not gave any result about the debate, he pointed out that there was “vulgarity” in Kamba Ramayanam.

In any case, such diverted reference has nothing to do with the “Ramar’s Palam”.

The question before us which of these versions is based on true historical facts. These are not days where everyone will accept anything with blind faith. If you place new facts to reopen a settled issue in history, you should place facts and prove it”.

Yes, yes. Nowadays, everybody can get information easily and they decide about truth behind it.  Even in those days (when Anna debated), the other scholars were not allowed to speak or threatened with dire consequences. In other words, they used their own type of terrorism in those days. Now, let us see, how truth is faced.

Let us examine the falsehoods one by one. We from the Dravidian Movement are atheists but not Ravana; all know that Ravana as per epics is a devotee of Lord Siva. The doubt which arises to me is why should a reincarnation of God perform superhuman deeds to impress demigods? Does it mean that Demigods are more powerful than the Original God on reincarnation?

Interestingly, the answer is there in the so-called above debate, as they debated only about the race of Ravana as to whether he was an Aryan or Dravidian! Rationalist or atheist has to deny such myth. Having believed it as a myth, why one should worry about it as to whether it works or not? Without Ramayana myth, there is no Ravana. If Ramayana is myth, Ravana is also a myth. Then, why debate about his “racist credentials”?

There are many books on Indian Ocean. All these books give us evidences on the continental drift, the submerged lands of the Lemuria, which Tamils prefer to call as the Kumari Kandam”.

Yes, but note again, the western scholars do not believe in such hypotheses. Why them, even Indian eminent historians not only do not accept, but also dub them as myth.

Mr. Nandi Varman, go to Endo-eurasian group and other forums, where Tamil literature is misinterpreted and disrespected. Steve Farmer openly accuses that your friend R. Mathivanan is a foregerer. They go on debate even without knowing the fundamentals of Tamil and Tamil literature. I feel it is better spend your energy there instead of politicizing the issue.

VEDAPRAKASH,

Researcher,

Chennai.

vedamvedaprakash@yahoo.com