Archive for the ‘Ramayana’ Category

DMK, Dravida and Black Parivar have been anti-Hindu or not? “Mount Road Mahavishnu,” marital alliance with Iyengars, tirade against Rama and Ramayana [2]

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 [2]

June 2018, SriRangam temple, Stalin, priest apply paste

2018 – drama of visiting Srirangam for Durga: Again in June 21-22, 2018, he visited Srirangam in connection with party functions, as arranged by the DMK cadres. He visited the house of IUML leader, K. M. Khader Mohideen, to enquire about his ailing wife Hajiyani Lathiba Begum. Then he visited Padmasali Mantap to attend some function. On his way, at the Srirangam temple, he was welcomed by Sundar Bhattar and others, opposite to Ranga Gopuram. Ironically, he was given a silk shawl and one priest affectionately put the holy paste on his forehead, but, lo, this man wiped out it with the same shawl! This shocked not only the innocent priests, as could noted from the photographs, but also by other onlookers. They welcomed with “Purnakumbam,” and honored through an elephant garlanding him.  On behalf of Ahobila mutt also, he was honoured[1]. When they asked to come inside the temple, he flatly refused[2] with usual facial expression frowning. To clear all doubts, “Nakkeeran,” the pro-DK-DMK magazined recorded that just to satisfy the wish of Durga, his wife only, he did all these antics[3]. Only K. N. Nehru’s wife used to accompany, this time either she joined him or he took her. In any case, the DMK cadres told, he came just to satisfy and fulfill her wishes[4]. In any case, it is clear that he conducted such dramas to fool others, particularly, the gullible Hindus.

June 2018, SriRangam temple, Stalin, priest apply paste-Stalin removed-BJP

Karunanidhi declared, “Hindu is a thief” in October 2002, case filed[5]: The Chennai city police had registered the first information report against the former Chief Minister and DMK president, M. Karunanidhi, for his speech at an October 24 2002 minorities’ meeting here, which, a complainant said, wounded the religious feelings of Hindus. The police acted on the complaint filed by, R. Premnath, an advocate of Chepauk, before XIV metropolitan magistrate[6]. The court forwarded the complaint to the Egmore police station. Accordingly, the police registered a case for offences under Section 295-A (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and 298 IPC (Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings) and taken up a probe.  The complainant said at the meeting held at St.Andrew Church, Egmore, to protest the legislation preventing forcible conversions, the former Chief Minister spoke with the “deliberate intention to outrage the feelings of Hindus, to get applause and support from the gathering to undermine and wantonly insult the Hindus”. Karunanidhi had said, “Who is a Hindu? A good man would say the word `Hindu’ means a thief”. The word used by him showed “his deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of Hindus”. He did not tender any apology. The complainant said the DMK chief  “identified himself as a rationalist, but changes his colours at public meetings to satisfy the gathering”. The Police Commissioner ought to have taken suo motu action against Karunanidhi for insulting the Hindu religion and feelings of Hindus. But neither the police nor the Government took action,  Premnath said.

Karu, Rama, bow and arrow

Is this Ram a civil engineer? When Karunanidhi called Ramayana “fiction” (2007): In 2007, he famously came down hard on ‘communal forces’ for using the ‘myth’ of Ram Sethu to stall the Sethusamudram project and had famously said[7]: “Who is this Raman (as Lord Ram is referred to in Tamil)? In which engineering college did he study and become a civil engineer? When did he build this so-called bridge? Is there any evidence for this?” On the withdrawal of the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project – to create a shipping route in the shallow straits between India and Sri Lanka, he had said: “The withdrawal of the affidavits does not mean that the project is being withdrawn,” Karunanidhi told reporters at Yercaud near Salem. “If it amounts to the project itself being shelved, then the DMK, which adheres to scientific, rational and progressive ideals, will not accept it.” He went on to call Ramayana a piece of fiction that represented the conflict between Aryans and Dravidians.This had led BJP’s Ravi Shankar Prasad to retort: “We would like to know from Karunanidhi if he would make a similar statement against religious head of any other religion; chance are he may not.”He even went on to claim Ram was a drunkard and he was quoting Valmiki’s Ramayana. Pointing out that the Constitution didn’t bar his remarks, he had said[8]: “I have not hurt anyone by my remarks. Expressing the views which are already in writing cannot be termed as wounding the sentiments of somebody else. The DMK has never done anything which would hurt the sentiments of either the Hindus or anybody else and the party would not do so in the future.”

TTD met Kru for Ramanujar Jan.2016

Karunanidhi playing Ravana (1998): On October 1, 1998, Anoor Jagadeesan, president of PDK and 16 others were arrested when they tried to burn the effigies of Rama and Lakshmana in Chennai[9]. On October 18, 1998, Karunanidhi asserted that, “….if you insult Ravana, you are insulting me”. Quoting from Jawaharlal Nehru’s Discovery of India, the septuagenarian politician pointed out that the epic is all about the Aryan-Dravidian struggle for supremacy[10]. Karunanidhi’s speech was a throwback to some of his earlier film scripts when he brought this struggle to the fore through subtle messages that bypassed the scrutiny of censors. In Ramasethu issue also, he passed remarks asking “In which engineering college Rama studied” (so that he could build a bridge). Even, Kamal Hasan also used to utter that he came from Ravan genealogy or something like that!

ISKCON with Karu

EVR, Anna and Karunanidhi followed the same pattern (1956-1970): In 1956 August first, Dravidia Kazhagam asked the volunteers to bum pictures of Lord Rama as the organization considered Ramayana as anti-women and anti lower castes etc. one Dravidia Kazhagam leader in the name of Thiruvarur Thangarajan wrote a new version of Ramayana way Rama was portrayed as a villain. The Dravidia Kazhagam film star M.R. Radha staged the play throughout the state. The Government led by the Chief Minister Kamaraj immediately banned the play but Dravidia Kazhagam after obtaining court’s pem1ission staged the play in selected towns.  At the instigation of Thiru E. V. Ramaswami Naicker[11], the Leader of Dravida Kazhagam, several tableaus depicting the picture of Gods Rama and Muruga were being beaten by a chappal in a procession held at Salem on 23rd and 24th January 1971. When one individual printed the photos of the procession, the DMK government banned and seized the posters.  The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification G. O. Ms. No. 491 Home dated 12-2-1971 directing the posters to be forfeited to the Government on the ground that the said posters contained matters which promote or intend to promote the feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens of India or which is deliberately or maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of any such class by insulting the religion or the religious feelings of that class[12].

Karu-yoga

Mount Road Mahavishnu, Karunanidhi and Iyengar girls marrying his nephews: It is well known that Karunanidhi used to be so harsh and rude about “The Hindu” dubbing it as a “Parppanan naledu”, i.e, a daily of Brahmins (using derogatory word). However, N. P. Ramajeyam started gaining control over the Hindu labour union.  He joined in 1965 and became Union’s General Secretary in 1975. He was also a MLA of Mylapore constituency during 1996-2001. When he died in 2007, N. Murali, MD praised him like anything and told, “that he never brought politics inside”! However, when Kanimozhi was suffering fron depression, because of divorce, she was accommodated in the “editorial section” and trained to get over. Ironically, Dayanidhi Maran took their relative Priya as his wife. He married Priya of “The Hindu” Iyengar family [Ramesh Rangarajan son of S. Rangarajan] on 26-08-1994. Incidentally, Mallika wife of Murasoli Maran has been the daughter of A. N. Kalanasundara Iyer. And Stalin’s name was mentioned in posters, in those days as “Vishnu Stalin”!  Then the atheit and anti-Hindu Karunanidhi stopped mentioning “Mount Road Mahavishnu”. However, his tirade against Ram unabated as pointed out above. Thus, father and son have been trying to exploit the sentiments of Iyengars with marital links.

© Vedaprakash

27-09-2018

Mount Road Mahavishnu, Priya with Dhayanidhi

[1]விகடன், பூரண கும்ப மரியாதை… யானை ஆசீர்வாதம்… ஸ்ரீரங்கத்தில் ஸ்டாலினுக்கு நடந்த வரவேற்பு, சி.ய.ஆனந்தகுமார், மற்றும்ன்.ஜி.மணிகண்டன்,  Posted Date : 11:48 (22/06/2018)Last updated : 11:48 (22/06/2018)

[2] https://www.vikatan.com/news/tamilnadu/128482-stalins-srirangam-visit.html

[3] நக்கீரன், மனைவிக்காக ஸ்ரீரங்கம் வந்த மு..ஸ்டாலின்!, ஜே.டி.ஆர், Published on 22/06/2018 (12:28) | Edited on 22/06/2018 (12:30)

[4] https://nakkheeran.in/24-by-7-news/politics/mk-stalin-cames-srirangam-temple-his-wife

[5] The Hindu, Case against Karunanidhi for `hurting Hindu feelings’, By Our Special Correspondent Friday, Nov 15, 2002.

[6] https://www.thehindu.com/2002/11/15/stories/2002111505680400.htm

[7] DNA, Is this Ram a civil engineer? When Karunanidhi called Ramayana “fiction,” 2007, Updated: Aug 8, 2018, 05:02 PM IST

[8] https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-is-this-ram-a-civil-engineer-when-karunanidhi-called-ramayana-fiction-2647294

[9] Ajith Pillai and A. S. Paneerselvan, Good Or Evil? The  Politics Of  Ravana, Outlook, Novemver.2, 1998.

[10] https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/good-or-evil-the-politics-of-ravana/206444

[11] Madras High Court – Chinna Annamalai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 February, 1971; Equivalent citations: AIR 1971 Mad 448, 1971 CriLJ 1569, (1971) IIMLJ 158; Author: K Reddy; Bench: K Reddy, Ganesan, Maharajan.

[12] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1710030/

Advertisements

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

Tarun Vijay has been caught into the Dravidian cobweb without understanding the the Dravidian ideology, philosophy and polity!

April 8, 2017

Tarun Vijay has been caught into the Dravidian cobweb without understanding the the Dravidian ideology, philosophy and polity!

Tarun tweets to apologize on black people-4

“We have black people around us,” said Tarun Vijay[1]: Day after the Centre denied charges of racism in the assault on a group of Nigerians in Greater Noida, the BJP was left red-faced by its leader Tarun Vijay’s remark during a discussion on Al Jazeera that Indians cannot be called racists as they live with “black people” from the southern states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh[2]. “If we were racist, why would we have the entire south, which is complete, you know, Tamil, you know Kerala, you know Karnataka and Andhra, why do we live with them? We have black people around us,” said Vijay[3]. He has been totally wrong in dubbing the South Indian people have been black and as if the north Indian people white. In other words, he has accepted the dubbing of Dravidian ideologists that thw “Aryans invaded India suppressing the black Dravidians”! The remarks sparked a furore, embarrassing the former MP’s party colleagues and leadership[4]. Some opined that whatever, the good work, he has done through the installation of Tiruvalluvar, has undone through such meaningless remarks. More so, because BJP chief Amit Shah had called on 06-04-2017 [Thursday] for expanding the party’s roots and strengthening the organisation in southern states.

Tarun tweets to apologize on black people

The African envoys accused India of “racism”: India reacted sharply as a group of 44 African envoys described the attacks as “xenophobic and racial” and accused the government of taking no “known, sufficient and visible” deterrent action. In parliament Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj said that the attacks were “criminal acts” and cannot be called racial. “Before the inquiry is completed, please don’t say it is driven by racial discrimination,” she said, while speaking in the Lok Sabha, where some opposition leaders demanded to know the government’s response to allegations of “racial attacks” on Africans in Greater Noida. In India, the attacks on the Africans have been mainly due to drug trafficking, financial frauds and sexual harassment incidences. In medieval period and even today, they have been engaged in piracy also demanding ransom. The Indians, (in general, though, do not bother about the movement of the foreigners), have been cautious about the Nigerians only for these reasons. However, they continue to get involved in such activities. Thus, Tarun has failed to point out the facts to the foreign media, instead indulged in talking about “not-known” subject to him. While the attacks on Indians have been racist in US, UK, Australia and other countries, in India, the attacks are not racial, but, retaliatory nature, because of the explicit reasons.

Tarun tweets to apologize on black people-2

“The Hindu” has been so happy in interpreting “racist” twist, with Marxist attack on BJP[5]: BJP leader and former Rajya Sabha member Tarun Vijay’s statement to a television channel that Indians could not be racists as they lived with “black” South Indians, sparked off a storm on the social media on Friday [07-04-2017], with Mr. Vijay coming in for severe criticism. Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat told The Hindu: “Mr. Tarun Vijay’s comment reflects the core Hindutva ideology of Aryan superiority. What was in my mind came out today. He has apologised for his words, but his thoughts will remain what they are.” The Communist / Marxist “The Hindu” added glefully that, “Mr. Vijay is a former editor of RSS-related publication Panchjanya.While refusing to come on record, a BJP leader said that Mr. Vijay had himself retracted his statement and it was time to move on”, as if it is “secular, unbiased and balanced”. This has been the way, the Indian media has been working catering to the needs of Indians.

Through twitter, he apologized and corrected himself: Vijay was not available for comment but apologised for his remarks, while attempting to explain them, in a series of tweets[6]. In one tweet, he acknowledged that his remarks sounded “ridiculous and very bad”[7]. “In many parts of the nation we have different people, in colour and never ever we had any discrimination against them,” he posted[8]. “My words perhaps were not enough to convey this. Feel bad, really feel sorry, my apologies to those who feel I said different than what I meant,” he wrote[9]. He even said[10], “I said we worship Krishna, which literally em, ans black, we were the first to oppose any racism and were in fact victims of racist British” and “In may parts of the nation we have different people, in colour and never ever we had any discrimination against them”. But, it was too late, as what he said was broadcast already[11]. However, it is evident that he has not understood the history of South India, particularly, that of Tamlnadu and its implications. Or the advisiors from Tamilnadu has been misguiding him through their wonderful ideas. Even in the case of Tiruvalluvar and connected issues, they had misled him for the consequences, that I explained in my Tamil blogs.

Tarun tweets to apologize on black people-3

The BJP leaders have been ignorant of the Dravidian ideology, philosophy and polity: However, at least three senior BJP leaders and an MP told The Indian Express that the comments from the former editor of RSS mouthpiece Panchajanya were “extremely embarrassing” and could damage the party’s image in the south. “It’s really bad for us that this has come the day after our party chief wanted leaders to strengthen the party in the southern states. In spite of all the explanations and the apologies, such statements will damage the party’s image and adversely affect its efforts to come up as a party for all,” said one leader.  The BJP cannot handle issues of South India or Tamilnadu in this way, without understanding the facts. The present leadership of Tamilnadu has not been any match to the Dravidian political and ideological leaders, as most of them have been ignorant of the Dravidian ideology, philosophy and polity since 1920s to 1970s.

The Kerala BJP leadrrs have been uncomfotable with his comments: In Kerala, where the BJP is in the race for the Lok Sabha by-election in Malappuram, a leader pointed out that Vijay’s comments have become a “hot topic” for the media. Kerala BJP chief Kummanam Rajasekharan and former state chief V Muraleedharan said the matter should be “closed” as Vijay had apologised. But Rajasekharan said, “If there has to be an explanation, the party leadership should be asking for it.” A BJP leader from the state said Vijay’s remark would “overshadow” the party’s attempts to highlight the “Communist violence against the BJP and the RSS” at the national level. “These leaders should be cautious in making remarks in public. With social media and visual media being so alive now, one has to be cautious,” said the leader.

The Tamilnadu BJP leaders should be trained in the Dravidian ideology, philosophy and polity: When contacted by The Indian Express, BJP general secretary P Muralidhar Rao said, “He has realised that what he said was wrong and against the BJP’s ideology. He has apologised for it, why should we pursue it now?” Rao said that Vijay would not have meant what he said. “This man has been working with cultural organisations in Tamil Nadu. He has carved out a space for himself in the cultural field there,” said Rao. In one of his tweets, Vijay wrote: “I have Tamil, Bengali, Telugu in my family — worked with commitment for Tamil culture, without any politics, collectively with all.” In another tweet, he wrote: “I can die but how can I ridicule my own culture, my own people and my own nation? Think before you misinterpret my badly framed sentence.” That was followed by this line: “And, I never, never, even in a slip, termed south India as black. Have patience to watch the show before reacting angrily.” In the programme, Vijay was defending India against charges of racism following the attacks on the African students.

© Vedaprakash

08-04-2017

[1] Hindustan Times, Tarun Vijay sparks racism row: ‘We’ve south India… we live with black people’, by Dhrubo Jyoti, Updated: Apr 07, 2017 19:51 IST.

[2] http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bjp-s-tarun-vijay-stokes-racism-row-we-have-south-india-we-live-with-black-people/story-rmaP8qguUK7zr1mWem2e4O.html

[3] India Today, When Tarun Vijay fought for Tamil, had Thiruvalluvar statue installed at Haridwar, New Delhi, April 7, 2017 | UPDATED 00:53 IST

[4] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/tarun-vijay-tamil-thiruvalluvar/1/923279.html

[5] The Hindu, Tarun causes stir with racist remark, NEW DELHI APRIL 07, 2017 23:59 IST UPDATED: APRIL 07, 2017 23:59 IST.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tarun-causes-stir-with-racist-remark/article17876140.ece

[6] NDTV, BJP’s Tarun Vijay Shocks With Racist Comment, Apologises, Edited by Shuchi Shukla | Updated: April 07, 2017 16:11 IST.

[7] http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bjps-tarun-vijay-shocks-with-racist-comment-apologises-1678566

[8] Indian Express, Ex-BJP MP Tarun Vijay’s insight: ‘We live with blacks (south Indians), can’t be racist’, Written by Liz Mathew; Updated: April 8, 2017 9:49 am.

[9] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/tarun-vijays-insight-we-live-with-blacks-south-indians-cant-be-racist-4604467/

[10] Times of India, Attacks on Africans: BJP leader Tarun Vijay defends his comments, says they weren’t racist, TIMESOFINDIA.COM | Apr 7, 2017, 03.19 PM IST.

[11] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/attacks-on-africans-bjp-leader-tarun-vijay-defends-his-comments-says-they-werent-racist/articleshow/58065086.cms

Malda IHC conference, communal fire and blaspheme riots – were they incidental, coincidental or ancillary (2)?

January 14, 2016

Malda IHC conference, communal fire and blaspheme riots – were they incidental, coincidental or ancillary (2)?

Eminent historians, IHC, resoltion mughal tombs to be protected

Unblushing, spineless and biased historians stroking the fire of communalism (30-12-2015): Eminent historians like Irfan Habib, Aditya Mukherjee, Shireen Mousvi, and BP Sahu Indu Banga were present at the 76th nsession, when the resolutions were passed. The resolution recalled that the IHC had said since 1984 that the Babri Masjid was “entitled to protection both as a medieval monument built in 1528 and as an example of Sharqi architecture.” …..“However, it was allowed to be destroyed in 1992 — an act which provoked national condemnation,” the resolution said. “That destruction was planned to enable the ground to be cleared to build a modern temple.” When UPA was in power, they did not worry about the stones coming to Ayodhya, as the work has been going on for many years. Virtually, it is a small factory, where all the tourists can go inside and see the processes carried on without any restriction. About recent happenings of other things (in the name of tolerance etc.,), these historians were keeping quiet, why then suddenly in Malda, they started to give political discourse about the Babri Masjid? How can they forget that they have been condemned by the Allahabad High Court for misleading the Court?

Harbans Mukhia, Suvira Jaiswal, Indu Banga, Rajan Gurukkal, Romila, Shereen Ratnagar

The way the eminent historians deal court cases: Though Romila Thapar roared that they would file an appeal, she kept quiet and disappeared, perhaps, to save her honour. Whenever, Rama comes in the news, she used to come and say something against and disappear. But, she never goes to court, as she threatens. Irfan Habib chose to reply in his own way[1], but, none cared for. Thus, the recent war of words between eminent professional historians and Sangh Parivar outfits reached a new high on Tuesday (30-12-2015), with the Indian History Congress (IHC) passing a resolution against the arrival of engraved stones in Ayodhya, for a future Ram temple at the site where the Babri Masjid once stood[2]. In fact, there was no discussion and the resolutions were passed just like that[3]. On December 23, 2015, The Hindu cleverly carried an editorial to bat for the “eminent” historians, who have been the witnesses for the Muslims in the Babri case in the courts[4]. Not only that they were exposed by the High Court during the cross examination[5], about their spreading lies, planting biased articles in newspapers and deposing without visiting Ayodhya!

Gyanendra Pandey, Suraj Bhan, Indu Banga, D N Jha, K M Srimali, Satish Chandra

The eminent historians as witnesses of Muslims in the Babri Masjid case[6]: It is not known how they agreed to lend their names or ready to be witnesses in the Babari case to support Muslim cause. 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. But, as the Muslim groups have been dominating the IHC sessions and sponsorship provided, they were obliged to act as witnesses. Ironically, the following have been the witnesses of the case in question:

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[7]
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

Unfortunately, in the 2012 Allahabad court judgment, when were exposed, they got wild. So they started criticizing the judgment to save their faces. 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.

Eminent historians, Arun Shourie

How eminent historians made their elite historians to lie before the Court: Let us see, what these eminent historians deposed before the court and offered their expertise during the cross-examination:

  1. Supriya Verma an, “expert” who challenged the excavations done by the ASI, had not read the radar survey report on ground penetration that led to the court order for excavation.
  2. Verma and Jaya Menon, another “expert,” were not present at the time of actual excavations but alleged that pillar bases at the excavated sites were planted.
  3. Suvira Jaiswal says: “Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told.”
  4. She also confessed that she “prepared a report on the Babri dispute after reading newspaper reports and on the basis of discussion with my medieval history expert in my department”.
  5. Jaiswal made an important clarification: “I am not giving (my) statement on oath regarding Babri Mosque without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge; rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my opinion.”
  6. When opinion can be history why are they all screaming that “faith” cannot be an equally relevant criterion?
  7. Archaeologist Shereen Ratnagar admitted she did not have any “field” experience as far as Babri was concerned and had written an “introduction” to the book of another “expert” who deposed before the court, namely Prof D Mandal.
  8. Suraj Bhan was providing evidence based on medieval history but another expert of Muslim parties, namely Shireen Musavi, says that Bhan is an archaeologists and not a historian.

Is this the way that they should have confessed? Why then pretend as the expert of experts, scholar of scholars etc?

Allahabad High Court judment, eminent historians

“The Communist Party issues a red card, and I am its holder. It is true that I have no faith in religion.”:

  1. Prof Mandal retired from the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Allahabad University. He was appointed on an ad hoc basis as Lecturer in 1972 but prior to that he claimed to have worked as exploration assistant since 1960.
  2. Initially he appeared as an expert to depose that there was no archaeological evidence to show either the existence of any temple at the disputed site or that a temple was demolished before construction of the disputed structure.
  3. The statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge and provide a sample about all these “eminences”. A few of his quotes:
    1. “I never visited Ayodhya”.
    2. “I do not have any specific knowledge of the history of Babur’s reign.”
    3. “Whatsoever little knowledge I have about Babur is only that Babur was the ruler of the 16th century.
    4. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.
    5. I do not have knowledge of anything in 2nd Para of the editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63) in which Romila Thapar has written that Vishwa Hindu Parishad, BJP and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, for the first time, raised the issue of the Babri Masjid being located on the place which was earlier Rama’s birth place.
    6. I also do not know whether or not it is correctly written on page 10 of the aforesaid preface that Ayodhya is a site of pilgrimage for adherents of Ramanand school.”
    7. “The Communist Party issues a red card, and I am its holder. It is true that I have no faith in religion.”

So when they were torn into pieces exposing their expertise, professionalism, peer-group review and appreciation etc., how they still hold their heads high and gather courage to pass such resolutions?

  • Can Romila Thapar forget this?
  • Can Supriya Verma, Jaya Menon, Suvira Jaiswal, Shereen Ratnagar, Mandal etc., deny their role in spreading falsehood?
  • Then, what position, they have to pass resolutions at IHC in this cowardly fashion, instead of going to court?

© Vedaprakash

14-01-2016

 

[1]https://ia700408.us.archive.org/32/items/HistoryJudgementOfAllahabadHighCourtInRamjanmabhumibabriMasjidCase/HistoryJudgementOfAllahabadHighCourtInRamjanmabhumibabriMasjidCase.pdf

[2] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/historians-condemn-buildup-in-ayodhya/article8042477.ece

[3] When Prof Grover, ICHR chairman (former) was there, he used to question their audacity to propose such resolutions, leave alone getting passed in this way. Now, the enjoying members did not know any implication of such resolutions passed, might feel heat now or later, when they realize.

[4] http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-on-ayodhya-temple-ominous-signals-from-ayodhya/article8018720.ece?ref=relatedNews

[5] http://www.firstpost.com/india/babri-demolition-how-hc-verdict-discredited-eminent-historians-547549.html

[6] https://vedaprakash.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/ramajanmabhumi-babarimasjid-evidences-and-court-or-hisorians-as-witnesses-and-sunni-wakf-board-experts/

[7] http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20101022272113200.htm

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