Rama Setu -2 - Printable Version

Rama Setu -2 - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Current Affairs & News (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Newshopper - Discuss recent news (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Thread: Rama Setu -2 (/showthread.php?tid=381)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-15-2007

PIL filed for criminal cases against PM, Sonia QUOTEIndore, Sept 15: A petition has been filed in a court in Indore seeking registration of criminal cases against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi and Union Law Minister Hansraj Bharadwaj for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of Hindus due to the controversial affidavits on the Ram Setu issue in the Supreme Court.

Archaeological Survey of India's (ASI) affidavits questioning the existence of Lord Ram and the man-made bridge `Rama Setu', have hurt religious sentiments of Hindus, petitioner Suresh Sahu claimed in his complaint filed before Judicial Magistrate V S Muvel on Friday.

The Centre's claims were "vengeful" and the construction in the Ram Setu area was "inappropriate", Sahu's lawyer Deepal Rawa said.

"The Centre's move to withdraw the affidavits confirms that the crime has been committed," he said, adding that the petitioner sought registration of criminal cases against Singh, Gandhi, Bharadwaj and two senior bureaucrats.

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-15-2007

Hindu Law Board demands subsidy for Ram Sethu pilgrimageQUOTE
The Hindu Personal Law Board has approached the Allahabad High Court to seek subsidised rates for the pilgrims visiting the Ram Setu or Adam's Bridge from the Centre.

A public interest litigation, filed in the registry of the court's Lucknow bench by board president Ashok Pandey, quotes extensively from the Ramcharitmanas by Goswami Tulsidas. The PIL further pleads that "Lord Ram himself asked his disciples to make a pilgrimage to the Setu."

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-15-2007

Ram Affidavit: Sidhu burns Sonia's effigyQUOTEIn Kaputhala, the local leaders of BJP, VHP and Bajrang Dal took out a rally and flayed the UPA government for allegedly playing with the sentiments of Hindus.

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-15-2007

Modi attacks UPA over Rama Setu issueQUOTE"For the last few days I have been experiencing a great personal pain because of the Centre's affidavit (on Lord Ram) and the Sethusamduram project. I don't know whether you people too are also feeling the same," he said while addressing farmers and milk producers at a function here.

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-15-2007

Setusamudram project a conspiracy against Hindus: Puri seerQUOTEPuri, Sep 15 : Puri Goberdhan Peeth Sankaracharya Swamy Neeschalananda Saraswati today alleged that the attempt to destroy the Ramsethu for the Setusamudram shipping canal project was a ''conspiracy'' against Hindu ethos and religious beliefs.

In a statement here, the Puri seer, quoting Hindu religious scripts, said Lord Ram had constructed the Setu in Tretya Yug to reach Lanka to free his wife Sita.

The Shankaracharya said if anyone tried to destroy the Setu, the person should be ousted from the country.

He urged all the other Sankaracharyas to fight against such move.

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-15-2007

QUOTE Ram Row: RSS excuses Sonia, targets 'Sikh PM' 
Agencies
Posted online: Saturday , September 15, 2007 at 12:00:00
Updated: Saturday , September 15, 2007 at 02:37:03Print Email To Editor

New Delhi, September 15: The RSS has sought to blame Prime Minister Manmohan Singh directly for the controversial affidavit on Lord Ram and pointed to his Sikh faith and its sacred texts that contain numerous references to the revered figure.

An editorial in RSS mouthpiece Organiser alleged that Congress chief Sonia Gandhi would not be able to understand India and its âidentity Ramâ because of her foreign and Catholic origin.

"Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a confirmed religious Sikh, should have known better, for the holy Guru Granth Sahib, holy Gurbani of revered Guru Gobind Singh are known for their salutations to Sri Ram," the Sangh mouthpiece wrote.

"Sonia Gandhi will not know. She will never understand this country. No foreigner can fathom the place of Sri Ram in the lives of the people of this country. Sri Ram is the identity of India. But the UPA action was premeditated and calculated," it said.

The write-up also referred to Gandhi's Catholic origin as it accused the government of regarding Ram as a fiction.

It also found âunderstandableâ Shipping Minister T R Balu's rejection of demands to realign the Sethusamudram project because of his Dravida background.

"The over enthusiasm of T R Balu on the subject is understandable, for he belongs to a creed that always reveled in sympathising with the heroism of Ravana, the abductor of Mata Sita," the editorial said.

Earlier this year, the Akal Takht, Sikhism's highest temporal authority, took strong exception to an RSS statement posted on its Website that says Sikhs are part of the great Hindu Samaj.

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-16-2007

"In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has insisted that there is no "historical record" to validate the Ramayan and, as such, Ram is a fictional character... .

Ram defines our nation, our ancestry, our civilisation. Denying Ram is denying India. Gandhi stood firmly for Ram Rajya. He died with Ram's name on his lips. His samadhi in Delhi has only one inscription etched on it, He Ram. But Hindus are asked to provide proof of Rama's birthplace ....."

Here are five recent articles on the Govt. assault on Hinduism :

1) Denying Ram is denying India
Tarun Vijay; rediff.com; September 14, 2007

2) The Ram I know
Karan Singh; Indian Express; Sept. 14, 2007

3) Perversity as secularism
KPS Gill; Pioneer, Sep 15, 2007

4) Assault on Hindu psyche
Priyadarsi Dutta; Pioneer, Sep 15, 2007

5) Faith, fact and fiction
Ashok Malik; Pioneer, Sep 15. 2007

============ ========= ========= ========= ====

Attachment A

Denying Ram is denying India

Tarun Vijay
rediff.com; September 14, 2007

Sonia Gandhi again played a masterstroke by taking credit for withdrawing the offending Ram Sethu affidavit. But this has also raised the question whether she did it in deference to Hindu sentiments or was she afraid of its negative impact on her party's election prospects. Since the United Progressive Alliance's ascendancy to power, a number of decisions have been taken by the government which hurt Hindu sentiments but none cared.

If suddenly her conscience took cognisance of Hindu sensitivities, then logically she should have also withdrawn the destruction of the Ram Sethu. One can only hope that political leaders understand that this issue concerns national sentiments and should be dealt beyond party lines.

After all, the affidavit was filed quite confidently by the State apparatus because the entire atmosphere of governance has a distinct 'offend the Hindus, get the Muslim votes' hue. Bureaucrats, being the most durbari species, sensed it, otherwise none would have dared to file such nonsense on a stamp paper during A B Vajpayee's regime.

It is this all-pervading air of 'bruising Hindus to get a pat' that the name that appears first on our lips since birth and lasts till the funeral pyre is lit was challenged so coolly by a government which is not run by aliens.

It has tried to delete all that stood for our identity and cultural traits that define us, our nationhood and soul. It shows utter disregard for the majority sentiment and the threads that weave a fabric called India, while distributing gifts of reservations and loans and opportunities for anyone declaring himself to be a non-Hindu. One Diwali our Shankaracharya was arrested and then Muslims were given reservations in jobs and educational institutions. No one ever, not even once, showed any concern for the Kashmiri Hindu refugees; rather illegal alien Muslim infiltrators were facilitated by enacting the Illegal Migrants Detention Act and when the Supreme Court struck it down, again brought it back through the back door.

This attitude sets the tone of the State machinery. So what happened in this case was nothing surprising. If the affidavit was honestly withdrawn to respect Hindu sentiments, then why was it not accompanied with an announcement to withdraw the destruction of the Ram Sethu also? If the offending affidavit is bad, then the destruction of the bridge connected with the same great icon of Hindus is worse.

Didn't the political masters who cleared the affidavit know that Ram doesn't need any birth certificate from occupants of the paan-stained dirty corridors of State? Faith of any hue and region has to be respected unquestioningly. It is faith that makes people live and die for a cause, and not political jugglery.

Ram defines our nation, our ancestry, our civilisation. Denying Ram is denying India. Gandhi stood firmly for Ram Rajya. He died with Ram's name on his lips. His samadhi in Delhi has only one inscription etched on it, He Ram. But Hindus are asked to provide proof of Rama's birthplace and the data of his bridge's construction plans.

Now they asked for proof of his existence. Next they may ask -- with this kind of Parliament it is quite possible -- to provide proof of who gave Bharat her name. Where are the records? And the ASI's poor director will file an affidavit: We do not have any 'scientifically' ascertainable records, only mythologies say this land's name is Bharat. Hence the name can be changed to any Nehru-Gandhi Clanistan, which will have proof authenticated by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation!

Mythology. The whole construct is a British anthropological revenge on us. We had a different tradition of recording events and writing history. The British and their cohorts taught that all that was mythology, a myth, and only the Western Christian world's methods are 'scientific' . Hence we adopted their standards, their calendar, their ways to greet the guests, their worldview became ours, and we discarded everything that we cherished, adopted their attire and weird uniforms (see our learned advocates sweating in black but still not complaining) to look modern and progressive.

Hence questioning Ram and Sita, humiliating ochre-robed sanyasins, converting ancient people and ridiculing their faith becomes part of cleansing the 'heathens and pagans' of their dark practices and emancipating them to the 'higher' levels of 'modernity'.

When Kalidas wrote Raghuvamsam, he described the entire dynasty beginning from Brahma. Lord Brahma created 10 prajapatis -- one of whom was Marichi. Kashyapa is the son of Marichi and Kala. Kashyapa is regarded as the father of humanity. Vivasvan or Surya is the son of Kashyapa and Aditi. Manu or Vaivaswatha Manu is the son of Vivasvan. He is regarded as the first ruler belonging to the Ikshvaku dynasty. Ikshvaku is the son of Manu and established his kingdom in Ayodhya. Kukshi is the son of Ikshavaku. Vikukshi is the son of Kukshi. Bana is the son of Vikukshi. Anaranya is the son of Bana. Prithu is the son of Anaranya. Trisanku is the son of Prithu. Dhundhumara is the son of Trisanku. Yuvanaswa is the son of Dhundhumara. Mandhata is the son of Yuvanaswa. Susandhi is the son of Mandhata. Daivasandhi and Presenjit are the sons of Susandhi. Bharatha is the son of Presenjit. Asita is the son of Bharatha. Sagara is the son of Asitha. Asamanja is the son of Sagara. Amsumantha (Ansuman) is the son of Asamanja. Dileepa is the son of Amsumantha. Bhagiratha is the son of Dileepa. Kakustha is the son of Bhagiratha. Raghu is the son of Kakushta.

The clan of Raghuvamsha started with Raghu. Pravardha is the son of Raghu. Sankhana is the son of Pravardha. Sudarsana is the son of Sankhana. Agnivarna is the son of Sudarsana. Seeghraga is the son of Agnivarna. Maru is the son of Seeghraga. Prasusruka is the son of Maru. Ambarisha is the son of Prasusruka. Nahusha is the son of Ambarisha. Yayathi is the son of Nahusha. Nabhaga is the son of Yayathi. Aja is the son of Nabhaga. Dasaratha is the son of Aja. Rama, Lakshmana, Bharatha and Shatrughana are the sons of Dasaratha. Lava and Kusha are the sons of Rama.

Oh my god, these Sanskrit names! Why couldn't they have Roman ones, to be pronounced better?
The entire East Asia reverberates with the tales of Rama and enactment of the Ramayana including the Muslim-majority Malaysia and Indonesia and countries ruled by the Communists. But a Hindu majority country's government, under a non-Hindu dispensation, destroys the great bridge associated with Rama's legacy and files an affidavit that smacks of an alien mindset.

This was a counter-affidavit filed by C Dorjee, director (monuments), Archaeological Survey of India, on behalf of the respondent Union of India through the ministry of culture in reply to Dr Subramanian Swamy's petition that seeks to put a halt on the Sethu destruction. The language of the affidavit and the way it addressed the Adam's Bridge issue smacked of an utter disregard for Hindus. They hate calling it Ram Sethu and feel quite comfortable with Adam's Bridge, a much later coinage. Same firang mindset!

The way the whole issue is being dealt with by the government of India right from the beginning stinks of dishonesty and an aversion to Hindu sensitivities.

There were five channels available for the Sethusamudram project. Why the government chose this particular one, which required the destruction of the Ram Sethu?

The Madras high court and later the Supreme Court had specifically addressed the question of putting a halt to the Ram Sethu's destruction till the hearings are on. The Madras high court order of June 19, 2007 said, 'We are not inclined to grant interim relief at this stage, as it would hamper further work in the project. However, we leave it to the Union of India to decide whether the actual cutting of Adam's Bridge/Rama Sethu could be postponed till the issues involved in these petitions are considered by this court.'

And the Supreme Court order of August 30, 2007 said, 'Till September 14, the alleged Rama Sethu/Adam's bridge shall not be damaged in any manner. Dredging activity may be carried out so long as it does not damage Rama Sethu.'

But the government defied it and everyday put up reports of the destruction progress on its Web site http://sethusamudra m.gov.in/ ProjectStatus. asp under the 'Progress of Dredging Work' head.
The ministers and officers supporting such actions represent the same spineless babudom of the colonial era who would stoop to immeasurable depths only to protect their interests.

Ram set the highest example of righteousness, as an obedient son, caring husband, great citizen king, and a warrior par excellence. He is the embodiment of Dharma, who inspires to eliminate the wicked and establish the rule of noble virtues. Those who worship him are there in every party and organisation, yet, to rise above selfishness and uphold Dharma is a rarity.

To make the State just and fair, representing Bharat, is the unfinished war of Ram.

http://www.rediff. com///news/ 2007/sep/ 14tarun.htm

============ ========= ========= ========= =========

Attachment B

The Ram I know
Karan Singh
Indian Express; Sept. 14, 2007
The ASI affidavit was unfortunate, unfair and downright derogatory â not only to Hindus in India and around the world but to all those who treasure our unique pluralistic cultural heritage, writes Karan Singh 

As if we do not have enough controversies on our national plate, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in its wisdom had added to the general confusion and tension that surrounds us. It is one thing for the ASI to opine that the Ram Setu/Adamâs bridge is âmerely a sand and coral formation which cannot be said to be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest or importance.â This is a bona fide view which can only be countered by equally strong professional counter-arguments. However, they shocked the nation by going far beyond that and making certain sweeping obiter dicta that questioned the very existence of Ram as a historical figure, although they have now withdrawn it. In this connection, several points need to be made.

Firstly, âhistorical evidenceâ for most of the outstanding religious figures in the world would be difficult to find, particularly as many are lost in the mists of antiquity. This is not a question for Ph.D dissertations, but one that affects the beliefs and sentiments of crores of people around the world. Besides, there are numerous places in India and Sri Lanka which are closely linked with the events in Ramâs life including Ayodhya and Janakpuri, Rameshwaram and Dhanushkodi. It is now well accepted by historians that so-called âmythsâ and âlegendsâ very often have a strong basis in actual events and personalities.

Secondly, from the original Ramayana of Maharishi Valmiki down to Kambaâs great work in Tamil and Tulsidasâs immortal Ramcharitamanas, the story of Ram has been told and retold in almost every language of the world. The immensely fascinating story beginning with his birth, his marriage to Sita, his fourteen years of exile, his decisive battle with the then King of Lanka and his triumphant return to Ayodhya is engraved in the minds of the vast majority of Hindus around the world, and he is as real to them as any so-called âhistoricalâ figure. To quote Jawaharlal Nehru in the Discovery of India regarding the Ramayana and Mahabharata,

âI do not know of any books anywhere which have exercised such a continuous and pervasive influence on the mass mind as these two. Dating back to a remote antiquity, they are still a living force in the life of the Indian people. Not in the original Sanskrit, except for a few intellectuals, but in translations and adaptations, and in those innumerable ways in which tradition and legend spread and become a part of the texture of a peopleâs life. They represent the typical Indian method of catering all together for various degrees of cultural development, from the highest intellectual to the simple unread and untaught villager. They make us understand somewhat the secret of the old Indians in holding together a variegated society divided up in many ways and graded in castes, in harmonising their discords, and giving them a common background of heroic tradition and ethical living. Deliberately they tried to build up a unity of outlook among the people, which was to survive and overshadow all diversity.â

Thirdly, it is not only Ram but other great characters in the Ramayana story including the noble Sita, the loyal Lakshman and our own flying superman Hanuman who have caught the imagination of the masses down through the corridors of time. The story is acted and re-enacted every year hundreds of times in the form of the Ramlilas culminating in the Vijaya Dashmi celebrations. These may be more prevalent in north India than in the south, but that does not make them any less significant. There are many deities such as Kartikeyan, Ayappan and Shiva Nataraja which are worshipped more frequently in the south, or the Jagannath and Durga Pujas in the east, but this geographical factor does not in any way detract from the deep significance these images hold for practicing Hindus.

Finally, it is remarkable that the Ramayana story is by no means confined to India. Its fragrance has travelled across the whole of south and south-east Asia. The magnificent temple of Angkor Vat in Cambodia, the worldâs largest place of religious worship, displays on its walls magnificent sculptures telling the whole Ramayana and Mahabharata stories. In Indonesia, the Ramlila is performed with a grace and sensitivity far superior to our somewhat rowdy Ramlilas and, significantly, almost entirely by Muslim artists. The ruling dynasty in Thailand is known as the Ram Dynasty, and there is a shrine named Ayodhya in that country. Such examples can be multiplied.

For the indentured labourers who were sent by the British to the ends of the earth and whose descendents now flourish in Fiji and Mauritius, Guyana and Surinam, their only source of cultural and spiritual sustenance was Tulsidasâs classic Ramcharitamanas, perhaps the most popular retelling of the Ramayana epic in the world. Hindus in those and other countries around the globe look upon Ram as an incarnation of God, as the Maryada Purshotam, the ideal man. When Gandhiji envisaged his ideal society, he went back to invoking Ram Rajya.

Keeping all these factors in mind, the ASI affidavit was distinctly unfortunate, unfair and downright derogatory, not only to Hindus in India and around the world, but to all those who treasure our unique pluralistic cultural heritage. Let us recall that in many parts of India it is Ramâs name that accompanies people on their last journey to the cremation ground â âRam naam satya haiâ. 

The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP

http://www.indianex]http://www.indianexpress.com/ story/216702. html

============ ========= ========= ========= =========

Attachment C

Perversity as secularism

KPS Gill
Pioneer, Sep 15, 2007

It is, indeed, amazing how polarising the political discourse has become in this country, and how entirely unnecessary and extraneous controversies are being generated by an intellectually bankrupt national leadership. It is incomprehensible how such perverse nonsense relating to the controversy on Ram Setu could have entered a supposedly secular Government's representation before the Supreme Court of India.

The Government has, of course, recanted and has sought to distance itself from the contents of the affidavit, but this is far from enough. Someone must have drafted this document; someone would have approved and signed it. This is not something that can simply be pinned on to some minion in the Archaeological Survey of India. The Ram Setu issue has been a prominent political and public controversy for several months now, and it is impossible that a critical affidavit in this regard would not have the explicit assent of the political executive at the highest level; and, in the remote possibility that this is actually the case, the dereliction at senior levels of Government is unforgivable.

The individuals concerned at every level of the drafting and approval of this pernicious affidavit need to be clearly and publicly identified and penalised for causing unnecessary offence to Hindus - the majority community in this country, and one that is evidently not regarded as a vote-bank by the so-called 'secular' parties - and, indeed, to many non-Hindus who share in the vibrant collective and cultural consciousness of India's variegated civilisation.

There is a new and escalating insensitivity in Indian secular thought, which not only insistently neglects the sensibilities of the majority community, but, worse, appears eager to cause injury to such sentiments. India's opportunistic political secularists - as distinct from those who are, in fact and practice, actually wedded to the secular ideology - feel that they cannot sufficiently proclaim their secularism without displaying at least a measure of contempt for Hindu beliefs and practices.

By contrast, the most extraordinary sensitivity - often transgressing not only the limits of good sense, but even considerations of national interest - is prominently displayed towards the Muslim minority vote-bank (though other minorities - with their smaller shares in electoral contests - are ironically treated with the same contempt that is directed against the majority community). These tendencies appear to be getting worse with the passage of time, and a precipitous decline in the quality of political debate and intelligence is manifest.

These tendencies are, nevertheless, deep rooted in Indian - and particularly Congress - politics, and the tallest of our leaders have not escaped susceptibility to this perversity of perspective. When the Khilafat movement collapsed in 1924, the Moplah rebellion, in which Muslim mobs inflicted untold savagery and rapine on Hindus, broke out in Kerala.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the Mahatma, who wore his Hindu identity very much on his sleeve, first denied these atrocities. As evidence of Muslim excesses mounted, he described the Moplahs as "god-fearing" people who were "fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner they consider as religious". Even during the Khilafat movement, Gandhi chose to ally with the infamous Ali brothers, silently sharing a platform with them, and refusing to criticise or comment when they declared: "If the Afghans invaded India to wage holy war, the Indian Muhammadans are not only bound to join them but also to fight the Hindus if they refuse to cooperate with them."

The problem with the current controversy goes beyond this, to the way in which we view science itself. The Archaeological Survey of India, in its affidavit to the Supreme Court, has asserted that there "was no historical and scientific evidence to establish the existence of Lord Ram or the other characters in Ramayan". But to conclude from this lack of evidence that Lord Ram did not exist, and that the whole of Ramayan is no more than a religious myth, exceeds the scope of the evidence (or lack thereof).

The inability to prove, on scientific criteria, the existence of a particular individual or entity does not amount to a proof of the non-existence of such an individual or entity. Falsification has entirely different criteria - and the dearth of archaeological and historical evidence is not sufficient basis for such falsification. Regrettably, many have jumped into this controversy with sweeping assertions regarding the existence or otherwise of Lord Ram and of Ram Setu, reflecting the poorest possible understanding of scientific methodology or of evidence.

Unfortunately, science, with rare exception, is taught in India much like religion: As an authoritarian, faith-based system, to be internalised by rote on the mandate of a teacher whose assertions are to be accepted without question; and, not as the tentative, continuously expanding enterprise of discovery rooted in human freedom and imagination.

The Ram Setu issue, moreover, goes beyond science, to the very heart of faith and of the collective consciousness of a nation - and these considerations cannot be irrelevant to a legal determination of the issue. If, indeed, they were to be treated as extraneous and immaterial, then there could be no objection to razing every religious structure in the country to the ground, on considerations, purely, of expediency. The greatest caution must be exercised when intervening in these issues, and the clumsiness, the political chicanery and the opportunism - across party lines - that characterised the Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid issue should be avoided at all costs.

The legend of Ram and Ramayan - archaeological evidence or no archaeological evidence - has primal resonances in the civilisation, culture and multiple identities, not only of India and among Hindus, but among the people of the entire South and South-East Asian region, and occasionally well beyond. I recall watching films and theatrical performances - Ram Lilas - based on Ramayan from earliest childhood, and one of the most exciting scenes was the vaanar sena building the bridge to Lanka with rocks inscribed with the name of their Lord. These are images embedded in the consciousness of millions across India and beyond, and to trivialise this is to misunderstand the very nature of governance.

There is an increasing fraud and dishonesty at the core of the Indian secular establishment. Secularism means, at once, a distancing of the institutions of governance from communal influence, but also sensitivity towards all religious communities and faiths - not just a particular minority vote-bank. The current, contentious and prejudiced orientation of so-called 'secular' forces in national politics reflects a complete collapse of political intellect.

http://www.dailypio neer.com/ indexn12. asp?main_ variable= EDITS&file_name=edit3% 2Etxt&counter_img= 3~

============ ========= ========= ========= ========= =

Attachment D

Assault on Hindu psyche

Priyadarsi Dutta
Pioneer, Sep 15, 2007

The fact that Hindu voters in this country deeply believe in the authenticity of Ramayan should have forewarned the UPA Government against claiming that the epic's characters or Ram Setu have no basis in history. The inconvenient stand that the Government took should provide the BJP - and the rest of the Sangh Parivar - the arsenal to launch a Ram karmabhoomi movement.

The UPA Government, leaning on the Archaeological Survey of India's affidavit submitted in the Supreme Court, is apparently beholden to historicity. However, it was only last year when the Government had echoed the opinion on All-India Muslim Personal Law Board to depose before the Supreme Court that jizyah was a tax Hindus had to pay during Muslim rule for not joining the army. Would it not have been fitter to depend on Quran, Hadith and historic Muslim court chronicles to draw that inference?

I wish Mr Manmohan Singh had just picked up Thomas Patrick Hughes' Dictionary of Islam to locate the historic meaning of jizyah: "The capitation tax, which is levied by Muhammadan rulers upon subjects who are of a different faith, but claim amaan (protection) . It is founded upon a direct injunction of the Quran: 'Make was upon such of those, to whom the Scriptures have been given, as believe not in God or in the last day and forbid not that which God and his Apostles have forbidden and who profess not the profession of truth until they pay tribute (jizyah) out of their hand, and they be humbled'."

Why should historicity be given a selective dry run on Ram Setu, while various temples converted into mosques in India like the Krishna Janmabhoomi (Idgah, Mathura), Gyanvapi mosque, Adhai Din Ka Jhopra, Adina Mosque are kept out of its purview? If Ram Setu is merely a series of reefs, why has the UPA Government named it "Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project" (SSCP)?

Ramayan is living history for Hindus; it is subsumed in their marrow. By attacking the historicity of the epic, the Government has hit at the most tender point of the collective Hindu psyche. Historicity was hardly the argument of the petitioners. It proves that the Government has no answer to their stronger arguments like the issues of faith and tradition, ecology, engineering and financial non-viability of the project, etc. The Government, which never consulted the Indian Navy on the SSCP, is now cannibalising the ASI's argument.

http://www.dailypio neer.com/ indexn12. asp?main_ variable= EDITS&file_name=edit4% 2Etxt&counter_img= 4

============ ========= ========= ========= =========

Attachment E

Faith, fact and fiction

Ashok Malik
Pioneer, Sep 15. 2007

Ram is make-believe, Dwarka did not exist, the Saraswati is a myth. But how much have the Archaeological Survey of India and its political collaborators done to honestly excavate India's antiquity?

For an entity contemplating an early election, the UPA Government's propensity to create controversies is remarkable. In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has insisted that there is no "historical record" to validate the Ramayan and, as such, Ram is a fictional character.

The case commenced after a petition filed by Mr Subramanian Swamy, the Janata Party president, seeking curbs on the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project. It argued that the project would cut and destroy the 'Ram Setu', saying it was an ancient monument revered by Hindus as the bridge Ram built to journey to Lanka.

It is important to note the Government's affidavit represented a shift in the debate. The ASI could have stopped at saying that the Ram Setu was a naturally occurring formation, not man-made. Yet, it crossed its brief and labelled Ram himself as fictional. This upset even those who were not necessarily adherents of the Ram Setu.

There are three issues that flow from the affidavit. First, the familiar bunch of Jawaharlal Nehru University alumni and Delhi editorial writers has defended the ASI's affidavit as a citation of "science". Actually, this unifocal attack on the faith-based aspect of the anti-Sethusamudram protests suits the establishment just fine.

The Government has never quite explained the environmental imbalance that can be caused by smashing an ancient (natural) structure. Christian fishermen off the coast of Tamil Nadu -- who have no reason to venerate Ram's bridge -- already fear for their livelihood.

That aside, projections have been made about the economic non-viability of Sethusamudram. It is possible that all of these are wrong, but the Government has not bothered to politically sell the issue. Instead, the overriding reasons for pushing ahead seem to be granting lucrative dredging contracts to flunkies of the DMK and its Ministers.

Second, while the Prince of Ayodhya did not live 1.7 million years ago -- as some have claimed -- is the Ram story all myth? Granted, an oral story-telling tradition has ample scope for exaggeration; Ram probably did not fly back from Lanka on an airplane called the Pushpak Viman. Yet, is there no kernel of truth or historicity to his legend?

Consider a Greek analogy. For centuries, the Illiad and the saga of the Trojan War were dismissed as Homer's imagination. The Greeks, under foreign rule, were told the cherished epics they raised their children on were nonsense; to borrow from the ASI's affidavit, they "cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters or the occurrence of the events depicted therein".

It took Heinrich Schliemann, a classical history buff and amateur archaeologist, 20 years of excavation in the 1870s and 1880s to establish that Achilles and Hector did actually fight to the death outside the gates of Troy. Where are India's Schliemanns? Not in the ASI.

Professional integrity demands archaeologists and historians attempt to authenticate popular legends. From the life of Jesus to the times of David and Moses, the Bible has lent itself to such endeavour in the Christian and Judaic worlds. In Britain, identifying the real King Arthur and mapping his kingdom has been an honest intellectual pursuit. What is the ASI's record?

A serious, rigorous archaeological expedition that attempts to cross-verify the story as told in the Ramayan will take years, perhaps decades. The ASI has not even begun the task. Nevertheless it is happy to announce Ram is a fabrication. The case of India's other great folk hero, Krishna, is illuminating. Even after evidence is available of a city submerged off the coast of Gujarat -- roughly corresponding to scriptural accounts of the destruction of Dwarka by a tsunami-like wave -- attempts are made to undermine the findings. There is cussed insistence that the "underwater city" is not, in fact, Krishna's capital. It may not be; but how do the Culture Ministry's bureaucrats know?

Third, is it correct to see the past only as a backward extension of present prejudices? Over the centuries, rivers have changed course and deserts have shifted sands. In the process, they have rendered cities derelict, effaced whole civilisations. From north Africa to western China, the exploration of these 'lost histories' is a subject of intense national pride.

In contrast, what has India done with the quest for the Saraswati civilisation? In December 2004, the UPA Government told Parliament it was abandoning the Saraswati River Heritage Project. The project was meant to carry out excavations and trace the route the Saraswati took before it dried up. Its budget was a mere Rs 4.98 crore. Yet, the Culture Minister announced it was being shut down; the search for the Saraswati was not worth it.

In the Rajya Sabha, a CPI(M) MP, Mr Nilotpal Basu, demanded to know who had formulated the Saraswati Heritage Project. Obviously, he was seeking to target individuals in the previous NDA Government.

Many Hindus remember the Saraswati in their daily prayers. Even so, the search for the river is as much a secular imperative as a faith-based one. The Saraswati and the societies and cultures that grew and fell by its side are a part of our legacy; a forensic examination of these, if possible, would tell us how our ancestors lived and worked, ate and entertained. This should be a national enterprise, with ample resources and time dedicated to it; it should not be a political football.

In the end, whether it is the historicity of Ram, of Dwarka or of the Saraswati age, it is not so much a matter of what we know -- but of what we care to find out. Is this religious mumbo jumbo or is it racial memory? That compelling question determines any view of the ASI's affidavit.

http://www.dailypio neer.com/ columnist1. asp?main_ variable= Columnist&file_name=ashok% 2Fashok88% 2Etxt&writer=ashok

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-16-2007

When Ramadoss will change his name to Ravanadoss?

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-16-2007

Unabridged edition of secular extremism
QUOTEThe Government's initial disregard of the protests was based on both political calculation and a mindset. It was presumed that the issue would not have a political impact because the BJP was presumed to be in disarray and, in any case, there is no such thing as a Hindu votebank. Political calculations apart, the affidavit was based on a mindset based on the assumption that Hindus, being by and large non-dogmatic and internally divided, can easily be trampled upon - a luxury that organised minorities don't accord to decision-makers. If artistic and academic freedom can be invoked to defend the portrayal of Hindu deities in very disagreeable ways, the commitment to a scientific temper could be cited as the reason for debunking the entire Ramayan tradition. LK Advani may well be right in describing this phenomenon as the logical corollary of pseudo-secularism: Sado-secularism.

The furore over the ASI affidavit has forced the secularists to take note of Hindu outrage. It has, for example, triggered an amusing one-upmanship battle between the handlers of Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh over who first directed the relevant department to withdraw the affidavit. Would such damage control measures have been initiated had the UPA's captain and non-playing captain not realised that there may be a high electoral price to be paid for being so utterly insensitive to Hindu feelings?Â

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-16-2007

QUOTEÂ Sunday, September 16, 2007Â
SGPC demands UPAâs apology 
Chandigarh, Sept. 15: The SGPC on Saturday demanded an apology from the Congress-led UPA government for filling a controversial affidavit on Ram Sethu, which, it said, had hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus. "Sentiments of crores of Hindus have been hurt by the governmentâs action. On one hand people talk about Ram Rajya, on the other they question his (Ramâs) very existence, which has definitely angered people of Hindu faith," Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, the apex religious body of the Sikhs, said.

SGPC president Avtar Singh Makkar said the Congress-led government at the Centre cannot distance itself from the controversial affidavit in the Supreme Court, which was subsequently withdrawn. "They cannot escape by simply backtracking and punishing officers (ASI officials) alone. The government should have taken the issue seriously before going ahead and filing the document in the Supreme Court. Now, it must straightaway apologise over the issue," Mr Makkar said over phone.

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-17-2007

QUOTEKaruna's Setu comment creates furore
16 Sep 2007, 2040 hrs IST
KOCHI: The VHP on Sunday said it will take legal advice on whether to launch prosecution proceedings against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi on the Ram Setu issue.

Reacting to Karunanidhi's statement that Ram Setu was "not man-made and Lord Ram was an imaginary character," VHP Secretary General, Praveen Togadia said Karunanidhi during his earlier innings as Chief Minister in 1972, when he held the additional charge of PWD Minister, had in a foreword in the Ramanathapuram district gazette, accepted existence of the Ram Setu bridge.

"If he has gone back on the public document, he can be prosecuted," Togadia told reporters here adding VHP will take legal advice in this regard.

Coins, which are 1000-years-old making a mention about the Ram Setu, are available in Tamil, adding the Asiatic Society of Bengal, a well-respected body, also mentions about Ram Setu, he told reporters earlier.Â

Rama Setu -2 - acharya - 09-17-2007

NOBODY has figured out that affidavit was planned to create a controversy and deflect the focus away from MMS and the Nuclear deal/Commie crap.

THe entire nation was deflected conviently by the ruling group who can now plan their next step for the nuke deal without getting many people to look at it closely

Rama Setu -2 - acharya - 09-17-2007

How come we have non experts who talk about religion when they knw nothing

Two views of Hinduism
Ads By Google
September 14 2007
Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan Times
Email Author
What are the consequences for India if development is to be held hostage to mythology?

Itâs a measure of how careful secular, liberal Hindus are being this time around that the general response to the controversy over Ram Setu has been to take what might be described as a pro-religion/anti-history line. Even those who sneered at the VHPâs claim that the Babri Masjid was built on the site where Ram was born are bending over backwards to take a more nuanced position on this issue.

The broad, secular consensus appears to be that no matter what the historians and scientists may say, faith is an important constituent of public policy. To argue before a court that there is no historical evidence that Ram existed is regarded as unnecessarily provocative. And no matter how Ram Setu (or Adamâs Bridge) â the formation that links India with Sri Lanka â was really created, we should not tamper with it as long as Hindus regard it as the route that the Vanar Sena took on its rescue mission to Lanka in the Ramayana.

I understand the logic behind this position. It emerges from the realisation that the secular establishment may have gone too far in the other direction during the Ayodhya controversy. And many liberals are terrified that the Sangh Parivar will pick on this issue to fan more Ram Mandir-type hysteria.

My concerns in this controversy are slightly different. When we talk about Hinduism in much the same way that we talk about Islam or Christianity, we miss the point. Hinduism is fundamentally different from either of these religions â and from many others.

Almost all the religions that were founded over the last 2,500 years have several things in common. Most of them have a single founder (Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammad, Mahavir, the Buddha, Guru Nanak etc). Nearly all of them have a holy book (the Bible, the Koran, the Guru Granth Sahib etc) that is the centre of their religion. And all of them were founded by men whose historicity is not in doubt. We may dispute the exact circumstances of the historical Jesusâs crucifixion but thereâs no doubt that a preacher of that name was crucified by the Romans and that he left behind a religious legacy. Similarly, we know where the Buddha came from and we can identify where he died. And the Prophetâs life is well documented.

Hinduism, on the other hand, is much, much older than any of these religions. It is even older than Judaism; by the time the Old Testament was written, the Rig Veda had been around for centuries. It has no single founder, no prophet, no messiah, no one holy book at its centre, and no set of rules that must be followed without question. It doesnât even have an organised clergy: unlike the others, it tells you to look for God within yourself.

While the other religions were founded, Hinduism evolved. Nobody can say with any certainty how old it is. There is evidence that the Indus Valley Civilisation venerated a god who was very like Shiva in his Pashupati avatar. There are also many similarities between the gods of early Hinduism and the gods of Greek and Roman mythology. Perhaps, this is because the religion evolved before migrations at some place where Aryan-type people lived.

It is as clear that there is no constant in Hinduism. In the early texts, Indra, a god we never hear of today, played a major role. The two epics â the Ramayana and the Mahabharata â were put together over centuries and the story evolved over time. For instance, the Valmiki Ramayana and the Tulsi Ramayana are not exactly the same. The Bhagvad Gita, the basis of much of Hindu philosophy, is said to have been delivered by Krishna to Arjun on the battlefield at Kurukshetra â but most scholars agree that the Gita was added to the Mahabharata many centuries after the epic was first written.

There are two ways you can treat this complex evolution. You can argue that it doesnât matter whether there ever was a historical Ram or whether he actually got to what we call Lanka today (some scholars claim that Ramâs Lanka was not todayâs Sri Lanka), or whether Krishna actually stopped his chariot for several hours to recite the Bhagvad Gita. The point of Hinduism lies in the message, not in the historicity.

It is significant that Hinduism is one of the few faiths that makes virtually no distinction between mythology and religion. The gods of the Hindu pantheon are not perfect beings, and there is scope for debate over the morality of their actions. Did Ram treat Sita badly? Was Krishna economical with the truth during the Mahabharata battle?

The point of Hinduism is that the stories emerged out of the shared experience of the millennia. And that we are free to draw our own conclusions. In contrast, there is very little scope to argue that Jesus got things badly wrong or that the Prophet acted immorally.

In many religions, a clear distinction is made between historicity and legend. For instance, Christians will tell you that the New Testament is broadly historical but will make no such claims for the Old Testament. Even the Jews, who regard the Old Testament as the basis of their religion, do not require you to necessarily believe that Moses parted the Red Sea or that the story of Abraham and Isaac is based on fact.

There is a second view of Hinduism and it came to the fore during the Ayodhya agitation. In this view, historicity is everything. All of Hindu legend must be taken literally. There must have been a historical Ram because otherwise the basis of our religion is a lie. If there was a historical Ram, then he must have had a birthplace â and so, the Ram Janmabhoomi movement is central to our belief.

There are obvious problems with this view. During the Ayodhya agitation, Dr Karan Singh memorably described it as the Semitisation of Hinduism â as an attempt to decant the complex legends and stories of the worldâs oldest religion into a restrictive Christian-Muslim framework. The Bible requires us to believe that Jesus walked upon on the water. But you can be a perfectly good Hindu without actually believing that Ravan had ten heads or that Hanuman set his tail on fire.

I see the current controversy as an example of the second approach to Hinduism. In its limited way, the ASIâs affidavit is accurate. There is no convincing archaeological evidence of the existence of Lord Ram â in fact, there are not even any coherent dates available for the events of the Ramayana. Similarly, the scientific evidence is conclusive. Ram Setu is not a man-made (or monkey-made) formation. It was created millions of years ago, before there were humans in the Indian peninsula.

And yet, even those of us who will accept all this at an intellectual level, will support the suspension of the hapless ASI employees and argue that to go ahead with the Sethusamudram is to hurt the sentiments of Hindus.

At a pragmatic level, this makes sense: why give the VHP another issue to inflame Hindu passions with? But my fear is that we cannot sustain this approach as a basis for policy-making in the long run. Are we to constantly bend to any politically-expedient interpretation of Hindu legend? Are we to completely disregard scientists and archaeological evidence?

For me, the defining argument of the Literal Hinduism position is the one that LK Advani offered in defence of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. It did not matter, he said, whether this was really the birthplace of Ram. He was not obliged to provide any evidence to substantiate this claim. What mattered was that Hindus believed that this was where Ram was born. And that was more than enough for him.

In fact, it was never clear that Hindus believed this. Most people had never heard of Ram Janmabhoomi till the VHP made it an issue. And there are several other sites in that area that also claim to be the birthplace of Ram.

So, once youâve disregarded history, archaeology, science and geography, how do you define belief? Is it what any political party says it is at any given time?

And what are the consequences for India if development is to be held hostage to mythology?

Like most liberals, I have no desire to inflame Hindu sentiment. But as a member of this great culture, I have a right to ask whether one of the worldâs most intellectually-sophisticated religions is to be shorn of its layers of philosophical complexity, evolved over the millennia, and turned into a literal, history-based credo.

Those who say they are fighting to protect Hinduism are actually doing it a huge disservice by stripping it of everything that makes it great and by turning it into a mirror image of the simplistic, literal-minded religio-political cults (such as jehadi Islam) that have done so much damage to the world.

Their small-minded, petty approach makes a mockery of the greatness and complexity of the Bhagvad Gita.

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-17-2007

Vir Sanghvi's father was communist and was banned in USA, he is also communist. So, no surprise. Plus he is known as Congress whore.

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-17-2007

QUOTE(acharya @ Sep 17 2007, 08:00 AM)... We may dispute the exact circumstances of the historical Jesusâs crucifixion but thereâs no doubt that a preacher of that name was crucified by the Romans and that he left behind a religious legacy....

Is this guy Singhvi in a permanent state of dope trip? 'Jesus' the son of god existed and left behind a religious legacy?! Obviously, this guy is blissfully unaware of the controversies surrounding the very existence and legitimacy of jesus, the alleged son of god. Jesus the Carpenter perhaps existed. Jesus the son of god - very doubtful, according to the numerous studies.

I think Singhvi needs to update himself on the numerous studies in the west that have questioned the existence of christ and have postulated the events and circumstances that might have led to the conception and promotion of christianity the religion. It is highly embarassing to find a reporter of a long-standing newspaper reveal this much ignorance and lack of knowledge. What his ignorance reflects is the poor quality of the newspaper.

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-17-2007

Boss this kind of blissful ignorance is on display everywhere on all the media outlets. Tired of such op-eds and editorials in the last 4 days. TOI, HT...everywhere. Even in Jagran, I was reading a column by Rajiv Shukla (Congress MP, owner of BAG telefilms that provides content to Star News) yesterday in which he said Ram Setu is Adams Bridge and mentioned in "Isralee Dharmagrantha-s" and Islami Theology as adam ka pul. and so on. Then Sonia Chalisa of how she goes to Ram lila every year...is a woman of vivek and inner-voice...

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-17-2007

QUOTE(acharya @ Sep 17 2007, 08:00 AM)How come we have non experts who talk about religion when they knw nothing
Two views of Hinduism
Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan Times

And what are the consequences for India if development is to be held hostage to mythology?

Like most liberals, I have no desire to inflame Hindu sentiment. But as a member of this greatÂ culture, I have a right to ask whether one of the worldâs most intellectually-sophisticated religions is to be shorn of its layers of philosophical complexity, evolved over the millennia, and turned into a literal, history-based credo.

Those who say they are fighting to protect Hinduism are actually doing it a huge disservice by stripping it of everything that makes it great and by turning it into a mirror image of the simplistic, literal-minded religio-political cults (such as jehadi Islam) that have done so much damage to the world.

Their small-minded, petty approach makes a mockery of the greatness and complexity of the Bhagvad Gita.[right][snapback]73243[/snapback][/right]All I read was "blablabla blablabla". Sorry, that was disrespectful to the hard labours Ve're Sanghvi underwent to write that. So I better try reading it again.

Okay. Says Vir Sanghvi: "Your Hindoo religion is ahistorical. (It might as well have started yesterday.) We will for now call it philosophy, but mind, even then we will not allow it to be anything more than philosophy (and we know that even in that the Greeks were better - also, look what happened to them and their philosophy: replaced by the super-superior christianism). And forget you have sacred sites and temples and have recognised holy places and visited them in pilgrimage for ages beyond count. I, the psecular communist, know better than you Hindooos about your own Hindooooism and will tell you that nothing that you think is Hinduism is part of Hinduism at all."

How unexpected: Vir Sanghvi is wrong. (It might be unexpected for real if he were ever right...)
The fact is: temple sites, sacred rivers, sacred groves, sacred plants, sacred trees, sacred spots, sacred natural constructions and sacred man-made constructions - Hinduism has them all.

Being pedantic about historicity, ahistoricity is something uniquely related to christoislamism - the religion famous for having stolen others' sacred sites. Vir Sanghvi is pedantic about historicity too, as his article inadvertently shows. His thinking therefore doesn't move beyond the circles defined by his psecularism (christoislamism).

However, Hinduism has a lot of historical and cyclical themes. Hence Hindus celebrate Rama Navami, Gokulaashtami and many other things that have to be history-oriented (birthdays mark some point in time, after all....) No need for Vir Sanghvi to ignore all that, just 'cause they don't fit in with the 'point' he hopes to foist on others.

Mosques have no real meaning to islamis, there's no reason for any closeness of islamis to their mosques. It's merely the building where islamis go for their prayers.
Churches - outside of a few key sites in Europe/ME, which I will come to next - are places that christians gather to hear the preacher sermonise. (This is especially the case with protestant churches.) The 'holy' old churches of Europe/ME were stolen from pagan hands, and are therefore actually ahistoric where it concerns any jeebus; yet the same locations are sacred to the long-dead Greco-Romans, Arabians, Syrians, Assyrians (and to any of their descendants currently carrying on their true religions).

Hindus have always had sacred sites, and we are deeply attached to them.
We have vast numbers of them. Many of these - not all - are marked by temples. Others aren't. Ramarsethu is one of the sacred Hindu sites. Something Vir Sanghvi has conveniently overlooked - on purpose, obviously. His idea of 'Hinduism' is a modern psecular-communist construct, one that would make it easier to dismantle Hinduism if only people would buy it. (Hence his article title "Two views of Hinduism" - trying to set up his view as the TRUE, CORRECT, ONLY ONE as opposed to that of the 'misled ignorant masses of Hindoos who don't know better'. Sanghvi showing off possession by christoislamania there...) How annoying for him and his Comrades that by far most Hindus don't recognise his re-imagining of Hinduism. But what can I say, Hindus are annoying: we just won't die.

However, for the likes of Vir Sanghvi to understand this, he might have to hear it from western people instead of us Hindoos:
This bit from Flight of the Deities: Hindu Resistance in Portuguese Goa, Paul Axelrod; Michelle A. Fuerch, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2. (May, 1996), pp. 387-421.
QUOTEThe attachment, after 450 years of separation between deity and its village of origin, suggests that the importance in Hindu thought of the substantive link between place and person, described so brilliantly by Daniel,19 applies to the relationship between deity and place as well.And person and deity, I hardly need add.
In fact, just doing a Find on the word "connection" on that IF page, one can easily see how intimately Hindus are tied to our Gods, temples and sacred sites. (The excerpts on the linked IF page highlight the case of Goan Hindus - they are but an example of the closeness to our sacred sites and Gods that all Hindus share.)

Poor poor Vir Sanghvi, another new article of his and yet again it has failed to raise his record of writing even an inch from the dirt where it permanently resides.

Rama Setu -2 - Guest - 09-17-2007

Singhavi, pained that the religion of Bhagawad Gita has been reduced to "this", has not read:

... raamah shastrabhritaam aham ... (BG 10/31)

amongst all shastra-weilders, I am Ram

Rama Setu -2 - Shambhu - 09-17-2007

Singhvi is one of the psec liars who have decided to stick with their lies no matter what. Reasons:

1. $$$$$$$$$$$$
2. No respect for truth
3. Not knowing definition of respect
4. Not knowing definition of truth (worse, knows Gospel Truth only)
5. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
6. Italian currency Lira (in which Sonia Belissima pays him)

Is it a coincidence that the word Liar is just a little twist of the word Lira?