• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rama Setu -1
Shambhu, they (center) are in right direction.

The morons said to the court that the petitioners' case is based upon Valmiki, Kamban, Tulasi Ramayana, Skanda Purana, MBT and the like - which are only mythology without history - therefore baseless. (This is exactly their stand in Ram Janma Bhumi case too - 'Since No Rama, what Rama-janmabhumi?')

What the morons forget is that the petitioners are only showing that since ages, Indians have BELEIVED the structure to be of religious importance. the end.

I am happy that center is taking such foolish and self-destructive stand in the court. SC will see the light I hope.
If there was no Ram Setu, there was no Sabri , no Valmiki also. Is there any Lanka?
<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Sep 12 2007, 06:34 PM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ Sep 12 2007, 06:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/sep/12ram.htm
Centre says no evidence to prove existence of Ram

----------------------------------------
How came none of our people can say right away to these people"There still is no evidence to prove Jesus existed either, but they still do not go around destroying Nazareth"[right][snapback]73014[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In fact, there's actually no comparison between Nazareth and Ramar Sethu (as K Elst explains sensibly in (2) below).

(1) There could never have been any 'jeebus the christian saviour of Nazareth' as christo liars keep whining on about. There was no Nazareth as any place to live in in alleged jeebus' time:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2a.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Since Nazareth did not exist until the 2nd century</b>, when the gospels were being written, this also demonstrates conclusively that the Jesus myth is exactly that, a myth and not based upon reality.
From: Are the Gospels True? A look at the nativity/infancy teachings<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>...archaeological excavations at present-day Nazareth -- ...carried out by Franciscan monks and priests... -- have failed to show the remains of a single building credibly datable to the first century B.C.E. or the first century C.E. The oldest buildings found seem to date from the last half of the third century</b>, and there is no information to indicate what the inhabitants of those buildings called their village.

Before the second or third century C.E. -- going back to the Middle Bronze Age -- the site now occupied by Nazareth was a necropolis, a city of the dead. The hillside underlying part of the present city is riddled with tombs and natural caves which for over a thousand years were used for burials. Since Jewish law prohibited cemeteries from being in the midst of inhabited sites, we can be quite sure that there was no Jewish city at the present site in the days when a supposedly Jewish Jesus is supposed to have been running loose there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

(2) All the 'christian holy sites' in the 'holy' ME region of the christians are well-known to be huge frauds - see Koenraad Elst's writings below. And then he makes the only point that needs to be made about Ayodhya (same is applicable to Ramar Sethu):

http://hamsa.org/appendix2.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Christian sacred places in Palestine</b>

A book well worth reading for those engaged in controversies over sacred sites, in particular concerning Christian churches in South India, is Christians and the Holy Places by <b>Joan Taylor, a historian from New Zealand.2 It shows that the places where Christians commemorate the birth and death of Jesus have nothing to do with Jesus, historically.</b>

<b>The Nativity Church in Bethlehem was built in the fourth century A.D. in forcible replacement of a Pagan place of worship, dedicated to the God Tammuz-Adonis.</b> Until then, it had had no special significance for Christians, who considered pilgrimages to sacred places a Pagan practice anyway: you cannot concentrate in one place (hence, go on pilgrimage to) the Omnipresent. The concept of "sacred place" was introduced into Christianity by converts, especially at the time of Emperor Constantine's switch to a pro-Christian state policy.

<b>The Christian claim to Bethlehem as Jesus's birthplace was a fraud from the beginning, as Cambridge historian Michael Arnheim has shown</b>: through numerous contradictions and factual inaccuracies, the Gospel writers betray their intention to locate Jesus's birth in Bethlehem at any cost, against all information available to them.3 The reason is that they had to make Jesus live up to an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah was to be born there.
(My statement: Just like the late gospel fibbers didn't bat an eyelid when insinuating Nazareth into their fable, Bethlehem was just as foolishly inserted. Lying about real Gods would be bad, but lying for non-existent gawd is pathetic. <- Now why is it so easy to swap 'pathetic' with 'christianism'?)

<b>The Holy Cross Church in Jerusalem was built in forcible replacement of a temple of the fertility Goddess Venus</b>, at the personal initiative of Emperor Constantine. His mother had seen in a dream that Jesus had died at that particular place, though close scrutiny of the original Christian texts shows that they point to a place 200 metres to the south. Constantine had the Venus temple demolished and the ground searched, and yes, his experts duly found the cross on which Jesus had died. They somehow assumed that their forebears of 33 A.D. had a habit of leaving or even burying crucifixion crosses at the places where they had been used, quod non. <b>The Christian claim to the site of the Holy Cross is based on the dream of a gullible but fanatical woman</b>, and fortified with a faked excavation.4

<b>Remember the Ayodhya debate, where Hindu scholars were challenged to produce ever more solid proof of the traditions underlying the sacredness of the controversial site? Whatever proof they came up with was automatically, without any inspection, dismissed by the high priests of secularism as "myth" and "faked evidence". It was alleged that there was a "lack of proof" for the assumption that Rama ever lived there. But in the case of the Christian sacred places, we do not just have lack of proof that the religion's claim is true, but we have positive proof that its claim is untrue, and that it was historically part of a campaign of fraud and destruction.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Terrorist ideologies will destroy all. (The truth means nothing to them. In fact, they consider truth to be their worst enemy. Hence they try to murder truth wherever they find it: by falsifying records, or through use of a media blitz to spread what's no more than mere claims, or media's strategic silence on any factual evidence presented, and by blatantly doing away with the only actual evidence like they are now trying to do with the Ramar Sethu, and the other techniques of the lying ideologies.)

As the dastardly Dark Helmet says to the hero Lone Star in the parody-comedy 'Spaceballs': "Now you know why Evil always wins. Because Good is dumb."
Yeah, tolerance for intolerance (which is also the mindset expressly inculcated by psecularism, itself the puppet of christoislamicommunism) will crown terrorist ideologies king.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Sep 12 2007, 07:51 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 12 2007, 07:51 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If there was no Ram Setu, there was no Sabri , no Valmiki also. Is there any Lanka?[right][snapback]73019[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Here you've illustrated what the christo (which includes colonialist) argument has always been. They've ever contended that India was a late invention - that it never existed, precisely because they dismiss anything we have in terms of history and literature as false. Not that they treated just us in that way, but certainly, the fact that we are still an unconverted country makes them feel better at treating Hindu India like a doormat. So far we've still not rolled over and died, much to their chagrin.

Funny how the west brainwashed by christoism has lied and lied and continues to lie again about itself (recent constructs of 'Europe' and 'west' and of 'Oryans', of connections with ancient Greece and Rome as if these were historically part of any Europe when no notion of any Europe even existed at their time; not to forget the lies about jeebus and the other stuff in the bible being presented as true).
All while they cannot ever believe that other civilisations are <i>not</i> compulsive liars (as opposed to how they've been conducting themselves):
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch46.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->No serious historian would ignore the Exodus narrative simply because it also contains unhistorical episodes like the Parting of the Sea and the voice from the Burning Bush.
Experience should also make us skeptical towards the knee-jerk skepticism displayed by historians when confronted with ancient historiography.  <b>Thus, the king-list of the Chinese Shang dynasty (16th-12th century BC) was dismissed as “obviously mythical”, but when in the 1920s the Shang oracle bones were discovered, all the kings were found to be mentioned there: the “mythical” dynastic list proved to be correct to the detail.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->About the mention of 'Exodus' made in the above quoteblock. It seems the following Israeli archaeologists - presumably later than Elst wrote the above - discovered that the Exodus could not have taken place:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2d.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts</b> by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein - online summary.
The authors, who are directors of archaeological institutes, are authorities concerning the archaeology of early Palestine.
The book discusses how <b>archaeology has shown that there is no evidence for the existence of:</b>
- Abraham and any of the Patriarchs
- Moses and the <b>Exodus</b>
- The period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Doubting the Story of Exodus - L.A. Times News, April 13, 2001
The modern archeological consensus over the Exodus is just beginning to reach the public.
...
In a new book this year, "The Bible Unearthed," Israeli archeologist Israel Finklestein of Tel Aviv University and archeological journalist Neil Asher Silberman raised similar doubts and offered a new theory about the roots of the <b>Exodus story. The authors argue that the story was written during the time of King Josia of Judah in the 7th century BC--600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred in 1250 BC</b>--as a political manifesto to unite Israelites against the rival Egyptian empire as both states sought to expand their territory.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(2) The irrelevant spiel about 'no proof' for Rama:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Centre says no evidence to prove existence of Ram<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh, the desperate christoterrorists. Well, why don't they iterate in the same loud voice how there <i>is</i> evidence that <i>jeebus never existed</i>. In other words, <i>not</i> absence of evidence for jeebus the christian man-gawd-who-never-was, but how in fact there <i>is</i> evidence he could not have been.
"Jeebus of Nazareth" - and other such inane impossibilities. Says it all really.
We all know other myths Gurnanak, jesus, Mohamad .....

Lets see how ASI will hide Dwaraka evidence and after ten years will call it myth.
Do Congress know their own parents, had they done DNA, who knows who created them?? Their mother may be lying to them or they may be stolen property.
<b>Sethusamudram: Centre denies historical, scientific existence of Rama </b>
New Delhi, Sept 12: The controversy over the Sethusamudram project took a fresh twist Wednesday with the Centre telling the Supreme Court that there was no historical and scientific evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or the other characters in Ramayana.

In an affidavit, the Centre stated that the contents of the Valmiki Ramayana, Tuslidas`s Ramcharitmanas and other mythological texts cannot be a historical record to prove the existence of the characters mentioned in the book.
Sonia Congress had already attacked Holi , next will be Deshera and Diwali.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>No record of Rama, says ASI; Blasphemy: BJP </b>
Press Trust of India / New Delhi September 12, 2007
In the midst of a political controversy over the Sethusamudram project, the central government today told the Supreme Court that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or the other characters in Ramayana.

In an affidavit filed before the apex court, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) rejected the claim of the existence of the Ramsetu bridge in the area where the project was under construction.

The project proposes to provide a shorter sea route from Rameshwaram to Sri Lanka.

Referring to Ramayana, the affidavit said there is no "historical record" to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the character, or the occurrences of the events, depicted therein.

<b>Govt affidavit on Ramsetu blasphemous: BJP

BJP today accused the Congress-led UPA government of "blasphemy" by telling the Supreme Court that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or the other characters in Ramayana.

"This is sheer blasphemy," BJP leader Vijay Kumar Malhotra said reacting to an affidavit filed by ASI rejecting the claim of the existence of Ramsetu or Adam's bridge in the area where the Sethusamudram project was under construction.</b>

"It's an insult to Hindu faith. We also wonder why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress chief Sonia Gandhi have been going for the Dussehra festival if their government does not believe in Lord Rama's existence," he said.

BJP and other constituents of the Sangh Parivar are opposing the Sethusamudram project saying it would damage an undersea bridge believed to be built by Lord Rama.

"Today, the government in its affidavit says there is no evidence to prove the bridge was built by Lord Rama or that Lord Rama ever existed. This is an attack on Hindu sentiment - a ferocious one," Malhotra said.

Meanwhile, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) activists staged protests across the country against the project.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Congress is heading for doom,
<i>vinash kale viprit buddhi</i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 
जब राम थे ही नहीं तो कहां से आया रामसेतु: केंद्र
linkनई दिल्ली। केंद्र सरकार ने रामायण के पात्रों की ऐतिहासिक प्रामाणिकता पर ही प्रश्नचिह्न खड़ा कर दिया है। संस्कृति मंत्रालय के मातहत भारतीय पुरातत्व सर्वेक्षण (एएसआई) ने बुधवार को सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दायर हलफनामे में कहा है कि वाल्मीकि रामायण और गोस्वामी तुलसीदास कृत रामचरितमानस प्राचीन भारतीय साहित्य का महत्वपूर्ण हिस्सा हैं लेकिन इनके पात्र ऐतिहासिक रूप से प्रामाणिक नहीं हैं। रामसेतु तोड़े जाने का विरोध करने वाली याचिका में इन ग्रंथों सहित अन्य मिथकीय आख्यानों का आधार बनाया गया है।

  यह हलफनामा सेतुसमुद्रम परियोजना के लिए रामसेतु को तोड़े जाने का विरोध करने वाली याचिकाओं के जवाब में दाखिल किया गया है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 14 सितंबर तक रामसेतु का नुकसान पहुंचाने पर रोक लगा रखी है। इस मामले पर कोर्ट 14 सितंबर को सुनवाई करेगा। इसके पहले सोमवार को जहाजरानी मंत्रालय ने भी अपना हलफनामा दाखिल किया था जिसमें कहा गया था कि एडम्स ब्रिज मानव निर्मित नहीं है।

  बुधवार को <b>एएसआई के निदेशक (स्मारक) नोरवू दोरजी </b>की ओर से दाखिल किए गए हलफनामे में कहा गया है कि याचिकाकर्ता वाल्मीकि रामायण, तुलसीदास कृत रामचरित मानस व अन्य मिथकीय आख्यानों का संदर्भ दे रहे हैं। यह सभी प्राचीन भारतीय साहित्य का महत्वपूर्ण हिस्सा हैं लेकिन इन्हें ऐसा ऐतिहासिक रिकार्ड नहीं माना जा सकता है जो कि निर्विवाद रूप से इनके पात्रों का अस्तित्व सिद्ध करता हो या फिर घटनाओं का होना सिद्ध करता हो।

  एएसआई ने हलफनामे में कहा है कि वह पूरी दुनिया के हिंदुओं की आस्था व धार्मिक विश्वास का सम्मान करता है। मानव इतिहास का अध्ययन करते समय अन्य विज्ञान की तरह एएसआई का पहला उद्देश्य होता है कि अध्ययन वैज्ञानिक तरीके से मौजूद तकनीक के द्वारा किया जाए और उसका निष्कर्ष पुख्ता सामग्री साक्ष्य पर आधारित हो।

  एएसआई का यह भी कहना है कि याचिका दाखिल करने वाले मध्यकाल व भारत की स्वतंत्रता के पहले के बहुत से मानचित्रों पर विश्वास कर रहा है जिनमें समुद्र मे बने निर्माण को एडम्स ब्रिज कहा गया है लेकिन महज नाम से यह सिद्ध नहीं हो जाता कि कथित पुल वास्तव में मानव निर्मित है। पुरातत्व ऐतिहासिकता सिद्ध करने के लिए मानव अवशेष जैसे हड्डी व अन्य बनावटी चीजें पाई जानी चाहिए। इस तरह के कोई मानव अवशेष एडम्स ब्रिज के पास नहीं पाए गए।

  हलफनामे में कई अध्ययनों का जिक्र करते हुए कहा गया है कि यह सिद्ध हो जाता है कि याची द्वारा एडम्स ब्रिज/ रामसेतु को पूरी तरह से मिथकीय ग्रंथों के आधार पर 17 लाख पचास हजार साल पुराना बताया जा रहा है जो कि कतई मानने योग्य नहीं है। हलफमाने में रामसेतु के बारे में अब तक हुए अध्ययनों का हवाला देते हुए कहा गया है कि वैज्ञानिक अध्ययनों से स्पष्ट हो गया है कि यह पुल मानव निर्मित नहीं है यह बालू के टीलों की एक प्राकृतिक संरचना है इसे ऐतिहासिक, पुरातात्विक या कलात्मक रुचि अथवा महत्व का नहीं कहा जा सकता। इस पुल का कोई पुरातात्विक महत्व नहीं है।

  एएसआई का कहना है कि यह मामला विवादित पौराणिक कथा है और यह ऐतिहासिक महत्व का मामला नहीं है इसलिए यह प्राचीन स्मारक के दायरे में नहीं आता है। सरकार को ऐतिहसिक व कलात्मक रूचि के स्थानों को संरक्षित स्मारक घोषित करना होता है। लेकिन ऐसा वैज्ञानिक अध्ययनों व विश्लेषण के आधार पर घोषित किया जाता है। यह भी कहा गया है कि संविधान का अनुच्छेद 51ए सभी नागरिकों को वैज्ञानिक संस्कृति विकसित करने के लिए प्रेरित करता है। भारत संपन्न सांस्कृतिक विरासत वाला देश है। इसका नौ हजार वर्ष का स्थापित इतिहास है। लेकिन कि मिथक और वास्तविकता के बीच की विभाजक रेखा बहुत धुंधली है। इस मामले में मौजूद सामग्री पर बहुत गहनता से विचार करने के बाद एएसआई ने पाया कि एनसिएंट मानूमेंट आर्केलोजिकल साइटस रिमेंस एक्ट 1958 के तहत कार्रवाई करने की कोई जरूरत नहीं है। यह याचिका खारिज कर दी जानी चाहिए।

  हलफनामे में कहा गया है कि भारत सरकार किसी भी स्मारक को संरक्षित स्मारक घोषित करती है। आज की तारीख तक एडम्स ब्रिज को संरक्षित स्मारक व संरक्षित क्षेत्र नहीं घोषित किया गया है। ऐसे में एएसआई का उसे प्राचीन स्मारक घोषित करने का कोई मतलब नहीं बनता है। एएसआई ने इस संबंध में कोई अध्ययन नहीं किया है। जब तक किसी स्मारक या स्थान को केंद्र सरकार अधिनियम के तहत संरक्षित स्मारक या राष्ट्रीय स्मारक या ऐतिहासिक स्मारक नहीं घोषित करती है तब तक उसे राष्ट्रीय या ऐतिहासिक स्मारक नहीं माना जा सकता है।
  मालूम हो कि जनता पार्टी के सुब्रह्मण्यम स्वामी की ओर से दाखिल याचिका में रामसेतु को संरक्षित राष्ट्रीय स्मारक घोषित करने और रामसेतु को तोड़ने पर रोक लगाए जाने की मांग की गई है। <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They got themselves in a trap now.
Excellent editorial
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->जागरण-->समाचार
link
तो बात अयोध्या तक जाएगी!

नई दिल्ली। बात निकली है तो दूर तलक जाएगी! केंद्र सरकार ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में बुधवार को दायर हलफनामे में एक तरह से कह दिया है कि 'न राम रहे न रावन्ना, तुलसीदास गढ़ दीन्हीं पोथन्ना।' इस स्वीकारोक्ति के बाद क्या अब यह मान लिया जाए कि राष्ट्रीय राजनीति में बवंडर लाने वाले अयोध्या विवाद का पटाक्षेप हो गया? क्या हम यह भी मान लें कि जिस विवाद ने देश के सामाजिक सरोकार बदल दिए थे, वह इस मायने में निरर्थक था कि उसके पात्रों ने तो कभी जन्म ही नहीं लिया.. और जब राम जन्मे ही नहीं तो काहे का राम जन्मभूमि विवाद। जब रामायण के पात्र ही काल्पनिक हैं तो अयोध्या की सीता रसोई भी कल्पना के धनी किसी कवि का कमाल ही माना जाए। फिर यह भी मान लिया जाए कि लखनऊ को लक्ष्मण ने नहीं, किसी और ने बसाया था। <span style='color:red'>चित्रकूट और विंध्याचल से लेकर रामेश्वरम तक फैली राम की कथा यदि इतिहास की परिधि में नहीं आती तो दोषी अंग्रेजों द्वारा लिखा गया इतिहास और इतिहासकार हैं या राम। क्या करेंगे आप उस लोक और उस मानस का जो अपने बच्चों को राम, लक्ष्मण नाम देता है, जिसने सीता के अयोध्या से निष्कासन के लिए राम को क्षमा नहीं किया। तुलसी कृत मानस तो उत्तर भारत के जनजीवन का हिस्सा है और रामकथा भारत की अधिसंख्य आबादी का जीवन दर्शन है।

  और फिर राम ही क्यों? ऐतिहासिकता के जिस तर्क के सहारे केंद्र ने रामायण के पात्रों को खारिज किया है, वह कृष्ण पर भी तो लागू हो सकती है। इतिहास की किताबों में रास रचाने वाले कन्हैया का भी उल्लेख नहीं है, महाभारत भी प्रामाणिक नहीं है। इतिहास तो वहां भी नहीं पहुंच पाता। अब यह बात अलग है कि द्वारिकाधीश की द्वारिका की तलाश समुद्रवेत्ता कर रहे हैं। यह भी दिलचस्प है कि राम को नकारने वाली केंद्र सरकार द्वारिका की खोज समुद्र के नीचे करा रही है और दूसरी ओर इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट गीता को राष्ट्रीय धर्मशास्त्र घोषित करने का सुझाव दे रहा है।

  वास्तव में केंद्र सरकार ने रामायण के पात्रों की ऐतिहासिकता पर सवाल उठाकर मुद्दों की तलाश में भटक रही भारतीय जनता पार्टी की अनजाने ही बड़ी मदद कर दी है। अक्सर वैज्ञानिक इसीलिए नास्तिक होते हैं क्योंकि वे हर बात को तथ्य की कसौटी पर कसते हैं। यही काम एएसआई ने भी किया। लेकिन कहावत है, 'वह सत्य बोलो जो प्रिय हो।' भारतीय मानस में राम हर तर्क, हर कसौटी से परे हैं इसलिए बात सिर्फ रामसेतु या सेतुसमुद्रम तक सीमित नहीं रहेगी बल्कि इसके आगे भी जा सकती है। </span>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Govt says no proof of Ram’s existence, BJP on boil</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Leader of Opposition LK Advani sought to speak Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as the BJP angrily condemned the government’s stand. BJP’s Ravi Shankar Prasad said, <b> “It is a crude attempt to insult our culture, civilisational heritage and Hindu sentiments, and is a case of practice of appeasement politics.” </b>Advani spoke later to PM’s media adviser, Sanjaya Baru, to convey his anguish.
.....

The BJP spokesperson said, <b>“So far, we thought it is the solo play of Transport Minister TR Baalu who wants to demolish the Ram Setu. But it is clear that the government is behind the conspiracy to denigrate the Hindu beliefs and facts. The PM must explain the move to question the existence of Ramayana. We are not against the Sethusamudram project, but we want a realignment to protect the Ram Setu.”</b>

He said, “If the ASI has made no study, how can the government can conclude that there is no historical basis for a structure that is a matter of faith?”

Threatening to intensify the agitation, VHP leader Pravin Togadia said, “The government are diverting to the people’s attention but making such claim. If it continues like this and refuses to give up the Sethusamudram project, the UPA will suffer losses in the polls in Gujarat and other states and in the event of a mid-term Lok Sabha polls. By hurting the Hindu sentiments, no party can win polls in the states or at the Centre.”<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Withdraw the Sethu affidavit, Advani tells PM</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Senior BJP leader L K Advani on Wednesday sought immediate withdrawal of the government's affidavit before the Supreme Court in connection with the Sethusamudram case that said there was no historical evidence to establish existence of Lord Ram.

Advani said he also conveyed his protest over the affidavit to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] when they were together at a dinner meeting.

<b>"I told the prime minister that the affidavit was highly objectionable. I met the law minister also and told him that it should be immediately withdrawn," </b>he said.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Moron Singh's is moron, useless PM of India.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They got themselves in a trap now.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are digging their own grave.
Congress should say Good Bye to Rural votes, whether upper caste or lower caste.
METRO POLL RESULTS 12 Sep
The Ram Sethu is a creation of:

God 74%
Mother nature 18%
Undecided 8%


Let see how they manipulte this data, i just took a snap shot
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In an affidavit filed before the apex court, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) rejected the claim of the existence of the Ramsetu bridge in the area where the project was under construction<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Has ASI done any kind of archaeological study in the area or they just borrowing from teachings from the hysterians who support the imported caucasian gene theory?
While we are at it, how did Hazrat bal (strand of hair belonging to PBUH) land in J & K? Any ASI studies on that?
No ASI study, only myth they are verifying which were created by hysterians.
<b>Govt playing with people's faith: Ramdev</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He is understood to have pointed out that the Government had disputed the historicity of the characters and events figuring in Valmiki's Ramayan and Tulsidas's Ram Charit Manas, even as it admitted that the Archeological Survey of India had not conducted any enquiry into the existence of the Ram Setu.

The move gave a clear indication that the principal opposition party intends to make the Government's deliberate campaign to hurt the sentiments of the majority community a big issue and target the Congress for its unabashed pursuit of vote bank politics.

As BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad was quick to observe the affidavit had been filed by the Union Government's Ministry of Culture, which was under senior Congress leader Ambika Soni.

"So far, we thought opposition to Ram Setu was primarily from the Union Minister for Surface Transport and Shipping TR Balu, who represents the DMK in the ruling alliance," he said.

Interestingly, Balu's Ministry had already filed an affidavit in the apex court in connection with the same case on Monday.

But that affidavit confined itself to stating that there was no scientific evidence proving that Ram Setu was a man-made bridge.

The latest affidavit filed by a Ministry under the charge of Congress leader Ambika Soni went beyond this and challenged the historicity of the characters and events in the entire gamut of the Ram pantheon itself.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it helps anything here is a version of the what was argued

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad was quick to observe <b>the affidavit had been filed by the Union Government's Ministry of Culture, which was under senior Congress leader Ambika Soni.

"So far, we thought opposition to Ram Setu was primarily from the Union Minister for Surface Transport and Shipping TR Balu, who represents the DMK in the ruling alliance," he said.

Interestingly, Balu's Ministry had already filed an affidavit in the apex court in connection with the same case on Monday.</b>

But that affidavit confined itself to stating that there was no scientific evidence proving that Ram Setu was a man-made bridge.

<b>The latest affidavit filed by a Ministry under the charge of Congress leader Ambika Soni went beyond this and challenged the historicity of the characters and events in the entire gamut of the Ram pantheon itself. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So this was a Modernist attack and not required for the arguement against the case. The DMK was more rational.

There is an issue of attacking the core beliefs of people especially with government backing. If the Constitution says India is secular what business is it of the Govt to argue that a core belief of one religion is a historical. How does that reconcile with secularism? Why the selective attack on Hindu beliefs only?


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)