04-30-2006, 11:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-01-2006, 12:00 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
Another phony secularvadi (his beliefs are more like that of a fascist) exposed here:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Radha Rajan: You donât have to use un-parliamentary words in order to hurt the feelings of others. I am very perturbed by your way of arguing, of belittling and dismissing everyone, and of sarcastically laughing at the faith and feelings of the people.
But, sir, let me turn to a more specific question. You came down rather heavily on Arun Shourie and Jaswant Singh. You have interpreted them according to your reasons and your convictions. In the same way I take the liberty of interpreting what you and the âsecular clubâ have been saying. The club asks, âWhy is the sangha parivar worried about issues like Shah Bano and Salman Rushdie? Is the sangha parivar shedding tears for Shah Bano or for Salman Rushdie?â
Of course, there are always intellectuals who are clever at raising arguments and diverting attention. But the questions you and the âsecular clubâ raise are irrelevant. One need not shed tears for Salman Rushdie, but can still question the ban. One does not have to be a sympathiser of Mr. Rushdie in order to ask, âWhy are we being denied the right to read a book? Why this ban on religious grounds? Why this eagerness to spare the sentiments of one particular religious community, while a vast body of literature inimical to and abusive of the Hindu religion is not only tolerated, but also is often positively encouraged? Why doesnât anyone think of banning that?â One can ask all these questions, without at the same time having to shed tears for Salman Rushdie.
Similarly, shedding or not shedding tears for Shah Bano is also not the issue. Without being sentimental about that courageous lady, one can still ask, âWhy is it that when a person comes to our courts of justice, and when religious fundamentalist protest against the relief provided by the courts, we make it into a major political issue and bring in legislation to overrule the supreme court?â This weak-kneed response to the fundamentalist pressures is the issue. The matter of shedding tears or not shedding tears for Shah Bano or anyone else does not come into the picture.
Guhan: Let me first respond to your question about the banning of that book by Salman Rushdie. You say that you have been denied the opportunity to read the book, just because the Muslims said that it contains heretical reflections on the Prophet. You say that this is not fair. I on the other hand would defend the banning of that book for this simple reason: Just as the parivar says, and Jaswant Singh has said it very clearly, that there has been a monumental faith among the Hindus about the Janmasthana of Srirama, similarly, whether you like it or not, the 80 million Muslims of India have a certain feeling for their Prophet. And if the introduction of this book was going to lead to large scale riots and a breakdown of law and order, then it was perfectly legitimate to ban the book. You know what happened in Iran over this book.
I have been in the government for 35 years. And I know that any civil servant or politician or anyone else entrusted the task of running this country, would have to weigh the availability of this book for some people to read, on one pan of the scale, and the fact that there may be extensive rioting, wide-spread breakdown of law and order, and tension between the communities, on the other. What judgement a sensible person will come to? I shall leave it to you to form your own judgement. I donât want to say anything more.
Radha Rajan: But, sir, when there is so much of literature condemning Hinduism, how is it that only this book gets banned?
Guhan: By all means let people protest against the books that condemn Hinduism. Is there any example involving a text which brought Hindu religion or gods into disrepute, and the people protested against it, and the government refused to ban it? Periyar was banned. If you find a book that hurts the Hindu sensibilities, make a demand for banning it!
http://www.cpsindia.org/ayodhya_chap3.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These people want to take India back into the dark ages of Muslim rule when any criticism of Islam was enough for people to be put to death, b*stards like Khushwant Singh scream "Hindu communalism" but have beliefs similar to fascists when it comes to curtailing freedom of speech.
Another arguement that exposes the intellectual capabilities of these morons is:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ravi: Sir, in your presentation you mentioned that Swami Tulasidas does not mention the demolition of the temple at Ayodhya in the Ramacharitamanas, and this you said is one of the most important proofs that there was no temple there. But, all of us in Tamilnadu know that Malik Kafur entered and desecrated the Madurai Meenakshi Temple and the Srirangam Temple. But I have not heard of any Tamil saints, savants or poets having written songs about those events. We also know that Belur and Halebeedu were ravaged around the same time. To my knowledge there are no songs in Kannada about that. Have you, sir, heard of any songs or of any great poetry in Tamil or Kannada literature describing the desecrations and ravages of that period?
Guhan: All I am saying is that if somebody claims that something was there, he has to produce evidence. Logically it is impossible to prove the negative. If somebody says that there was a temple in Ayodhya, he has to produce the evidence for its existence. He cannot say, âI cannot produce any evidence, but you produce evidence to show that there was no temple.â I refuse to take the onus of proving the non-existence of the temple. Logically it is impossible to prove the negative. One cannot function according to such demands and rules.
http://www.cpsindia.org/ayodhya_chap3.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The moron does not seem to realise that something not being mentioned in a certain writing does not mean that it did not exist, as against this moron's ranting, the following refutation has been done by A.R Khan:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Now let us take the fact that Tulsidas has not mentioned the demolition of temple. It may be pointed out that even Emperor Akbar, who was a contemporary of Tulsi, does not find any mention in Tulsi's work despite the fact that Tulsi gave a thought to the subject of rulership and has expressed his notions of sovereignty. For Tulsi who was disturbed at the varnasankar of his times and who advocated a dharmadhur in ruler who could apply nisi, even Akbar did not exist either as an ideal ruler or as a mleccha who opposed sati subscribed to by Tulsi. Therefore, to look for evidence regarding the destruction of a temple and the construction of a mosque by the order of Akbar's grandfather in a work written by the order of Akbar, much less in the Ain-i-Akbari or in Tulsi's Bhakti poetry, amounts to looking for penguins in the Sahara and camels in the Antarctic. Besides, the quotation from Ain-i-Akbari referring to Ayodhya as the residence of Rama has been cleverly lifted from a languish passage bearing references to Ayodhya, being "a populous site" in 'ancient times' and 'one of the largest cities of India'. (of Akbar's time) as well as Abul Fazal's assertion that "it is esteemed one of the holiest places of the antiquity". <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Regarding Tulsidas not mentioning the demolition of Rama temple Prof. Khan replies, "the argument (BMAC historians) that 'surely in his description of Ayodhya he (Tulsi) would have mentioned the Rama Janmabhumi.........." is nothing but a fallacy. "Surely, Tulsi was not composing his poetry to furnish evidence to future historians or to the wishes of the Bhaktas of Rama"
It may, however, be mentioned here that Tulsidas, the devotee of Rama, did mention it in his Kavitavali (u. 106 B) albeit indirectly. He writes "Tulsi sarnam gulam hai Rama ko............. many ke khaibo, masid me soibo" i.e. "I am in the service of Rama like a slave, I beg my food and sleep in the mosque." At the time of writing this he was living at Ayodhya. The scenario is clear, since he was the devotee of Lord Rama he spent his nights in the place of his Master who then 'lived' in the mosque which had replaced the original Hindu temple. One should look at the situation in the contemporary political scenario - Ayodhya was ruled by Muslims. Otherwise why would a devout Hindu keep on sleeping in the mosque ? Structure or no structure, temple or mosque, Rama or his master was born there, hence lives there, bodily or otherwise.
http://www.wac.uct.ac.za/croatia/gupta.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Radha Rajan: You donât have to use un-parliamentary words in order to hurt the feelings of others. I am very perturbed by your way of arguing, of belittling and dismissing everyone, and of sarcastically laughing at the faith and feelings of the people.
But, sir, let me turn to a more specific question. You came down rather heavily on Arun Shourie and Jaswant Singh. You have interpreted them according to your reasons and your convictions. In the same way I take the liberty of interpreting what you and the âsecular clubâ have been saying. The club asks, âWhy is the sangha parivar worried about issues like Shah Bano and Salman Rushdie? Is the sangha parivar shedding tears for Shah Bano or for Salman Rushdie?â
Of course, there are always intellectuals who are clever at raising arguments and diverting attention. But the questions you and the âsecular clubâ raise are irrelevant. One need not shed tears for Salman Rushdie, but can still question the ban. One does not have to be a sympathiser of Mr. Rushdie in order to ask, âWhy are we being denied the right to read a book? Why this ban on religious grounds? Why this eagerness to spare the sentiments of one particular religious community, while a vast body of literature inimical to and abusive of the Hindu religion is not only tolerated, but also is often positively encouraged? Why doesnât anyone think of banning that?â One can ask all these questions, without at the same time having to shed tears for Salman Rushdie.
Similarly, shedding or not shedding tears for Shah Bano is also not the issue. Without being sentimental about that courageous lady, one can still ask, âWhy is it that when a person comes to our courts of justice, and when religious fundamentalist protest against the relief provided by the courts, we make it into a major political issue and bring in legislation to overrule the supreme court?â This weak-kneed response to the fundamentalist pressures is the issue. The matter of shedding tears or not shedding tears for Shah Bano or anyone else does not come into the picture.
Guhan: Let me first respond to your question about the banning of that book by Salman Rushdie. You say that you have been denied the opportunity to read the book, just because the Muslims said that it contains heretical reflections on the Prophet. You say that this is not fair. I on the other hand would defend the banning of that book for this simple reason: Just as the parivar says, and Jaswant Singh has said it very clearly, that there has been a monumental faith among the Hindus about the Janmasthana of Srirama, similarly, whether you like it or not, the 80 million Muslims of India have a certain feeling for their Prophet. And if the introduction of this book was going to lead to large scale riots and a breakdown of law and order, then it was perfectly legitimate to ban the book. You know what happened in Iran over this book.
I have been in the government for 35 years. And I know that any civil servant or politician or anyone else entrusted the task of running this country, would have to weigh the availability of this book for some people to read, on one pan of the scale, and the fact that there may be extensive rioting, wide-spread breakdown of law and order, and tension between the communities, on the other. What judgement a sensible person will come to? I shall leave it to you to form your own judgement. I donât want to say anything more.
Radha Rajan: But, sir, when there is so much of literature condemning Hinduism, how is it that only this book gets banned?
Guhan: By all means let people protest against the books that condemn Hinduism. Is there any example involving a text which brought Hindu religion or gods into disrepute, and the people protested against it, and the government refused to ban it? Periyar was banned. If you find a book that hurts the Hindu sensibilities, make a demand for banning it!
http://www.cpsindia.org/ayodhya_chap3.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These people want to take India back into the dark ages of Muslim rule when any criticism of Islam was enough for people to be put to death, b*stards like Khushwant Singh scream "Hindu communalism" but have beliefs similar to fascists when it comes to curtailing freedom of speech.
Another arguement that exposes the intellectual capabilities of these morons is:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ravi: Sir, in your presentation you mentioned that Swami Tulasidas does not mention the demolition of the temple at Ayodhya in the Ramacharitamanas, and this you said is one of the most important proofs that there was no temple there. But, all of us in Tamilnadu know that Malik Kafur entered and desecrated the Madurai Meenakshi Temple and the Srirangam Temple. But I have not heard of any Tamil saints, savants or poets having written songs about those events. We also know that Belur and Halebeedu were ravaged around the same time. To my knowledge there are no songs in Kannada about that. Have you, sir, heard of any songs or of any great poetry in Tamil or Kannada literature describing the desecrations and ravages of that period?
Guhan: All I am saying is that if somebody claims that something was there, he has to produce evidence. Logically it is impossible to prove the negative. If somebody says that there was a temple in Ayodhya, he has to produce the evidence for its existence. He cannot say, âI cannot produce any evidence, but you produce evidence to show that there was no temple.â I refuse to take the onus of proving the non-existence of the temple. Logically it is impossible to prove the negative. One cannot function according to such demands and rules.
http://www.cpsindia.org/ayodhya_chap3.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The moron does not seem to realise that something not being mentioned in a certain writing does not mean that it did not exist, as against this moron's ranting, the following refutation has been done by A.R Khan:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Now let us take the fact that Tulsidas has not mentioned the demolition of temple. It may be pointed out that even Emperor Akbar, who was a contemporary of Tulsi, does not find any mention in Tulsi's work despite the fact that Tulsi gave a thought to the subject of rulership and has expressed his notions of sovereignty. For Tulsi who was disturbed at the varnasankar of his times and who advocated a dharmadhur in ruler who could apply nisi, even Akbar did not exist either as an ideal ruler or as a mleccha who opposed sati subscribed to by Tulsi. Therefore, to look for evidence regarding the destruction of a temple and the construction of a mosque by the order of Akbar's grandfather in a work written by the order of Akbar, much less in the Ain-i-Akbari or in Tulsi's Bhakti poetry, amounts to looking for penguins in the Sahara and camels in the Antarctic. Besides, the quotation from Ain-i-Akbari referring to Ayodhya as the residence of Rama has been cleverly lifted from a languish passage bearing references to Ayodhya, being "a populous site" in 'ancient times' and 'one of the largest cities of India'. (of Akbar's time) as well as Abul Fazal's assertion that "it is esteemed one of the holiest places of the antiquity". <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Regarding Tulsidas not mentioning the demolition of Rama temple Prof. Khan replies, "the argument (BMAC historians) that 'surely in his description of Ayodhya he (Tulsi) would have mentioned the Rama Janmabhumi.........." is nothing but a fallacy. "Surely, Tulsi was not composing his poetry to furnish evidence to future historians or to the wishes of the Bhaktas of Rama"
It may, however, be mentioned here that Tulsidas, the devotee of Rama, did mention it in his Kavitavali (u. 106 B) albeit indirectly. He writes "Tulsi sarnam gulam hai Rama ko............. many ke khaibo, masid me soibo" i.e. "I am in the service of Rama like a slave, I beg my food and sleep in the mosque." At the time of writing this he was living at Ayodhya. The scenario is clear, since he was the devotee of Lord Rama he spent his nights in the place of his Master who then 'lived' in the mosque which had replaced the original Hindu temple. One should look at the situation in the contemporary political scenario - Ayodhya was ruled by Muslims. Otherwise why would a devout Hindu keep on sleeping in the mosque ? Structure or no structure, temple or mosque, Rama or his master was born there, hence lives there, bodily or otherwise.
http://www.wac.uct.ac.za/croatia/gupta.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->