Comrades-in-arms: UPA & Pakistani “militants”
Most of you must have already read about the clumsy handling of the SethuSamudram affidavit by UPA last week.
But this particular post on the issue caught my eye. In “The Ramayana, the Sethusamudram and Indian Archeology“, Cynical Nerd examines the real intent and motives behind the moves by UPA and ASI. Some excerpts from this superb critique:
EXCERPTS (emphasis mine):
“…The Archeological Survey of India (ASI), under instruction from the political leadership in New Delhi, filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court yesterday claiming that there was no historical evidence that Rama or other individuals in the Ramayana ever existed.
The debate is no longer about the Sethusamudram but is now about the civilizational contours of India.
No secular Government has the prerogative to pontificate on religion unless the public good is adversely impacted. Rama and the Ramayana transcend history. They belong to the realm of religion and assume an importance independent of historical empiricism. While the ASI had the undeniable right to challenge the VHP’s position on the Sethusamudram canal, it had no authority to question the historicity of Rama.
…I level a broader critique of the Congress administration. It would not have dared question the historicity of the Bible or Quran. But it sure feels empowered to dismiss Hindu literature through a Supreme Court affidavit.
The ASI added that the Sethu Bridge was “merely a sand and coral formation” devoid of “historical, archaeological or artistic interest or importance.” But the literary evidence suggests otherwise! I was struck that the ASI repeatedly referred to the place as the “Adams Bridge” in contrast to the contemporary nomenclature of Sethu indicating a colonial-era and Christian mindset!
The Ramayana was a classical text that helped define the literary, aesthetic and court traditions of not just India but of Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaya (even if the contemporary Malay were to deny his pre-Islamic past), Nepal and Thailand. The murals in the Temple of the Emerald Buddha in Bangkok depict scenes from the Ramayana. So do the stone carvings of the 8th century Prambanan monument in central Java and the early 12th century Angkor Wat in Cambodia. Khmer classical dance and traditional Burmese theater are indebted to the Ramayana. The Thai kings in the 14th century established their capital in Ayuthaya named after Ayodhya while they styled themselves Rama.
Sinhalese inscriptions dated to the 12th century indicate that King Nissanka Malla of Sri Lanka expanded the temple at Rameshwaram to commemorate Rama’s penance. The Tamil Kings of Jaffna between the 13th and 16th centuries called themselves “Sethu Kavalar” or the protectors of Rameshwaram and the surrounding seas. The Vijayanagara kings continued the lavish patronage of Rameshwaram. The Ramayana is a key narrative that helped shape the Indic world view down the centuries, inspiring millions with its verses and anecdotes. It was perhaps the most translated Indic text in the pre-modern era.
…The affidavit was uncalled for. It represented a highly devious and selective attempt on the part of a pro-American and deracinated administration to undermine Hinduism while repeatedly conceding the political claims of other religions for electoral advantage.”
*****
Meanwhile several thousands of miles away, Pakistani “militants” contributed their own little bit to destroying ancient formations & sites of cultural, religious and historical significance (Hat Tip: Varnam):
“A group of masked-men tried to destroy (a Buddha) carving on Tuesday, said (Swat‘s) archaeology department official Aqleem Khan.
“Militants drilled holes in the rock and filled them with dynamite and blew it up,” Khan said on Wednesday.
…Khan compared the attack on the carving to the destruction of two giant standing Buddha statues in Bamiyan province in Afghanistan in early 2001 by the then ruling Taliban.”
***
Other recommended posts:
Rama Setu: from a discourse by Vivekananda
UPA is to Setu what Taliban is to Bamiyan
***
Irony of the Day: Apparently, ASI’s insigina includes the words “Aasetu Himaachal” – meaning “From Setu to Himalaya” (signifying the extent of ASI’s work in India).
đ
This is what our esteemed chief minister of Tamil Nadu said about the Rama Sethu.–he said “Ramayana was a story based on the fight between Aryan and Dravidian races.
“Lord Rama is an imaginary character and Ramar Sethu is not a man-made bridge. ”
Apparently he is not only a historian and archaeologist , but also an authority on Hindu literature. and religious traditions.
Had he read any version of the Ramayana, he would know that Ravana was considered a Brahmin, well versed in the Vedas. Thus this would actually mean that the fight was between two Aryan kings (since Karunanidhi thinks Brahmins are Aryans.)
This would also mean that apparently Aryan kings and people were present from Ayodhya all the way to Sri Lanka where Ravana was king. So where were those supposed Dravidians.
Subadra: While I am saddened, I am not surprised by the esteemed CM’s comment.
There continues to be widespread ignorance about the epics and the sacred stories even amongst otherwise well-read people.
See for example this post where a colleague of CM made similarly ignorant remarks:
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/03/29/would-shri-veeramani-care-to-read-this/
What I do not understand though is the reason for this deep animosity (indeed hatred) for Hindu traditions that you sometimes see in Tamil Nadu. See e.g. https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/05/01/periyar-against-brahminism-not-brahmins/
and https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/03/25/cover-up-or-blind-omission/
Would you or other readers have any thoughts on this?
Thanks.
P.S. As for the Aryan-Dravidian controversy, I thought this had been resolved a while ago; See this, for example:
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2005/05/15/the-aryan-dravidian-controversy/
Yes, Shantanu, there does seem to be more animosity for the Hindu religion and all its practices in Tamil Nadu. This ties in with the hatred of the upper castes especially the priests. This is fairly a recent movement i.e it started with Periyar and Annadurai. Periyar is credited with reviving Dravidian âself-respectâ and this really translated into a persecution of Brahmins both in rhetoric and in the public policies followed by the DMK ( which is a party that had its roots in the DKâDravidar Kazhaham of Periyar)
The current attack on Lord Rama and the Ram Sethu is nothing new. In 1956, Periyar took a procession of Rama’s picture garlanded with slippers near Dharmapuri. He later publicly destroyed the picture. Periyar himself is credited with those pithy statements such as “if you see a brahmin and a snake, kill the brahmin first” etc. He also apparently called for cutting of the tuft of hair of Brahmins and burning their houses etc.
The hatred for Brahmins and all other Aryans (the rest of India âespecially the North) translated into various public policies including the anti Hindi agitation, reservation policies and even the desire for a greater Tamil Nation comprising of Tamil Nadu and parts of Sri Lanka.
By the way, no matter what the facts actually reveal, these Dravidians will never give up the Aryan invasion theory. Too much of their political power hinges on making the Tamils believe that they are the truly oppressed in India. In fact Periyar himself is credited for using the Aryan invasion myth to create the Dravidian movement.
.
All: I came across this brilliant article in âThe Pioneerâ by P Ananthakrishnan, âKarunanidhi wrong, Ram an ancient Tamil iconâ.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story6%2Etxt&counter_img=6
EXCERPTS below:
*****
“A case in point is the discussion on Ram in Tamil tradition.
One historian said Ram had never been a popular god in Tamil Nadu and he was more a literary figure than a religious one. He went on to add that iconographic evidence of Ram in Tamil country was scarce and people even feared that if they worshipped Ram, tragedy would strike them.
Another worthy stated that Ram was worshipped by a small group of Vaishnavites. Inevitably, the Aryan-Dravidian divide came up.
The Great Political Thespian of India, M Karunanidhi, had the last word. He asked, rhetorically, âWho is this Ram? From which engineering college did he graduate?â
I am not sure, but certainly not from one of the âself-financingâ colleges of Tamil Nadu. If he had, he would not have been able to make a plank to cross a brook, leave alone build a bridge to span a gulf.
Is it really that Ram was scarcely known in Tamil country?
Before answering this question, let me make my position very clear on this issue. I am not exactly a believer. And I am of the view that the Sethusamudram project must go ahead, if it has no serious ecological, geological, technological and, what is more, bribe-related implications.
1. The Ramayan finds a mention in at least two places in the Sangam corpus, which is traditionally dated between 200 BC and 200 AD. In one reference, Ram orders chirping birds to silence. In another, the monkeys wear, in a monkey-like manner, the jewels discarded by Sita while she was being abducted by Ravan.
It is worthwhile to note here that both these incidents find no mention in the Valmiki Ramayan. The ease with which these incidents have been woven into the poems indicates that the Ramayan story was well known in the Tamil country during the Sangam period.
2. The next reference to Ram occurs in the epic Silappadikaram – âThe Tale of an Ankletâ. It was written in the Second Century AD by Ilango Adigal, a prince who became a Jain monk. It is an unforgettable literary masterpiece that was made into an eminently forgettable Tamil film by Karunanidhi himself.
In this epic, shepherdesses sing ballads in praise of both Ram and Krishna, clearly identifying them as avatars of Vishnu.
3. The works of the Vaishnava saints the Alwars, collectively known as âThe Sacred Four Thousand,â have innumerable allusions to Ram and the Ramayan.
The Alwars prospered between the Sixth and the Tenth Centuries AD.
As Vasudha Narayanan points out in her excellent essay on the Ramayan (available at http://www.ramanuja.org), in the work of one Alwar alone there are 106 allusions to Ram and the Ramayan and there are six âsetsâ of poems (about 63 verses) where the words are spoken by the Alwar in the guise of a character form the Ramayan. This Alwar, it must be noted, is not a Brahmin.
4. The Saiva saints, the Nayanmars, most of whom are contemporaries of the Alwars, also stud their verses with episodes from the Ramayan.
5. Then we have the greatest Tamil poet of them all, Kamban.
His Ramayan is correctly considered the acme of Tamil literary achievement. In about 10,000 verses Kamban, who, again, is not a Brahmin and is a grand scholar of Sanskrit and an unabashed admirer of Valmiki, establishes that, for his bhaktas, Rama is the One who is the origin of all.
This, it must be remembered, is a sure departure from Valmiki, for whom Rama was only a Maryada Purushottam.
Thus, it is clear that the Tamil country has an uninterrupted tradition of worshipping Ram at least right from the Second Century AD.
6. The iconographic evidence of Ram in Tamil Nadu is too numerous to narrate here. There are temples to Ram that date back at least to the Ninth Century AD. Some of the greatest Chola bronzes are of Ram – a few of them are on display at the National Museum in Delhi.
Some of the masterpieces are worshipped to this day, without interruption, from the day they were consecrated. Today, there is hardly any major city in Tamil Nadu that doesnât have a Ram shrine.
Hanuman, of course, pervades everywhere. One of the biggest statues of Hanuman is enshrined in a Chennai suburb, where festival days result in horrendous traffic snarls.
Curiously, this hoary tradition of Ram worship in the Tamil country has led to historian Suvira Jaiswal claiming in March 2007 that (in the words of The Hindu) the Ram cult took birth and evolved in the South, the âDravidaâ country, and later got assimilated into the religious psyche of the North!
This has evoked a testy response from, of all people, a Tamil, Dr Nagaswamy, a respected art historian and archaeologist, who says that the Ram cult must have originated in the North, perhaps as early as the Second Century BC.
There is nothing more ridiculous than calling Ravan a Dravidian hero. Ravan is in fact a top-of-the drawer Brahmin. He is the great grandson of Brahma himself, the grandson of Pulastya Maharishi and the son of Visravas, another rishi.
There is another point to be made here. The beautiful temple at Rameswaram is dedicated to Shiva.
According to the Sthalapurana the Shivalinga in the temple is supposed to have been installed by Ram himself for worship. Why did he want to worship Shiva? It was to expiate the sin of Brahmahatya (killing a Brahmin).
There is indeed another great, real divide. This is between the Tamils and the Tam Brahms of Delhi, who are generally seen in these infernal TV discussions. The Tam Brahms of Delhi has lost their Tamil roots long ago.
I doubt many of them will be able to read Tamil with some degree of comfort. They have absolutely no clue about the Tamil traditions, culture or literature. So long as they dominate the TV scene, there will only be sound and fury – sound from the Tam Brahms and fury from the Defenders of Dravidian Faith – signifying nothing.”
â The writer , a retired civil servant is an author and novelist
*****
What more can I say?
Lord Ram killed the great Brahmin King Ravana. He even humbled the Brahmin sage Parasuram. Ram was a full time drunkard according to the learned politician.
If you think these are enough to impress our Tamil leader you are wrong.
One needs greater qualities. Lord Ram failed on one score. He had just one wife Sita. You see, he had no guts to keep even a single concubine. He was not even a womanizer.
How can we expect a great leader of the stature of Dr. Karunanidhi not to ridicule a stupid king who gave up throne to save the name and fame of his father?
“This, it must be remembered, is a sure departure from Valmiki, for whom Rama was only a Maryada Purushottam.”
The description of Sri Rama in the Balakandam by Narada in the Srimad Valmikiramayanam should give some idea: the difference is the “Gyana vision” of Valmiki and the “Bhakta vision” of Tusidas and Kamban.