It has been proved again that rather than the avowed devotees,
it is the atheists and detractors who think too much of God
and think of God at all times.
Who else than Mr Karunanidhi can fit in the bill as a constant thinker of Rama and
devout reader of Ramayana ??!!
Yes, Mr Karunanidhi is in the news again with his latest comments on Rama:-)
This time he wonders why no one is ready blame Rama for the crimes
that happened in his regime
(was not Sita kidnapped in his country?
did any one blame Rama for that crime that happened in his rule?)
whereas everyone is ready to pounce on his (Karunanidhi's) regime
and his police personnel
for the crimes in his society.
Here is the report on MK's latest pearl of wisdom!
MK draws analogy from Ramayana, defends police against criticismsChennai | Sunday, Mar 16 2008 IST
Expressing anguish over the police department becoming a much maligned force
in the eyes of some political parties and the public,
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi defended the police against criticisms
by drawing an analogy from epic Ramayana.
Inaugurating the State Police Academy at Vandalur near here last evening,
he defended the police force against criticism from political parties and
wanted to know whether there was no incidents of crime during the period of rule of Lord Ram.
Citing the kidnap of Lord Ram's wife Sita by Ravana in Ramayana,
Mr Karunanidhi asked why the police was not criticised then.
''Even during the days of Rama,
there was crime and Sita was kidnapped by Ravana.
Did anyone criticise the police then,''he asked.
''Poet Kambar, who wrote Ramayana, has said that Sita was kidnapped by Ravana.
But no one criticised the police then,''he said, and added that when many felt that King Dharmar was a great ruler,
the truth was that incidents of crime had occurred even then.
In fact, Mr Karunanidhi inadvertently mentioned that Sita was kidnapped during Rama's reign, but the fact was that Lord Ram was in exile when she was kidnapped.
Coming down heavily on political parties for criticising police, but failing to acknowledge their deeds when they solved cases, Mr Karunanidhi said public anger against the police could be traced back to the British period, during which police were used to suppress the people.
''As the youth were enrolled in the police force during the British days only to carry out their orders, anger against Indian policemen began and it continued even today. Due to certain political parties, the police department has become a much maligned force and there was need to change this,'' he added. Praising the police for ensuring that Tamil Nadu remained a peaceful state at a time when neighbouring countries were facing problems of terrorism and extremism, he said ''let us applaud the police force, which has to be given the due credit for their good work,'' and called for sustained efforts to end the people's anger towards the police force.
-------(end of report)------------------
The report and letter writers who have commented on this talk by MK
had only delved into whether or not Rama was the ruler
when the crime of kidnap of Sita occurred.
But the real issue is whether Mr Karunannidhi's analogyof comparing the crime
at Rama's time to the crimes of today
Mr Karunnanidhi attempted to throw bad light on Rama by saying that
even though crimes like that of kidnap of Sita happened in his regime,
people did not find fault with the ruler, namely Rama.
people find fault with him (Mr Karunanidhi) and his police personnel
for any crime reported in the society.
The issue is - is this analogy right?
The absurdity of this analogy is that Mr Karunanidhi is
comparing himself and his police force with Rama and his force.
Rama and his force were never found wanting in
protecting the subjects,
in bringing down the crime rate to zero and
punishing the guilty with iron hand.
No crime was reported in Rama rajya - in Rama's country.
Rama not only ensured that no crime was committed in his country,
he also ventured out of his country to make sure
that peace was maintained even outside the country - in the forests.
On the two occasions he ventured out of his country -
when as a lad he went with sage Vishwamithra and later when he was exiled -
he was busy eliminating the criminals,
-the demons who were disturbing the
sages in the forest.
No forest brigand was able to wield his command on the rulers,
in Rama's times, as happened in Mr Karunanidhi's time!
Even the kidnap of Sita happened by tricking out Rama from the place,
but Rama duly made sure that the criminal was brought to book.
The likes of Mr Karunanidhi may even compare themselves with Rama
to say that they are more merciful on the offenders
and oppose death punishment
whereas Rama had been less merciful on the offenders and
killed more demons in the name of punishment.
But it is not so.
A detailed study of Ramayana will reveal to the reader that
Rama showed restraint on those occasions
when the offender was needed
to be shown mercy.
When his supreme offender, Ravana was found losing ground,
Rama gave him a respite by allowing him to retire for rest
and resumed the fight the next day.
This is said to be a supreme act of bravery (pEraaNmai) by a king in
war and has been mentioned so by Thiruvalluvar too (kural 773).
(This is for MK's reference)
Mercy to criminals as has been allowed by Dharma was followed by Rama,
and not such mercy arising out of dubious intentions.
It is time Mr Karunanidhi stops dabbling with Ramayana thereby not
further exposing his inadequacies.
Before venturing out to comment on Rama,
it is good for him to remind
himself of what Gandhiji told.
Gandhiji characterised Ramarajya as one
where a young maiden,
fully bedecked with jewellery
can walk on the road fearlessly at midnight.
When Mr Karunanidhi is able to ensure that,
he can start speaking or
commenting on Rama!