A mail to the “secularists” who oppose Ayodhya verdict.

 

 

From: Vinod Sreebhashyam <vsreebhashyam@yahoo.com>

Subject: Rejoinder

To: sahmat8@yahoo.com

Date: Friday, October 8, 2010, 4:34 PM

 

Members/signatories of Sahmat statement against High Court judgement on Babri Masjid:

 

This letter is addressed to you to express the anguish of a Hindu native of India that is Bharat.

 

First of all the obvious legal position: Before the announcement of the judgement, all parties, irrespective of religion, went to town, with their statements that they will abide by the court's verdict, especially the Muslim litigants in the case. Then why are you, as a group, trying to rouse passions among the Muslim groups by denouncing the judgement? What stakes have you, as a disparate group, in the judgement's right or wrong?  If Muslims and Hindus continue to fight and let blood flow in the streets, will that assuage your bleeding hearts? Instead of encouraging the majority and minority groups to come to an amicable understanding, why are you putting spokes in the process of healing?

 

 

Secondly, how many of you, the signatories, are true Hindus? Going by the tone of the statement, it is highly unlikely that many of you are Hindus, apart from the obviously Muslim names on the list. Nowadays, a Hindu sounding name doesn't necessarily mean that the person is a Hindu, he could be a Christian also.

 

 

If many of you are indeed practicing Hindus, then I ask you, what is it that makes you ignore the centuries old scriptures, mythologies etc written by sages, saints, intellectuals, historians and indeed, archeologists, that state, confirm and convince that Ayodhya was the birthplace of Lord Rama, the common God of so many of our cultures, past and present, in north, south, east and west of India, and so many abroad today. Is it not sacrilege on your part to question the very existence of Rama, the object of intense and deep faith of millions of Hindus, whose only country in this hostile world, is India. What is the difference between you as a group and as individuals and the Muslims and Christians of this world, who do not regard Hinduism as a religion/faith or Hindus as human beings? On the other hand, at least some foreign governments like UK, USA have actually held HIndu festivals in their official programs and functions. But not people like you, who do not consider Hindus as basic human beings who can also have deep and ancient beliefs, in fact more ancient than most other religions in the world.

 

 

And if you are not practising Hindus, then at least, can you not let Hindus be, just allow them their beliefs and blind faith if you may, in their own country, where they are the majority religion? Anyhow, the country was divided on religious lines, and Pakistan took away one third of the country and made it a ruthless, religiously bigoted Muslim country, whereas vast numbers of Muslims stayed back, to enjoy the fruits of a secular democracy, unhindered proliferation of their numbers, through polygamy, hate of family planning, deliberate suppression of their women folk, infiltration from Bangladesh, and various other means. Can you find the same freedom for Hindus in any declared Muslim country in this world? Hindu temples are demolished casually in Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia etc to make way for anything they want, whereas, in India, the demolition of an old, dilapidated mosque, which has no real religious significance( it is not Mecca after all), in the very birthplace of Lord Rama, has roused such passions among Muslims and bleeding heart liberals like you, that today jihad has become the regular pastime of Muslim terrorists, who consider Hindus all over as just sheep to be cut and massacred whenever and wherever they please.

 

 

Why should we be secular to the extent of catering to every whim and fancy of the minorities, who had, in their own time in history, dominated us to the extent of massacring, raping, looting, converting and trampling over our very souls for centuries, without a thought for our individuality as a people, a religion, a faith, a culture that was famous all over the world for its philosophy, deep tolerance for others, rich cultural heritage, literature, scientific and medical knowledge, and an abiding goodness .

 

 

Please, glance at old photographs of British times or our Hyderabadi Nizam's times and notice the scenes on the streets, where poor Hindus are shown as the lowest human beings in local attire, on the sides of dusty streets and markets, while the Muslim nawabs/citizens are seen in rich attire, with palaces, vehicles, astride horses etc lording it over the local Hindus.

 

My own grandfather and two uncles were nearly massacred on the day of the Police action in Hyd in 1948 by rampaging Razakar goons, who daily allocated one locality or other for total annihilation of Hindus. They routinely raped Hindu women and cut off their breasts and nailed them on the doorposts, i.e.,  if in the first place they were not kidnapped and converted to Islam. The HIndu men, they just cut their throats and left them to die. It was only the arrival of the Indian Army that day, that saved my elders, because the muslims ran for their dirty lives, hid in drainages, shaved off their beards and pretended to be Hindus, or simply escaped to Pakistan. Their fanatic leader Rizvi was given just 7 years in jail and then allowed to leave for Pakistan decently, where he died a nobody. But the legacy he left behind in the form of MIM party is still creating havoc in Hyderabad. And all this was just 60 years back and you are already in full favour of treating HIndus as second class citizens in their own country, giving priority to minorities. Can't you be human enough to allow the Hindus their day in the sun and  peaceful religious pursuits, whether in Ayodhya or elsewhere. If you can't practice your relligion, at least others practice theirs in peace.

 

 

Coming to your contention that the existence of a temple in the spot in Ayodhya is not proved, don't you know that the Muslims hordes in those times routinely destroyed temples and built mosques with the very same material and on the same spots? Some of you are historians in your own right, and you should be the last persons to question our sad history. Babri mosque was a Shia mosque, which for a Sunni, is a place of no reverence or significance at all. We all know that a Sunni does not even enter a Shia mosque. Shias are more liberal and sympathetic to HIndus. Then why is a the Sunnie wakf fighting for the shia mosqsue. You guessed it, religious bigotry, just because Hindus are involved in the controversy. If at any other place, a shia mosque is destroyed, as indeed is happening in Pakistan today, a sunni would never even give it a second thought.

 

 

Ayodhya is the birthplace of a revered Hindu God and what does it matter to Muslims if an old mosque is shifted to allow Hindus their place of worship. After all a mosque is a place of gathering, where there is no deity to personify a God, to become a focus of their worship. Whereas in a temple, a deity, an idol, an object of reverence is installed accompanied by religious rituals, and faith in its divinity. Who is to question such a faith? Certainly not people of other religions who had no locus standi in the first place.

 

 

Even in Muslim countries, mosques are shifted to make way for other structures, like roads etc. There is enough proof and news items on this. Then what is it that makes our Muslims special, like someone being more loyal than the King, in Britain of the old, that they claim every inch or every mosque permanently, whereas small temples on roadsides nowadays are simply shifted away, or land of large temples is simply taken away by the Municipality to make way for roads. whereas not an inch of Muslim graves in the middle of the roads, is  touched for fear of loss of stupid votes.

 

My regular temple nearby lost 30 ft X 150 of its land, to widen the road, where there was no real need for it. Now that spot is used as a parking place for vehicles coming to the Zoarastrian club , and not for a road really. Whereas a totally obscure and unknown Muslim grave right in the middle of the road, bang in the slope of a flyover, was left alone for decades, while the road all around was being widened. In fact recently when it collapsed ,it was rebuilt with unusual urgency, overnight, with even higher walls, in the same spot. That was the right time to shift it to the side of the road. But no! And the police gave full protection!  And other mosques which are creating absolute traffic nightmares due to their location on the roads, are not willing to give even an inch for road widening.

 

 

Now do you as a group dare to question these things? In fact does any of you have the guts to question the authenticity of Muslim beliefs, prophets, or indeed, proof of the authenticity of Mecca or Medina. Just try and see. There is enough known about the prophet's cartoons affair, salman rushdie, taslima nasreen, and other cases. It is only the Israelis who have had the guts to face all muslim countries around them and survive for decades. No one else has.

 

 

You can only rampage Hindu ideals, religion, temples, faith, etc. Huge graves of Akbar, Babar, and other muslim kings of past, Taj, Red fort, (both delhi and agra), fatehpur sikri etc, occupying acres and acres of precious land are maintained immaculately, at huge expense to the taxpayer, whereas revered temples of Hindus all over the country, languish in dirt, filth, narrow streets full of garbage and excrement. Hindu temples' revenue is taken away by the govt, and paid to Muslims to go to Haj, (they don't go to babri masjid in Ayodhya) or Christians to go to Jerusalem. Do you even see the unfairness of it all even after our beloved country's independence from both Muslim and Christian rulers of centuries?

 

 

Now this can go on and I am not even sure you have read it all. But please do refrain from writing useless biased statements, articles in the media, or participating in pseudo intellectual panel discussions on TV channels for fat payments to demean your own religion. You never find a Muslim disparaging their religion. Then why do you do it to yours? Please for God's (!) sake, be fair.

 

 

Vinod Sreebhashyam

29, Motilalnagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad 16

ph:9848797932

 

 

***************

 

 

Sahmat Statement on Ayodhya Verdict

 

From: SAHMAT – Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust
29, Feroze Shah Road,New Delhi-110001
Telephone- 23381276/ 23070787
e-mail-sahmat8@ yahoo.com

 

Date 1.10.2010

 

Statement on Ayodhya Verdict

 

The judgement delivered by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Dispute on 30 September 2010 has raised serious concerns because of the way history, reason and secular values have been treated in it. First of all, the view that the Babri Masjid was built at the site of a Hindu temple, which has been maintained by two of the three judges, takes no account of all the evidence contrary to this fact turned up by the Archaeological Survey of India's own excavations: the presence of animal bones throughout as well as of the use of 'surkhi' and lime mortar (all characteristic of Muslim presence) rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque.

 

The ASI's controversial Report which claimed otherwise on the basis of 'pillar bases' was manifestly fraudulent in its assertions since no pillars were found, and the alleged existence of 'pillar bases' has been debated by archaeologists. It is now imperative that the site notebooks, artifacts and other material evidence relating to the ASI's excavation be made available for scrutiny by scholars, historians and archaeologists.

 

 

No proof has been offered even of the fact that a Hindu belief in Lord Rama's birth-site being the same as the site of the mosque had at all existed before very recent times, let alone since 'time immemorial'. Not only is the judgement wrong in accepting the antiquity of this belief, but it is gravely disturbing that such acceptance should then be converted into an argument for deciding property entitlement. This seems to be against all principles of law and equity.

 

 

The most objectionable part of the judgement is the legitimation it provides to violence and muscle-power. While it recognizes the forcible break-in of 1949 which led to placing the idols under the mosque-dome, it now recognizes, without any rational basis, that the transfer put the idols in their rightful place. Even more astonishingly, it accepts the destruction of the mosque in 1992 (in defiance, let it be remembered, of the Supreme Court's own orders) as an act whose consequences are to be accepted, by transferring the main parts of the mosque to those clamouring for a temple to be built.

 

 

For all these reasons we cannot but see the judgement as yet another blow to the secular fabric of our country and the repute of our judiciary. Whatever happens next in the case cannot, unfortunately, make good what the country has lost.

 

 

Romila Thapar
K.M. Shrimali
D.N. Jha
K.N. Panikkar
Amiya Kumar Bagchi
Iqtidar Alam Khan
Shireen Moosvi
Jaya Menon
Irfan Habib
Suvira Jaiswal
Kesavan Veluthat
D. Mandal
Ramakrishna Chatterjee
Aniruddha Ray
Arun Bandopadhyaya
A. Murali
V. Ramakrishna
Arjun Dev
R.C. Thakran
H.C. Satyarthi
Amar Farooqui
B.P. Sahu
Biswamoy Pati
Lata Singh
Utsa Patnaik
Zoya Hasan
Prabhat Patnaik
C.P. Chandrasekhar
Jayati Ghosh
Archana Prasad
Shakti Kak
V.M. Jha
Prabhat Shukla
Indira Arjun Dev
Mahendra Pratap Singh
Ram Rahman
M.K. Raina
Sohail Hashmi
Parthiv Shah
Madan Gopal Singh
Madhu Prasad
Vivan Sundaram
Geeta Kapur
Rajendra Prasad
Anil Chandra
Rahul Verma
Indira Chandrasekhar
Sukumar Muralidharan
Supriya Verma
N.K. Sharma
S.Z.H. Jafri
Farhat Hasan
Shalini Jain
Santosh Rai
Najaf Haider
R. Gopinath
R.P. Bahuguna
G.P. Sharma
Sitaram Roy
O.P. Jaiswal
K.K. Sharma

 

Karunanidhi again at his pet job of bungling up history.

These are times of 'historians' getting exposed of their null knowledge of history. The Ayodhya verdict did a great job of exposing the 'secular' historians of their true worth. I don't know when our self- proclaimed 'drvidian' historian of Tamilnadu (Karunanidhi) is going to get a similar treatment and be made to stop meddling up with history.

His recent handiwork at bungling up history was seen in his autocratic style of getting the name of the author of Silappadhikaram attested to Bharata Muni, the eternal name connected with  Natya sastra in whose name the legendry dancer of our times Padma Subramanyam wanted to establish a Foundation for research on performing arts of Asia.

The land for this foundation was originally allotted by Jayalalithaa. But when Karunanidhi came to power he withdrew the allotment. Such is the nature of this so-called art lover who donated land for cine artists recently. His grouse was that the nature of art and research was about "Aryan" or Sanskritised works.

This self styled historian's knowledge of history of Aryan or Dravidian is well known to us. "Amma" (jayalalithaa) is Aryan whereas "Annai" (Sonia) is Indian! Going by the basis of Karunanidhi's theory of who is Aryan, Sonia Gandhi fulfills the definition better than Jayalalithaa. I don't know who will tell this to him. Or he may be knowing this but reserving it for the ultimate time which he wishes not to appear – if Sonia snaps ties with him. Perhaps at that time we may hear Karunanidhi serving expletives on Aryan conspiracy of Sonia and Jayalalithaa to displace the Dravidian rule!

Well, coming to Karunanidhi's obsession with Ilango, his justification was that the author, Ilango adikal has described natya sastra in his book, Silappadhikaram. Bringing in Ilango's name is perhaps an excuse to give a go–ahead to the project of Padma Subramanian which he had stalled. Perhaps he wanted a Tamil- based excuse to allow that project. 

But in doing so, he is as usual putting himself in a poor light as a half- learned Tamil scholar and a biased historian.

Looking at some of the issues that arise from his interpretation of Ilango Adikal as a protagonist of Natya sastra,

·        Would  Karunanidhi call Ilango as a Vishnu Bhaktha or Ilango Azhwar because he has devoted one full chapter on the song and dance form called Aaichiyar Kuravai which is a replica of Gujarath's Hallisaka in praise of Lord Vishnu?

·        Would Karunanidhi admit that he has misunderstood Rama and would henceforth revere him not only as a historical reality but also as a God  because Ilango praises Rama as God and  has described the events from Ramayana in that chapter?

·        Would Karunanidhi accept that all the dance forms of Tamil nadu had been created by Gods themselves – namely by Shiva, Krishna, Muruga, Kaama deva, Lakshmi and Indraani – because Ilango says so?

·        Would Karunanidhi accept the Aryan elements in the dancing tradition of Madhavi as described by Ilango? Ilango tells at 2 places the origins of dance related items. According to him, once the celestial dancer Urwashi was dancing in the court of Indra to the music of Narada.  Inspired by her dance, Indra's son Jayantha (the same one who took up the form of a crow and troubled Sita in vanavaas) joined her in dancing. At some moment the duo exhibited sexual desire in their eyes while dancing. This was noticed by Narada who, in a bid to bring them back to their senses struck an inauspicious note in his veena. Sage Agasthya was also present in the court at that time. Irritated by the inauspicious note, he cursed Jayantha to be born as the "thalaik kol", the decorated stick used by the singers of the dance programmes. Urwashi was cursed by him to be born as a dancer in whose lineage Madhavi was born in the period of Silappadhikaram events. Narada's Veena was cursed to become the wooden plank on which the singers used to strike the decorated stick (Thalaik kol) while singing for the dance. This story has all the trappings of an Aryan myth. Does Karunanidhi concede this story?

·        Ilango also describes the science of gemology in a chapter while describing the market place. His narration on Ruby is so exhaustive that it gives an impression that Ilango has studied gemology which is part of astrology. Moreover in numerous other places Ilango does give astrological inputs. Would Karunanidhi realize this facet of Ilango Adikal and come forward to bring back the Department of Astrology in Madurai Kamaraj University which was dissolved under his instructions after he assumed office 4 years ago? There is no problem to use Ilango's name. Let him rename the subject as 'Ilango Jothidam' and bring back the study of astrology which had the highest intake of students when it was taught.

·        Finally, Ilango does indicate the submerged land of Tamils in the Indian ocean. His narration is completely against a land for Tamils in the Indus valley. Silappadhikaram and the commentary to the expression of "ThodiyoL bauwam" clearly describe the nature of that submerged land of Kumari. Would Karunanidhi bow to Ilango and accept his version of Tamil's land and origins in the South? Will he wake up from his schizophrenic obsession with a Dravidian identity??

Related Post:-

Krishna connection to the dances of Tamilnadu. (World Tamil Conference -5)

*****************
From

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/chennai/aryan-dravidian-touch-dance-centre-907

Aryan-Dravidian touch to dance centre

Oct. 11: Chief minister M. Karunanidhi, who recently said in the wake of the Ayodhya verdict that Aryan culture had succeeded in planting superstitions in people's minds even while the true aspects of Dravidian history remained unknown, has now cleared a memorial for Bharata Muni, the author of Natya Shastra, a theoretical treatise on Indian classical dance.

The Dravidian leader has struck a compromise formula with famous Bharatanatyam dancer Padma Subramaniam to return the five acres of land for her trust to build the memorial. Under this pact, the centre would be named Bharata Elango Foundation for Asian Culture — Elango Adigal had authored the Tamil epic Silappathikaram, which contained an elaborate treatise on dance. The chief minister will himself lay the foundation stone on October 17.

Earlier, during the AIADMK regime, Ms Jayalalithaa had gifted the land near Mamallapuram to the Bharata Muni trust run by Ms Padma Subramaniam. Dravida Kazhagam president K. Veeramani and some other Dravidian scholars had criticised the gift as an attempt to Sanskritise Tamil culture.

Mr Karunanidhi, who has a passion for dance and drama, cancelled the land allocation as soon as he assumed office in 2006 since the centre had an Aryan tag.

Ultimately, the chief minister had a change of heart and a grateful Ms Padma Subramaniam authored the mega performance by 1,000 dancers at Thanjavur Big Temple millennium celebrations recently.

"The foundation is meant for research on performing arts and to promote awareness on the spiritual culture of Asia. It is not a training centre. A library will be named after Sankaracharya Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi and there will be a pan-Asian museum of performing arts," Ms Padma Subramaniam said. Extensive research has already begun. Artists and philosophers from Korea, Indonesia, Japan and Sri Lanka will visit for interactions.

அறிமுகம் - “சுதேசி” வார இதழ்

Dear readers and followers.

Generally I don't post ads or publicity materials in my blog unless it has some thing to do with serving the cause of Hinduism.
I am posting this ad though it looks to be like any other Tamil daily.
No, not so.
There is something in this magazine about a kind of creating an awareness among the masses in these times of 'sold out consciousness' in Tamilnadu.
The magazine is going to be available to international readers The contact number is given for subscription by post or web.

I request Tamil readers to give a try to this magazine and see for themselves.

My best wishes to all those who are behind this magazine for a resounding success of their efforts.

சுதேசி - புதிய தமிழ் வார இதழ்

சுதேசி

அறிமுகம்:

"சுதேசி"

எழுதுகோல் தெய்வம்; எழுத்தும் தெய்வம்

தமிழ் வார இதழ்

தாத்தா, பாட்டி, அம்மா, அப்பா, அண்ணன், தம்பி, அக்கா, தங்கை, அண்ணி, அத்தான், இளைஞர், சிறுவர்....
அனைவருக்கும் தேவையான
அரசியல், ஆன்மீகம், அழகு, ஆரோக்கியம், கலாசாரம், தேசியம், உலகம், வெள்ளித்திரை, சின்னத்திரை, புத்தகம், இசை, விளையாட்டு, கட்டுரை, கவிதை, தொடர்கதை, சிறுகதை, சித்தம், மருத்துவம்....



அனைத்திற்கும் உகந்த

ஒரே வார இதழ்.......

"சுதேசி"
சிறப்பான செய்திகள், சிந்திக்கத் தூண்டும் தகவல்கள்...
சிறந்த முறையில் பயன் பெற...சீரான முறையில் பொழுது போக்க...



"சுதேசி" வார இதழ்...."தங்கக் காசுகள்" பரிசுகளுடன்
அக் 9 முதல்...தமிழகம் முழுவதும்...ஒவ்வொரு வெள்ளிக்கிழமையும்



படிப்பீர்! பயனடைவீர்!



"சுதேசி" வார இதழ்!

Tulsi Das didn’t mention Ram temple demolition – why should he?

 

 

Following the Ayodhya verdict, every possible explanation is being heard day after day either questioning the very judgment of giving part of the site to Hindus or the validity of Ram janma bhoomi as Rama's birth place. Justice Khan is quoted as having asked why Tulsi Das did not make a mention of the demolition of Rama's birth place, if it had really been demolished. The Babri Masjid was built hardly 50 years before Tulsi das wrote Ram Charit Manas. The honorable Justice had asked why he didn't mention the demolition in his Epic poem, if it had really happened

 

I am asking why should he? Ram Charita Manas was not a historical document of his time. It was the story of Ramayana written in the language of the masses. If the Judge expects the poet to write an information that is not connected with the Epic story such as Ramayana, he should take time to ponder over why Valmeeki also did not mention the exile of Sita nor the birth of her children in his Ramayana.

 

 

When Valmeeki  wrote Ramayana, Sita was in his custody. The Ramayana was written well after Sita had taken asylum in his ashram. Her children were born while she was staying in his ashram. But Valmeeki did not write these happenings in Ramayana which he wrote in 6 khandas. The length and chapter-wise divisions are mentioned by Valmeeki in the beginning of his Epic itself. There he had mentioned that he had written only 6 khandas, which means upto Yuddha khanda only.  Though Valmiki knew the later events in Rama's life, he did not include them in Ramayana. Uttara Ramayana which contains the later events is not part of the Epic Ramayana.

 

 

The story of Ramayana ends with Rama's Pattabhishekam only, as was narrated by sage Narada to Valmeeki. Valmeeki did not add nor delete anything other than what happened until the time of Pattabhisheka. Today many people recite Ramayana on a daily basis. There are people who read only Sudhara Khanda. The Ramayana reading ends up with Rama Pattabhisheka, But those who read Sundhara khanda also will read pattabhisheka when they complete Sundhara khanda. Because that means the reading or recital is over and it is over in a happy note with Valmiki telling the benefits of reading Ramayana in that last chapter.

 

 

Tulsi Das also stuck to the tradition of Valmiki and narrated Ramayana in that fashion. Though he told the story in 7 kaands and told about Rama's sons and the sons of other brothers, he did not tell the story of what happened to Sita later. He only ended with a happy note. Ramayana was written by Valmiki to tell the world the story of a supreme hero who stood as an embodiment of all dharmas and all virtues. The mankind is bound to be benefited by reading and knowing the story of Rama. Tulsi Das also wrote Ramayana for that purpose.

 

 

The judge is raking up poetic sensibilities etc. which looks amusing. He himself concedes that Tulsi Das's composition has religious importance. That is the first and the last reason why it is still being recited by people. The poetic beauty and melody are additional inputs to make the narration easy to recite and remember.

 

 

The same holds good for Valmeeki Ramayana also. The Ramayana was written for posterity. If it had to stay for all times to come, it must have an element that will be admired by people of all ages. In the 4^th sarga in chapter -1 of Ramayana, it is told that Valmeeki wrote this Epic in such a way that it could be read and sung melodiously "adaptable to music with three scales and sevenfold tune, and orchestral to the tunes of string-instrument and rhythm included" [1-4-8]. What is mentioned here is the 3 sthaayees and sapta swaras or in other words, the musically adaptable nature of the verses. It is because of that and the beauty of the verses – the proficiency of which he acquired on seeing the fall of the Krouncha bird – and further blessed by Brahma Himself, the composition had withstood the vagaries of Time.

 

 

Similarly Ram Charita Manas was composed with the blessings of Hanuman. There can not be anything other than Ramayana in that. Even today people believe that Hanuman sits in front of them to listen when they recite Ramayana. A separate seat is assigned for Hanuman before they start the recital. The story of Rama that Hanuman wishes to hear even today can not have a place for Babar's atrocities or any other instances that come up with Time. All these instances will come and go. But Ramayana will stay as it is.

 

 

On the other hand we can derive the other side of the story to prove that Tulsi Das lived at a time when something bad indeed happened to Ram janma bhoomi. This can be explained by seeking answer to why he didn't stay in Ayodhya for all life. His biography shows that he had stayed in Ayodhya for a brief period of time. Being a devotee of Rama, he was expected to spend all his time in Rama's janmasthaan. But he did not stay there for long but left for Varanasi where he stayed until his death.

 

Seven kshethras are called as Moksha sthalas by Hindus. Ayodhya is one among them. The other places are Dwaraka, Mathura, Varanasi, Haridwar, Ujjian and Kancheepuram. Tulsi Das could have well chosen Ayodhya as his place of moksha and stayed there. But he chose Varanasi. Why? This question is needed to be answered.

 

 

What we deduce from the climate of that period is that the Janmasthaan was not there in its splendor when he visited Ayodhya! Had some other temple been the janmasthaan, we could have expected Tulsi das to have stayed there for his entire life. He did not stay in Ayodhya. This shows that the original place of Rama was vandalized and beyond the reach of devotees of Rama. It also shows that the condition in Ayodhya was not conducive for Hindus to live peacefully.

 

 

***************

 

 

http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20101004/812/tnl-why-didn-t-tulsidas-mention-ram-temp.html

 

 

Why didn't Tulsidas mention Ram temple demolition?

 

Mon, Oct 4 12:31 PM

 

 

New Delhi, Oct 4 (IANS) Was legendary poet Tulsidas, who wrote 'Ram Charit Manas' in the 16th century, so scared of Mughal emperor Akbar that he did not mention the demolition of a Ram temple in Ayodhya and the construction of the Babri mosque thereupon in his work?

 

 

'If a temple standing on the premises in dispute had been demolished and a mosque had been constructed thereupon less than 50 years before Tulsi Das wrote 'Ram Charit Manas' at Ayodhya, there was no reason for not mentioning the said fact by him in his famous book,' Justice S.U. Khan of the Allahabad High Court said in his judgment on the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi title suits Sep 30.

 

 

Justice Khan made this observation while rejecting the contention of several counsel appearing for different Hindu parties on this count.

 

These counsel had tried to explain this vital omission - no mention of the demolition of Ram's temple and construction of the mosque at the site - on the ground that Tulsidas feared emperor Akbar would not like it and cause him harm if he mentioned it.

 

 

But Justice Khan said such a wild accusation against a poet of such repute and calibre as Tulsidas was rather unpalatable even to non-Hindus.

 

 

Moreover, Justice Khan says Tulsidas had given up all the comforts of life and had virtually renounced the world by separating himself from his wife for writing 'Ram Charit Manas' at Ayodhya. The work is considered the common man's Ramayana.

 

 

'A poet in such a situation and of such calibre is not expected to be fearful in writing the truth,' said Justice Khan.

 

 

It was during the reign of emperor Akbar (1556-1605) that Tulsidas (1532-1623) wrote 'Ram Charit Manas' from 1574 to 1577 in Awadhi, which was the common man's language at that time.

 

 

Justice Khan said: 'Even if it is assumed that the mosque was subsequently constructed by Aurangzeb, still Tulsidas should have mentioned in 'Ram Charit Manas' that a specific small piece of land measuring 1,500 square yards or a temple standing on such a site was birthplace of Lord Ram.

 

 

'Symbolism and similes are two most essential, handy tools of poetry. Accordingly, if not directly then at least symbolically or in similes some indication could have been given by Tulsidas regarding the premises in dispute to be the birthplace of Lord Ram and demolition of the temple,' underlined Justice Khan.

 

 

Further disagreeing with the counsel of Hindu parties, Justice Khan said: 'Apart from (its) religious importance, 'Ram Charit Manas' has got great poetical value. Poetry is basically flight of imagination' and this could not be subjected to any fear.'

 

 

Elaboratin, Justice Khan said: 'Wealth and fear are two great retarding gravitational forces for flight of imagination. No wealthy or fearful person has composed great poetry.'

 

 

However, he said, this principle does not apply to prose writers. Leo Tolstoy who wrote 'War and Peace', the best novel of the world, was a feudal lord of Russia of considerable wealth and position.

 

 

The Ayodhya verdict, given by the Lucknow bench of the high court, has divided the disputed land into three parts - one for Ram Lalla, one for the Nirmohi Akhara and one for the Sunni Wakf Board. It also said the Babri mosque had been built on a site that was the birthplace of Hindu god Ram.

Karunanidhi at his ‘ULaral’–best on Ram and Dravidans.

ULaral

Abattham.

This is what one finds in Karunanidhi's recent comments on Ram and Dravidas.

Really I can not find proper English words to express these terms.

Generally when it comes to expressing views on Hinduism and Dravidians, he used to be at his ULaral best. But of late it is going up to such an extent that makes us think it is a waste talking about what he talks!!

On Rama, he always exhibits his ignorance. The height of such ignorance was witnessed by the entire country when he spoke on ND TV that  Sita was Rama's sister according to Tulsi das. His other comments on Rama are well known to all. His recent comment is that Rama was born in Kritha yuga!  He has given a time period before which Rama was born which is another joke. Within days of hailing the Ayodhya verdict he has taken a dig at the verdict. This is very characteristic of him.  

On Dravidan talks, he is maturing fast so as to catch up with his ignorance on Rama. At one time he says that the Tamils lived lakhs of years ago in Lemuria. But in the same breath he also says that Tamils were Dravidans who lived in the Indus 3000 years ago. He connects Lemuria with Indus and attributes it to 'researchers'. If only he has any idea of what is actually happening in the multiple researches on the Indus, he would not be showing his ignorance in such a fashion. He suffers from an identity crisis on who he is – a Tamil or a Dravida.  Really I pity this man for living in his own world of fantasy and imagination.

(From the kind of talks he makes I would swear that his lagna is Leo only. In that position only, his 5^th house of Thought would become so afflicted and unbearable)

***************************************

From a forwarded message:-

Raja Raja-I Chola being a Hindu king should have been cremated not buried. This is an usual tradition amongst all Hindus, including Tamils. Only in 1990s the LTTE started a tradition of burying its fallen heroes, whom it called Mahaviras, to keep alive their memory, which is otherwise lost in cremation. Were the other Cholas also buried, not cremated, and their memorials known? It is a question Karunanidhi must ask himself why Lord Rama is remembered across milleniia while historicals monarchs like Chandragupta Maurya, Asoka etc were forgotten? And if Raja Raja-I were really buried, with whom does the responsibility of its memorial's upkeep vested? Tamil country has been remarkably free from the iconoclasitc invasions that rocked Northern India. After the dissolution of Vijayanagara empire, Nayakas has wielded power in different parts. Tanjore had a Maratha rule, which was aganst Hindu,and not given to iconoclasm. Karunanidhi's old game of pitting the Dravidian and Aryan, can easily be exposed by our knowledge and culture of Ceylonese Tamils. Although there are few Brahmins amongst them (whom Karunanidhi targets as descendants of Aryans) they are proud Hindus. -PD


From

http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/04/stories/2010100458940100.htm

"Rama's birthplace traced, but not Raja Raja's memorial"

Special Correspondent 

CHENNAI: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi said on Sunday that he was pained by the fact that the memorial of Chola ruler Raja Raja, who reigned from 985 CE to 1014 CE, could not be traced, while Justice D.V. Sharma of the Allahabad High Court was able to confirm the birth place of Rama.

"Rama is said to have been born in Kritha Yuga, which covers 17,28,000 years. Now the birthplace of Rama, born about 17 lakh years ago, has been confirmed by the judgment," he said in a statement, recalling Justice Sharma's observation that the disputed site at Ayodhya was the birthplace of Lord Ram and the disputed building was constructed by Babar.

Mr. Karunanidhi said it was a matter of regret that neither the details of Raja Raja's death, nor the place where he was buried and the site where a pillar was erected in his memory could be traced, though he lived a mere 1,000 years ago and ruled the entire South.

The Tamil Nadu government recently organised a festival at Thanjavur, the capital of the Cholas, to commemorate the millennium of the Big Temple constructed by Raja Raja.

Recalling the speech he made at the function, Mr. Karunanidhi said schemes, including land survey and democratic election ( kudavolai) of panchayat chiefs, were introduced during his reign, and the Big Temple and the epigraphs on its walls bore testimony to the achievements and political acumen of Raja Raja.

Mr. Karunanidhi said that though a proper history of the Dravidian race was not yet written, archaeologists and linguists of foreign countries opined that the Dravidian civilisation was at least 3,000 years old. "This is based on researches on Lemuria, the Indus Valley Civilization and the Tamil language."

He said the truth about how the Dravidian race lived scientifically could be explained by making comparative studies between the Dravidian and other histories. "But the Aryan civilisation that tried to upstage the Dravidian race is keen on only inculcating irrational beliefs in the people without any basis."
Mr. Karunanidhi also recalled his speech at Nagercoil in Kanyakumari district, stressing that Dravidians were descendants of a race that lived in Lemuria, lakhs of years ago.

He said the ancient Tamils' origin could be traced to Lemuria.

"Unique culture"

"Ours is a unique culture. We call it Dravidian culture to distinguish it from the Aryan culture," he said.

*************************

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Aryan-culture-is-planting-superstitions-Karunanidhi/articleshow/6680639.cms

Aryan culture is planting superstitions: Karunanidhi

TNN, Oct 4, 2010, 03.40am IST
 

CHENNAI: In an oblique reference to the Allahabad high court's Ayodhya verdict, Tamil Nadu chief minister M Karunanidhi on Sunday lamented that Aryan culture "has succeeded in planting superstitions in people's minds, while even truthful aspects of Dravidian history remain unknown".

"A court is able to accurately pinpoint the birthplace of Lord Ram, who is said to have lived during the 'Krita Yuga' roughly 17.28 lakh years ago, but nothing is known about the manner in which the great Chola emperor Raja Raja Chola died or even where he is buried. We can only bemoan this state of affairs," Karunanidhi said, writing in DMK organ, Murasoli. He had earlier questioned Ram's existence in the contest of the Sethusamudram controversy and was assailed for making derogatory remarks against the Hindu deity.

Quoting Justice D V Sharma, the DMK leader said a court had concluded that "the disputed site is the birthplace of Ram". Beginning with references to recent functions organized in Tamil Nadu — a DMK conclave in Nagercoil in Kanyakumari district and celebrations to mark the completion of 1,000 years of existence of the 10th century Brihadeeswara temple in Thanjavur — Karunanidhi said the first was held at a spot believed to be the habitation of ancient Dravidians, while the other function was a celebration of the art, culture and civilization of Tamils.

"Raja Raja Chola's reign stands out in history for its modern administrative features and for leaving behind historical evidence in the form of monuments and inscriptions," he said. "While the truth about Dravidian history is available in the outcome of scientific research by many scholars, Aryan culture, which sought to suppress the Dravidian race, has been able to spread superstition among the public without any elementary proof," he said.

Even though Dravidian history had not been chronologically written down, researchers had established through their studies on the missing continent of Lemuria (a land mass that some believe existed south of present-day India but was later submerged in the sea), the Indus Valley Civilisation and the Tamil language that Dravidian civilisation is at least 3,000 years old. "One can discern that the Dravidian race has lived in a scientific manner, going by research findings into its history. However, you should understand how Aryan civilisation has worked assiduously towards planting superstitions in the minds of the people," he told his party workers.

 

How Lord Rama Himself became a litigant in reclaiming his birth place.(articles by Subramanian Swamy & Surya Prakash)

 

http://expressbuzz.com/edition/print.aspx?artid=212086

Fundamentals of Sri Ram temple 

By Subramanian Swamy 

03 Oct 2010 11:48:00 PM IST, New Indian Express

 

 

True and devout Hindus believe Lord Sri Rama was born in Ayodhya, the then capital of a flourishing kingdom of the Suryavamsa dynasty. Rama is venerated as Maryada Purushottam, and worshipped by Hindus of the north. As an avatar of Vishnu, he was first propagated by Tamil saints Nayanmars and Alwars; the north later came to accept Rama, especially thanks to the saint Tulsidas. In that sense, Sri Rama was the first truly national king of India, supra region, supra varna or jati. 

 

The exact spot where Rama was born has been and remains firmly identified in the Hindu mind and is held as sacred. This is the very area where stood from 1528 till December 6, 1992, a structure that came to be known as Babri Masjid, put up in 1528 by Babar's commander Mir Baqi.

 

Baqi was a Shia Muslim, and hence he intended it to be a place for Shias to perform namaz. Today, interestingly, the Shia clerics have made it clear to Hindu organisations that they would agree to have the site restored as a Ramjanmabhoomi. It is the Sunni Waqf Board, which entered the legal dispute as late as 1961, that has been claiming the title to the land on which the structure once stood. I call it a 'structure' since it cannot be strictly called a mosque by Sunni edicts — because it did not have the mandatory minarets and wazu (water pool). 

 

In Skanda Purana (Chapter X, Vaishnav Khand) the site is vividly described. Valmiki Ramayana also describes it beautifully. Less than two decades before Mir Baqi carried out the horrible demolition of the Ram temple, Guru Nanak had visited the Ramjanmabhoomi and had darshan of Ramlala in the mandir at the spot. Guru Nanak himself records in 1521 the barbarity of Babar's invasions (in Guru Granth Sahib at p.418). In Akbar's time, Abul Fazal wrote the Ain-i-Akbari in which he describes Ayodhya as the place of "Ram Chandra's residence who in Treta Yuga combined spiritual supremacy and kingship" (Translated by Colonel H S Jarrett and published in Kolkata in 1891).

 

In Chapter X of the Report of the Archeological Survey of India, NW, and Oudh (1889) it is mentioned (p.67) that Babri Mosque 'was built in AD 1528 by Mir Khan on the very spot where the old temple of Janmasthan of Ram Chandra was standing'.

It is recorded in many official and judicial proceedings. In 1885, for example, Mahant Raghubar Das in a Suit No 61/280 of 1885 filed in the court of the Faizabad sub-judge against the secretary of state for India (who was based in London), prayed for permission to build a temple on the chabutra outside the mosque. His suit was dismissed on March 18, 1886.

 

However, in his order, the sub-judge, an Englishman, stated: "It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance." 
It is well-established by GPRS-directed excavations done under the Allahabad High Court monitoring and verification in 2002-03, that a large temple did exist below where Babri Masjid structure once stood. Inscriptions found during excavations describe it as a temple of Vishnu Hari who had killed the demon king Dasanan (Ravana).

 

The Sunni Waqf Board does not accept these findings. It does not however matter if all this was indeed so or not, since under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) it is prescribed that 'Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both'.

 

That is, an offence under criminal law is committed if a body of persons hold something as sacred. It does not matter if the majority does or does not hold so. Nor can a court decide what is sacred and what is not. The offence under Section 295 IPC is cognisable and non-bailable, as well as non-compoundable. The fundamental question before us is: Can a temple and a masjid be considered on par as far as sacredness is concerned? Relying on two important court judgments that hold the field today, the answer is 'no'. A masjid is not an essential part of Islam, according to a majority judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.

 

In the famous Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India case (reported in (1994) 6 SCC 376), the Supreme Court had observed: 'It has been contended that a mosque enjoys a particular position in Muslim law and once a mosque is established and prayers are offered in such a mosque, the same remains for all time to come a property of Allah…and any person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in such a mosque, and even if the structure is demolished, the place remains the same where namaz can be offered'. (para 80).
The Constitution Bench rebutted this contention. The Bench stated: 'The correct position may be summarised thus. Under Mohammed law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession…A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India'. (para 82).

 

Thus what was wrong in the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 was that it was unauthorised by law and hence a criminal offence. Otherwise any government depriving the Muslims of the Babri Masjid is within law, if the government decides to do so in the interest of public order, public health and morality (Article 25 of the Constitution). This is the position in Islamic law as well since in Saudi Arabia the authorities demolish mosque to lay roads. Even the mosque where Islam's Prophet Mohammed used to pray was demolished for a road to pass through! 

 

When I was Union law and justice minister, the question of the status of a temple — even if in ruins or without worship — had come up before me in November 1990 in a case of a smuggled out bronze Nataraja statue which was up for sale in London.
The Government of India, when Rajiv Gandhi was PM, decided to file a case in the London trial court in 1986 for recovery. The Nataraja statue had by then been traced to a temple in ruins in Pathur, Thanjavur district. A farmer named Ramamoorthi had unearthed it in 1976 while digging mud with a spade near his hut.

 

When the news spread, touts of an antique dealer paid a small sum and smuggled it out to London, where in 1982 they sold it to Bumper Development Corporation Private Limited. The corporation sent it to the British Museum for possible purchase. By then the Government of India asked the UK government to take action.

 

The Nataraja idol was seized by London Metropolitan Police, and thus the corporation sued the police in court for recovery but lost the case. An appeal was filed in the Queens Bench which was dismissed on April 17, 1989. The Bumper Corporation went to the House of Lords. On February 13, 1991 when I was law minister, the judgment came dismissing Bumper's final appeal (see (1991) 4 All ER 638).

 

The UK apex court upheld the Indian government's position that because of the prana prathista puja a temple is owned by the deity, in this case Lord Shiva, and any Hindu can litigate on behalf of the deity as a de facto trustee. The Bench consisting of Justices Purchas, Nourse and Leggatt concluded: "We therefore hold that the temple is acceptable as party to these proceedings and that it is as such entitled to sue for the recovery of the Nataraja." (page 648 para g).

 

Even if a temple is in ruins as the ASI had found, or destroyed as Ram temple was, any Hindu can sue on behalf of Lord Rama in court for recovery! No such ruling exists for a mosque. That is, the Ram temple on Ramjanmabhoomi has a superior claim to the site than any mosque. This the fundamental truth in the Ayodhya dispute. This truth will apply to Kashi Vishvanath and Brindavan temple sites as well. 

 

****************

http://dailypioneer.com/287546/%E2%80%98Next-friend%E2%80%99-helped-Ram-claim-rightful-place.html

 

 

'Next friend' helped Ram claim rightful place
October 04, 2010   2:53:16 PM

A SURYA PRAKASH

Several commentators, who are not clued into the intricacies of Hindu law, have expressed surprise over the Allahabad High Court's verdict in the Ayodhya case, especially in regard to the juristic rights of the deities exercisable through a "next friend" and on the court's eventual conclusion that Ram Janmabhoomi constitutes the birthplace of lord Ram. Much of the confusion stems from a lack of understanding of the fact that a Hindu deity can sue and be sued and that the deity can seek relief in courts via a "next friend".

Of the four title suits that were decided by the Allahabad High Court in the Ayodhya case, only one suit filed on behalf of lord Ram was accepted by the court. All the other suits (filed by Sunni Central Board of Wakfs and others; Sri Gopal Singh Visharad and Nirmohi Akhara and Another) were dismissed. In the suit filed on behalf of lord Ram (Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman & Ors vs Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors - OOS No. 5 of 1989), lord Ram was the first plaintiff (Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman), the second plaintiff was Sthan Sri Ram Janma Bhumi, Ayodhya (the place known as Ram Janmabhoomi), and the third plaintiff was Deoki Nandan Agarwal, a retired judge who became the "next friend" of the deities in 1989. Following Agarwal's demise, the baton passed on to TP Verma and then on to Trilokinath Pandey, who was appointed the "next friend" of the deities by the Supreme Court.

KN Bhat, former Additional Solicitor-General who represented lord Ram and the Janmasthan — acting through the "next friend" Pandey, argued that a Hindu deity is a juristic person who can sue and be sued and can possess properties and that this is well established through judgements of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court; that the Janmasthan is itself a deity; and that the suit is not barred by limitation because the deity (lord Ram) is in the position of a perpetual minor. The final outcome of the case depended substantially on whether the court accepted these averments made on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Quoting from Mukherjea's Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, the plaint said lord Ram was a "juristic entity" with a juridical status: "Its (the deity's) interests are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who in law is its manager, with all the powers which would…be given to the manager of the estate of an infant heir. This doctrine…is firmly established." Such a deity, deemed to be a perpetual minor, can sue through a "next friend" appointed by the courts.

As regards lord Ram's place of birth, the contention was that Sthan Sri Ram Janmabhoomi (the place itself) was an object of worship as a deity by the devotees of lord Ram and it personified the spirit of the Divine. The Sthan (the place) was thus deified and had a juridical personality of its own even before the construction of the temple and the installation of the idol of lord Ram. According to the faith of the devotees, lord Ram resides at this place and can be experienced by those who offer prayers there. An idol is not necessary for invoking the divine spirit. Other examples of places sanctified by belief, even though there is no idol, are Kedarnath, Vaishno Devi and Gaya.

The plaint also quoted extensively from the Gazetteers to establish the fact that Hindu belief in regard to lord Ram's birthplace had been acknowledged by many authorities over several centuries. The evidence adduced on behalf of these plaintiffs included Ajudhia in Historical Sketch of Tehsil Faizabad by P Carnegy, Officiating Commissioner and Settlement Officer. Carnegy states that Janmasthan marks the place where Sri Ramchandra was born, and adds that "Ajudhia (Ayodhya) is to the Hindu, what Macca is to the Mohomedan, Jerusalem to the Jews….." These Gazetteers, written by British officers, are seen as having considerable evidentiary value.

The court upheld these contentions. It said that lord Ram and Ram Janmabhoomi, the place of his birth, were juristic persons and that the "next friend" of the deities was entitled to represent them. It said that the suit filed on behalf of the deities was not barred by limitation and that the premises in question (or any part thereof) is by tradition, belief and faith the birthplace of lord Ram. Justice Agarwal said that the area covered by the central dome of the disputed structure "being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of lord Ram as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belongs to plaintiffs (Suit 5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner". Justice Sharma also concluded that lord Ram's place of birth was a juristic person and a deity and that the Archaeological Survey of India had proved that the disputed structure was built after demolition of a "massive Hindu religious structure". Justice SU Khan also opined that Hindus treated/believed that the birthplace of lord Ram is situated in that area and granted the place where at present the idol is kept in a makeshift temple.

In his judgement, Justice DV Sharma said he agreed with Bhat's argument that the deities "are like infants" and they are juristic entities and have juridical status. He said an idol is a juristic person. "It is not a property that can be shifted to another place." One of the contentions of the defendants was that the deities could not have a special status because their pran pratishtha was not done. Justice Sharma rejected this argument, saying, "They were properly worshipped for the last many decades." As regards the birthplace of lord Ram, the plaintiffs had contended that the Janmasthan is "an indestructible and immoveable deity" who has existed throughout ages. The judge rejected the Muslim claim of adverse possession and said such a claim can be made in respect of properties dedicated to a deity but not where "the property itself is the deity".

Given the eventual outcome of this long-drawn dispute, devotees of lord Ram owe a debt of gratitude to Deoki Nandan Agarwal, whose efforts from 1989, when he became the "next friend", have in many ways clinched the issue in favour of lord Ram and Ram Janmabhoomi.

 

Welcome gesture by Shia youth on Ayodhya.

Those who kept telling us to accept the verdict with slogans such as "India first", "The youth moves on" etc until the time Ayodhya verdict was spelt have breached what they had preached. In the midst of the din raised by them over the Ayodhya verdict, it is heartening to hear the voice of a group of Muslim youth calling for honoring the verdict in the spirit of India First.

A group of Shia youth belonging to Hussaini Tigers had announced a donation for the building of Ram Mandhir at the site in a collective spirit as a nation. They have also appealed to the Muslim brethren to accept the verdict. I bow to these men with reverence and appreciation for the maturity and commitment to honour the judgment. Any proposed Ram Mandhir built with the goodwill and acceptance of the Muslims will be surely recognized for all times to come. The Muslims will be given the first honor in the temple activities as has always been a practice in Hindu culture to recognize and honour those who have contributed to the temple.

They have shown what it means by 'India moves on' or the 'youth moves on'. Those who doctored these phrases do not know what these phrases mean. These Muslim youth have given the definition for these phrases. They showed that the youth of India are honest, honor commitments and are for living united as Indians and not as separate identities within India.

When it is said that the Youth moves on, it does not mean that they move away from Mandhir or Masjids. It does not mean that the youth of today have atheistic mindset and have no regard for religion at all. Religion is an integral part of moral upbringing of any person. Religion will stay for all times to come. I, as one having a penchant for seeing things astrologically would like to say that as long as Jupiter and Saturn revolve around the Sun, religious thoughts and the sense of what is right as against what is wrong will surely dominate people's mind. And that is what is witnessed in these youth.

By their gesture and inclination to talk about it to the disputing Muslim leaders, they have shown what the youth want. The youth want to be guided by facts and realistic solutions. They belong to this country and would not like to make themselves islands within this country. Their hands must be strengthened by all of us.

 

********************************

From

http://www.dc-epaper.com/DC/DCH/2010/10/03/ArticleHtmls/03_10_2010_001_065.shtml?Mode=0

 

Shia body offers temple Rs 15lakh

 

Hussaini Tigers, an outfit of Shia youth, has announced a donation of Rs15 lakh for starting construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya after the High Court verdict.

The Hussaini Tigers further announced that it would oppose any move to challenge the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Supreme Court.

Mr Shamil Shamsi, chief of Hussaini Tigers, told reporters on Saturday that he would formally request the Sunni Central Waqf Board not to go on appeal to the Supreme Court. A delegation will also meet members of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board with a similar appeal. "This is the right time to bring this long pending dispute to an end and ensure everlasting peace and harmony between the two communities," he said.

Mr Shamsi, incidentally, is a close relative of the Shia cleric, Maulana Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, senior vice-president of the Board. Maulana Kalbe Jawaad, another well known Shia cleric, is the chief patron of Hussaini Tigers. He termed as "extremely unfortunate" the criticism of the verdict by Maulana Ahmed Bukhari, the Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid and also by the Samajwadi Party chief, Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav.

"Muslims had promised that they would abide by the court verdict and now is the time to honour their commitment made to the nation," he added.

 

*****************

From

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Muslim-scholar-translates-Ramayana-into-Urdu/articleshow/6654596.cms

Muslim scholar translates Ramayana into Urdu

Binay Singh, TNN, Sep 30, 2010

VARANASI: Concerned but not overly so about the Ayodhya judgment  and its ramifications, a 22-year-old Muslim woman from an unlettered family of weavers is translating 'Ramcharitmanas' into Urdu, setting a fine example of inter-community accord in this communally sensitive city. Said Nazneen, ''Whatever be the high court's verdict, it should be respected by all. But one can't deny that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Lord Ram.''

This bright alumnus of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth further said, ''So far, I have completed the translation up to Sunderkand. I hope to conclude my work in the next month-and-a-half.'' Nazneen has already translated into Urdu the Hanuman Chalisa by legendary poet Goswami Tulsidas, as also Durga Chalisa or verses in praise of the goddess.

She said, ''Even if the verdict comes in favour of Muslims, they should come forward generously to build a temple of Ram in Ayodhya. Islam never permits a mosque at a disputed site. Ram is not for Hindus alone; his character is a source of inspiration for people of all communities.''

Nazneen derives inspiration from writers and scholars of Mughal period like Abdul Qadir Badayuni who had translated Ramayana and Mahabharata in Arabic and Persian during the period of Mughal emperor Akbar. Nazneen is the only qualified person in her family, living in Lallapura area of Varanasi.

 

 

Also read:-

http://kanchangupta.blogspot.com/2010/10/ram-ki-nagri-once-again.html

An Ayodhya Nation - by Tarun Vijay

From

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indus-calling/entry/an-ayodhya-nation

An Ayodhya nation

Tarun Vijay
30 September 2010, 08:36 AM IST

 

Ayodhya was never a temple issue to me. Neither was it a Hindu-Muslim problem. The whole story can be summarized in one line. Ram is we; Babar is not. Period.

If, God forbid, the goons of Osama break the statue of Liberty and there is a movement to restore the statue, would it be called a movement of extreme right-wing Christians? Or a movement of all Americans?

"Ayodhya" is standing up against Obama when he meddles with Kashmir and asks us to solve the problem before he agrees to our legitimate demand for Security Council membership.

India is greater than the exploitative US, obsessed with its hegemonistic diplomacy of appeasing dictators and insulting democracies.

For Obama, the Saudi king is a great friend. Oil. Oil, my dear. And for the Saudis too, the kafir American security umbrella is acceptable. Money, honey.

I have never ever seen an American leader expressing sympathy with the exiled Kashmiri Hindus. The entire India desk at Capitol Hill has been so overwhelmingly JNU-ized that they will never think of Hindu pain and a Hindu nation still nurturing democratic values and a pluralism that's so rare in this world of increasingly shrinking human values.

For the US, Tianenman can be forgotten and the Dalai Lama is just a matter of breakfast honours. The real meat of friendship and business is with the communist rulers of Beijing. Money, honey.

"Ayodhya" is genuinely giving shelter to exiled Tibetans and accepting the Dalai Lama. "Ayodhya" is also opposing the firangs to overshadow the Commonwealth Games that we are hosting at a huge cost and inconvenience to the Indian people. Once they were called the British Empire Games. The queen is permanently made to sully the spirit of democracy and pluralism by heading the games organizing body. And we now have to have a dust-binned 'Prince' of the colonial rulers to compete with our President to have the games inaugurated. What a shame these "secularists" bring to the nations that gave birth to them!

If at all, the Congress, Gill sahib and the most revered Kalmadiji thought that the President of India doesn't deserve to have the honours to inaugurate the games we are hosting, it's fine. It's their president, and their levels of respect for her.  Still, they could have managed to have an African President to get he games inaugurated. What stopped them?

Why always a gora whose ancestors looted our nation and bled us like no one else?

Our dear anglicized friends would say, oh Tarun, grow up. We are a strong nation, why bother about such trivialities? It is this kind of people who testified against Bhagat Singh in the Lahore court and they are the apologists for the likes of Kasab. They could have well taken care of in a Brtitish colony like insects.

Life is not just "roti" and a chained splendour of "durbarism". If that was the case, Soviet Russia won't have collapsed and Gandhi won't have fought against the British with a loin cloth and Hedgewar would not have started a movement to ensure we never got enslaved.

"Ayodhya" is to stand up with the patriotic Indian soldier defending the motherland in Kashmir and demanding severe punishment to the Pakistani agents of separatism who sponsor stone pelters.

The problem is not the British. They are patriotic people. The problem is those self-defeating Indians who love white racism so much, their souls beaten up by Macaulayism. They love to be the slaves of the empire and get some leftover bones.

They are facilitated by the Indians who crave for some cosmetic positions and an allowance to register their presence in the gora-land.

"Ayodhya" is all about standing up against such pusillanimous attitude of the neo-raibahadurs.

Say no to anything that's against the grain of our nation, her pride and her sovereignty. That's Ayodhya spirit to me.

The nation, our dear Bharatvarsha, is a replica of Ayodhya. The symbol of Rama's nobility and virtuous regime. Those who destroy Ram Setu and go against the Sarayu's soul are denationalized Indian passport holders.

India is an Ayodhya nation. Ram Rajya nation of Bapu.

No to violence and yes to inclusiveness. Where is Hindu-Muslim discord in it?