This blog aims at bringing out the past glory and history of India, Hinduism and its forgotten values and wisdom. This is not copyrighted so as to reach genuine seekers of these information. Its my prayer that only genuine seekers - and not vandals & plagiarists - come to this site.
In the name of serving Tamil better, Mr Karunanidhi offered tax benefits to the films that have a Tamil title! It was debated at that time itself how such a decision could serve the cause of Tamil, if the content of the film is deplorable and the dialogues were to be in mixed tongue. But our rationalist Chief Minister would not listen to all that and as a result we are now witnessing all sorts of fun.
The film Enthiran was hit by that order at that time. That film was originally named as “Robot”. As a sequence of that order and to avail the tax benefits, the film’s name was changed into a Tamil word. But the irony is that the film can not be understood without the knowledge of English. The computer-commands related to the robot’s movements are all in English with no translation to what is meant by those English sentences. I wonder how many Tamils who know only Tamil could understand them. Perhaps it was a deliberate trick to make the people to see the movie again and again to understand what is exactly happening. The use of English in dialogues and English commands in the film Enthiran are certainly a mockery on the order on Tamil title.
Those who commit such a mockery of the order come from Karunanidhi’s family only.
Look at the names of their production houses, you will know what scant regard they have for Tamil.
The production industry owned by Maran brothers has the name “Sun pictures”.
Udhayanidhi Stalin, the grandson of Karunanidhi and the next ruler in waiting after the coronation of Stalin runs a production house by name, “Red Giant Movies”
Dayanidhi Azhagiri, another grandson of our Torch bearer of Tamil owns a production house named, “Cloud Nine Movies”.
They don’t stop with this.
The movies produced by them also have names that can not be called as Tamil.
Dayanidhi Azhagiri’s recent film is “Va Quarter Cutting”.
Do you think this movie was exempted from tax benefits?
I don’t think so, because I read a report that this strange name coming from the house of Karunanidhi was taken to the notice of Karunanidhi. He in turn asked his grandson to have a Tamil name for the movie.
But pat came the reply – asking whether ‘Thilalangadi’ produced by Kalanidhi Maran was a Tamil name.
What can our Torch bearer of Tamil do now?
Can he risk irritating the Marans at this election time?
Would they not give prominence to Jayalalitha if he irritates them?
Relationship is not even skin deep in Karunanidhi’s family.
If you don’t behave useful to me, I wont hesitate to dump you down – that is the “paasap pinaippu” – that is the filial ties that he has nurtured in his family.
Karunanidhi can not even ask Stalin’s son Udhayanidhi what Tamil is there in the name “Boss enkira Baskaran”
Karunanidhi at best is ‘veettula eli, veliyila puli” (rat at home but tiger at outside).
His dictates on Hindu practices also have the same fate.
His family does not follow what he says.
Now the naming of the film in Tamil has raised a new controversy. A film by name “Ochayee” has been rejected tax benefits because the name is not Tamil, whereas it is claimed that Ochayee is the name of a rural goddess.
This name is common is rural Tamilnadu.
In this context, let me give enema to our Tamil loving Chief Minister.
Isakki amman is a popular female deity in many rural places of Tamilnadu.
Isakki is also known as “Iyakki” amman.
Isakki is actually the female term for “Arya” - the term detested by our CM.
There is a reference to this in Silappadhikaram that “Ariyaanganai” the female counter-part of Arya was worshiped in those days.
The local name for that Ariyaangalai is Isakki or Iyakki amman!
I wish Karunanidhi takes out Silappadhikaram book and read Adiyaarkku nallar commentary for “PoonkaN Iyakki” (chapter 15 – line 116) which gives this explanation connecting to Aryanism.
Oct. 26: The state commercial taxes department decision declining to exempt the film Ochayee from entertainment tax stating that Ochayee is not a Tamil name has triggered a fresh debate among Tamil scholars, writers and Left activists.
Soon after assuming office in 2006, the DMK government announced tax sop to films that have Tamil titles to encourage producers and directors use Tamil titles. While declining to extend the benefit to this film, the authorities said Ochayee is a meaningless word and asked the producers to prove their claim with records.
Ochayee, written and directed by Asai Thambi, is one of the first movies to release post-Endhiran. The government stand has apparently irked Tamil scholars and political leaders including CPI state secretary D. Pandian and VCK general secretary Thol.
Thirumavalavan.
CPI(M)-backed progressive writers union secretary Sa. Tamilselvan argued that Ochayee is a popular folk deity around Usilampatti in Madurai district. "The authorities should not refer elitist dictionaries, which do not contain the folk dialect.
Like Pechi, Isakki, Mari, and Kali, Ochayee is a name of a folk deity in the Madurai region," he said.
Mr Pandian, who hails from the Usilampatti region, said the government's stand on Ochayee is tantamount to insulting thousands of Tamil women who have been carrying the name for generations.
"The government has given tax sops to films that promote casteism, orthodoxy, blind faith and are anti-women just because they carry Tamil titles. But they are denying them to a film that reflects Tamil culture," said Mr Arunan, president, progressive writers forum.
The critics also question the government giving tax exemption Sivaji, (which is not a Tamil name), Something Something Unakkum Enakkum and Va Quarter Cutting.
Giving free cycles as part of one-time puja scheme in a temple is okay, but building a temple is not okay for the rulers of Tamilnadu!
Readers might wonder what a cycle has to do with temple puja. But that is the brain child of our Chief minister Mr Karunanidhi who thinks that by donating a free cycle to the priests, they can come on time to the temple to conduct the one- time pooja. This facility was extended to priests of the temples where only one- time puja (oru - kaala poojai) is being done. A person of Karunanidhi's mental make-up can not think how the crores of money spent on the cycles (all cycles painted yellow, his lucky colour) could have been diverted to conduct the puja for the 2nd time also in those temples. This much is what he knows about temples and how they must be taken care of.
So it is not surprising to expect this man to reprehend his MP for signing a memorandum for building Ram Temple at Ayodhya. Already the name, Ram is allergic to him. He is the exact opposite of whatever Ram stands for! Even after the court verdict on the historicity of Ram and his Janmasthaan, this man can not accpet a temple at Janmasthaan. Will he behave the same if the temple in question is that of Christians and Muslims? It is high time that he is thrown out of power and dumped for ever.
First-time DMK MP from Kanyakumari Helen Davidson is at the centre of a controversy as she is reported to have pledged support to the building of a RamTemple at the controversial site in Ayodhya.
Ms Davidson has affixed her signature in the memorandum of hardline Hindutva organisation Vishwa Hindu Parisad that urged the President to take initiatives to construct RamTemple in Ayodhya following the Allahabad High Court verdict.
Acting swiftly, the DMK leadership on Tuesday sought an explanation from Ms Davidson about news reports that she had signed on the VHP campaign, offering support to build the RamTemple.
Ms Davidson said she had signed the papers when VHP leaders approached her in her hometown, without even knowing what the matter was all about.
Muslim organisations have taken strong exception to Ms Davidson’s open support to the mandir movement.
Though the party welcomed the Ayodhya verdict initially, DMK president M.Karunanidhi later criticised the judgment by saying that the court confirmed that the disputed land was the birthplace of Rama, when "Tamils have yet to find out details about the death of King Rajaraja, his tomb, or his memorial although the great king lived just 1,000 years ago." "The Aryan civilisation which tried to topple the Dravidian race has acted vigorously to cultivate superstition among people," he said.
India has always been the cradle of mankind. It is now proved that it has been so even for the insects! Insects that lived 100 million years ago are now being discovered in Gujarat! Some time ago I read another report saying that even the fossils of the oldest plants ever found anywhere on the earth have been found in the Vindhya mountains. India being the centre of evolution of any form of life is thus being made out from the discoveries.
All these are proving our puranic description of land form and life and that mankind had evolved in this land. Jambhu dweepa had been the centre of activity and there were layers of other land forms surrounding it. Indian landmass situated in the Jambhu dweepa moved towards north and collided with the Asian landmass giving rise to the formation of Himalayas 10 million years ago. The Puranic lore of Shiva Parvathy wedding attracting huge number of invitees that resulted in the ducking of the landmass under the Himalayas can be related to the initial impact on the landmass that kept pushing the Himalayas up. The Southern part of the landmass lifted up as a result according to puranas.
The exact description was that Vindhyas were rising as if to dwarf the Meru. Sage Agasthya was sent by Lord Shiva to restore balance. He caused the Vindhyas to stop growing and went to the South and made it even with the northern landmass. This is the story. But the derivations from this story are now being discovered as part of scientific research.
This story and the current discoveries show that India was not of the shape and size that it is now. It also shows that India was part of a larger landmass that moved northwards. From Sangam Tamil we know that India had extended for 1000s of square miles south of Kanyakumari of today. The entire land mass had separated from Africa and moved towards north. This started 100 million years ago.
The picture that we see in the internet is not accurate because it does not show the larger landmass that moved and collided in such a way that the mighty Himalayas had risen up.
The impact zone of this collision had been felt from North westIndia upto Burma. Throughout this region the Himalayas had risen up. So the landmass at that time must have had the floor of the Bay of Bengal in considerable mass to enable such a push up. (Read my old articles on this and how Bay of Bengal came into being)
The issue of interest for this post is that insects that are now seen in many parts of the world had been found in the Indian mass at a time when it had not collided with Asia. This discovery proposes the theory that the Indian land mass must been in the south and closer to Africa and Australia, through which those life forms might have shifted to other parts of the world in that era.
The fossilized forms of life had traveled along with the land mass and are now seen at places away from the original climates where they could have thrived.
While these findings indicate a lively Indian mass about 100 million years go, the genetic studies reveal human life thriving in that place about a million years ago. Though the original movement is from east Africa, human population had indeed thrived over many 1000s of years in the Indian landmass only according to those studies. It was from India, further movement had happened. Such a development could have happened if only the Indian landmass had been huge and close to Africa. This also supports the idea of an extended Indian landmass being closer to Africa in those times.
If we look at the google earth, we can find the long mountain ranges from the 2 sides of South India submerged in the Indian ocean. On the east, the range goes upto Australia. The islands of Andaman and Nicobar are the visible parts of this mountain range. On the west, the mountain range goes upto Madagascar. The Lakshdweep are the visible parts of this mountain range. The land in-between them must have formed part of the Indian landmass which was known as Kumari khandam in Tamil texts. The texts indeed speak about “pan malai adukkam” – a series of mountain ranges.
The discovery of ancient fauna and flora in the present Indian land mass is only a remnant. The sub merged area between the 2 undersea mountain ranges would have supported a large number of lives of different forms. Deep sea explorations and exploration of the submerged mountain ranges in the Indian Ocean are the need of the hour.
*********
Insects in Ancient Amber Reveal Unexpected India-Asia Ties
By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
posted: 25 October 201003:02 pm ET
A 50 million-year-old spider trapped in amber. Credit: David Grimaldi/AMNH
A winged Psocoptera insect trapped in amber. Credit: David Grimaldi/AMNH
A coccid insect extracted from amber, magnified with a scanning electron microscope. Credit: University of Bonn.
A cache of ancient insects trapped in amber reveals that the Indian subcontinent wasn't as isolated 50 million years ago as previously believed, according to a new study.
The find, 330 pounds (150 kilograms) of fossilized tree resin excavated from northern India, contains more than 700 preserved insects and spiders, as well as plant spores, leaf portions and small flowers. Geological evidence shows that the landmass had been drifting independently for about 100 million years at the time, but the organisms in the amber are closely related to other species found in northern Europe, Australia, New Guinea and tropical America, the researchers report online this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
That means the fauna of India didn't evolve in isolation, said study researcher David Grimaldi, the curator in the Division of Invertebrate Zoology at the AmericanMuseum of Natural History in New York.
"There must have been some connections between India and Asia that geologists aren't accounting for," Grimaldi told LiveScience.
Stepping stones
The resin is found in India's Gujarat province, where open-pit mining brings it to the surface. For the past three years, researchers have been visiting the mines for 10 days per year to collect the fossil-rich amber, study coauthor Jes Rust, professor of invertebrate paleontology at the Universität Bonn in Germany, told LiveScience.
Rust, Grimaldi and their colleagues then return the amber to the lab, where they painstakingly seek out the tiny insects, spiders and other arthropods inside. The preservation of the arthropods is particularly good in this amber, Rust said, meaning the researchers can dissolve the resin and extract whole preserved insects for study.
"This is really unusual," Rust said. "It's like if you would have a complete dinosaur."
What is now the Indian subcontinent broke away from Africa about 150 million years ago and didn't join up with another landmass — Asia — until about 50 million years ago. So the research team expected to find a host of unique species that had evolved over those 100 million years. Instead, they learned that the insects and spiders in the amber are related to other species found fossilized everywhere from the Dominican Republic to the Baltic.
That could mean that Asia and India collided a few million years earlier than geological evidence suggests, Grimaldi said. Or it could support the theory that there were small islands connecting the continents, allowing species to "hop" across.
"Even though India might not have slammed into Asia at that time, there might have been stepping stones," Grimaldi said.
Ancient forests
Also hidden in the amber were clues to the ecosystem in India 50 million years ago. The Gujarat amber is the oldest evidence of a modern-type tropical rainforest in Asia, Grimaldi said. Plant fragments both in the amber and fossilized nearby paint a picture of an ancient landscape that would have looked much like the forests of Borneo today. The resin itself comes from a family of trees called Dipterocarpaceae, which dominate modern tropical forests in southeast Asia.
"The evidence is beginning to accumulate that tropical forests are ancient," Grimaldi said. "They probably go back to right after the K-T boundary," between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods 65 million years ago, when non-avian dinosaurs went extinct.
The team plans to return to Gujarat in January to collect more samples, and the work in the lab is only beginning, the researchers said.
"We're still discovering all sorts of cool stuff in this amber," Grimaldi said. "Every day."
[ History and ASI records prove Hindu temples have been vandalised time and again by Muslim rulers and invaders.
Will Muslims consider returning all those mandirs to Hindus in exchange of the Babri Masjid? ]
The recent judgement of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi has been criticised by several Muslim leaders and a self-styled secularist as one based on faith and not facts. To insist on facts, when it comes to religion, is a contradiction in terms. That Virgin Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ is a belief inspired by faith and we respect it. Similarly, we do not question that Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven from the Dome of Rock.
The short-sightedness of the Muslim institutions wanting to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court's recent judgement on Ram Janmabhoomi is obvious. In contrast, recall the vision of Sir Sikander Hayat Khan, the distinguished Premier of undivided Punjab: The Muslim League had sponsored the Punjab Muslim Mosques Protection Bill of 1938. The intention was primarily to secure the restoration of the Shaheed Ganj mosque, which was being used as a gurudwara.
As stated by Professor Coupland, the Bill was expected to create a grave political crisis for Sir Sikander's Unionist Party. However, he still stood firm against the Bill and stated openly in the Punjab Assembly that the enactment of the legislation would provoke a retaliatory action in other provinces in respect of the numerous non-Muslim places of worship, which had passed into Muslim hands and had become sites of important Muslim holy places such as, the Dargah at Ajmer or the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque near Qutb Minar.
Significantly, the Council of the Muslim League approved of Sir Sikander's contention and the Punjab Governor accordingly, did not permit the Bill to be introduced. That left Barkat Ali, the sponsor of the Bill, disappointed. The incident is quoted from Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan by Mr SM Ikram.
As a Hindu, I welcome the insistence on facts. I could go to the extent of offering the Muslims the Babri masjid back provided their leaders agree to give back all the places of worship, which were proven mandirs and were converted into masjids by invaders or Muslim rulers.
I have seen and photographed several mosques whose walls carry integral carvings of Lord Ganesh. The Quwwat-ul-Islam in Delhi and the Adina Mosque near Malda in West Bengal are two such examples. The Jama Masjid in Vidisha near Bhopal is a veritable museum of Hindu idols.The Rudra Mahalaya Complex at Siddhpur in Gujarat with its 11 temples used as Jami Masjid is another interesting example.From within the precincts of the mosque, Hindu idols were excavated by the Archaeological Survey of India in 1979, but were buried back at the insistence of Muslim leaders. This incidence was reported by the Fourth National Minorities Commission Report, 1983. According to Alexander Cunningham, the legendary founder of ASI, it was the resplendent kingdom of Kannauj, which was later destroyed by Muhammad Ghori in 12th century.
In his Mathura : A District Memoir, FS Growse has recorded his exhaustive survey of Brajbhoomi. He was so overwhelmed by the vandalism that he visited the area repeatedly and recorded it in detail. To quote: "Thanks to Muhammadan intolerance, there is not a single building of any antiquity either in Mathura or, its environs. Its most famous temple — that dedicated to Kesava Deva (Krishna) — was destroyed in 1669, the eleventh year of the reign of Aurangzeb or Alamgir. The mosque (idgah) erected on its ruins is a building of little architectural value."
Over two centuries after the desecration, Growse felt that "of all the sacred places in India, none enjoys a greater popularity than the capital of Braj, the holy city of Mathura. For nine months in the year, festival follows upon festival in rapid succession and the ghats and temples are daily thronged with new troops of way worn pilgrims".
Today, Balkrishna is worshipped in a little room, which appears like a servant quarter attached to the back of the idgah. Definitely, any visitor, whether a devotee or otherwise, would feel pathetic.
The birthplace of Krishna was vandalised repeatedly.It started with Mahmud of Ghazni in 1017 and went on till Aurangzeb's rule in 17th century. Historian Sri Ram Sharma in his The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, first published in 1940, wrote: "Then came the turn of the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura built at a cost of `33,00,000 by Rao Bir Singh Bundela during the reign of Jahangir. It had excited the envy of many Muslims who, however, had not Aurangzeb's power. It had been built after the style of the famous temple at Bindraban which Man Singh had built at a cost of `5,00,000. But Bir Singh had improved upon his model and spent more than six times as much as Man Singh had lavished on his shrine at Bindraban. It had become a centre of pilgrimage for the whole of India. The idols, studded with precious stones and adorned with gold work, were all taken to Agra and there buried under the steps of Jahanara's mosque. The temple was levelled to the ground and a mosque was ordered to be built on the site to mark the acquisition of religious merit by the emperor." Historian Sharma has relied on Maasiri-i-Alamgiri.
The Russians at the end of their conquest of Warsaw had built an Orthodox church, which stood for a hundred years until World War I. It was demolished after the Polish takeover. At the same site, the Poles rebuilt their Catholic church. The incident was described by Sir Arnold Toynbee in the first Azad Memorial lecture delivered in Delhi. He then went on to comment on the irony of independent India tolerating the idgah over Krishna Janmabhoomi and the two tall mosques built on the ghats of Benares.
Ours being a peaceful society, Indians should avoid desecration. A fair and square exchange of the Babri edifice for all the mandirs turned into masjids, which authentic records prove, should be acceptable to all.
Muslim invaders and rulers destroyed over 10,000 Hindu temples over the centuries. Perhaps none was destroyed as many times, and rebuilt as many times, as Somnath. The destruction of Somnath by Mahmud Ghazni is well known. Here is a list of the lesser known destructions of Somnath. Each time, the temple was rebuilt by Hindus, often accompanied by great loss to Hindu life. Somnath is the symbol of Hindu defiance and resilience in the face of barbaric assault that would have (and did) bury most other civilizations.
1. The first temple of Somnath is said to have existed before the beginning of the Common Era.
2. The second temple, built by the Maitraka kings of Vallabhi in Gujarat, replaced the first one on the same site around 649AD. In 725AD Junayad, the Arab governor of Sind, sent his armies to destroy the second temple. This was destruction No. 1.
3. The Pratihara king Nagabhata II constructed the third temple in 815AD, a large structure of red sandstone. In 1024AD, Mahmud Ghazni raided the temple from across the Thar Desert. During his campaign, Mahmud was challenged by Ghogha Rana, who at the ripe age of 90, sacrificed his own clan fighting against this Islamic warrior. The temple and citadel were ransacked, and more than 50,000 defenders were massacred. Mahmud personally hammered the temple's gilded lingam to pieces and the stone fragments were carted back to Ghazni, where they were incorporated into the steps of the city's new Jamiah Masjid (Friday mosque). This was destruction No. 2.
4. The fourth temple was built by the Paramara King Bhoj of Malwa and the Solanki king Bhima of Gujarat (Anhilwara) or Patan between 1026AD and 1042AD. The wooden structure was replaced by Kumarpal who built the temple of stone.
5. The temple was razed again in 1297AD when the Sultanate of Delhi conquered Gujarat, and again in 1395AD, and once more in 1401AD (please see quote at end of this article). These were destructions No 3, 4, and 5.
6. The last destruction of Somnath was by the last Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in 1706AD, just a year before his death. This was destruction No. 6.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, then Home Minister & the first Deputy Prime Minister of India took a pledge on November 13, 1947 for Somnath's reconstruction for the seventh time. A mosque present at that site was shifted few miles away. The construction was completed on December 1, 1995 and the then President of India, Dr.Rajendra Prasad dedicated it in the service of the nation. The present temple was built by the Shri Somnath Trust which looks after the Shri Somnath temple complex.
I end with the description of Muzaffar Khan's destruction of Somnath, taken from M. M. Syed's " History of the Delhi sultanate ", pp. 184:
" Next year, in 1395, Muzaffar Khan invaded Somnath, burnt the temple, and destroyed the idol. He killed many hindus, and left the place after arranging for the erection of a mosque. In 1401, news reached him that the hindus were trying to restore the temple of somnath, and revive their customary worship. Muzaffar immedaitely proceeded thither with an army, and the Hindus, defeated after a sharp encounter, retired to the fort of the lop. This fort also fell after a few days of fighting, and Muzaffar killed the entire garrison, and had the men trampled under the feet of elephants. He then demolished the temples and laid the foundations of a mosque."
Today’s massive crowd at Madurai is yet another proof of the rising expectations on Jayalalithaa.
Like Madurai, Chennai also experienced unusually interrupted power supply while her speech was on. This shows that Karunanidhi is losing his ‘nimmathi’.
Her take on Azhagiri was simple but striking. From her speech we come to know that Karunanidhi’s family owns 6 film production houses – most of them having English name! 34 out of 69 movies produced this year were under the banner of Karunanidhi & co. Jayalalithaa covered in her speech all the areas where the tentacles of Karunanidhi & co have spread and mutilated fair justice. The film industry must come to the realization of what is going to be in store for them if this one family is allowed another term in governance.
It is like they have the power but their powers are mortgaged to Karunanidhi. He uses them up (film industry) to further his interests. The entire Tamilnadu is addicted to films and filmi personalities. The filmdom has to rise against this One family rule for their sake and for the sake of the people who patronize them. Particularly Rajinikanth owes a debt to the Tamil people. He has no qualms to call Bal Thackeray as his God in order to make his film a success. Would he think of the real Gods who have made him what he is today? He has to rise to the occasion and tell the people at the right time to denounce Karunanidhi.
Of the different players in the race, Jayalalitha is the best bet.She has lived like a Bheeshma of terrible vows. A person of her acumen and commitment is the need of the hour. I can quote a dozen points form her horoscope to show how just, god fearing and a right ruler she is / can be.
She was not in position to tell anything about an alliance in the meeting. It is because leaders have a different calculation which is not the same as what the people think. But I expect one politician to come out and join hands with her.
There are only 2 politicians in today’s Tamilnadu who have demonstrated selflessness and commitment once in governance. One is Jayalalithaa. Jayalaithaa’s 2nd tenure must be remembered for how she is ready to change herself when she knows that she is not right. Her 2nd tenure was flawless and her genuineness was palpable in her discharge of duty.
The other person is GK Vasan!If these two persons join together, certainly that will be golden times for Tamilnadu. Unfortunately, Vasan is seen to be sidelined. If really so, I expect Vasan to come out of Congress and join Jayalalithaa and give combined governance. There is a precedence in his father. It is Vasan's duty as a servant of the people.
Astrologically speaking, Jayalaithaa’s star is on the rise whereas Karunanidhi’s is on the decline. Her annual Tajaka chart starting from Feb next year until the elections show a strong power tide on her favour. The lords of Rajya sahama, karyasiddhi sahama and karma sahama are favouarble and run their patyayini dasa at the time of elections.
In transit, Saturn would not trouble her as it is transiting the sign having 30 ashtakavarga points. Jupiter shifts to the 9th from rasi by 10th May when the results would be expected in normal course. The current Rahu bhukthi would not let her down at the moment as Rahu is the 10th sub cuspal lord. The moon and Mars sub periods in these times would not harm her. The next Jupiter dasa would consolidate her position.
I could not get a proper image of her palm. But what I can say surely from what I catch from her palm is that her health issue which many talk is infact a non issue. She will live long and healthy.
Please sign the petition to register your disapproval for the way NDTV conducted the shows and debates on Ayodhya verdict that exhibited all ingredients to widen the chasm between the two communities, exacerbate tensions and lead to a climate of mutual hatred and ill-will.
We as concerned citizens interested in fostering a climate of amity and goodwill between various communities in the country take strong exception to the following aspects of the post-verdict debates and do hope you will remedy them in future:
1. For instance if your moderator, Ms. Barkha Dutt allows one side to harp on December 6 1992 ad nauseum, as if India's history really began on that day or as if that was the only incident responsible for Hindu-Muslim tensions, she could willy-nilly appear to be taking sides in the debate.
2. The other side could equally well argue that December 6 1992 was merely the culmination of a process of alienation of Hindus aggrieved by centuries of victimisation under alien rulers and decades of discrimination under pseudo-secular Indian rulers. But the fact of the matter is that they don't get to voice their side of the argument because they are not allowed to, which gives one an impression that Ms. Barkha Dutt is taking sides.
3. One could ask with equal legitimacy, why the 1989-90 events should not be considered a watershed in Hindu-Muslim relations as it was during this period the Kashmir valley was cleansed of its Hindu population, leading to the exile of between 350000 and 400000 Pandits in their own homeland?
However Ms. Dutt and the panelists on the show stubbornly refuse to countenance the question as for them the concept of secularism means one thing in Jammu & Kashmir and quite a different thing in the rest of India.
Of course Ms. Dutt is entitled to her views but if airing her views is likely to add to the belligerence that is already prevalent in the air should she not restrain herself from airing them?
4. We are pained to observe that those who advised that everyone should respect the judicial verdict and the country has moved on till the day of the judgment suddenly began denouncing it as soon as it was delivered. Legal experts say that it would take at least a few weeks to read and digest the 8000+ pages verdict but panellists on your channel were allowed to denounce it almost as soon it was delivered.
5. Panelists who oppose the construction of the Sri Ram Mandir were asked loaded questions like were you disappointed with the verdict? As you are aware, in legal parlance such questions are characterised as leading calling for a conclusion from the witness. This obviously means that the panelist would have to take a stance from which it is impossible to reconcile later even if one wanted to. As Ayodhya is a sensitive issue and is likely to inflame passions on both sides of the divide could such provocative questions be not avoided?
6. In some instances Ms. Dutt was animatedly participating than moderating the debate. She could have opposed or at least protested voicing diatribe as comment, like describing the verdict as a Panchayat settlement.
7. We believe panellists who support the court verdict could have been given more time. The court has indeed given an opportunity to the two sides to bury their differences and come to an amicable solution. Would not an amicable solution at this stage help the nation to move on as indeed it should?
8. The moderator on several occasions used the word dissenting judge while alluding to one of the judges on the bench, which gave the verdict. As different judges agreed / differed on different aspects of the complex issue, it would be unfair to selectively use the word dissenting judge depending ones view point and convenience.
9. As the verdict is being slowly digested and excerpts appear on various Internet fora it is now abundantly clear that the Honourable justices have in fact based their judgment on hard evidence and not on faith of the majority religion as large sections of the media seem to imply.
10. Transcripts of evidence tendered by the historians, archaeologists and other expert witnesses of the Sunni Wakf Board, their cross-examination by the defendants lawyers and the observations of the Honourable justices should leave no one in doubt that the Sunni Wakf Board has no case at all and that the Masjid was in fact built on the ruins of a temple or a existing temple was destroyed to build the Masjid.
In spite of overwhelming evidence supporting the claim of a temple having either existed or demolished on that site should the media harp on its faith-prevailing-over-evidence line thus tarnishing the image of the judiciary, the court of last resort for the common citizen? Will it not weaken the common citizen's faith in the democratic institutions of the country?
(Belgian Indologist, the author, inter alia ofAyodhya: The Case Against the Templeand Ayodhya, The Finale)
The Eminent Historians
A group of them raised the stakes and turned a local communal deal into a clash of civilizations, a life-and-death matter on which the survival of the greatest treasure in the universe depended, viz. secularism.
In 1858, the Virgin Mary appeared to young Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes, France. Before long, Lourdes became the most important pilgrimage site for Roman Catholics and other Mary worshippers. France prided itself on being a secular state, in some phases (esp. 1905-40) even aggressively secular, yet it acknowledged and protected Lourdes as a place of pilgrimage. Not many French officials actually believe in the apparition, but that is not the point. The believers are human beings, fellow citizens, and out of respect for them does the state respect and protect their pilgrimage.
For essentially the same reason, the mere fact that the Rama Janmabhumi (Rama's birthplace) site in Ayodhya is well-established as a sacred site for Hindu pilgrimage, is reason enough to protect its functioning as a Hindu sacred site, complete with proper Hindu temple architecture. Ayodhya doesn't have this status in any other religion, though ancient Buddhism accepted Rama as an earlier incarnation of the Buddha. The site most certainly doesn't have such a status in Islam, which imposed a mosque on it, the Babri Masjid (ostensibly built in 1528, closed by court order after riots in 1935, surreptitiously turned into a Hindu temple accessible only to a priest in 1949, opened for unrestricted Hindu use in 1986, and demolished by Hindu militants in 1992). So, the sensible and secular thing to do, even for those sceptical of every religious belief involved, is to leave the site to the Hindus. The well-attested fact that Hindus kept going there even when a mosque was standing, even under Muslim rule, is helpful to know in order to gauge its religious importance; but is not strictly of any importance in the present. For respecting its Hindu character, it is sufficient that the site has this sacred status today.
Secular PM Rajiv Gandhi had understood this, and from the court-ordered opening of the locks on the mosque-used-as-temple in 1986, he was manoeuvring towards an arrangement leaving the contentious site to the Hindus in exchange for some other goodies (starting with the Shah Bano amendment and the Satanic Verses ban) for the Muslim leadership. Call it Congress culture or horse-trading, but it would have been practical and saved everyone a lot of trouble.
That is when a group of "eminent historians" started raising the stakes and turning this local communal deal into a clash of civilizations, a life-and-death matter on which the survival of the greatest treasure in the universe depended, viz. secularism. Secure in (or drunk with) their hegemonic position, they didn't limit themselves to denying to the Hindus the right of rebuilding their demolished temple, say: "A medieval demolition doesn't justify a counter-demolition today." Instead, they went so far as to deny the well-established fact that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a Rama temple.
Note, incidentally, that the temple demolition, a very ordinary event in Islamic history, was not even the worst of it: as a stab to the heart of Hindu sensibilities, the Babri mosque stood imposed on a particularly sacred site. Just as for Hindus, the site itself was far more important than the building on it, for Islamic iconoclasts the imposition of a mosque on such an exceptional site was a greater victory over infidelism than yet another forcible replacement of a heathen temple with a mosque. Though the historians' and archaeologists' ensuing research into the Ayodhya temple demolition has been most interesting, it was strictly speaking superfluous, for the sacred status venerated by most Hindus and purposely violated by some Muslims accrues to the site itself rather than to the architecture on it. The implication for the present situation is that even if Muslims refuse to believe that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a temple, they nonetheless know of the site's unique status for Hindus even without a temple. So, they should be able to understand that any Muslim claim to the site, even by non-violent means such as litigation, amounts to an act of anti-Hindu aggression. Muslims often complain of being stereotyped as fanatical and aggressive, but here they have an excellent opportunity to earn everyone's goodwill by abandoning their inappropriate claim to a site that is sacred to others but not to themselves.
After the eminent historian's media offensive against the historical evidence, the political class, though intimidated, didn't give in altogether but subtly pursued its own idea of a reasonable solution. In late 1990, Chandra Shekhar's minority government, supported and largely teleguided by opposition leader Rajiv Gandhi, invited the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) to mandate some selected scholars for a discussion of the historical evidence. The politicians had clearly expected that the debate would bring out the evidence and silence the deniers for good. And that is what happened, or at least the first half. Decisive evidence was indeed presented, but it failed to discourage the deniers.
The VHP-employed team presented the already known documentary and archaeological evidence and dug up quite a few new documents confirming the temple demolition (including four that Muslim institutions had tried to conceal or tamper with). The BMAC-employed team quit the discussions but brought out a booklet later, trumpeted as the final deathblow of the temple demolition "myth". In fact, it turned out to be limited to an attempt at whittling down the evidential impact of a selected few of the pro-temple documents and holding forth on generalities of politicized history without proving how any of that could neutralize this particular evidence. It contained not a single (even attempted) reference to a piece of actual evidence proving an alternative scenario or positively refuting the established scenario. I have given a full account earlier in my book Ayodhya, the Case against the Temple (2002).
Unfortunately, no amount of evidence could make the deniers mend their ways. Though defeated on contents, the "eminent historians" became only more insistent in denying the evidence. They especially excelled in blackening and slandering those few scholars who publicly stood by the evidence, not even sparing the towering archaeologist BB Lal. Overnight, what had been the consensus in Muslim, Hindu and European sources, was turned into a "claim" by "Hindu extremists". Thus, the eminent historians managed to intimate a Dutch scholar who had earlier contributed even more elements to the already large pile of evidence for the temple demolition into backtracking. Most spectacularly, they managed to get the entire international media and the vast majority of India-related academics who ever voiced an opinion on the matter, into toeing their line. These dimly-informed India-watchers too started intoning the no-temple mantra and slandering the dissidents, to their faces or behind their backs, as "liars", "BJP prostitutes", and what not. In Western academe, dozens chose to toe this party-line of disregarding the evidence and denying the obvious, viz. that the Babri Masjid (along with the Kaaba in Mecca, the Mezquita in Cordoba, the Ummayad mosque in Damascus, the Aya Sophia in Istambul, the Quwwatu'l-Islam in Delhi, etc.) was one of the numerous ancient mosques built on, or with materials from, purposely desecrated or demolished non-Muslim places of worship.
Until the Babri Masjid demolition by Hindu activists on 6 December 1992, Congress PM Narasimha Rao was clearly pursuing the same plan of a bloodless hand-over of the site to the Hindus in exchange for some concessions to the Muslims. The Hindu activists who performed the demolition were angry with the leaders of their own Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for seemingly abandoning the Ayodhya campaign after winning the 1991 elections with it, but perhaps the leaders had genuinely been clever in adjusting their Ayodhya strategy to their insiders' perception of a deal planned by the PM. After the demolition, Rao milked it for its anti-BJP nuisance value and gave out some pro-mosque signals; but a closer look at his actual policies shows that he stayed on course. His Government requested the Supreme Court to offer an opinion on the historical background of the Ayodhya dispute, knowing fully well from the outcome of the scholars' debate that an informed opinion could only favour the old consensus (now known as the "Hindu claim"). In normal circumstances, it is not a court's business to pronounce on matters of history, but then whom else could you trust to give a fair opinion when the professional historians were being so brazenly partisan?
The Supreme Court sent the matter on, or back, to the Allahabad High Court, which, after sitting on the Ayodhya case since 1950, at long last got serious about finding out the true story. It ordered a ground-penetrating radar search and the most thorough excavations. In this effort, carried out in 2003, the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) employed a large number of Muslims in order to preempt the predictable allegation of acting as a Hindu nationalist front. The findings confirmed those of the excavations in the 1950s, 1970s and 1992: a very large Hindu religious building stood at the site before the Babri Masjid. The Allahabad High Court has now accepted these findings by India's apex archaeological body. But not everyone is willing to abide by the verdict.
In particular, the eminent historians are up in arms. In a guest column in The Hindu (2 Oct. 2010: The verdict on Ayodhya, a historian's opinion), Prof. Romila Thapar claims that the ASI findings had been "disputed". Oh well, it is true that some of her school had thought up the most hilariously contrived objections, which I held against the light in my booklet Ayodhya, the Finale: Science vs. Secularism in the Excavations Debate. Thus, it was said that the presence of pillar-bases doesn't imply that pillars were built on it; you see, some people plant pillar bases here and there once in a while, without any ulterior motive of putting them to some good use. And it was alleged that the finding of some animal bones in one layer precludes the existence of a temple (and somehow annuls the tangible testimony of the vast foundation complex and the numerous religious artefacts); and more such hare-brained reasoning. The picture emerging from all this clutching at straws was clear enough: there is no such thing as a refutation of the overwhelming ASI evidence, just as there was no refutation of the archaeological and documentary evidence presented earlier.
Today, I feel sorry for the eminent historians. They have identified very publicly with the denial of the Ayodhya evidence. While politically expedient, and while going unchallenged in the academically most consequential forums for twenty years, that position has now been officially declared false. It suddenly dawns on them that they have tied their names to an enterprise unlikely to earn them glory in the long run. We may now expect frantic attempts to intimidate the Supreme Court into annulling the Allahabad verdict, starting with the ongoing signature campaign against the learned Judges' finding; and possibly it will succeed.But it is unlikely that future generations, unburdened with the presently prevailing power equation that made this history denial profitable, will play along and keep on disregarding the massive body of historical evidence. With the Ayodhya verdict, the eminent historians are catching a glimpse of what they will look like when they stand before Allah's throne on Judgment Day.
Rama was very much a historical figure who ruled from Ayodhya a few thousands of years ago. The details of the line of kings before and after Rama are available in olden texts. The kings associated with some of the places have a bearing on the names of those places even today.
The lineage until Rama is given in Valmeeki Ramayana.
39 kings were there in the lineage before Rama. But counting from Ikshvaaku, the founder of the Ikshvaaku dynasty, there were 34 kings before Rama. This lineage is told by Vasishta, the Kula Guru, at the time of Rama's marriage, as it was the custom to present the lineage of forefathers to the assemblage of dignitaries and the people of the bride's household.
This lineage takes into account only the eldest of the family who inherits the throne. King Sibi comes in the lineage of siblings and not the first born. In lineage comes Chola varman who founded the Chola dynasty in the South. Taking the name from Sibi, the Cholans called themselves as Sembians.
The kings who succeeded Rama are given in Raghu Vamsa by Mahakavi Kalidasa.
24 kings are mentioned after Rama in Raghu vamsa which was named after King Raghu, the ancestor of Rama who made military expeditions to all parts of Bharat. He went to the west, to the region of Indus river and far beyond and conquered the lands there.
He went to the east India, then turned south and from there he went along the west coast of India and reached back to his place. King Raghu has thus established his rule throughout Bharat varsha. According to Kalidasa, Rama is the great grand son of Raghu. He starts the narration from king Dileepan and then goes to Raghu.
Raghu's son was Aja. In the narration of Aja's marriage, there comes the description of swayamvar of Indumathi. Aja takes part in the Swayamwar and wins her hand. The interestingpiece of information for us in this part of Raghu vamsa is that the Pandyan king also took part in the Swayawar!
There is a detailed description of that king in Raghu vamsa. The bride's friend Sunanda who introduced the kings said of the Pandyan king as one who had richlands. If the princess chose to marry him she would have only his land as her co-wife (other wife of the king). By a specific mention like this, it is implied that the Pandyan kings were the up-holders of Eka patni vratham.
Another interesting piece of information is that the Pandyans had won over Ravana. Ravana had bought peace with the Pandyan kings. This information is also found in the copper plates unearthed at Sinanmanur which lists down the name and feats of Pandyan kings.
However there is confusion over the time periods here. Victory over Ravana is mentioned at a place where Rama's grandfather was seeking his bride. Rama was 2 generations away from that time and was yet to be born. But Ravana's early tiff with Pandyans finds a mention there.
I think the Kavi had added up the information that happened later. While composing the verses in praise of the kings who participated in the swayamwar, he had cobbled up the valiant feats connected with the king's dynasty and attributed them to the king in focus.
Rama's grand father Aja marries Indumati in the Swayamwat. His son was Dasaratha to whom Rama was born.
From Dileepan to Rama, the lineage is not completely told by Kalidasa as Valmeeki does.
But Kalidasa explains what happened after Rama's times.
Let us see what happened to the sons of Rama and his brothers.
All the brothers had 2 sons each.
Shatrugna's sons:-
Bahu-shruta – becomes the king of Mathura.
Subahu – becomes the king of Vidisha
Bharatha and his sons:-
Then Rama made over the country named Sindhu to Bharata with full sovereign authority, at the message of Yudhajit, the maternal uncle of Bharata. [15-87 Raghu vamsa]
Note here that what is now being told as the bastion of Dravidians was originally ruled by Bharatha! His maternal uncle's home is in Kekaya and the route to go that place is described in Valmeeki Ramayana. That route goes through Indus, Baluchisthan and crossing across Bolan pass and then reaching the fringes of Caspian sea. Kekaya was somewhere in today's Kazhaksthaan. We can expect archeological proof of "Aryan" in Kazhaksthaan soon which was actually the home town of Kaikeyi.
Kalidasa proceeds to say that in the Sindhu region Bharata conquered the Gandharva-s in battle and compelled them to take up lutes forgoing their warlike weapons. [15-88] The Gandharvas are semi-divine beings who are the heavenly singers and musicians. They were the dwellers in the country known by the name of Sindhu i.e. the country situated on both sides of the river Indus. The Gandharvas were forced to go back to their hereditary profession of musicians (says Kalidasa)
I will write about the Gandharvas in the upcoming posts, but for the time being, let me say that Gandharvas belonged to today's Kandhahar which was the home town of Gandhari, the mother of Kauravas.Bharata's route to Kekaya in Valmeeki Ramayana goes through Kandhahar. Perhaps Bharata was keen on conquering the places en route his maternal country. It is mentioned on valmeeki Ramayana that Bharatha's grandfather and uncle sent along with him a contingent of warriors on his way back to Ayodhya ( when he was called back on the death of Dasaratha) presumably to protect him from attacks by the kingdoms on the way. When he got a chance, I think Bharata made sure that no opponent was there on the way to Kekaya. The entire Indus region stretching up to Kazakhstan's border was thus already under occupation by Bharata. The Dravidian occupation does not match with the history of Bharath.
Now about Bharatha's sons.
Taksha and Pushkala were given to the sons of Bharata.
Taksha is Taxilaand Pushkala is Peshawar.
Lakshmana's sons:-
Lakshmana's two sons Angada and Chandraketu became the rulers of KAra-patha kingdom. [15-90]
Rama's sons:-
Kusha was made the king of Kushavati, on the Vindhyas.
Lava was made the king of Sharavati.
The end of Rama
All the people of Ayodhya joined Rama in leaving the earthy plane. All of them entered the river Sarayua and had jala Samadhi. The city wore a deserted look after their exit.
As told by Kalidasa:-
Having placed Kusha, who was like the goading-rod to his elephant-like hostile princes, in Kushavati; having placed Lava, who drew drops of tears of joy by his witticisms from the eyes of the good, in Sharavati, that firm-minded Rama with his younger brothers and with the fire-tray carried in front of him started for the North while the inhabitants of Ayodhya precipitately leaving their homes followed him out of devotion to their lord. [15-97, 98]
While there arrived a heavenly aircraft for himself, that kind-hearted one to his adherers Rama made the Sarayu River as staircase to heavens for his followers who wish to discard their earthly forms and ascend to heaven. [15-100]
Since the concourse of people seeking a plunge was great at that spot it looked almost like go-pratam, a line of closely packed cows swimming across, and as a consequence became celebrated as a sacred spot under that name, go-pratara, on this earth. [15-101]
What happened after the exit of Rama?
The sons of Rama and his brothers were in their kingdoms assigned to them at the time of Rama's exit. None of them knew what happened at Ayodhya. But Rama's son Kusha could not sleep well at that night. The goddess of Ayodhya, pained by the exit of all her subjects appeared before Kusha (in dream?) and beggedKusha to return to the old capital, Ayodhya. The next morning Kusha announced the vision of the night, and immediately set out for Ayodhya with his whole army. Arrived there, King Kusha quickly restored the city to its former splendour.
He married Kumudavati and had a son Athithi from her.
The lineage after Rama:-
1) Kusha
2) Athithi
3) Nishadha
4) Nala
5) Nabhas
6) PundarIka
7) Kshema- dhanva
8) devAnIka,
9) ahInagu
10) pAriyAtra,
11) shila
12) unnAbha (this name was because his naval was very deep, and he appeared almost like Vishnu)
13) vajraNAbha
14) shankhaNa
15) vyuShitAshva (on account of his having quartered his soldiery and horses on seacoasts)
16) vishva-saha
17) hiraNya-nAbha
18) kausalya (son)
19) brahmiShTha
20) putra
21) puShya, (devotee of the great sage Jaimini.)
22) dhruva-sandhi (killed by a lion while hunting)
23) sudarshana, ( an year old when his father died)
24) agnivarNa (indulged in pleasure life.)
With this, Kalidasa ends Raghu vamsam.
This king AgnivarNa did not have any issue from any of the women he enjoyed and died of diseases of his bad habits.
But Kalidasa says that his queen was pregnant at the time of his death and was madeRegina on behalf of unborn son.
Scholars are of differing opinion on why Kalidasa ended abruptly. There is an opinion that there must have been a remaining part of Raghu vamsa which was lost.
But according to me, looking at the lineage and the description about the kings by Kalidasa, there are some interesting features.
The kings 21 generations before Rama and 21 generations after Rama have had a successful and highly respectful life. There had never been immoral behaviour reported in them or in their kingdom. There were no unnatural or premature deaths. The kings had lived full life and been just rulers. There had been no invasions or rivalries reported.
In the above list of the kings who succeeded Rama , until Pushya, the 21st king, the narration contains nothing other than good things. The 22nd king was killed by lion while he was on a hunting expedition. His son was only a year old then. The name of the king Dhruva sandhi itself seems to indicate a shift to another era! I am thinking of the probable connections of this name to yuga / era classifications. I will write them later.
From Dhruva sandhi onwards, the descendants were of lesser quality. Perhaps due to this deterioration noticed further, Kalidasa stopped the narration with agnivarNa.
Similarly 21 generations before Rama ( as given by Valmeeki) Sagara was the ruler. His sons had an unnatural death at the curse of sage Kapila. River Ganga was brought to give salvation to them. Where they attained their salvation is the Setu at Rameshwaram. (please read my old posts on this topic)
In Sagara's father's times, sibling rivalry was first noticed in the lineage. The practice was to pass on the throne to the eldest son. But the other sons and relatives fought for the throne in Asita's period. Asita lost the throne. When Asita died, his wife was pregnant. Sagara was born to her and with the guidance of sage Chyavana he fought with the detractors and got back the throne. He exiled them to the fringes of Bhratha varsha. They were called as Mlechas as they were ordained to follow non-vedic life. They occupied what is now Assyria, Iran, Iraq etc. Assyria derives the name from Asita in whose honour Sagara fought and won.
After Sagara the lineage went on smoothly and with great honours. This constituted 21 generations before Rama.
Similarly 21 generations after Rama the lineage was smooth and highly moralistic. Such a status changed only after 21 generations.
This coincidence makes me connect this to the oft told dictum that one is connected with 21 generations before and after. Rama coming at the centre of this line- up makes me think that the best conduct for 21 generations would result in the birth of a supreme person (su-putran) as Rama. Likewise Rama's in-thing will get manifest for 21 generations after him.
The lineage before Rama as given by Valmeeki:-
1- Brahma,
2-Mariichi
3- Kaashyapa
4- Sun
5- Manu (Manu is the earliest Prajaapati -"manuH prajaapatiH puurvam")
Dayanidhi Azhagiri’s recent film is “Va Quarter Cutting”. 
Karunanidhi can not even ask Stalin’s son Udhayanidhi what Tamil is there in the name “Boss enkira Baskaran” 
