Ram Sethu (Setu) Issue – To build a shipping canal the existence of Ram is denied
When I first heard about the Supreme Court affidavit filed by our government which claimed that Lord Ram did not exist, I was stunned….and hurt. And I am not even a religious person! I can’t imagine what deeply religious people must have felt…outraged and betrayed!!
This controversy has made me start to question the very basis of our so-called ‘secular’ nation. Usually I hesitate calling our country pseudo secular, because I try hard to see the other point of view…but for the first time yesterday I wondered if those who think that our country is pseudo secular aren’t too far wrong. And our media? Well, there are suspicions that they are anti-Hindu, and want to be politically correct all the time. I thought I understood why. Because India has a large Muslim population and there is always the fear of communal tension. The worst thing to happen ever are riots, and we know how quickly people get into a lather here. But I have started to question the media’s objectivity…
However where the media is concerned, it’s always a question of damned if you do and damned if you don’t…
About that stupid affidavit, I wanted to write about it yesterday itself…but I had a strong feeling that the matter hadn’t ended. With the raging protests all over the country, it was clear that the government would realise that it had done great damage to itself (why are riots necessary for the government to realise that people don’t like their faith to be questioned??) and I was sure they would try to undo it. They did and fast…Union Law Minister Hans Raj Bhardwaj said yesterday that a fresh affidavit will be filed and the offending paragraph which questions the very existence of characters from the Ramayana will be removed.
Whoddunit?
At first I thought it was likely that this ‘affidavit’ was the work of some moron, but when I saw a CPI leader vociferously defending the government’s actions on live TV, I realised that perhaps this affidavit was not the work of a retard. Political parties were behind it…the government was behind it…
Now they are saying that Sonia Gandhi stepped in and decided to take back the affidavit…but I don’t think many people are believing this. I don’t. The government saw the brewing anger and quickly acted. They feel the image of Sonia Gandhi (she is of Italian origin) has been tarnished and are trying hard to repair the damage. If the riots had not taken place and the other political parties had not protested, would she have stepped in to stop it? Ofcourse not…neither she nor the Congress care that the affidavit was/is blasphemy where Hindus are concerned.
But why insult Hindus?
So far I have not even mentioned Ram Sethu or what the British called Adam’s Bridge. Well, this is a bridge that the government wants to destroy to create a shipping channel and as it is a holy site (mentioned in the Ramayana), the affidavit was designed to blunder its way through the opposition. But to claim that Ram does not exist was overstepping the line.
Sure, this new channel called the Sethsamudran project (between the southern tip of India and the northern tip of Sri Lanka) to create a shipping passage to link the east and west coasts of India will save India (and Tamil Nadu) a lot of money. But if the price is destruction of faith, it is not acceptable.
This is the bridge.
Which brings us to another issue. Should this bridge be destroyed? Hindus believe that the bridge is made by God Hanuman and this is what makes the bridge a holy site.
And I can’t help repeating this: If I, a non-religious, liberal thinking person with a capitalist idealogy and an intense desire to see India developed, feels indignant that the government is destroying this bridge because it pooh poohs the faith of millions of Hindus, how will those with a deep religious faith feel?
There are environmental issues as well, but I don’t even want to talk about them, even though I am a great believer in saving the natural environment. There are many arguments put forward (to preserve the bridge) for environmental reasons…and I believe they are valid. Protection against Tsunamis is one, and preserving the coast another. There are also experts who believe that the new channel will not be able to take heavy ships…
I believe that people’s faith is very important too, as important (if not more) than these other issues, and faith is something that no believer ever measures scientifically. If this is being questioned, then it is highly objectionable. No government has a right to question people’s religious faith…why the next thing we will hear is that the government wants to convert people!
Why harp on environmental issues or developmental issues, when the majority of people are thinking of faith and heritage?? And can one look at a country’s development only through the economic and developmental standpoint? What about culture and heritage?
The government will never get through to people if they only talk of money! Perhaps there was a chance earlier, if they had gone about this quietly and sensibly and not made idiotic statements like Ram does not exist…yes if they had done that the project might well have gone through without too much publicity. Before this moronic affidavit, it was mainly the Hindu elite, Hindu religious organizations and environmentalists who were opposing this bridge…but now I believe that this issue has been taken to the people and explained in a language they can understand. I personally had heard only vaguely of the save Ram Sethu campaign…and did not feel strongly about it either way. But now I do. Now I am now seeing the issue through the prism of the government’s lack of respect for Hindus.
If alternative routes are available, and it is believed that they are, then they should be implemented. That is what I feel.
Added Later: Just thought I would add the exact words of the affidavit, after one of the comments which doubted whether the government actually doubted the existence of Ram. On Mahendra’s blog I found this link, and it quotes the affidavit as stating:
…that the mythological texts of Ramayana formed an important part of ancient Indian literature, “but which cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein.”
Update: 2nd May 2008. There is a very interesting article in The Hindu about this issue which is worth a read. It says that
there was historical evidence to show that this bridge was used by the people of India and Sri Lanka as a link between the two nations. Any structure that was more than 100 years old, natural or man made, could be declared a national monument by the Archaeological Survey of India…800 million people in India believe that Ramar Sethu was a bridge built by Lord Ram. Can the court go into the issue whether Lord Ram existed or whether the bridge was constructed by the God?… People [particularly Christians] believe that Jesus Christ was crucified at a particular place. Can this be probed or gone into by the court? These are all related to people’s faith which cannot be probed by the court or the government.
Related Reading: Why people are religious
Hinduism does not encourage conversions
True faith in God can be confused with rituals
Book countering the Hinduphobia of the west
What role do “Gurus” play in our life?
I see better respect to people’s faith in Ramayana by several other country’s Govt…. Ramakien(Thailand), Phra Lak Phra Lam or Gvay Dvorahbi (Laos & northeastern Thailand), Hikayat Seri Rama(Malaysia), Ramayana Kakawin(Indonesia), Ramaker(Cambodia).. For of them Lord Ram represents the ideals of righteousness, love, loyalty, and selfless devotion.. his life is depicted in dance, music, art, narrative, oral, and folkloric tradition.
In 1989 the largest Rama temple in Malaysia was built in the northern state of Perak on the Thai border which is about 150 miles from Kuala Lumpur. The temple has 1001 sculptures and pictures relating the Ramayana story.
In Cambodia episodes from the Ramaker are often performed within villages for magical purposes. When there is a drought the people hope that the performance will produce rain. There is a monastery in Phnom Penh with approximately 193 paintings of the Ramayana.
———————-
It’s really sad to see this Govt’s Stupidity in neglecting people’s faith..
BTW, In every sensitive issues like this one they always want Sonia Gandhi to show off her “Prime Ministerial Power”.. huh!!
Is the UPA trying to help the Saffron brigade. They were in search of an issue and now they have one, thanks to the generosity of the govt. I could never understand the logic of hurting other people’s religious beliefs. They can keep their scientific facts to themselves and leave the religious issues to people.
I feel strongly that governments should be as neutral as possible towards people’s faiths. Saying someone’s god doesn’t exist simply goes too far. If a government can do that, then it can establish a state sponsored religion, too.
Bharath, thanks for the info.
Prerna, yeah, the government has played right into the hands of the Saffron Brigade! But even though I am not religious I firmly and a hundred per cent believe that Ram existed. Heck, it was more than 6-7 thousand years ago and what proof is there that he didn’t?
Paul, you will be surprised how Hindus are generally taken for granted in India. That is the reason for the growth of the right wing political parties whose politics I feel very uncomfortable with.
first of all muslims are the largest and most consolidated minority in india they are between 25 and 35% of population and go for tactical voting – just like bush prefers mush sonia prefers islam cause it gets her guaranteed vote chunk.
indian media is also quite pro communist and congress due to substantial govt add revenue and otherwise so as to remain in good books of party in power or due to lots of jnu educated mediapersons
sonias inner rung is filled with muslims and christians
her p sec is a christian the person speculated as behind the affidavit Ambika soni is one and ahmed patel is muslim
not that i am looking at it mypoically but fact s fact
the aicc has systematically removed non sonia believers
we hindus are too tolerant – and broad thinking
in comparison even to americans- they are maj right of centre – some vote bush solely to make abortions and gay unions illegal.
I believe Man-Moron Singh’s government is the worst thing India can have at the moment…
unfortunately, I see no sensible alternatives either…
i dont find sonia 10% real and frank
she is too perfect from the skirts pre politics she is now the tip top bahu with impecable khadis and well written scripts
and typically reminding u of indira (hey indiras hair was atleast a mess)
sonias inner rung is filled with muslims and christians
her p sec is a christian the person speculated as behind the affidavit Ambika soni is one and ahmed patel is muslim
not that i am looking at it mypoically but fact s fact
we hindus are too tolerant -and secular and broad thinking
in comparison even to americans- they are maj right of centre – some vote bush solely to make abortions and gay unions illegal.
nita read ni blog there are 2 very good posts by lex on upas achievements and yossarin
prerna they arnt playing to the vhp and likes
i find it a well thought out scheme
instigate the vhp and likes to get violent
and use favourable media to show secular hindus
see what our alternative is – do u really want to vote for them? ??
not that the bjp is great right now they are bubgling without a clever clear thinking strategist like mahajan but hey congress knows how to stage manage well.
tell me why do most secular ppl not vote for bjp ?
because they fear this type of shenanigans of the vhp ..
I must say I overall disagree with all of you.
It is of no concern to a truly secular State whether peoples’ irrational believes/faiths are hurt or not.
It is the business of the State to do what it does without regard to sentiments and faiths. There are airports which cannot be modernised because there is a masjid in the planned and extended runway (ex: Kolkata). There are roads which cannot be widened because there is a small temple built right on the road. Any attempt to change the status quo is met with violence and noise.
This noisy country deserves its keep.
I would have supported the Government if they had not kowtowed to the mullahs over Shah Bano, and to sundry parochial beliefs and groups.
My solution: auction the bridge/canal: if the Hindus want their faith preserved in its existence, let them pay for it. Or get out of the way of progress.
Rambodoc, I don’t think one can compare a masjid or a temple to the Ram Sethu. Each case needs to be seen on its own merit. How can one apply a broad principle to every single thing?
Also, no one, specially a government, has any right in a democratic country to call anyone’s faith irrational.
Why not just become communist then, and ban religion!! at least it will less hypocritical than calling ourselves secular, which means everyone has a right to his belief.
Also, I think if we go by that logic, why did we stop Mayawati from building a mall near the Taj Mahal? Or why did we divert the Delhi Metro to save the Qutub? Do you think this was wrong? I don’t.
Culture and heritage are important. They are our history and make us who we are.
P.S. And also, its the way the government is going about it that is upsetting. To say that people’s God doesn’t exist!
FYI…
As per Govt.’s estimation this project would take minimum 25 years for Break even… & as per my Guess I normally multiply their projevction by 4 times or sometimes by 10 times or more… So By My guess this project must take minumum 100- 250 years for Break even.. he he .. Lol.. Businesswise I say All the best to Govt. Go ahead..
and by that time who knows If Oil may be our main fuel source… This is just a thought.
Bharath
That was great!!!
And btw, there are alternative routes as well, suggestions from engineers, so why the government is bent on this collison course is what beats me!
Prax, I am not sure you got the percentage of Muslims right…and will surely look up those other write-ups you suggested. As for Sonia, I have not much respect for her.
Priyank, I agree, no better alternative! I don’t know whom to vote for now!!
Rambodoc Sir,
I partly agree with your comment, But try to understand – Ram Sethu is most important physical landmarks to ancient Hindu heritage.. It is sacred land.. I request you not to categorise it into irrational believes/faiths.. This is a harmful act to our History.. even SC has accepted it…
and have time to read recent similar story from America:
timesonline
Look the basic idea of not doing the right thing in order to assuage peoples religious sentiments is wrong.
Long ago copernicus,galileo etc were branded as heretics for claiming the earth was round and orbits the sun.Were peoples feelings hurt? Yes absolutely.
So should we have just hushed it all up because it hurt orthodox christian feelings?No.
Similarly this structure is a coral NOT man made and this has to be communicated to the population as fact.
India is an ancient country with countless mythlogical expanations for everything if you stop everything just to not step on irrational theories then I am afraid you won’t even come close to first world status.
There are countless enviornmental reasons for not destroying coral,if that is what guides the decision of not to proceed with this project fine.But if mythology is going to hamper progress in a country in the 21st century then I am sorry to say there is going to be a significant downward revision in my opinion for whatever little that’s worth.
[They can keep their scientific facts to themselves and leave the religious issues to people]
Brilliant!Just brilliant!
PS You have no idea how much people laugh at you for such antics and to think we hope you can some day be a counterforce to China.
“It is the business of the State to do what it does without regard to sentiments and faiths. ”
Whoa! And this would be democratic? Because I see then this is no different from a authoritatian state. A democratically elected state *must* respect the sentiments of the people – however irrational a head or the ruling part may think it is. Now if that means not being able to take “progressive decisions” – well too freaking bad! If that is what the (majority of the) people wanted, then it would have to be so and it would be their loss.
The only thing the state/leader/ruling-party can do is to try to convince people why this is right. So a great leader’s role is not blindly go with what he thinks he is right, his role is to convince his people why he is right. That is the only real leader in a democracy.
Krenim, the Ram Sethu has a religious significance. To break it down against the wishes of the people is a big mistake. To hurt the sentiments of the people in a democracy is an even bigger mistake. Arunk brought out that point.
I really cannot see the comparision of saying the earth is round or flat…because Ram Sethu has a deeper significance.
It is a symbol of faith, a place of religous significance.
Frankly, the issue is not whether the Ram Sethu was man made or made by God, the issue is the faith of the people.
If breaking of the Ram Sethu was essential to our survival, that is different. Somehow this could be conveyed. But it is not necessary to break it down, there are alternatives.
We are already great country Krenim, and one of the reasons is partly because we do not only think in material terms. If people laugh, well, people here laugh at other countries too…its all a matter of perspective. If one thinks only in material terms, then one laughs at poor people, if one thinks only in functional terms, one laughs at artists who cannot make a living, if one thinks only in cultural terms, one laughs at those without a culture, if one thinks in terms of military power, one laughs at those without military arsenel…and so on.
Bharath, thanks for the link.
Its just another controversy, I believe, India has to face it.
If not today, this question would be raised again and again.
I feel this incident is nothing to do with Congress or UPA government.
Many Hindus in central India seeing this incident as Muslims & Chirstian influence in Central Government.
But the truth is, Its Atheism against Hinduism.
Tamilnadu DMK, the Party that has it history as Dravidian (Again Extremism), believes in Athiesm.
They had a long history of opposing Hinduism.
They considers Hinduism as Foreign religion, that came to India in the name of Aryan Invasion. (no definite evidence)
So, Being From TN, There is no surprise for me, about, TR Balu’s statement, that “Ram didnot exists”.
Because, Not only to Dravidian, Anyone who sees Ramayana & India can easily assume that…
“Ramayana is a story depicting Aryan Invasion.” .
Sometimes, I feel that, Ramayana is a controversial subject to see the united India.
The fact that jerusalem was the centre of the earth was also a very deep significance to people of the time.
My only point is this is going to set a very dangerous precedant.
There are thousands of myths about thousands of things in India any can be invoked to stop any project at any place in India at any time.
[We are already great country Krenim, and one of the reasons is partly because we do not only think in material terms]
Correction were a great country and capable of becoming great again.
The first step in getting out of a hole is to recognize you are in one.
I frankly am sick and tired of this we are not material we ae spiritual….Human beings are the same everywhere.You yourself say that you are as a society more corrupt (materially) than the west don’t you?
I mean really you have the highest rate of child malnourishment in the world and a lot of other ills I am surprised at how such a people can actually think like this.Learn from countries like South Korea get your act together and take your rightful place among the world’s great nations.
About the thousands of things…etc etc, no, I cannot answer that. It is not true. Everything is not the same…and Indians are not that stupid.
Sorry, I don’t agree with your Krenim, about the ‘were.’ Because I really do not think only in material terms. We are in a material hole and a very corrupt one that too, sure.
But there are historical reasons for that…and we are great precisely because we are rising inspite of that!! Our greatness lies in the resilience of our people.
In the greatness of our people and I do believe that we are what we are today because of what we were yesterday…
There is a connection.
I am glad you mentioned S Korea and not China.
Well, call us the tortoise Krenim. A great lumbering tortoise, but great all the same.
krenim,
Almost all fortune 500 companies & your Govt. organisations are relying on an Indian.. and India has shown fastest growth in recent years.. It has done much better job than any other country & we strongly believe we will do much better in the future too..
Mythological explanations makes lot of sense to us.. and we are truly a religious people & we do believe “GOD” Exists.. As per your thoughts you can easily disapprove by scientific facts that there is no God.. or tell me – Can you prove by science that God exists? It’s like – You can’t see air.. but you can see it’s effects! and There are lot of things which I can explain which science do not understand.. but they do happen.
and as per The current business status: If your companies are not with India then they will be soon out of Business.. Trust me
For example: On the day GM (General motors) announced they are going to india… Their share prices rose immediately beyond expectations..
Now tell me.. Is your laugh worth it?
I would partly agree with Rambodoc. It really irritates me to see a temple or mosque standing in the middle of the road or against a runway, claiming that God has given them that land and stuff like that…. but Ram Sethu is considered a heritage site (if you dont want a religious perspective). I dont think it will be wise to raze the Taj or Red Fort to the ground because they are blocking some new highway…. in any case, the govt, or for that matter any person, doesnt have the right to question the practicality or reality of someone’s faith. I am more inclined towards atheism, but I do believe people have the right to believe in what they want and the way they want without state interference.
Underlying all this is the very complex set-up in India’s constitution called ‘secularism’.
As objective assessments go, Edward Luce’s treatment of the Indian model of secularism – and the history of negotiations prior to the constitution being finalised – in his book ‘In Spite of The Gods’ is highly recommended.
Faith is a private issue and politics is not. Reason appears to suffer suspension in pursuit of both- to different degrees.
The leaders of independent, unified India had a vision which was too nuanced to be understood by the masses, and therefore ready material for political exploitation.
Shefaly,
I think the Constitution sucks, but I didn’t really understand you here…
Arun,
Why should the State bother about matters of faith? The Church-State separation is a fundamental part of a free society.
Oemar,
I am so glad you are inclined to atheism!
i said that because the most mileage gained long term off rammandir or godhra was by congress samajwadis and rjd
nita i didn’t give a definite statistic but a range because there is none, govt statistics r always inaccurate cause of multiple reasons like the bangladeshis who tend to vote come what may, there were acts like imdb to help out.
doc -hey nita makes sense here and nyways what u r referring to is egalitarian and impossible to implement even in a communist state cause hey god knows some stalins statue may be an obstruction there!
lastly i agree with priyank 101%
india needs a thinking right of centre but modern ruling party which for once will look after the needs of the country’s population inclusively including the majority
doc but is the state free of the church in the worlds richest democracy and why do they print in god we trust on their greenbacks?
And hey saddam was more of a facilitator in that aspect
if a mosque came in the way off it went without a whiff of protest
no dought iraq was one of the most modern societies then ,
pity he was still a tribal
one more thing what about the thorium reserves of kerala that are helped by the topology of the area?
is this a ploy for energy dependence?
and the sensitive ecology and the channels impact on the biodiversity
@ Rambodoc: Explaining further may be akin to saying ‘aa bail mujhe maar’ given that the sentiment on this thread tends towards mythology-as-religion..
But all I meant to say was that it is important to understand the reasons behind the State’s stance on the issue.
Philosophical explanations lie in the ‘secularism’ pillar of the constitution. And actual explanations lie in the tug of war between two unreasonable groups of people – religious folk and politicians..
@Prax: The founding fathers of the United States did not conceive of it as a secular state but one based on Christian principles. The First Amendment in part separated the state and religion but only to the extent that the state cannot prevent anyone from practising religious stuff.
AFAIK Muslims or Hindus or any other type do not object to having under their mattress greenbacks which appear put their trust in some other God
than their own.
Exactly Prax, any government which wants to trample on the beliefs of the people is repellent to me. Like Arunk said it is no better than an authoritarian government, or maybe it is worse! There is nothing more repellent to me than anyone forcing their beliefs on others.
Atheists have a right to be but they have no right to impose their beliefs on others. Yes, they must be thrilled with this affidavit, but they fail to see that the majority of Indians are hurt. How can one not respect the feelings of others, I simply cannot understand!
I happen to be an agnostic. I think it is quite probably that that certain figures in our ‘mythology’ existed, but whether I believe they were simply great wise men or Gods is not important. Because there are those who believe and I respect that. If that belief is harming them in some way, I might try to convince them…but not tell them that their beliefs are the stuff of mythology!!
Shefaly, you say:
I rather think that the sentiment is freedom to practice one’s religion and the right to believe in one’s God without the state filing affidavits in courts saying that the God does not exist. I don’t understand why people think this is a religion vs atheism issue. This is an issue of the right to freedom to practice one’s religion. Paul’s comment put it aptly!
The insistence on taking it as an atheism vs religion issue makes me suspect that atheists are happy that someone has actually (and officially that too) said that Ram doesn’t exist because that is what they believe.
ok…the ram sehu plainly a…….not so imp. issues
in a countryof variety feelings of one section hav e to be heart to appease another…
the govt is not harming india…its developing it…..
anyway….who can prove that ram existed?
and if the bridge was ever really built by now….u dont use it to cross over to sri lanka!!!!
all i can say is that its a worthless deposition of mud…..
if u say my thinking is orthodox yours is tooo…..cos u r hampering our countries development by you FAITH in MYTHS.
thats what hitler and mussolini used
they said that it was faith tht moved mountains not reason…
and the result? THEY FELL!!!!
so will it be to ind….if this goes on…
Almost all fortune 500 companies & your Govt. organisations are relying on an Indian..
I just want to say, that guy must be REALLY BUSY.
But, as a nosy foreigner, who is Lord Ram?
Justin, Ram is THE God of the Hindus. He is the main character in the Ramayana, a holy book written by Valmiki, a wise sage. A lot of what he wrote was probably passed down from generations, and some people believe he added something of his own to it, and so did others….but over the ages Ram was/is revered in Hinduism as a God. And it is what he stands for which is important more than anything. To me at least, he is a symbol of those virtues.
He is the ideal man…in the eyes of the Hindus. All Gods had imperfections but Ram, he is thought to be the ideal man. Ramayana is a story of pure good vs pure evil.
Mahabharatha on the other hand has heroic figures who have human faults. This is more complex.
Nita said:
I don’t think that this is the correct interpretation of what the affidavit said. NDTV may be twisting the words (no pun intended on your blog, rambodoc) for its own ends. The affidavit simply states that Ramayana and its derivative works “cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of [Ram]…”. It’s a statement on Ramayana’s limited value as a proof for the existence of Ram, and not a negation of Ram’s existence.
As far as the Sethusamudram ridge is concerned, I don’t think whether it is man-made or not is relevant to be protected. After all, the Gir Forest and the Bandipur National Park are not man-made, but are protected areas all the same. There are several natural features in the U.S. landscape that are declared as national monuments, and therefore, are protected. It may be possible present a reasonable argument that the Sethusamudram ridge is a unique resource in India’s vicinity, man-made or not, and give it a protected status. Whether the government should be in the business of protecting unique resources is a different matter that I wouldn’t get into here.
I think the claims that India is a spiritual or material nation are both erroneous. It is an extraordinarily political nation
TRF, well, it does seem to be a more diplomatic way of saying it! In any case, the government is taking the affidavit back, which means they realise that their claim is wrong.
What you said about ‘protection’ makes sense. And yeah, the debate on why a monument should be protected or not be protected is a grey area and can be a subject of a lengthy debate.
Your last line! I forgot to tag this post under politics! Am doing it now!
thanks for dropping by.
I don’t believe in the existence of god, and I always preferred Krishna’s stories over Ram’s
, but destroying setu samudra bridge while ignoring the sentiments of the majority is something I disagree with. It would be imposing my beliefs on others. Live and let live.
Even leaving aside the religious/heritage factors, there are environmental and safety factors (tsunami prevention) that would probably call for leaving it as it is. How much economic impact are we talking about? Is that really going to make a huge difference in India’s economy and progress? If there were no other options left and destroying the bridge was the only way to protect the sovereignty of India, or of utmost national importance, then destroying it is something that could be considered. But I don’t think there’s enough evidence that that’s the case here.
Nita, I think it’s pretty obvious that what we have is pseudo-secularism as practiced by Congress, left parties etc. I used to be the disbelieving kind like you, but after reading about Shah Bano case and observing different responses to different issues in the media (M.F. Hussein, Taslima Nasreen, Baroda art student etc. ) – when they all should have been condemned equally – I’ve come around to the view that when it’s a Hindu issue, people condemn it much quickly than when it is a Muslim issue – all in the name of liberal secularism. And this partly come from the desire to be politically-correct and some kind of weird idea to “take care of” the minorities when their rights are guaranteed in the constitution. Also instances like these don’t help: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/sep/07tilak.htm. I do think issues pertaining to freedom of speech should have been dealt differently right from the start, but once a precedence of appeasement was set, now all religions abuse it.
Even in the US, there are some signs of being PC when it comes to criticizing Muslims – many US newspapers didn’t publish the Danish cartoons, while in the name of free speech, they went to great lengths to make available on their websites videos of beheadings of Americans by Al-Qaeda, in spite of requests from relatives to not do so.
Recently, a US comic strip (http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2007/08/26/opus/) was censored by many newspapers because it was deemed to be offensive. Do a search for “Opus comic censorship” for the story. Seems like freedom of speech means it’s fine to piss on Christianity (in the US) and Hinduism (in India), but not on Islam – for the same issue of fundamentalism/extremism/freedom of speech. And that is a very clear and undesirable double-standard, IMO.
I still condemn what BJP did in Gujarat, but I do give them credit for bringing this issue of pseudo-secularism and appeasement of minorities into spotlight. I’m not the religious kind, nor do I buy into the cow-urine-being-the-cure-for-cancer theory as Edward Luce mentioned in his book (Shefaly, I agree. It’s a good book), or the blind superstitions, but I don’t agree that everything about Hinduism should be left by the roadside on our march to progress.
justin in amaricanese Ram is someone like luke skywaker in star wars – nyways star wars was roughly based on the Mahabharata
nita – count me in im agonistically hindu because if u define hindu or even take a supreme courts view it is kinda similar
the problem arises when religion takes centrestage in politics like to a lesser extent christianity and majorly Islam.
the probablity of the event that ram ever existed is higher any day than the stuff in the old testament and that Jesus was the son of a virgin mother !
about them realising it – i highly doubt it
i find it a ploy to instigate the vhps vanar sena !
see what happens if there is a major riot blame them and take political milage – if not take back ur words !
there is a good writeup about the setu in the pseudo sec blog -i also find that canal
could ruin the ecology of the region
wash off the thorium reserves that accumulate in kerala
give an enemy rapid entry/exit access to the western naval command area and jeopardise the secuity of the new port at karwar
Justin,
//// I just want to say, that guy must be REALLY BUSY. ////
Yeah.. Busy in doing great deal.. It’s not wrong.. It’s challenging… We are enjoying it… We Love it..
Read this:
“Work is worship”
Work is worship and rest is rest. It is the key to success, progress and happiness. The current scenario of the world economy has presented tougher challenges for people the world over.
It has made every phase of our life more complicated and competitive. In spite of all this, there are successful people, who are excelling in various fields. In today’s world one needs to move with the changing times.
We must redesign the old methods of working and continuously be on the look out for more effective ways of working. Love your work. “Every job is a self-portrait of the person who did it.” Hence autograph your work with excellence.
By Nishit Nisudan, XI A
New Delhi: Green Fields School, Safdarjung Enclave
Source: hindu.com
Have you noticed that anything to do with/against a religion immediately draws up protests and all (in India), but when it comes to lives being lost due to poverty, riots etc. there is hardly any protest. Is religion more important than one’s life?
Amit, thanks for the detailed comment.
Prax, yes, the fundamentals of each and every religion can be questioned by science, but it is incorrect to question it in a court of law, in the sense by the court…which brings to me Su’s point!
Su, you have raised a valid point…and you are right, religion can be more important to a person than other human values. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, it just is. And that is because many people cannot survive without religion…for them it is necessary for survival.
Hi all!
I have so far stayed out of this debate because I have serious misgivings about the Ramayana (which I consider an insidious work of propaganda to assert the superiority of North India) and Rama (whom I do NOT consider an ideal of the kind most Hindus are brought up to believe — vide the manner in which he killed Vali; his high-handed dealing with Shambuka; and his treatment of Sita — to give just three instances).
I am also furious about how the Rama cult and its perverse manifestation in today’s India was instrumental in unleashing at least two of the most shameful blots on India in recent times — Ayodhya and Godhra. While granting that faith cannot be questioned, I feel that it can also not be made a basis for imposing one’s views on others or for committing horrific acts of violence.
Having said this, I was very happy to see Jug Suraiya’s piece in the Times of India today, under the editorial page feature “The Speaking Tree”. It is titled “Sethusamudram and the Hyper-reality of Ram.”
Suraiya speaks with a voice of reason that even a determined skeptic like me has no problem accepting. I hope that those of you who are absolutely against the Sethusamudram project, and also those who do not have a strong view on it one way or the other but are critical of the ASI affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, will read Suraiya’s piece. If you do not have access to the Times it should be available on the Times website.
I also appeal to the Ram Bhaktas, that while you have every right to state your beliefs, please do not bring in untenable arguments such as the age of the Ramayana — and, by extension, the Hanuman Setu — being 17 lakh (or is it 19 lakh) years. It flies in the face of all logic dictated by sciece, whether in terms of evolution or of geology. Even among the members of the Hindutva brigade, the more moderate voices have either not commented at all on this argument or have conceded that it is far-fetched.
Vivek, you have made some good points…but then can we apply logic to people’s faith? That is the question. Pehaps it is necessary then for the government to start a mass education campaign….and convince people first.
I think these issues will get sorted out by themselves…if the government does not bully. Gradually people as they get more aware, and might themselves see the relative importance of a bridge there…but the more the govt. tries to force it down people’s throats, the deeper they will dig in their heels.
Nita,
I must protest about your calling Rama THE (in all-caps) God of the Hindus, especially when explaining it to Justin who is earnestly seeking help in bridging (no pun intended) a lacuna in his knowledge. Along with Krishna (who has a much wider following across the country) he is merely an incarnation of Vishnu.
On the other hand many would argue that the all-caps definite article should apply to Shiva, who is nobody’s incarnation.
I am not taking sides here — personally I couldn’t care less. But let us not manipulate basics when portraying India to foreigners.
Vivek, I guess it is I who believe that Ram is THE God so I do apologize for giving wrong information. But at any time, anyone is welcome to contradict me…
what I write is not God’s truth…
Nita,
I draw you attention to the following sentence in my first post:
“While granting that faith cannot be questioned, I feel that it can also not be made a basis for imposing one’s views on others or for committing horrific acts of violence.”
The first seven words of that quotation are saying the same thing as you are in your rhetorical question.
At the same time, this whole business of articles of faith being somehow sacrosanct, can be taken a bit too far. Even the messianic religions have a history of internal debate and questioning, which led to their splitting up into different denominations (e.g. Roman Catholic/Protestant; Sunni/Shia; Hinayana/Mahayana; Shwetambara/Digambara — these are all simplified examples of actually far more complex processes).
In modern times, you have the famous Evolutionist-vs-Creationist debate in the USA, with the famous court case of 1925 (the Hooper Case, if I recall the name right, more popularly known as the “Monkey” Case), which was made into a film, a play (in that order) and two or three more films specially for TV, called “Inherit the Wind”. The latest TV version, from the 1980s, was recently telecast on one of the movie channels (probably HBO), and there will probably be repeats in coming weeks. Do watch it. And for details about the movie(s) and the place of “Inherit the Wind” in modern American life, go to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) and then to Wikipedia, which provides many more links.
The tragedy of what we today call Hinduism is that, despite its long tradition of questioning, debate and disagreement leading to the emergence of different philosophical schools (Dwaita, Adwaita, Vishishtadwaita etc. etc.), the intellectual ferment underlying these debates never percolated into the consciousness of the followers. They adopted the teachings as dogma, thereby defeating the essential spirit of debate and nurturing extremely intolerant mindsets.
Very sad to say:
There was a time when India had its own way of thinking and way of life. Today, the people of India are beginning to get used to see the foreign trade mark not only on their fascination for imported ideology, the eternal principles underlying the culture of India appear unattractive.
good post. i’ve blogged on the same.
i can’t imagine people stepping aside for the Taj Mahal to be razed down just coz Tata finds that that is the most perfect location for his next steel plant and steel costs will be reduced by 20% if that is done.
@Su:
Poverty etc etc are slowly-moving, slowly occuring phenomena. to combat them, we do not need PROTESTS, we need people who work slowly and steadily towards eradicating poverty, one hungry stomach at a time.
however, insults on religion are sporadic, occur in a flash, and get a lot of publicity. now these are things that arouse a reaction in the form of a protest. they need immediate, fast reactions if at all one feels they have to be remedied.
to put it in a nutshell, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. a flame on religion will attract protest. a politically incorrect stand on poverty will, too, incite protest. a girl raped on a train attracts protest. poverty cannot be fought with protests. it needs organized thought, plans of action, implementation. it’s a long-term problem with many roots. it cannot be eradicated with protests. there is no point “protesting” about poverty.
Vivek, yes, I agree that at times this can be taken too far. Hinduism has indeed lost its basic meaning by getting entangled in dogma and rituals. There should be a limit…a line needs to be drawn. The question is: Who is to draw the line…
Bharath, materialism is the order of the day…people nowadays want to bribe even God!!
Wanderlust, welcome and hey to you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Why does questioning someone’s faith hurt it? I am an atheist (or, if you life, a skeptical agnostic), but I have many friends who are Hindus/Christians. Whenever I express my disagreement with their religious beliefs, their reaction is not anger but simply to present counter-arguments to mine. They don’t hate me for not believing in what they believe in. And one of these is a guy who does his daily morning puja/evening puja and follows many rituals as regards to his sacred thread. A pretty religious guy. Yet he doesn’t hate me for saying there is no reason to believe in God. In fact, when he see merit in an argument, he acknowledges that. I do the same with his argument. Do you think this is weak or mature? Why are all of you so touchy?
It happens so often that people call atheists arrogant and ignorant. I don’t ask them all to shut up, do I? I simply present counter-arguments to their arguments, or ignore them if I don’t have the time. Why can’t you people be more mature? Is your faith really so weak weak that it is “hurt” by someone questioning it? Does someone disagreeing with you make your beliefs less/more rational? Can your faith not stand up to a few questions?
In the nineteenth century, people in India believed that crossing the ocean was a sin. Since they believed that, would criticising that belief have been wrong? Wouldn’t their faith have been hurt? I know that some of you are going to say that was a superstition. To that my answer is that what is a superstition is a matter of opinion. And since opinion varies from person to person, you cannot have anti-blasphemy laws. For any religion.
The entire basis for secularism in India is wrong. Our secularism is not seperation of state and religion, but a simple principle of “let’s not piss each other off”. This means that first we had appeasement of Muslims by banning books and passing seperate laws. Now Hindus feel jealous and want appeasement for themselves.
There are plenty of people who resort to this empty rhetoric of “all religions say the same thing”. This is nonsense. Not only do beliefs vary across religion ( Islam and Christianity do not believe in reincarnation, whereas Hinduism and Jainism do), there are also variations *within* religion. There may be cases where Muslims says they believe in the Bhagavad Gita or reincarnation, or Hindus who say they believe in the Koran or Jesus or Noah’s flood, but these are isolated cases. What about the rest? Should we ban the Bible and Koran for questioning the Hindu faith because they insist that idol worship is a sin? Or should we ban the Bhagavad Gita for insisting that reincarnation is a reality (and thus questioning the faith of Christians and Muslims?).
Jawaharlal Nehru said in “The discovery of India” that Hindu myths are nonsense if taken literally, but have deep value if taken symbolically. In the same book he says that there are many agnostic/atheistic philosophies to be found with the many variations of Hinduism. He claims that being an atheist does not make anyone less Hindu. Should we ban “The discovery of India”, then?
Should we ban Darwin’s theory for questioning the faith of those who insist on taking the Bible literally? Because such people exist. Even if they are insane/brainwashed, this makes no difference. What makes their faith insane, and yours sane?
Do these principles of “do not question faith” apply only to established religions with large numbers of followers, or to seemingly insane people as well? Should we not allow people to question black magic? Or caste discrimination? Or interpretations of the Koran that subjugate women? Aren’t these matters of faith as well? What about scientology? What about temples that ban menstruating women from entering their premises? What if someone were to follow Raelism, a religion that preaches that an alien race created all life on Earth? Are these all not matters of faith?
There is no reason to hate people who do not share your beliefs. There is no reason to be uncomfortable with people who do not share your beliefs. There is no reason to be offended when people express their disagreement with your beliefs. That is the sign of a weak faith, a faith that stems not from reason or knowledge or conviction, but a faith that stems from the social pressure to confirm. A faith that is yours because almost everyone you know believes the same thing. Because you would be afraid of how people would react if you did not agree with them. Whether or not we realise it, this is the reason most of us believe what we do.
You have the freedom to live according to your beliefs. Someone questioning your beliefs does not take away from that freedom. But that freedom must reach its limit when it seeks to impose itself on others, even if it is the majority’s will against that of the minorty. Practise your faith in a way that it does not interfere with that of others. If a mosque/temple is on private property, the person owning the property should have the full right to whatever he/she please, to sell that land or not sell it, to demolish the religious structure or refurbish it. If a place if not your private property, it doesn’t matter how critical it is to your beliefs, you cannot dictate what is to be done or not done there.
And yes, this should apply to all religions. I know that this is not the case is India, but the solution to that is not appeasing all religions. It is to appease none. Protest the Haj subsidy, not the Ram Sethu project.
Please let us get over this “you hurt my sentiments” nonsense. We are adults. Adults should learn to live with hurt sentiments. This does not mean do nothing. If someone criticises your beliefs, the correct response is to counter their arguments, not to ask them to shut up. “Shut up” is what the school bully says when he knows he is wrong and someone points it out. “Shut up” is what the bully says when he doesn’t like being contradicted.
Therefore, the only considerations for this project should economic/environmental. Please grow up.
Thanks for dropping in Phani and sharing your thoughts. There is a lot there that is food for thought.
Ideally, yes people should not be touchy when it comes to their beliefs.
If you ask me, I even think that the fact that we are not allowed to desecrate our national flag is wrong. Not that I want to do it. But if someone wants to do it, then that person should be allowed to. In the US, anyone can even burn their flag, it is not against the law. But if this is allowed, too many bad things can happen in our country…because our country is different.
In any case it isn’t right to go against the will of the majority. these kinds of things backfire in the long run. Also, while it is easier (to some extent) convince lettered people, or people without a political agenda, or those who don’t believe in it anyway, there are many who will not be easy to convince. And hurt feelings are hurt feelings. One can control one’s thoughts, not one’s feelings, unless one is a spiritual or enlightened person. Yes, it is possible to try and convince the person that there is no reason to be hurt, but as I said not everyone can be convinced easily….the heart has a strange way of taking precedence over the head.
@Nita:
You said: “I feel it isn’t right to go against the will of the majority”
What else does this principle apply to? If the majority of Iranians or Pakistanis want Shariah law should they be allowed to impose it on the minority? This is simply another way of saying “might is right”.
I suspect as much as you that trying to covince the majority of people in this regard will be ineffective, that a compromise might “defuse” the problem now, instead of making this project hindutva fodder for the next twenty years. But if we do that, this will set a precedent.
Remember, among the most common arguments for appeasement of Hindus is the appeasement of minorities. If appeasement becomes the default policy of everyone, then we will have to live with it for ages to come. Instead, if we try convincing people, we might win them over little by little. In the long term, it *should* have an effect, and it *should* move people away from appeasement.
I almost did not comment on this forum. I have seen these kinds of arguments so many times before. But then I reminded myself that *someone* has to argue about this if we are to see any change, to move away from this neo-victorianism in the guise of hindutva.
There a people who claim they are non-religious. But most of the time the only purpose of their non-religiosity is to offend believers. They think it’s fashionable to be non-religious. But here’s a post, from a person claiming to be non-religious, that’s so sensitive to other’s beliefs. There is no ‘I am rational than thou’ attitude. The views expressed are very balanced. Very well written. Felt happy after reading this.
Phani you give the example of the majority wanting sharia law, but frankly if you ask me, the majority don’t. I have no proof ofcourse, but from reading about these things, that is my opinion.
Generally I have seen that a minority (I am talking of governments and political parties here) want to impose their views…that is how it is usually, in all dictorships etc and those who ‘seem’ to be with them are afraid. For example during the Nazi regime, the majority of germans were not for him, and even now if we have elections in china, I doubt whether the communists will be elected.
Also there is no need for any appeasement of anyone…I don’t agree with that term.
It is equal treatment for all that is required…
but I am glad you commented Phani. All views are welcome and set others thinking. that is the whole point of a debate.
Thank you indeed for coming here.
P.s.
I do not like the policies of the hindutva parties at all! It is too political a game and a selfish one.
wiping out our key history is not a good idea.. then why you again digging so deep to see your history again?
Why Govt. haven’t yet targeted those old brit buildings for the sake of development or so called “Change”?? I still find those old fashioned brit-history buildings almost in all cities!!!
Wanderlust, I did not say ‘protest against poverty’, I said protest against the lives being lost due to lack of money (example: farmers commiting suicide in some states). Anyway, yes, its not protest that we need – but if we do start protesting, that is when people or the government will sit up and notice. We are a complacent people and we will not wake up until and unless something happens. Actually, it doesn’t matter even if something happens – many foreigners have ruled us and gone – have we learned anything yet? We learnt English for sure and yes that has helped us a lot if not probably added more frustration to people who don’t know know what to believe in or not believe in – like me, for example
.
Anyway thank you and Nita for the responses!
From a strategic point of view, the Sethusamudram project is an absolute MUST for emerging India. It would give significant control over the entrance and exit to the Bay of Bengal to the Indian Navy and facilitate the navigation of commerce between west and east coasts of India without having to go all the way around Sri Lanka and being open to foreign interdiction. Obviously, none of our enemy countries wants us to succeed and our dim-witted masses, prodded on by greedy politicians, are helping them.
The focus should be on the strategic and economics, not on the sentimental. At the same time of course, there is no question of “destroying” the Ram Sethu which is as real as the Temple of Solomon. So the focus should shift to accomplishing the strategic and economic goals of the project without touching the Ram Sethu bridge.
Here’s an article by KPS Gill on this issue and Indian secularism:
daily pioneer columnist
Let’s wait a few years. With the sea levels rising due to global warming, maybe the waters will be deep enough that ships can pass over the bridge without the need to demolish parts of it.
Bharath, the problem is that the decision whether to pull down anything or not is subjective. There are world bodies which decide heritage structures as well. One thing is for sure, where the Ram Sethu is concerned, no world body is going to tell us to preserve it! Its totally an internal matter and I feel the decision should be made by taking into account the sentiments of the majority as well as environmental issues.
J. Barua, although you are for the project, it is good to hear that you do not believe in rough shodding over people’s sentiment.
Amit, thanks for the link.
And by that time we will have lost some land too!
Amit,
I strongly second your proposal to wait for a few years, and let global warming take care of things. It will also send the Ram bhaktas a strong signal that what THEIR lord giveth, another (Mlechchha) lord can take away.
Just a thought..
Global warming is b’coz we are going against nature.. or b’coz of the “CHANGE” which we are expecting to happen.. or God/Karma factor on our evil deeds.. or may be some other factor involved..
Science is too naive..
For all those who wrtie about Hinduism being beackwared: if you got the guts, make the same statement about:
1. Catholicism: Virgin Mary, starts it!
2. Judaism: They parted the Red Sea!
3. Islam….dont even think of saying it….!
So, freak out on the one religion which does not even protest its desecretion.
The “secular” (the right word is…pseudo-secular) Indian government was the first to ban any thing that hurt Muslims (radical groups representing them feel they have a right to kill anyone, but no one can even be allowed to investigate!) sentiments ( ask Taslima Nasreen and the Hyderabadi jehadis), or Christian sentiment, cannot wait to state that Hinduism is a buch of hooey! I guess, if Hindus themselves are so foolish that they dont value their own culture, then what can we do?
@Nita:
My point was not whether or not Pakistanis wanted Shariah. I had specifically used the term “if”. My point is that it is wrong to insist that the majority should always get what it wants. Because the majority is not always right, and the majority is not always considerate of the rights of the minorities. I do not agree with this principle of “we cannot do X because the majority is against it”, unless X actually causes problems to someone. “Hurt sentiments” shouldn’t count as problems here. That is downright childish.
Equal treatment? Appeasing all and appeasing none are both equal treatment. Which is better? Which leads to lesser conflict? Which leads to greater freedom? I think it is appeasing none.
@ B Chopra: Do you know of a British building that is a natural formation? Do you know of a British building that is in the way of a development project? I don’t understand this tit-for-tat logic.
Sorry Phani, disagree with you entirely when you say that one should not think of majority sentiment! I guess that is because I believe (maybe wrongly) that the majority of human beings are good and yes, sensible.
I guess that is why democracy has worked so far. It takes time ofcourse for people to become aware of things and the method is to create awareness, not bully them. If they cannot be convinced, the country is not ready…but that does not mean that it will never be ready. democracy and carrying the people with you works in the long run. I am talking of working, not whether it is right or wrong.
Frankly I think the idea that we should bully the majority because the intellectual minority knows they are right is childish. To my mind, a mature mind will want to use all methods of convincing the other before embarking on something that is known to disturb a lot of people.
I am not referring to mob mentality ofcourse….because mobs have a tendency to take on a life of their own. The majority of people may be average, but I do not think they are stupid or childish.
You say hurt sentiments should not be counted as a problem even if they are of the majority…I find that quite unpalatable. Though I realise that a lot of people believe this. Is this how intellectuals think? I guess I am an aam aadmi then. An ordinary woman of the masses.
Phani,
I gave that comment to see your response.. I am sorry It’s not Tit-for -Tat logic.. I hate it.. I love those buildings.. They are precious.. Govt. should try best possible to keep them as long as they can..
Ramasethoo is precious too.. Govt. should give respect to the sentiments attached to it.. It should work hard on alternatives.. and also see if it’s really good Businesswise…
If it’s gonna be damn good project and more important than our sentiments.. then go ahead.. vanish it !!
Religion shouldn’t come in the path of progress, and also there is no confirmed evidence to show that the bridge is man-made. The religious groups have come with various logic as proof , but none of these is confirmed.
What should be done is, the site should be excavated to find whether the bridge is real or not, if real it should be left alone.
Nita, I think the minorities always(across the world) feel threatened and what the so called secular parties do (or trying to do) is to give them the comfort that they are safe. Probably, that ‘comfort’ is being interpreted as ‘appeasement’? btw, I belong to the ‘minority’ group within the ‘majority’ who would support ‘appeasement’ for the simple reason, the appeasement also helps the majority to remain as ‘majority’ with all its castes, subcastes etc etc. Is it true that Ravana represents the South of Vindhyas and Rama the superior North?
Vish,
You ask: “Is it true that Ravana represents the South of Vindhyas and Rama the superior North?”
Since we are now in the realm of faith, not fact, it does not really matter. What matters is that if the north-of-the-Vindhyas imperialists are against him then we are for him. “An enemy’s enemy is a friend.”
Also, all the main characters in the Ramayana come across as crashing, unidimensional bores, with the exception of Ravana. So I have no problem whatever with adopting Ravana as “our guy” and letting the cow-belt-walas keep “their” hero.
Ignomus, I think the scientists have already spoken
But the environmentalists are against it. So, now it has become a question of faith and the environment on one side and science and economic development on the other.
Vish, yes I understand what Phani meant by appeasement and what you mean too. Frankly I am not for appeasement in the sense of ‘comfort’ but yes I am for appeasement in its meaning of providing equal opportunities for all. This means truly equal. I assume you are talking of caste reservations, and I believe they should be be given on an economic basis and that too not at very high professionals levels, like medicine. But there could be reservation at undergraduate level. Also, each and every elite school should have a 5-10 percent quota, with full scholarships (including cost of uniform etc) for those who are economically backward.
but ‘comfort’ in the name of religion or caste does become appeasement.
Specially if it is done for political gains and without balancing the pros and the cons.
This particular case, in my opinion, is not that of ‘appeasement’ but of respect for people’s sentiments and respect for religious sentiments. All religions should have their beliefs respected…you see this is not just a temple across the road, it tends to be something of much deeper significance. If one looks at the pros (development) and the cons (environmental issues plus people’s faith) to me at least the odds are weighted in favour of not going ahead at this time. If people are given ‘comfort’ for minor things without weighing the pros and cons, it can be called appeasement (which I am against), and if the government does the opposite and acts on something against a particular community’s faith, again without weighing the pros and cons, it is the opposite of appeasement…it is acting like a bully.
Ofcourse whether a particular action is ‘appeasement’ and ‘comfort’ can indeed be a subjective decision…so there wil be those who can argue that the proposed Ram Sethu bridge is an ecologically and economically sound idea, but I certainly highly doubt the ecological angle. If it was ecologically sound, the government would certainly be on a better footing and would find it easier to convince people to put aside their faith. The latter is a very big thing they are asking and the reason has to be sound.
For example if people were told it was a matter of life and death, I am sure they will quickly put their faith aside. Or even if they were told that this is crucial to winning a war, they would put their faith aside. Or even if they were told that there are absolutely no alternatives, they might put their faith aside. Or if they were told that without this bridge in this exact place, India will never develop, they might put their faith aside. If they were told that this bridge is essential to India’s progress because of this, this, and this…they might start to think about it…
do you the government has even tried? Ofcourse not, they want to push it through and the attitude (reflected in the insensitive affidavit) is let the people’s faith go to hell.
@Nita:
Of course, I don’t believe we should have a system in which the minority tramples on the rights of the majority (because that is simply impractical – there is no way to make that work, although I wish there were).
What I was trying to say is that if someone wants to oppose something, they must point out how exactly it hurts them (or someone else). Emotional hurt is an unacceptable reason (barring personal psychological trauma), because that will stop nowhere. Don’t people feel emotionally hurt when they see society adopting moral standards that they don’t agree with? Is that good enough reason to stop it, then?
I have long lost faith in the idea that the majority is usually right. I suspect very strongly that the majority is usually wrong. The intellectuals, people who know stuff and are good at reasoning it out, the people who have the courage and honesty to look at matters in an unbiased manner are always in a minority. Hence the majority, I think, is usually wrong. Especially when it comes to emotional issues.
The reason I support democracy then is that
a) It offers accountability. Look at all the ostensibly communist societies – they have at one point or another degenerated into dictatorships. In a democracy, there’s only so much you can get away with. Because people are watching, and if you try to cheat them, you might get caught sooner or later. Of course, it’s more complicated than that and some democracies are less corrupt than others, but we see more instability, more oppression and more corruption in socities that are not democratic.
b) It is usually hard to impose your will on people. If you must get your way, it is not possible to simply do that by scaring people. You must brainwash them, control the media. And if you crack down on the media, you silence all your critics, including those who are right.
The point I was trying to make then is, that people should follow certain principles when participating in a democracy. And one if these principles is that you can’t oppose something simply because you don’t *like* it. *That* is childish. You must explain how it hurts you or someone else. Of course, I can’t *impose* this on people, but I’m suggesting to people that they follow it, because it will reduce conflict and increase freedom.
For example, I don’t like slums. Is that enough reason to demolish it? I must explain how it hurts my interests to have slums around, and why my interests are supposedly greater than that of the slum dwellers.
Btw, Vir Sanghvi presents some very convincing arguments here:
hindustan times
The two most important points, IMHO, are:
a) Hinduism need not be interpreted literally. The philosophies of the Ramayana, Mahabharatha or Gita are more important than the story, which might actually just be a format to present these points of view. By insisting that the Ramayana be interpreted literally, you might actually be *hurting* Hinduism.
b) Appeasement is a slippery slope. I know this didn’t start with Hindus (and I think that was wrong as well), but if we give in now, we’ll have to put up with this for ages.
@ Blahnik: Arguing that the Ramayana is not literally true is not the same as saying that Hinduism is a bunch of hooey. In fact, arguing that the Ramayana is literally true makes Hinduism look a lot more silly than arguing that it is the philosophies of Hinduism that matter more than the stories used to present them. Please read the Vir Sanghvi article on this. And since you like it so much, I’ll say it:
I think a virgin could never have given birth to Jesus, or anyone.
I don’t believe Moses literally parted the red sea.
I can’t believe that “angels” handed the Koran to Mohammed.
Do you want me to finish it?
@ B Chopra: Still doesn’t answer my question. What reason do we have to demolish the British structures? Assuming the canal is not environmentally dangerous and is economically useful (it is hardly the case that I think either condition is satisfied, but since we are arguing about the “sentimental” aspect here), are the sentiments of Hindus more important than the economic develpoment of the country? Remember, economic development doesn’t simply mean more money for businessmen, they also mean more jobs.
Anyhoo, Livemint.com has a series of articles on why the whole project is a stupid idea:
livemint.com
And since so many of concerned with the desecration of a holy place, are we half as concerned about the desecration of the Ganga? Does anyone even care anymore? Nope, not when you can’t draw comparisions with the minorites and complain about how you are taken for granted because Muslims men can treat their wives worse than us. Not when you can’t feel bad for yourself, right?
Please see through the manipulation of the Right, and how they are actually *hurting* Hinduism, not protecting it.
@Vivek: Please stop this North-South argument. We are one country. I have North Indian friends who feel that Ravan is usually portrayed unfairly, and I have seen South Indian movies about Ram-Bhakts.
And Cow-belt-walas is a most ironic term to talk about “us” and “them”. “Wallah” is a word we have borrowed from the North.
And what do you mean by “north-of-the-Vindhyas imperialists”? What have they done? I live in the South. I *am* from the South. Are people more poor in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu than in Jharkhand and Bihar? Do we not have the same rights under the constitution? Do fewer of us vote?
Gosh, we Indians are such idiots! We keep fighting over everything – North/South, religion, language, caste… when will it stop? How are we supposed to make an effing democracy work if we keep fighting over these things?
Phani, Vir Sanghvi happens to be one writer whom I think is awfully arrogant!
However this article of his is a good analysis although his premise:
is an erronous and narrowminded one and typical of those people who use generalities to prove their argument. Arrogant people often do that.
Each case has to be taken on it’s merit. That is a sensible, common-sense approach that any thinking person should take!
@Nita:
Heh. I actually think he’s right. Imagine laws in the USA that mandate that creationism be taught by law in schools and universities. Such laws are actually in effect in such countries as Malaysia, and of all places, Turkey! Imagine that! Don’t you find it silly? Why cannot this argument be applied to Hinduism?
Phani, there is a post on my blog ( http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2006/11/02/are-south-indians-superior-to-north-indians/ )
and while I do not subscribe to all the arguments there, I think that is where Vivek is coming from.
We can respect his views can’t we?
@Nita:
I can’t respect every point of view. What I can respect is the *right to state* one’s point of view. That however, does not mean I can’t criticise or ridicule that point of view.
I read that post of yours. I think we Indians have an overactive imagination in general. I think the reason Hindi was made national language was because we need to have one language in common. While I’m not sure I agree with the choice of the language, I don’t think the intention of the North was to “impose” anything on us.
As far culture goes, I don’t think it has been “imposed” on us. We *chose* to eat their food. We *chose* to watch their television. We *chose* to watch Bollywood movies, because we found them fun. Just the fact I use the terms “we” and “their” makes me cringe.
My mother tongue is Telugu, but in general I enjoy Hindi movies more than Telugu or South Indian movies, and enjoy English movies more than Hindi movies.
I cannot think of myself as “North Indian” or “South Indian” anymore. I like South Indian food as well as North Indian food. I *love* old Hindi songs and cannot think of them as coming from a “foreign” culture. This whole attempt to segregate us into “North” and “South” is silly, and I feel more Indian than I feel Northern or Southern. Anyway, we live in an age when cultural identities are blurring very fast.
I haven’t seen that report you mentioned, but I don’t agree with the assertion that one part of India is more conservative than another. That’s like saying that one species of ant is smaller than another.
As far as stereotypes go, everyone has stereotypes of every one. Bollywood doesn’t just have stereotypes for Southies. Look at how Sardars, Anglo-Indians, Christians and homosexuals are portrayed by Bollywood. In South Indian movies I’ve seen stereotypes of Pathans. I’ve seen token Muslim characters. It is natural for one culture to stereotype another. That doesn’t make it right, but please let us not fool ourselves into thinking that “they” are the only ones who
do it.
Phani, although I may not agree with all your points, it is nice to have you commenting here. Someone with strong beliefs and c clear way of putting them across. You almost convinced me…but not quite…
Thanks for taking the time to share your views. I appreciate it.
I will appreciate it all the more if you copy this comment on to the South India post. Its a different way of looking at it…with your permission, even I can do it…
whichever.
phani vk, you have put forth your views so clearly. I am from the south and I share your sentiment. Well done! Loved Vir Sanghvi’s article too!
vir sanghvi is very clever. he pretends to be fair by mentioning that the ramayana took place eons ago, but does not go a step further (which several articles on this topic have) which is that it is impossible to prove whether someone existed or did not exist that long ago.
which is what this issue is really about, that and the aspect of faith of millions. and if he imagines that there is no proof that people do not love Ram, I pity him.
Yes, the bridge being man- made or not can be proved, but certainly not the existence or non-existence of Ram. Nor can it be denied that millions in our country rever Ram. Today it came on tv that south indians are for this bridge because ram means nothing to them. I don’t know. I am a Maharashtrian, and I don’t care if he is a ‘north indian’ God.
‘Intellectuals’ like Sanghvi are so clever that they can twist the meaning of everything and worse, they pretend to give all sides, but omit important points.
He gave all sides of the issue, but his true arrogant and biased self came out clearly to me. Specially in the end when he denounces those who do not agree with him. its disgusting as he pretends to be the one who can interpret the Bhagwad Gita. He is no better than those whom he denounces.
How can he have a superior attitude and tell people that they should look at the ‘true’ meaning of hinduism? Who is he talking to? The millions of illiterate people in our country? He should first try to do something for their education first, instead of telling them, hey you are stupid and don’t know the true meaning of hinduism. And is he talking to the other millions of middle class people in our country who toil day and night for that piece of roof over their head, and need the security of God? The security of faith??
Ofcourse if he only means to address intellectuals and politicians, its fine.
I am talking about people. Real people, the millions of people who belong to this India. Our India. I love them all.
I just thank myself that we have dumb people ruling our country. These so-called intellellectual types will do more harm, as even though they may not rob, they will intellectually denounce everyone who does not agree with their views. It will be a case of from the frying pan into the fire.
@Nita: You can copy the comment to your post, sure.
On whether or not Ram existed: I don’t know if there is a historical figure on whom the Ramayana is based. But if you insist that the Ramayana is true in all its fantastical detail, the ten-headed Ravana and the army of monkeys, the Giant who nearly slept for a Hundred years, and the Pushpak Vimana, I can only call it superstition. To insist that an army of monkeys built a bridge that we would struggle to build today *is* superstition.
On millions believing/revering it: I think I already made it clear why that shouldn’t be a problem. If the majority of the people in this country believe that husbands should be allowed to beat their wives, would you support laws that allow that, lest we hurt the “sentiments” of those who believe that women are inferior?
If you can’t agree, let’s just agree to disagree and leave it that. I feel I’m talking to a wall.
On Vir Sanghvi: I don’t know what to make of your disgust with the man. The deepest of intellectual traditions in any religion are rarely available to the majority of the “followers” of that religion. That is also the case with Hinduism. The majority of Hindus may not know of these traditions of philosophy, but what do you think their reaction would be when they found out? Do you think it is right for the Hindu right to talk about desecration and blasphemy when such concepts may not even be relevant to Hinduism, let alone a secular democracy?
Who is Vir Sanghvi to interpret Hinduism? This is hardly just Vir Sanghvi’s point of view. I’ve been hearing these arguments since the day I was born. I almost never took the myths literally. I was never asked to.
Phani, I think when you said:
you are deliberately misinterpreting my comment.
If you read through my post carefully, and my comments, you will realise what I believe and what I don’t believe.
But then its typical for those who run out of arguments to put words in another’s mouth to ridicule them.
Fortunately, I do not believe in ridiculing those who do not agree with me.
I know I am talking to a wall too, but it doesn’t matter.
Please let me have my keep my view of Vir Sanghvi, you can have yours. I don’t see why it shoudl offend you.
I thought we had already agreed to disagree….let us now actually agree to disagree.
Indian government should unearth this bridge and place it in Kanyakumari or at the Vivekandanda Rock Memorial and make it a tourist attraction. I am sure UNESCO and the World Bank will be interested.
By this way, every one will be more interested in HINDU CULTURE and government can build the shipping lane.
We have to repeat what UNESCO did during the construction of Aswan High Dam, a huge rockfill dam which captures the world’s longest river, the Nile River.
Builders moved all the artifacts related to Egyptian civilization to higher ground before the dam was built.
Indian government should repeat what Egypt did.
Not a bad idea that!
But it remains to be seen how people will react to it!
The novel idea can surely be introduced, and though it may sound startling…people can be given something to think about!
@Nita: Just one clarification. I wasn’t talking about your beliefs. I was trying to say that there is nothing “erroneous” in Vir Sanghvi’s statement that the Ramayana is sheer mythology. And that there is nothing wrong in stating that those who interpret it literally are doing Hinduism a great disservice.
Honestly Nita, I don’t *need* to put words in your mouth to ridicule you. But then I’m not looking to ridicule you.
And no, you view of Vir Sanghvi doesn’t “offend” me. It simply bewilders me.
Dear indians,
RAM is real one south india also know that… but what about NASA pic. is it ture? … no .SETHU already demolised by sea water.now it’s not a proper bridge and the bridge is about 36 km the project only get 5 to 6 km so it’s not a problem.
Phani, (Nita sighs) your views do not bewilder me at all, as people tend to have differing viewpoints.
And why do you think that this post is about whether the Ramayana is mythology or not??
It is about not hurting the people’s sentiments. That is what we discussed earlier…and I thought we came to a sort of midway understanding of what each other was saying.
And if I read Vir Sanghvi correctly, he is saying people’s sentiments do not matter, and in that case, I have no respect for him. Ofcourse he has said it indirectly. That only the intellectual and spiritual meaning of Hinduism should be taken into account and the rest is all petty. I find it disgusting – to mock people’s beliefs. Ordinary simple folk.
And please do not assume that I practice Hinduism. Because I don’t – but that does not mean that I look down on those who do…or sneer at their interpretation of it.
Perhaps Mr. Sanghvi should hold classes on the spiritual meaning of Hinduism in the villages.
phani, allow me to add a comment.
If one looks at a figure and comes up with the conclusion that it is “6″ and then meets another person who says that it is “9″ (because the second person had looked at the same figure from a different place), there’s bound to be some bewilderment. Both are right from the place where they look at the figure. Unless and until both people exchange their places to look at the figure, there’s bound to be disagreement. I’m talking about points-of-view here, not certain facts.
Do ASI has got enough materials and scientific support to coin the sentence as given in the Affidavit. Leave ASI, Even the Government of India do not have enough data to make proper decisions (just take the case of reservations).
ASI is just making an assumption. ASI will not be able to give a proper answer if you ask them how many Hindu temples were there 1000 years ago and how many of them still remain as Hindu places of worship. They won’t give an answer.
Gosh Nita, I wasn’t talking about your post! I was talking about your views on Vir Sanghvi.
I don’t see where I came to a mid-way agreement with you.
Why is it wrong to mock people’s views? Mocking is a form of criticism. Nobody objects when you mock a point of view that has nothing to do with religion. Why does religion have this special exempt status? Why cannot we criticise religion?
Also, why are people’s sentiments hurt when their views are criticised or mocked? Is that not an immature reaction?
Or are you saying that you may believe what you believe, but please keep it yourself? Because that is hypocrisy.
I am sick and tired of this “hurting people’s sentiments” thing. It begins with religion today. Tommorrow it will be movie stars and political figures. Soon we won’t be able to criticise anything or anyone.
I don’t agree with your interpretation of Vir Sanghvi’s article. He does not mock Hinduism. Far from it. What he is saying is that Hinduism is being deliberately misinterpreted for political purposes, and that ordinary people are being fooled.
Let me ask you something: would you be as concerned if the number of people who believed in the literal interpretation of the Ramayana were not in their millions, but in their hundreds?
Do you believe it is all right to criticise Sai Baba, and call him a fraud? Because he has thousands, perhaps millions of followers. And if he is criticised, their “sentiments” will be hurt. Where do we draw the line?
@Amit: That is funny. Both cannot be right. Somebody wrote that number down. It had to be a six or a nine.
I see where this “let’s not piss each other off” philosophy comes from. I believed in it for a long time. But now I think it only results in a fragile peace, and keeps us immature as a people, as a culture. It is time to grow up.
Phani, my concern in this post is Vir S’s view on this particular issue. And I have already stated what I think of it. And no I don’t think ordinary people are being fooled.
And when you say:
//Or are you saying that you may believe what you believe, but please keep it yourself? Because that is hypocrisy//
I don’t know what you talking about.
Look, please stop making personal remarks, you have made several and each time I have countered it, and then you say you never meant it like that.
Well, whether you mean it or not, enough is enough.
If you don’t understand that there is a way of stating a viewpoint without becoming mocking, or without making personal remarks, then this discussion should stop.
And ofcourse I am against insulting other peoples’ faith. If you don’t understand why, I can’t help. The word is insult, not criticize. Yes one can gently criticize, but if you cannot understand why it should be gentle, I can’t help. .
You have also brought in a lot of issues into this, like Sai Baba etecetra, but as I said earlier in the post, each issue has to be taken differently.
When I write a post on Sai Baba, then you will find out my views on that if care to and if you care to.
And when the supporters of Rama dwindle to hundreds, I will write another post…
Life is not black and white Phani, its all shades of grey.
If you want to quarrel, this is not the place.
This is a place for discussion, a discussion where people keep a ‘fragile’ peace. The only way to have a meaningful discussion.
And you are right, we did not come to any sort of agreement…it was immature on my part to think so.
What a non-issue! It’s laughable that millions of Indians believe so ardently in a wimpy “ideal man” and his army of bridge-building pet monkeys. When will we grow up and learn to treat fairy tales as fairy tales?
From what I’ve read in various versions of the Ramayana, Ram doesn’t exactly shine as a particularly ennobling specimen of mankind. Why shouldn’t I say what I feel? If it pisses believers off, maybe they secretly feel there’s some truth in it after all. Ram wasn’t half the man Ravan was. (And that’s Valmiki’s opinion, not mine.)
It’s a problem with *all* religions and cults — there’s nothing that proves one is in any way better than others. Which explains all the ranting and raving. It would have been comical if it didn’t have such tragic after-effects.
Hari Menon,
I like the expression “wimpy ‘ideal man’!”. And kudos to you for your second para, though i don’t know if Valmiki had really such a low opinion of his hero. I mean he would not expend so much effort versifying his glories if he thought the guy was like that.
Nita, I am not here to quarrel. I don’t have the patience for something like that. I am here only because I thought it might be possible to convince some people. This somewhat subtle difference between “argument” and “discussion” is lost on me.
Look, I am not going to pay any attention to how my statements make people feel. I am not going to sugarcoat my words. I am not calling anybody names here. I am just stating my point of view. If you don’t like that, fine, I will leave.
Where have I made personal remarks? I don’t know what you are talking about.
About that portion you highlighted: If A does not believe in theory M, and is asked about his/her opinion on the subject, it is not wrong to say that he/she does not believe in M. If he/she says he/she believes in M, they are being hypocritical. If I do not believe in Rama, I should say it. I should not be afraid of people being angry with me or “hurting sentiments”.
I have not made any assumptions about your beliefs about Sai Baba or any other Baba. All I am asking you is if it wrong to criticise them. You may take up each case on its merits, but there are certain common principles that apply to all cases. If it is OK to say that Sai Baba is a fraud, it should also be OK to say that the Ramayana is a fairy tale. Faith should not be beyong criticism.
On insult/criticism: Please! There is a very blurred line between the two! What did ASI say? It did not say “the Ramayana is a rubbish fairy tale” (which would be an insult). It only said that it cannot be said with certainity that the events mentioned in the Ramayana have actually taken place. And that itself is being treated as an insult.
And you know as well as me that this philosophy of “gentle criticism” applies only to religion. Why? Because we are afraid of riots. So does leaving religion alone prevent riots? Far from it. It makes the followers of religion more touchy. As I see it, the ASI tried very hard not to piss people off. It didn’t work. Because people are so touchy.
Vir Sanghvi simply said that the Ramayana is not to be interpreted literally. Is that an insult? Or a criticism? Or simply a point of view?
A healthy debate is good but pulling someone just because you can doesn’t solve a crisis. To solve this problem:
1) We need to do a Cost-benefit analysis. Whether doing a project sizing multiple billions will be economically viable?
2) We need to look at the environmental angle. What will happen to the coral life and sea environment in general after the project is taken forward?
3) We need to consider the international issues. The disputes that it can cause over borders, security, resources and many others.
4) Lastly, we also needs to check whether the “structure” is a “man-made” one or natural. Believer or non-believer, it will go a long way in creating an environment of trust in the whole of Indian masses.
Ranjeet Rain
Thanks Ranjeet for that very balanced comment.
The problem is that people think they can be as rude as they want on the net.
When you don’t see someone’s face, it is easy to throw insults at them and insult their faith.
I behave with people on the internet as I do with people in real life. Politely.
but then, generally people who insult others on the net, are probably unwilling in real life to engage in debate, so sure are they of their viewpoint. But it is easier here for them, they can insult and be as rude as they want. Not only can they not see the person, the person is a stranger. Always easier to insult a stranger rather than a colleague at work, your loved one or your good friend. There are no consequences you see…you can go happily to bed at night, happy that you have vented your anger on someone whom you will never meet. It’s satisfying I guess.
Also, rude remarks and insults to other people’s faiths simply stem the flow of debate. A person reading something very insulting about his faith can react in two ways: he either gets inflamed or he simply sneers and goes away.
People also reveal themselves through their comments…anyone calling another faith rubbish is seen in a different light.
Generally even non-believers avoid insulting another’s faith to his or her face. and that is what i am talking about. telling a person to his face that what he believes in is all rubbish could initiate a fight or heated argument in real life…but here on the internet, this may not happen.
Also, there are some unwritten rules of the internet, which many people either don’t know or don’t care about…
Anyway, this is quite off-topic…
p.s
the reason why amit varma of india uncut disabled all comments was because of impolite comments which he was too busy to answer. even now i am finding that every 1-2 days i get a flamer on my blog, and it is time-consuming to answer all personal comments. Mostly I delete their comments…the really bad ones. I simply cannot understand why people have to get personal!
Already I am finding it difficult to answer rude comments and at times I simply ignore them, because all that the person wants is attention.
Here is the link from India Uncut about why Amit disabled comments: No Comments
I don’t want to ever do that as I enjoy the discourse with 99 percent of my commentators who have become my internet friends. If I have to disable comments I might as well shut down my blog…
So keep the comments coming!!
Nita,
Thanks for that link. I blogrolled him instantly!
As far as this exhausting comment thread went, I have this to say:
VERY interesting points. Phani made some telling points but was brusque and pissed you off. There was a lot of merit in what he had to say, though.
I have an open comment policy suggestion: why not let it all hang out? If there is something obnoxious, you could delete it later. Moderating comments in a busy blog like yours must be a drag on your time!
Actually, I have changed my comment policy slightly and have put certain words in my moderation box which will automatically make the comment get into moderation!
Actually Phani (I think its a girl) did make some good points, but that is not the point…I love to engage in debate! And I prefer it if that person at least tries to see my point of view and I felt she did to some extent (note her comment on democracy) but she got personal.
Actually I don’t actually ‘moderate’ as such. 99.9 percent of my comment go thru as they are, and the abnoxious ones I delete! What is actually time consuming is answering the ‘middle’ ones like Phani’s which are exhaustingly argumentative!
And while I did have than hang out policy at first, I don’t have it now… I get some comments with a sexual overtone. Actually its a known fact on the internet that women tend to get harassed more. There was a case of a very successful tech woman blogger who finally closed down her blog! If that can happen in the US, you can imagine what can happen here! Generally if a woman’s blog becomes popular (as in the case i mentioned) she can become a target.
Btw, I am a very mild person in real life…a person who finds it difficult to answer back. very liberal thinking and on an equal footing with my kids, yes even when they were 9 or 10!
The problem is when I meet nasty people, I can’t handle them…although the internet has taught me how to! I can become nasty now…but I hate it!!
Just think how women in general are harassed in India, and then think of a blog run by a woman who writes abotu sensitive issues, and you have some freaks who reveal themselves!
There was a time when I even thought of shutting down my blog…
@ Ed Viswanathan
you cant mount it and keep it in a museum. it’s an entire ecosystem you are talking about.
I think Sonia Gandhi is true daughter of Mahatma Gandhi, she understood what he dreamed Rom Rajya.. ahaa sure she is making that one a reality.. now onwards we will live in ROM Rajya…
…
… Hey Rom…
Who has rights to speak?
North Indians not have rights to speak about Sethsamudram project. Because this project only for south India. Who are benefiting this project in the coastal line?
What is religious?
India has only one religion / holy book after independence that is democracy /constitution of India. It gave us, freedom of speech so one can say any anti-religious and anti-government and any thing. If Nita and other don’t like Tamil’s anti religious comments ignore them don’t make argument!!. 4 Tamils die because you and other Media’s….they need viewers and rating only not about life and society.
What is Hinduism?
RAM, kaali maa and countless Hindu characters and stories are not GOD.
Lord Krishna (Hindu character) said Darma sasthram (10 duties of Human) in Mahabharata. If you follow this you are Hindu. This is same to all religious (how to live as human) like Islam, Buddhism.etc… Man made these Gods….
FAQ?
Are this Adam’s bridge around Mumbai (Mumbai not able to access world ports?). Are this north Indians save the bridge??????
Indian needs food and education! If he got it, he will thing about GOD, CASTE. But he not get “food is GOD and all…” In South India food and development is GOD. This Hindu tactics only in North India
“In India 300 million people going to bed without food”
“650 million people without toilet”
When educated north Indians will come out off religious politics?
How many of our so called religious people like Mr L.K Advani have come on a pilgrimage to the so called Adams bridge ?? The buffoons dont realise that this project is not going to change history in any way.
Lets get Advaniji and whoever to come n take a small trip across the so called sacred area. Suddenly when development plans co0me up they get sentimental over what. What do they want there ??
STOP RETARDING PROGRESS IN THE NAME OF RELIGION !
I don’t know how can people who are totally not related to this project comment on it. This is a project which will prove beneficial to Tamils and India as a whole when completed. First and foremost majority Tamils do not consider Ram as a god. If anyone wants to disagree with me then they should provide me a list of Ram temples in my state. The no of Saivaite (those dedicated to Shiva , Murugan , Amman ) temples far outnumber even those dedicated to Ram. We see Ram as a fair skinned Aryan .(Like it or not the Aryan invasion theory is no myth. If you want further proofs please read the works of Iravatham Mahadevan and what he has to say about Indus valley civilization
harappa.com
So that leads me to the question why should we Tamils care about someone who is totally not related to us and hwo has infact waged war against us. ‘Us’ refers to the dark skinned dravidians who are portrayed us Asuras in the epic.
People in the scientific world agree that modern human beings evolved into their current form only about 200,000 years. And that structure which lies in the Indian ocean is about 1.75 million years old . So how can one tie both these things together. The oldest evidence of human fossil is just 130,000 years.
Now regarding Ram, if Ram is a god why did he have to wage a war against ravana? He could have killed him in the first place when he tried to abduct Sita. This proves that Ram is just an ordinary mortal.
Why didn’t he use boats . Many tamils in Srilanka use boats to reach the shores of Tamilnadu to seek refugee status. Many pioneering explorers used ships and boats to navigate the seas to taken them to places hitherto unknown. He could have used this cheap time saving , labor saving mode of transport . Why didn’t he?
Why did he suspect Sita?
Who were the Vanaras ? How could have they co existed with modern man? Between these tow what was the mode of communication? writing ? speech ? sign language?
Who were the Asuras ? Where did they all go? Surely when Ram defeated Ravan and made Vibheeshana as the king , they could have not vanished into thin air. Why were they spared ? They are Asuras right ? They should have been killed along with Ravana . So either Vibheeshan is made the king of a country without any inhabitants or the present day people who live in Srilanka and down south are the Asuras. This clearly proves that Ram- Ravan face off is nothing but mere fight between an Aryan king and a Dravidian king. To all those detractors who decry Aryan invasion theory please go through some the following link
hinduonnet article
Finally if it were a very vital project to Mumbai residents and if it were to boost the economy of Maharashtra several times and say an archaic structure (totally unrelated to Mumbaities and Marathis say a Murugan temple ) stood in its way would Nita be writing such an article ? I want a very honest answer.
This project is very vital to us Tamils. It will lead to the development of ports in my state.
Actually we are fooling ourselves into believing that human race is just one species . People are different genetically . Why man who has successfully categorized animals into different species failed to do the same with himself. For example we have different species of snakes. They may minor variations but still they are put into different species. A Bengal tiger may resemble a Sumatran tiger but they are different species of tigers. A saw scaled viper and a Russel’s viper may appear to be the same to an untrained eye but nevertheless they are two different species. So how long are we going to fool around with the idea that people in the Indian subcontinent belong to the same category. The difference is for everyone to see . The tamils are generally dark and the punjabis are essentially fair. It is so plain. My argument is not totally out of context. It lends weight to my argument that Ram-Ravan fight was merely a fight betwen two different tribes.
Sundar,
While I do not agree with you on some basic points (e.g. that Rama was fair-skinned — there is enough literary evidence to assert that, like Krishna, he was dark-skinned), I am very grateful to you for bringing back Iravatham Mahadevan within the range of my radar, after a gap of nearly 15 years. He is, as far as I am aware, the only Indian scholar of Harappan civilisation who has done meaningful work on the approaches (and their limitations) to deciphering the Indus script, eschewing all hype and nonsense.
It is good to know he is still actively focusing on the subject. In his own quiet way, without casting any stones, he underscores the futility of the claims of most other scholars (right from the early 20th c.) who claim to have “solved” the enigma of the script.
we really need to stand strong together on this one and not let this slide as well
I do wonder how can people dare to make statements like these and get away? Is it because Hindus do not try to convert unsuspecting poor souls into changing their religion? Or is it because we never killed and killed in the name of God (the so called holy crusades) or is it because we have become to casual towards this faith which doesn’t make you a sinner if you do not make a weekly visit?
jagobharat.com
Vishal, yes I think in a way it is the greatness of Hinduism that we allow such strong statements against the religion! However I agree with you that it isn’t right for anyone to hurt anyone’s religious sentiments – Nita.
Agarwal,
// … we never killed and killed in the name of God … //
Really? So who were the murderers at Ayodhya and in the fallout of Godhra. Unless you are saying that they were NOT doing it in the name of God … in which case, of course, I entirely agree with you.
There is lot of information available on the net . But most of them fail to approach the issue with a rational mind. Here are few links which I feel every opposer to the Ram Sethu channel should have a look at
suvratk.blogspot.com
The writer is a geologist and he bullshits many fictitious theories that are floating around
One more article by the same author
suvratk.blogspot.com.adams bridge
And here is another person who has dealt with it in depth > actually he has written series of articles related to it
sujaiblog/sethusamudran project
Sundar,
Possibly I am soft-headed, but I don’t quite get your point when you say, of Suvrat K:
//The writer is a geologist and he bullshits many fictitious theories that are floating around//.
I In terms of substance I do not find much difference between Suvrat and Sujai. It’s only their style that is different. I find both of them far more acceptable than the likes of Murali Manohar Joshi (allegedly a physicist) and B B Lal.
This is no different than the earliest Christians who believed
that earth was flat and it was also the center of the universe.
How do you define a bridge? What objective evidence have
you gathered to justify that it was indeed a bridge created
during Rama’s time. Any carbon dating proof etc ?
What is the proven timeline of the story of Ramayan. I
believe it has been re-written a few times – By Balmiki, By Goswami Tulsidas, revised and re-written at the request of
some prominent Hindu King Vikrmaditya.
Times have changed – the old stories do not always please
the present day individuals.
If its strictly a matter of faith then do not worry about any scientific evidence and believe in whatever you wish to
believe in – Like God & soul.
Surely Ram Sethu bridge is for political reasons only. If the Govt is keen in India’s development, it may taken a decision to develop a big harbour in Trivandrum. Infact Trivandrum by itself is a natural port. It needs not much of dredging. It can be done with a minimal cost as compared to Tuticorin.
Only in this, a large amount is involved. This scheme may be a jackpot for much of the ruling politicians. In my view, this is the only reason why do ruling politicians have a great interest in this. But surely, this is not for nation development.
Aravindan,
WOW!! Good point.. why to go beyond Trivandrum!!! If govt. really wanna save money why they are spending so much simply (min. 25 years for breakeven) and scrapping faith of so many!!!
Bharath
Vivek Khadpekar,
I also appeal to the Ram Bhaktas, that while you have every right to state your beliefs, please do not bring in untenable arguments such as the age of the Ramayana — and, by extension, the Hanuman Setu — being 17 lakh (or is it 19 lakh) years. It flies in the face of all logic dictated by sciece, whether in terms of evolution or of geology. Even among the members of the Hindutva brigade, the more moderate voices have either not commented at all on this argument or have conceded that it is far-fetched.
When you make this comment, you make a pre-assumption that the Judeo-Christian time model as scientific vs. the Hindu time model as ascientific. The Hindu time model is more accurate in scientific terms (provided there is evidences), versus the Judeo-Christian model that is used by the scientific community today. There is nothing scientific in the linier time model that is adapted by science today.
There are a lot of works and researches done for more then a century on the evolution theory by the scientists, but yet till today, they had not found any scientific evidence to prove the THEORY! This model is used to “rationalize” many physical phenomenons, but it is all based on many contradicting theories which scientists do debate all the while. What we see today are the blind followers of scientific theories who assume everything as fact. They hijack science to fulfill their personal interest and enforce their beliefs on others.
Then why question the Hindus about our time model, which spans in yugas, by calling it a myth while endorsing the scientific myth? Do you know that, this linier model still poses many limitations and irrational in many ways? If you want to really talk about rational perceptive, then I assure you that the Hindu time model is more scientific and answers more questions in logical way. Thus it prompted 2 scientists in NASA in year 2002 to suggest a cyclical time model as an alternative to the Judeo-Christian linier time model. However it will take a great upheaval to change the current scientific paradigm as it was when Newton theory was challenged.
Therefore, don’t look at this issue from the perspective of science vs. faith (religion) perspective. There is nothing scientific here. Also we must understand that the archeological means used by the current scientific community is limited in many ways. They can hardly say for sure of anything beyond 5000 years. Thus they came up with many theories to support their research and at the same time, there are many theories build on top of other theories. One of the great blunders created by such theory is the Aryan Invasion theory (created by foreigners to discredit Indian origin) which also make payment to a pseudo-identity called “Dravidian”. It has no scientific proof yet due to this ignorant theory and blind faith by many ideological groups, it has given way to many intolerant dogmas from Nazism to Dravidian racist supposition.
True scientists will not base their arguments standing on theories and the worst part is when these theories are hijacked by ideological fanatics to impose and further their own agenda.
Ram Sethu is a matter of debate for all of us, becoz it involves a major factor of Secularism. Let me remind you all the matter of Ayodhya Issue .
India country of different cultures have a different religions, the sentiments of the people are a sensitive count,and must taken care of.
Development of Indian economy is a great deal ,of course the shipping business will be enhanced but there will be a great threat to Indian secularism,and should be taken care of by the efficient political and judicial work.
Ram sethu show the win of righteousness over the evils.
should not be destroyed just for the shake of development of trade between India and Srilanka.
In a country like India where i believe people are not totally secular ones,here we will have to consider the sentiment of the people and their religion .
I feel this issue which been raised is totally a political issue and have no relevance of it to the growth this only will lead to increase the communal tention between the Hindu &Muslims.
Can we think of the development of india if development is to be held hostage to mythology?No certainly not we can’t think of it so why to make this Ram sethu an issue . If the govt. is realy interested then they should search for the other available alternative they should not intensly hurt the sentiments of Hindus on this particular issue .
Sumit,
You have not understood what secularism means. India only needs dharma which has a more profound view of society and not secularism. Secularism excludes faiths and favors non-believers, thus it is not universal. Dharma on the other hand excludes none. It embraces in the co-existence of all in a non-violent way.
America for instance which proclaims itself to be a secular country, proudly declares its nationhood as a Judeo-Christian tradition. This is upholded by the law of this nation. It is neither following a Hindu tradition or a Muslim tradition! Remember historically America is not a Judeo-Christian country, but was the land belong to the native Americans.
What about India? What is the nationhood of India? It can’t be any other then Hindu tradition. If you remove Hindu tradition from India, it will become another copycat of Judeo-Christion or Islamic tradition. There can’t be a vacuum.
I don’t believe these non-science stories like monkeys constructed bridge etc. Sethu Samudram project improves traffic to Chennai, Cuddalore and Tuticorin harbors and generates surplus revenue to harbors and railways. So, I support that project. Infrastructural upgradation is more important than giving priority to those non-science beliefs. People who believe these beliefs can be let to believe them but stopping important infrastructural projects in the name of beliefs is not good.
Hi Nita,
Sorry I didn’t follow the thread after posting. Usually threads like this turn into a nightmare to read. But then, I guess that’s essence of blogging.
Btw, very good work here. Keep it up.
thanks! – Nita.