Rama Setu: Beating the dead horse, the ‘Aryan’ problem to politick
The subject is Rama Setu and the mid-ocean channel passage seeking to destroy the world heritage. The issue is sought to be diverted as an ‘aryan-dravidian’ divide, a favourite pastime of the last five decades of dravidian politics.
Smt. Kanimozhi the new kid on the DMK block (often mentioned as the candidate in waiting for the next central ministerial berth) seems to have resurrected the Dravidian-Aryan bogie. If so, she should realize that Antonia Maino (aka Sonia) is an Aryan (aka European) and hence, she has to posit ‘dravidian’ versus Antonia. The inherent contradiction in this attempt to re-discover the old winning formula for the ‘dravidian’ parties is clear that proxy enemies are sought to be identified instead of fighting it out with Antonia who withdrew the affidavit in the Supreme Court, fearing a backlash from the Congress vote bank if Rama and Ramayana are denied and who was reminded that Mahatma Gandhi (whose surname she tries to hijack) wanted Rama rajyam. Smt. Kanimozhi the poetess should have known that Kannagi [of the Tamil classic ‘S’ilappadikaaram’ of Jainamuni Ilango Adigal[, who is the embodiment of Tamil cultural tradition also prayed to Kotravai (Durga) and in the same classic, both Rama and Rama Setu are mentioned. So, just as Kannagi is part of Bharatiya tradition, Rama Setu is also part of Bharatiya tradition as a sacred tirthasthanam. It is unfortunate that even the younger generation politicians also indulge in rhetoric about ‘self-respect’ forgetting that our very identity is related to the traditions that Kannagi and Rama Setu represent. Maybe, it is time for this generation of politicians to re-read what Dr. Ambedkar had to say about the ‘Aryan theories’. Arya is simply another form of Tamil, ‘ayya’, a respectful way of addressing. Ravana and Rama are both addressed as ‘arya’ in the Ramayanam, the aadi kaavyam of Valmiki (who may not fit into the brahminical category mentioned by Smt. Kanimozhi). Namaskaram. kalyanaraman Kanimozhi rakes up Dravidian-Aryan controversy
Monday October 22 2007 04:04 IST EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE THOOTHUKUDI: The DMK seems to have reverted to its original policy of ‘Dravidian-Aryan’ controversy in its fight for the implementation of the Sethusamudram project.Rajya Sabha member Kanimozhi, at a welfare distribution function, organised by the Thoothukudi municipal administration here on Sunday, gave a clarion call for an organised fight against the ‘anti-Tamil groups’, who, according to her, were using Ramar Sethu issue against Periyarism.She charged that the Ramar Sethu row had been raked up by the people like Cho Ramaswamy, Subramania Swamy and Jayalalithaa and they all come from a Brahminical background.
Kanimozhi said the issue was neither against an individual nor the DMK and not even against the project itself, but clearly an attempt to strip off the selfrespect we had won after our 2000-year-long struggle.
“Therefore, we ought to reunite as an army against `that group’ to win this battle waged against us, urged Kanimozhi amidst thundering applause from the party cadres.
While distributing various welfare measures, Kanimozhi was all praise for the State Government, led by Chief Minister M Karunanidhi.
Enlisting the schemes like the maternity assistance and the enhanced noon meal scheme with the provision of three eggs per week, Kanimozhi pointed out that all these welfare measures were being implemented with a motherly concern.
She also added that despite being a State government, they were striving to ensure 27 percent reservation for backward class students in all the Central universities.
State Minister for Animal Husbandry P Geetha Jeevan, who also shared the dais with Kanimozhi, wanted the Rajya Sabha member to use her influence with the Union Civil Aviation Ministry to expedite the expansion of the runway at Thoothukudi airport.
Thoothukudi Collector R Palaniyandi presided over the function. http://tinyurl.com/39bjx7 See also: http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/22/stories/2007102256830300.htm (The Hindu, 22 Oct. 2007)úNÕ NØj§Wj §hPj§tÏ G§ol×: RªZoL°u ÑVU¬VôûRûV RLodÏm ØVt£}L²ùUô¯ çjÕdÏ¥, Ad. 21: úNÕ NØj§Wj §hPjûR G§olTYoLs RªZoL°u ÑVU¬VôûRûV RLodL ØVt£d¡u\]o G], L²ùUô¯ Gm.©. Oô«tßd¡ZûU ùR¬®jRôo. çjÕdÏ¥ SLWôh£ Nôo©p SXj§hP ER®Ls Utßm CXYN ÅhÓUû]l ThPô YZeÏm ®Zô®p £\l× ®Úk§]WôLd LXkÕ ùLôiÓ SXj§hP ER®Lû[ YZe¡ AYo úUÛm úT£VRôYÕ: Be¡úXVoLs YÚm úTôÕ ùNuû] £±V Áu©¥ ¡WôUUôLj Rôu CÚkRÕ. B]ôp, Õû\ØLm CÚlTRu LôWQUôL Cuß EXLúU ×LÝm A[ÜdÏ Y[okÕs[Õ. CeÏ Tu]ôhÓ ¨ßY]eLs úTôh¥ úTôhÓ ùRô¯p ùRôPeL YÚ¡u\]. úNÕ NØj§Wj §hPm ¨û\úY±]ôp çjÕdÏ¥úVôÓ UhÓm ¨uß®PôUp, AÕ NôokR AjRû]l TÏ§L°Ûm Uôt\m YÚm. SpX Ts°Ls, Lpí¬Ls, UÚjÕYUû]Ls YÚm, YôrdûLj RWúU Uôßm. WôUo ùTVûW, URj§u ùTVûW ùNôp# 150 BiÓ LôX L]Ü §hPjûR G§od¡u\]o. 150 BiÓL[ôL WôUo TôXm Guß Hu úTN®pûX. Ts°L°p áP BRmTôXm Guß Rôu T¥j§Úd¡ú\ôm. §¼ùW] 7 UôReL[ôL CÕ Tt± úTÑYÕ Hu? ARu úSôdLm Gu]? SpXôh£ SPj§d ùLôi¥dÏm §.Ø.L. Bh£ûV ãrf£ ùNnÕ L®rjÕ, ARu êXm BRôVm úRÓm úYûXRôu SPkÕ ùLôi¥Úd¡\Õ. UdLÞdÏ G§WôL GÝkÕs[ CkRf Nd§Lû[ G§odL Sôm A¦ §WiÓ úTôolTûPL[ôL §W[úYiÓm. úNÕ NØj§Wj §hPj§tÏ G§WôL úTÑm ù_VX#Rô, úNô, Ñl©WU¦VNôª B¡úVôWÕ ©u×Xm Gu] GuTÕ Aû]YÚdÏm ùR¬Ùm. ùT¬VôÚdÏ ©u]o Ød¡V TÏjR±Ü RûXYWôL ®[eÏm LÚQô¨§ûV G§ojÕRôu AjRû] BÙReLû[Ùm §Úl©Ùso. CkR G§ol× R²STÚdÏ G§Wô]úRô ApXÕ §.Ø.L. Gu\ AW£Vp Lh£dÏ G§Wô]úRô CpûX. RªZoL°u A¥lTûP RôoÁL E¬ûUûV, 2000 BiÓ úTôWô¥ ùTt\ ÑVU¬VôûRûV RLodÏm ØVt£Rôu. CkR UdLs ÁiÓm GÝkÕ ®ÓYôoLú[ô, E¬ûULû[ úLhÓ ®ÓYôoLú[ô Gu\ AfNj§p GÝm G§ol×Rôu CûY. CRû] Sôm Juß §WiÓ úTôWô¥ G§odL úYiÓm Gu\ôo L²ùUô¯.