Historicity of Rama and Rama Setu

November 11, 2007

HISTORY OF SRI RAM AND RAM SETHU

By OP Gupta

As per principles of good governance and obligations flowing from the Indian Penal Code, the government can choose only that alignment (when more than one alignments are on the table) which will cause the bare minimum loss of public lives in the wake of any disaster.
The public and courts are well within their rights to ask the UPA government whether the alignment selection in May 2005 was subjected to this acid test, or, not.
The panel number 13 of Maya civilisation shows a king sitting on throne, and one maid type woman with two children and one guard on the right side of throne, and three prince type persons standing on the left side of throne.
There are some alignments which do not involve any cutting across the Ram Sethu thus would pose no additional threat on account of future tsunamis to residents of the southern coast. Therefore, it is not understood why ignoring the renewed security concerns of public in the wake of the December 26, 2004 tsunami experience, the present alignment was selected which cuts across the Ram Sethu.

The UPA government has been consistently following anti-Hindu policies. On one hand, it has been zealously reducing bit by bit educational, employment and business opportunities of Hindu youth including those of OBC, SC & ST Hindus through the 15-Point Programme, the Sachar Committee and the Ranganath Mishra Commission; and, on the other hand, has attacked the foundation of Hindu faith by questioning the very historicity of Lord Ram through its affidavit in the Supreme Court of India in September 2007.
The UPA government is trying to further offend Hindus by breaching the Ram Sethu which is believed by millions of Hindus to have been built by Lord Ram, Nal and Neel. It is common sense that a breach in the Ram Sethu will allow tsunamsis to make direct hits at the Kerala and Southern Tamil Nadu coasts with full force inflicting more casualties and more loss of lives than without the breach. Tsunamis get deflected or moderated by the Ram Sethu working as a natural barrier but still about 25,000 Indians on southern coast lost their lives in the December 2004. But the UPA government and the Tamil Nadu government are adamant to follow such an alignment for the Sethusamundram Shipping Channel project which entails a breach in the Ram Sethu showing their ‘callous, cavalier and anti-people’ attitude towards lives of fellow citizens which is an offence under the public safety sections of the Indian Penal Code.
As per principles of good governance and obligations flowing from the Indian Penal Code, the Government can choose only that alignment [when more than one alignments are on the table] which will cause the bare minimum loss of public lives in the wake of any disaster. The public and courts are well within their rights to ask the UPA government whether the alignment selection in May 2005 was subjected to this acid test, or, not.
It is understood that at least six alternative alignments were suggested, the 1961 alignment, the 1968 alignment, the 1996 alignment, the alignment suggested by the Steering Committee, the 1998 alignment and the present alignment approved by the Manmohan Singh government in May 2005. There are some alignments which do not involve any cutting across the Ram Sethu thus would pose no additional threat on account of future tsunamis to residents of the southern coast. Therefore, it is not understood why ignoring the renewed security concerns of public in the wake of the December 26, 2004 tsunami experience, the present alignment was selected which cuts across the Ram Sethu.
The Supreme Court in the Tehri Dam case [1992 Supp(1) SC Cases 44] has laid down : “The Court can investigate and adjudicate the question as to whether the Government was conscious to the inherent dangers pointed out by the petitioners and applied its mind to the safety concerns.” So, the courts have jurisdiction as well as public responsibility to ‘investigate and adjudicate’ whether the UPA government had got examined by competent experts in fair, transparent and substantive manner concerns raised by Prof Tad S. Murthy and others about increased danger to the lives of fellow citizens living in the coastal areas by future tsunamis if the Ram Sethu was breached.
It may be recalled that in the Uphaar Cinema case, the Delhi High Court [104(2003) Delhi Law Times 234(DB)] and the Supreme Court have laid down that a public servant shall be held personally liable for prosecution if he caused injury to public, here to more than bare minimum number of public, by his casual and cavalier functioning, and, that, the traditional alibi of working in ‘good faith’ or in ‘public interest’ will no more be available to such ‘casual & cavalier’ public servants including ministers.
Information available in the public domain clearly suggests that security concerns were dismissed perfunctorily showing “callous, casual and cavalier” attitude of decision makers (Prime Minister, Shipping Minister, Environment Minister, the then Cabinet Secretary, Shipping Secretary and (CMD, TPT) who could be personally and individually held responsible for breaching Sec 304(A) etc of IPC for approving an alignment which has potential to endanger lives of more than bare minimum number of people. Further details may be seen in the Organiser of June 24, 2007. Therefore that alignment of channel should be selected which does not breach the Ram Sethu.
Congressi Hindus, the Marxist Hindus and Hindu atheists deny “historicity” of Lord Ram and other Hindu gods. They claim that there is no scientific or archaeological evidence to justify ‘historicity’ of Lord Ram though they do not carry any scientific evidence that they were fathered by persons they choose to name their fathers. Let us enlist some archaeological findings to substantiate historicity of Lord Ram.
Motilal Banarasi Dass Newsletter (November 1995) reported that gold coins belonging to the year 1570 BC were found at Palpara village in Patashpur area of Midnapore district of West Bengal; and, coins were embossed with figures of Lord Rama, Sita, Lakshaman and Shatrughan with Hanuman at their feet. It is an important archaeological and material discovery but the Archaeological Survey of India is unaware of it.
Stone tablet of Narmer, Egypt (3200 BC) and wall panel No.3 of the temple O-13 at Piedras Negras, Guatemala (Maya civilization) depict stories similar to those in Ramayana and are archaeological findings to establish historicity of Lord Ram. Ramayana is popular in many countries such as Indonesia, Thailand etc.
Narmer tablet shows a sage type person walking with kamandal and kharau in his hands and another sage type person, central figure in the tablet, killing demons. This reminds one of Bharat returning with kharau of Ram, and Ram killing demons in forest. Egyptologists believe that the central figure depicted in the Narmer tablet is King Menes, the founder King of Egypt’s first thirty dynasties. Pharoas of Egypt claimed to be descendants of the Sun, in the solar lineage, just like Iskhvakus in which Lord Ram was born.
The panel number 13 of Maya civilization shows a king sitting on throne, and one maid type woman with two children and one guard on the right side of throne, and three prince type persons standing on the left side of throne. Vassals and other feudatories are sitting in front of the throne. This resembles Sita standing with Lav and Kush before her exile from palace and three brothers standing together behind Lord Ram.
Using a powerful planetarium software to study the various planetary locations mentioned in the Valmiki Ramayana, it was reported in the Asian Agri History (Oct-Dec 2004) that Lord Ram was born at 12:30 pm on January 10, 5114 BC. This is astronomical evidence of birth of Lord Ram scientifically deducted from Valmiki Ramayana.
Marxist Hindus sheepishly claim that Ramayana is a mythology (imaginary), and, that, Lord Ram is a myth, a fiction having no historic, scientific or archaeological proof. But what does Valmiki Ramayana say? The Ramayana, Uttar Kanda [111.25] says that Ramayana is a narration of the past happenings [evametat puravrittamaakhyanam] i.e. it is an historical account. As we know Valmiki was a contemporary of Lord Ram as Lav and Kush were born at the seminary of Valmiki.
Some Hindus ignorant of their own cultural roots depict Ram-Ravana war as the war between “Aryans” and “Dravidians”. The fact is that Ravana was a great scholar of Vedas and a brahimin by birth so on both counts he was a pure “Aryan”, not a “Dravidian” in classical sense. Ravana was a grandson of Risi Pulastya and a son of risi Visravas.
As explained in my book ‘Vedic Equality & Hinduism’ [ISBN 81-7822-285-x], in Vedas, “arya” (ytgo) basically means “sir”, a noble person, an educated or cultured person, of course, following the Vedic norms but with no racial connotation. Word Dravida (={rJK) occurs in at least sixteen richas of Rig Veda. In Atharvaveda (XII.1.6), (XVIII.3.1), (XIX.31.6) and in Samveda (55, 561, 1573) too word dravida occurs but always means opulence, property or wealth. Therefore, Vedas do not attribute any derogatory meaning to the word dravida. In his book, Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas, Max Muller also has categorically stated: “I have declared again and again that if I say Aryans, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull.” British imperialism invented Aryan-Dravidian divide to prolong British rule over India. It is the East India Company hired historians who preached that dravida means black colour people.
Some people wrongly believe that Lord Ram is more popular in the North India. It is not correct as Lord Ram and events of Ramyana are mentioned in the old Tamil literature of Sangam which is traditionally dated between 200BC to 200AD. Silappadikaram by Ilango Adigal [2nd century AD], Alwar literature, Kamban literature in Tamil have reverential references to Lord Ram. There are many Sri Ram temples in the South India dating as early as the ninth century AD, if not earlier. So Lord Ram is worshipped by Hindus all over the world.
M. Karunanidhi, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, being a constitutional authority has breached many sections including the section 295(A) of the IPC by making derogatory and provocative remarks against Lord Ram, and; ram bhaktas all over India should file complaints against him in criminal courts for hurting their religious feelings.
(The writer retired in the rank of Secretary to the Government of India in the Indian Foreign Service (1971 batch). He served as Ambassador to Finland, Estonia, Jamaica, Tunisia, Tanzania, Dominican Republic etc., and, Consul General, Dubai (UAE) and Birmingham (UK).)

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=209&page=2

One Response to Historicity of Rama and Rama Setu

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: