Comments on: Gandhi and Ayodhya http://www.criticaltwenties.in/philosophyreligionculture/gandhi-and-ayodhya Powered by Webshore Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:32:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Subramanian http://www.criticaltwenties.in/philosophyreligionculture/gandhi-and-ayodhya#comment-493 Subramanian Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:00:14 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1069#comment-493 Dear Ms. Datta, Many thanks for your comment and apologies for the delay in replying. I agree entirely with everything you say. Indeed, the truly religious people are normally entirely unconcerned about where Ram or Krishna was born. And the people who are most vehement abouth these sort of things are usually the least religious or spiritual - at least in my meagre experience. Many thanks again Subra Dear Ms. Datta,

Many thanks for your comment and apologies for the delay in replying.

I agree entirely with everything you say.

Indeed, the truly religious people are normally entirely unconcerned about where Ram or Krishna was born. And the people who are most vehement abouth these sort of things are usually the least religious or spiritual – at least in my meagre experience.

Many thanks again
Subra

]]> By: Rita Datta http://www.criticaltwenties.in/philosophyreligionculture/gandhi-and-ayodhya#comment-459 Rita Datta Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:21:29 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1069#comment-459 Believers normally think of God as omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. And Ram devotees DO believe he's God and thus possesses the whole universe. Why would he need a tiny little place in a tiny little town in India as his very own? Secondly, even for a historical person like Chaitanya, there's controversy as to WHERE he was born. How come some people are absolutely sure of WHERE, exactly where, Ram was born? Though they know where he was born no one can tell you WHEN. Now isn't that funny? Thirdly, as a retired teacher of Indian History we start from the stone age. But we do not come across any king who fits Ram of the Ramayan. In this context let me fall back on Prof P. Lal's transcreation of the Ramayan where the quotation from a very well-known name is given. It says, "There is no ground to believe that Rama is a historical figure....Do you believe a king marches to Lanka with an army of monkeys?" The speaker is no Marxist historian but Sri Aurobindo! Surely, this mystic and patriot wouldn't have equated the proposed temple with NATIONAL pride? Lastly, engaging as the Ramayan is (though no patch on the other epic which is fascinatingly complex), there is no doubt that its a celebration of the Aryanisation of indigenous tribes. Who knows how many shrines of local gods were destroyed by the Aryans to spread their hegemony---just as the Turko-Afghans or maybe Mir Baqi did hundreds of years later. Ramrajya meant going by Aryan norms, of course, including slicing off the head of a low caste man who dared undertake the penance designed for Brahmins. I have great respect for Gandhi and feel he would have been saddened by the demolition of the Babri Masjid. But I do feel uneasy about his excessive religiosity. Our people need to question traditional beliefs instead of following them blindly, thought the latter is what would suit the leaders. Believers normally think of God as omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. And Ram devotees DO believe he’s God and thus possesses the whole universe. Why would he need a tiny little place in a tiny little town in India as his very own?
Secondly, even for a historical person like Chaitanya, there’s controversy as to WHERE he was born. How come some people are absolutely sure of WHERE, exactly where, Ram was born? Though they know where he was born no one can tell you WHEN. Now isn’t that funny?
Thirdly, as a retired teacher of Indian History we start from the stone age. But we do not come across any king who fits Ram of the Ramayan. In this context let me fall back on Prof P. Lal’s transcreation of the Ramayan where the quotation from a very well-known name is given. It says, “There is no ground to believe that Rama is a historical figure….Do you believe a king marches to Lanka with an army of monkeys?” The speaker is no Marxist historian but Sri Aurobindo! Surely, this mystic and patriot wouldn’t have equated the proposed temple with NATIONAL pride?
Lastly, engaging as the Ramayan is (though no patch on the other epic which is fascinatingly complex), there is no doubt that its a celebration of the Aryanisation of indigenous tribes. Who knows how many shrines of local gods were destroyed by the Aryans to spread their hegemony—just as the Turko-Afghans or maybe Mir Baqi did hundreds of years later. Ramrajya meant going by Aryan norms, of course, including slicing off the head of a low caste man who dared undertake the penance designed for Brahmins.
I have great respect for Gandhi and feel he would have been saddened by the demolition of the Babri Masjid. But I do feel uneasy about his excessive religiosity. Our people need to question traditional beliefs instead of following them blindly, thought the latter is what would suit the leaders.

]]> By: Arghya http://www.criticaltwenties.in/philosophyreligionculture/gandhi-and-ayodhya#comment-427 Arghya Sun, 03 Oct 2010 03:56:25 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1069#comment-427 Lovely post Subra. Lovely post Subra.

]]>