| Author | Message | ||
     Kamal Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 17458 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 24.0.123.37 Rating: N/A |
Yeah .. this judgment was certainly divine intervention .. no doubt .. Hopefully the unveiling of truth and the process of upholding dharma continues unabated. Jai Sri Ram - Jai Hind  | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 5045 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.192.17 Rating: N/A |
i think Ram mandir an important step in self assertion......... some sort of churning is going on.....only time has to tell what is in store for future...we don't know how divine forces will intervene.....today's judgement is an example of that intervention..... | ||
| Kamal Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 17456 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 24.0.123.37 Rating: N/A |
annai .. oka question .. after reading the article .. what I feel and hope does not turn real is .. will the Hindu assertion and cultural and civilizational comeback end with the building of a Ram Mandir??? because we (Right wingers/Nationalists) always wanted Ram Mandir to be the driver of the comeback right? kaani the fight that it took, the energy that it sapped us of and the resistance we are encountering, already tired many a people once associated with "Cultural Nationalist" movements. Is our cultural comeback going to end with just a Ram Mandir??? If so, is the whole exercise futile and are the opportunities wasted? If not, do you see any chance of this idea of "Cultural Nationalism" getting enough support from the masses to continue this onward journey? Jai Sri Ram - Jai Hind | ||
| Kamal Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 17455 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 24.0.123.37 Rating: |
God bless .. thats the reason for my sorrow! While the "Communalist" Hindus want to take the "secularist" Hindus along in the nation building exercise, the "secularist" Hindus disown the "Communalist" Hindus, just to satisfy their ego of not being associated with anything communal. Now, replace the term "communalist" with "nationalist" and still the gist of the above paragraph does not change! Jai Sri Ram - Jai Hind | ||
| Kamal Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 17452 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 24.0.123.37 Rating: N/A |
aaha .. adbhutam .. mana desam lo pro-liberal, pro-west, pro-modern, pro-secular .. whatever group you belong to, Hindu assertion in India is not anti-Islamic or anti-Christian ani ardam chesukunna roju .. it will be real Hindu self-respectful uprising .. Samuel P Huntington kuda, clash of civilisations raasinappudu .. Hindus (Indians) will fight Islam from Arab and Christianity from west ane raasadu .. kaani I am surprised that even before that fight, Hindus are forced to fight fellow Hindus, essentially influenced by so called "liberal" thoughts ! I guess, this feature is unique to India and something that even Samuel could not take a guess at!
Wow .. when will fellow Hindus understand this ! Jai Sri Ram - Jai Hind | ||
| Zulu Side Hero Username: Zulu Post Number: 4021 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 66.68.181.197 Rating: N/A |
Sagam chadiva..ippatiki idhi nachindi, except for a tiny fraction of misguided extremeley "Right" hindus, this statement is very true migathadi repu chaduvutha
Mr KCR tear down this wall!  | ||
| Kamal Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 17451 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 24.0.123.37 Rating: N/A |
Excellent. Jai Sri Ram - Jai Hind | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 5044 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.192.17 Rating: N/A |
chaduvu bro....you may like it...his perspective amazed me...idhi first time kadhu nenu chadavatam ee article ni....each time i read i felt it was so prophetic more so after today's verdict | ||
| Zulu Side Hero Username: Zulu Post Number: 4020 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 66.68.181.197 Rating: N/A |
enti idhantha chadavala? inka nayam 800 pages verdict chadavamanaledu. Mr KCR tear down this wall! | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 5043 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.192.17 Rating: N/A |
What a deep insight into the larger issue osf hindu renaissance....all hindu apologists should read this 1992 article...hs words are prophetic....kudos to Girilal Jain....he died in january 1993 just after Babri demolition.he penned this 3 days after demolition on 6th dec 1992...FYI he was chief editor of Times of India http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=14 38 Ayodhya: A Historical Watershed Girilal Jain 01 Oct 2010 A terracotta image of Rama, whose name is inscribed in Brahmi characters of the 3rd century CE [On Sept. 30, 2010, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court brought half-closure to a six-decade old legal dispute in a five-century-old Hindu struggle to recover the site revered as the birthplace of Maryada Purushottam Shri Rama. On a prima facie reading, the judgment is not surprising. Previous attempts for compromise on the basis of exchange of evidence by the two sides (under Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar) had ended in abrupt Muslim retreat. The court verdict has upheld the veracity of Hindu claims on the basis of the Supreme Court-directed archaeological excavations at Ayodhya, which revealed the existence of two Hindu temples below the Babri structure. Truly, Mahakala, the deity Time, has manifested himself. It has been a long road from 1528 when the Janmabhoomi Mandir was destroyed and replaced by a mosque at the instance of the invader Babur. On Dec. 6, 1992, Hindu patience broke down and the structure hurtful to Hindu religious sentiment was brought down by mob action. On 9 December 1992, three days after this historic moment in Hindu self-assertion, Girilal Jain wrote a seminal piece in The Times of India, which silenced all intellectual opposition or exposed that there was no legitimate intellectual argument against this spontaneous decision by nameless and faceless Ram bhaktas. Girilal Jain was one of the rare Hindu intellectuals who stood by the Rama Janmabhoomi as a movement of Hindu affirmation and quest for civilisational identity. He died on 19 July 1993. As the Hindu quest for Sri Ramaâs birthplace comes nearer to fruition, we republish Girilal Jainâs seminal article for the new generation of Hindusthan â Editor] * Ayodhya: A Historical Watershed Girilal Jain 1992 will doubtless go down in Indian history as the year of Ayodhya. This is so not so much because recent events there have pushed into the background all other issues such as economic reforms and reservations for the âother backward castesâ as because they have released forces which will have a decisive influence in shaping the future of India. These forces are not new; they have been at work for two centuries. Indeed, they were not even wholly bottled up. But they had not been unleashed earlier as they have been now. It is truly extraordinary that the demolition of a nondescript structure by faceless men no organization owns up should have shaken so vast a country as India. But no one can possibly deny that it has. These forces in themselves are not destructive even if they have led to some violence and blood-letting. They are essentially beneficent. They shall seek to heal the splits in the Indian personality so that it is restored to health and vigour. Implicit in the above is the proposition that while India did not cease to be India either under Muslim or British rule despite all the trials and tribulations, she was not fully Mother India. And she was not fully Mother India not because she was called upon to digest external inputs, which is her nature to assimilate, but because she was not free to throw out what she could not possibly digest in the normal and natural course, This lack of freedom to reject what cannot be assimilated is the essence of foreign conquest and rule. The meaning of Ayodhya is that India has regained, to a larger extent than hitherto, the capacity to behave and act as a normal living organism. She has taken another big step towards self-affirmation. All truth, as Lenin said, is partisan. So is mine. I do not pretend to be above the battle, or, to rephrase Pandit Nehru, I am not neutral against myself. But partisan truth is not demagogy and patently false propaganda, which is what advocates of âcomposite cultureâ have engaged in. Two points need to be noted in this regard. First, no living culture is ever wholly autonomous; for no culture is an airtight sealed box; Indian culture, in particular, has been known for its catholicity and willingness to give as well as take. It withdrew into a shell when it felt gravely threatened and became rigid; but that is understandable; indeed, the surprise, if any, is that Indian culture survived the Islamic and Western onslaught at all. Secondly, a culture, if it is not swallowed up by an incoming one, whether by way of proselytization or conquest or both, as the Egyptians and Iranians were by Islam, or if it is not destroyed as the Aztec was by the Portuguese and the Spaniards, must seek to recover; even Indians in Latin America have not given up the effort. Surely, since no one can possibly suggest that Indian culture was either swallowed up or destroyed; it is only natural that it should seek to recover its genuine self. Surely, this is neither an anti-Islamic nor anti-Western activity. Pandit Nehru almost never used the phrase âcomposite cultureâ. His was a more organic view of culture and civilization. He believed in, and spoke of, cultural synthesis which, if at all, could take place only within the old civilizational framework since Islam did not finally triumph. Pandit Nehru also wrote and spoke of the spirit of India asserting itself again and again. Surely, that spirit could not be a composite affair. In the Maulana Azad memorial lecture (mentioned earlier) he also spoke of different cultures being products of different environments and he specifically contrasted tropical India with the deserts of Arabia. He even said that a Hindu-Muslim cultural synthesis had not been completed when other factors intervened. Apparently he was referring to the British Raj. This should help dispel the impression that the Nehru era was a continuation of alien rule intended to frustrate the process of Indianization of India. This charge is not limited to his detractors. It is made by his admirers as well, though, of course, indirectly and unknowingly. They pit secularism against Hinduism which is plainly absurd. Hindus do not need the imported concept of secularism in order to be able to show respect towards other faiths. That comes naturally to them. For theirs is an inclusive faith which provides for every form of religious experience and belief; there can be no heresy or kufr in Hinduism. For Nehru, secularism, both as a personal philosophy and state policy, was an expression of Indiaâs cultural-civilizational personality and not its negation and repudiÂation. Secularism suited Indiaâs requirements as he saw them. For instance, it provided an additional legitimizing principle for reform movements among Hindus beginning with the Brahmo Samaj in the early part of the nineteenth century. It met the aspirations of the Westernized and modernizing intelligentsia. Before independence, it denied legitimacy to Muslim separatism in the eyes of Hindus, Westernized or traditionalist. If it did not help forge an instrument capable of resisting effectively the Muslim Leagueâs demand for partition, the alternative platform of men such as Veer Savarkar did not avail either. After partition, it served the same purpose of denying legitimacy to moves to consolidate Muslims as a separate communalist political force. Pandit Nehruâs emphasis on secularism has to be viewed not only in relation to the Muslim problem which survived partition, but it has also to be seen in the context of his plea for science and of Indiaâs need to get rid of the heavy and deadening burden of rituals and superstitions, products of periods of grave weakness and hostile environment when nothing nobler than survival was possible. Seen in this perspective, the ideologies of socialism and secularism have served as mine sweepers. They have cleared the field of dead conventions sufficiently to make it possible for new builders to move in. Sheikh Abdullah exaggerated when he charged Pandit Nehru with Machiavellianism, but he was not too wide off the mark when he wrote in Aatish-e-Chinar that Nehru was âa great admirer of the past heritage and the Hindu spirit of India.... He considered himself as an instrÂument of rebuilding India with its ancient spiritâ (quoted in Jagmohan, My Frozen Turbulence in Kashmir, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1991, p. 138). The trouble is that self-styled Nehruites and other secularists are not able to recognize that India is no longer the convalescent she was not only when Gandhiji launched his first mass movement but also when she achieved independence with Pandit Nehru as the first prime minister. The two leaders have helped nurse her back to health as have their critics in different ways. That is the implication of my observation that the energies now unleashed have been at work for two centuries. Only on a superficial view, resulting from a lack of appreciation of the history of modern India, beginning with Raja Rammohan Roy in the early nineteenth century, can the rise of the Ramjanambhoomi issue to its present prominence be said to be the result of a series of âaccidentsâ: the sudden appearance of the Ramlalla idol in the structure in 1949 and the opening of the gate under the Faizabad magistrateâs orders in 1986 being the most important. As in all such cases, these developments have helped bring out and reinforce something that was already growing â the 200-year-old movement for self-renewal and self-affirmation by Hindus. If this was not so, the âaccidentsâ in question would have petered out. Similarly, while it cannot be denied that the RSS, the VHP, and the BJP have played a major role in mobilizing support for the cause of the temple, it should also be noted that they could not have achieved the success they have if the general atmosphere was not propitious and the time not ripe. Indeed, not to speak of Gandhiji who aroused and mobilized Hindus as no one had before him, fought the Christian missionary assault and successfully resisted the British imperialist designs to divide Harijans from Hindu society, it would be unfair to deny Nehruâs and Indira Gandhiâs contributions to the Hindu resurgence that we witness today. A civilizational revival, it may be pointed out, is a gradual, complex, and many-sided affair. Again, only on the basis of a superficial view is it possible to see developments in India in isolation from developments in the larger world. Nehruâs worldview, for instance, was deeply influenced by the socialist theories sweeping Europe in the wake of the First World War and the Soviet revolution in 1917. By the same token, this worldview, which has dominated our thinking for well over six decades, could not but become irrelevant in view of the collapse of communist regimes in eastern Europe, and the disarray in the Soviet Union itself. This cannot be seriously disputed even on rational grounds. Intensification of the search for identity in India today is part of a similar development all over the world, especiÂally in view of the collapse of communist âuniversalismâ. But if it is a mere coincidence that the Ramjanambhoomi issue has gathered support precisely in this period of the disintegration of Soviet power abroad and the decline of the Nehruvian consensus at home, it is an interesting one. At the conscious level, the BJP, among political formations, has chosen to be an instrument of Indiaâs cultural and civilizational recovery and reaffirmation. As such, it is natural that it will figure prominently in the reshaping of India in the coming years and decades. But others too will play their part in the gigantic enterprise. V P Singh, for instance, has already rendered yeoman service to the cause by undermining the social coalition which has dominated the countryâs politics for most of the period since independence.* When a master idea seizes the mind, as socialism did in the twenties, and as Hindutva has done now, it must usher in radical change. In the twenties and the decades that followed before and after independence, conservative forces were not strong enough to resist the socialist idea. Similarly, conservative forces are not strong enough today to defeat the Hindutva ideal. There is a difference, though, for while the socialist ideal related primarily to economic reorganization and was elitist in its approach by virtue of being a Western import, Hindutva seeks, above all, to unleash the energies of a whole people which foreign rule froze or drove underground. When a historic change of this magnitude takes place, intellectual confusion is generally unavoidable. The human mind, as a rule, trails behind events; it is not capable of anticipating them. But it should be possible to cut through the mass of confusion and get to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that if Indiaâs vast spiritual (psychic in modern parlance) energies, largely dormant for centuries, had to be tapped, Hindus had to be aroused; they could be aroused only by the use of a powerful symbol; that symbol could only be Ram, as was evident in the twenties when the Mahatma moved millions by his talk of Ramrajya; once the symbol takes hold of the popular mind, as Ram did in the twenties and as it has done now, opposition to it generally adds to its appeal. An element of subjectivity and voluntarism, typical of a modern Westernized mind, has got introduced in the previous paragraph because that is the way I also think. In reality, the time spirit (Mahakala) unfolds itself under its own auspices, at its own momentum, as it were; we can either cooperate with it, or resist it at our peril. Historians can continue to debate whether a temple, in fact, existed at the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya; whether it was, in fact, a Ram temple; whether it was destroyed; or whether it had collapsed on its own. Similarly, moralists and secularists can go on arguing that it is not right to replace one place of worship by another, especially as long as the foregoing issues have not been resolved. But this is not how history moves and civilizational issues are settled. Pertinent is the fact that for no other site have Hindus fought so bitterly for so long with such steadfastness as over Ramjanambhoomi in Ayodhya. There is no rational explanation for this and it is futile to look for one. All that is open to us is to grasp the fact and power of the mystery. In all cultures and societies under great stress flows an invisible undercurrent. It does not always break surface. But when it does, it transforms the scene. This is how events in Ayodhya should be seen. The Patal Ganga, of which all Indians must have heard, has broken surface there. Human beings have doubtless played a part in this surfacing. But witness the remarkable fact that we do not know and, in fact, do not care who installed the Ramlalla idol in the Babri structure and who demolished the structure on 6 December 1992. While almost everyone else is looking for scapegoats, to me it seems that every known actor is playing his or her allotted role in the vast drama that is being enacted. We are, as it were, witnessing the enactment of a modern version of Balmikiâs Ramayana. * On the face of it, the contest has been, and is, between âcommunalistâ Hindus, who equate Hinduism with nationalism and âsecularistâ Hindus who believe that India has been, and is, larger than Hinduism. In reality the picture has been made more complicated inasmuch as âsecularâ nationalism in India has been underwritten, at least partly, by casteism. All parties have been fairly attentive to âcaste arithmeticâ. The competition, as a shrewd Congress leader once said to me, has been between âcommunalismâ and âcasteismâ. |
