By Amba Charan Vashishth
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court of India, Director (Monuments) of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Mr. C. Dorjee, has stated that although the mythological texts of Ramayana formed an important part of ancient Indian literature, “but which (it) cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein”.
The ASI admitted that “it had not conducted any deep study about the underwater formation known as “Adam’s Bridge” believed to be “Ram Sethu” by the Hindus and the evidence available so far, “reasonably concluded that the formation …is not a man-made structure, rather a natural formation made up of shoals/sand bars, which possessed their particular shape and form due to several millennia of wave action and sedimentation.”
This authorized and authentic statement by a senior officer reiterates the official stand of the present Congress-led UPA government to doubt the very veracity of Ramayana and of the existence of Lord Rama and other characters in His life, in the words of Government of India, in the absence of “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein” But equally true is also the fact that it has with it no “historical record to incontrovertibly” disprove or doubt “the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events”. It has produced none.
That the mind of the present government is prejudiced and subjective to the issue can be gauged from its utter and total disregard to the scientific evidence available from a reputed scientific organisation like NASA saying that the bridge is the result of human endeavour. The NASA document at the Internet (http://www.rense.com/general30/nasa.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge), says that the Ram Sethu or the Adam’s Bridge is a manmade structure 1.75 million years old. It states further that NASA has come to the first conclusion by examining the base of the bridge. The large chunks of stones with which the base is made could not have been placed in that position by a natural process and hence humans had to carry them from somewhere else.
It further states that the type of the stone, a special kind of sandstone with high percentage of calcium carbonate, called calcareous sandstone, with which the base is made, is not available locally. These led one to conclude that they were carried by humans from elsewhere.
Early this year, the Centre sent a team of scientists to examine the bridge and verify NASA’s conclusions. On 28 July, the team submitted its report that echoed exactly what the scientists of NASA had said. In addition to that, our scientists examined the coral formation on the bridge and found that it is quite different from naturally formed coral, which suggests that the bridge is the result of human activity. The present government needs to explain on what ““historical (and scientific) record” has the Government come to “incontrovertibly” disprove or refute the NASA conclusions.
Actually, at the moment under the present political scenario it has become a fad and fashion of our liberal-secular clan to denigrate Hindu gods and goddesses. M. F. Hussain has his inalienable right to freedom of expression to paint Bharatmata and Hindu gods and goddesses in the nude obviously only because he is a ‘secular’. If he were not ‘secular’, he would certainly not have painted the way he did. But, for unexplained reasons, he did not avail himself of the same right and freedom to paint something concerning his own religion. There is hardly a painter in the world who has painted his/her own mother in the nude – I am sure Hussain too has not – although he knew that all these deities were mothers to crores of Hindus in India and abroad.
God forbid, if tomorrow some naïve and base person were to doubt the veracity of the faith of some non-Hindu religions by raising some controversy or by filing public interest litigation, what stand would it take then? It has neither the proof nor the evidence to take a definite stand on the claim of any faith.
But can the present Government afford to make a similar statement about Lord Christ or Prophet Mohammad that “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein” does not prove their claim? Or does the Union Government have the “historical records” in its possession to say that what our Muslim or Christian brothers believe and have faith in is “incontrovertibly” true.
It must be admitted that faith sustains life. It is because of faith that the world continues as it is today. Otherwise, it would have been perished long, long back. Mary Mcleod Bethune said: Without faith, nothing is possible. With it, nothing is impossible. And Oliver Wendell Holmes added: It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living.
There has been peace all around in the world because people respected each other’s faith. The moment they hurt it, there was strife; there were wars.
Our Christian brothers have faith that Lord Christ was born to Vigin Mary. No doubt about it. No conflict about it. It is their faith. Everybody respects it.
According to Muslim faith, in the Hazratbal mosque in Kashmir, lies the “mooaye mukaddas” (holy hair) of Prophet Mohammad. It is the faith of the Muslims; it is the faith of us all. Nobody can question it; nobody should doubt it.
All this has neither to be disputed nor is there need for any infidel to ask somebody to prove it scientifically with “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted” in the epics of any faith.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
A Challenge to Arundhatis, Nanditas, MF Hussains, and Chandermohans
By Amba Charan Vashishth
In an exhibition in Ahmedabad recently, an unknown painter Chander Mohan took a cue from renowned painter M F Husain to paint Lord Jesus Christ and some Hindu goddesses in erotic scenes. There was a great furore.
But the like of writer Arundhati Roy, film actress Nandita Dass, many renowned painters, intellectuals, liberals and human rights activists thronged the streets beating their chests for the freedom of expression of Chander Mohan. Earlier, they had made a similar demonstration when some Hindu organisations had risen in opposition to M.F. Hussain's paintings in the nude of some Hindu goddesses.
Everybody, Chander Mohans and M.F. Hussains included, has a right to freedom of expression. But where were the likes of Arundhati Roy, Nandita Dass, and other intellectuals, liberals, human rightists and liberals when there were violent demonstrations in India over some paintings published, not in India, but in Denmark? Why did they not throng the streets in favour of the Danish cartoonist and against those who were there curbing his freedom of expression. Where were they when a UP Minister had announced a reward of Rs. one crore for the head of the Danish cartoonist? Is the concept of freedom of expression not a conviction with them, but only a subjective and not objective matter? Do they support freedom of expression of Hussain but oppose that of Danish cartoonist?
Where was this tribe of liberals and human rightists when journalist Alok Tomar was hauled up and imprisoned for publishing those Danish cartoons in his weekly? Did Tomar not have the elitist freedom of expression? If he had, why did they go dumb and blind over the treatment that was given to Tomar?
M. F. Hussain did avail himself of the freedom of expression to paint in the nude the deities of a religion not his own. He owes an explanation why did he not first look into his own religion and follow the principle: charity begins at home (his own religion). He dared not, because he knew very well that life would then become a hell for him.
Lord Jesus Christ. needless to stress, is like a father to hundreds of billions of people all over the world. Similarly, Hindu goddesses are mothers to crores of people in India and the world. I don't know -- I am may be an ignoramus -- if any great painter has ever painted in the nude his own wife or his own mother. If anybody has, I wish to be enlightened. M.F. Hussain needs to tell the world why did he not try? Had Hussain done it, he would have known how and where it pinches. That is why it is commonly said that only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches.
The likes of Hussain seem to be following the common practice. Everybody likes to cast an amorous eye on other's wife, sister or mother. But when somebody casts an evil eye on their own wife, mother or sister, it hurts them. Maybe, a quarrel and even a murder or attempt to murder.
But before the likes of Arundhati Roys, M. F. Hussains, Chander Mohans, Nandita Dasses jump to beat their chests when somebody's right of expression is curbed, they need to publicly declare that would also respect the freedom of expression of that individual who seeks to avail himself of the right to freedom of expression to paint them, their mother, or their sister, their wife/husbaband in the nude in the same manner as have done the painters like Hussain and Chandermohan. If they don't declare so publicly, they will stand exposed as hypocrites and humbugs who are not in their real life what they pose in public.
In an exhibition in Ahmedabad recently, an unknown painter Chander Mohan took a cue from renowned painter M F Husain to paint Lord Jesus Christ and some Hindu goddesses in erotic scenes. There was a great furore.
But the like of writer Arundhati Roy, film actress Nandita Dass, many renowned painters, intellectuals, liberals and human rights activists thronged the streets beating their chests for the freedom of expression of Chander Mohan. Earlier, they had made a similar demonstration when some Hindu organisations had risen in opposition to M.F. Hussain's paintings in the nude of some Hindu goddesses.
Everybody, Chander Mohans and M.F. Hussains included, has a right to freedom of expression. But where were the likes of Arundhati Roy, Nandita Dass, and other intellectuals, liberals, human rightists and liberals when there were violent demonstrations in India over some paintings published, not in India, but in Denmark? Why did they not throng the streets in favour of the Danish cartoonist and against those who were there curbing his freedom of expression. Where were they when a UP Minister had announced a reward of Rs. one crore for the head of the Danish cartoonist? Is the concept of freedom of expression not a conviction with them, but only a subjective and not objective matter? Do they support freedom of expression of Hussain but oppose that of Danish cartoonist?
Where was this tribe of liberals and human rightists when journalist Alok Tomar was hauled up and imprisoned for publishing those Danish cartoons in his weekly? Did Tomar not have the elitist freedom of expression? If he had, why did they go dumb and blind over the treatment that was given to Tomar?
M. F. Hussain did avail himself of the freedom of expression to paint in the nude the deities of a religion not his own. He owes an explanation why did he not first look into his own religion and follow the principle: charity begins at home (his own religion). He dared not, because he knew very well that life would then become a hell for him.
Lord Jesus Christ. needless to stress, is like a father to hundreds of billions of people all over the world. Similarly, Hindu goddesses are mothers to crores of people in India and the world. I don't know -- I am may be an ignoramus -- if any great painter has ever painted in the nude his own wife or his own mother. If anybody has, I wish to be enlightened. M.F. Hussain needs to tell the world why did he not try? Had Hussain done it, he would have known how and where it pinches. That is why it is commonly said that only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches.
The likes of Hussain seem to be following the common practice. Everybody likes to cast an amorous eye on other's wife, sister or mother. But when somebody casts an evil eye on their own wife, mother or sister, it hurts them. Maybe, a quarrel and even a murder or attempt to murder.
But before the likes of Arundhati Roys, M. F. Hussains, Chander Mohans, Nandita Dasses jump to beat their chests when somebody's right of expression is curbed, they need to publicly declare that would also respect the freedom of expression of that individual who seeks to avail himself of the right to freedom of expression to paint them, their mother, or their sister, their wife/husbaband in the nude in the same manner as have done the painters like Hussain and Chandermohan. If they don't declare so publicly, they will stand exposed as hypocrites and humbugs who are not in their real life what they pose in public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
