Previous Next Index Thread

Re: BABRI DEMOLITION was not a mistake

 N. Tiwari wrote:
 > Anindya Ghoshal ( wrote:
 > : >
 > : Give us proofs and citations that there was a Ram temple existing before
 > : Babri Masjid.
 > The Leftist historians have themselves moved from a no-temple
 > theory, to a un_Hindu temple theory, to a Hindu temple theory.
 > There latest line of defence is to ask for proof whether Ram
 > actually was born there. If you are not aware of these convenient
 > shifts in the stances of JNU historians, then you are outdated.
 Well Mr. Tiwari, since you see, your term "Leftist historians" is very befuddling
 and beyond my prowess of understanding as it is encompasses so many
 historians holding conflicting ideas on different issues..however to
 enlighten my "outdated" and "unaware" mind would you kindly provide
 reference to as to which "leftist historian have moved from a no-temple
 to a un-Hindu theory" and then to "a hindu temple" theory?? And of course
 references to the "convenient shift of stances of JNU historians". I'm seeking
 something beyond Mr. Dinesh Agarwal's article and the VHP standpoints 
 on this contentious issue. Of course by that you can also show how
 aware and dated you are on this issue itself..just awaiting with pated
 breadth your prowess of knowledge.
 > : > never used. The msulim claim  was just to keep there ego high.
 > : According Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, "Ramayana was not the historical
 > : fact of any age; it is from beginning to end a fiction. Valmiki borrowing
 > : from the story of Dashratha Jataka of the Buddhist literature to compose this
 > : epic." (For Ref.: Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, " Rama and his Birthplace",
 > : Ananda Bazaar Patrika, Calcutta, Jan 17, 1976. English translation by Noorul
 > : Islam Khan is included in the book Babri Masjid _ Ram Janambhoomi Controversy,
 > : ed. Asghar Ali Engineer, 1990). Prof. Chatterji goes on to state that "Valmiki
 > : in the texture of the basic story had recourse to wide imagination as he liked.
 > : he shifted the place of occurence from Benarasi to Ayodhya....King Dashratha
 > : was the king of Banarasi and not of Ayodhya as claimed in Ramayana."  Prof.
 > : Chatterji goes on to write :"No scholar of Indian history thinks that Rama,
 > : the hero of Ramayana was a historical person who can be relegated to particular
 > : period of time" (ref: P.S. Sridhara Murthy: Rama-Ramayana and Babar, 1988, pp. 14)
 > : Hence the claim of Ram_janam_bhoomi at Ayodhya is itself a bloody myth.
 >    There has been quite a dispute about the mythical nature of Ramayan.
 >    But then, that is not the point. The importance of a particular place
 >    is more a matter of belief, esp. when in comes to religion. WIll
 >    you beat your chest when some guy goes and burns down the baal of
 >    Hazrat in Hazratbal shrine. Or will you beat your chest if some
 >    guy goes and tears down the Dakshineshwar Temple. For consistency,
 >    you should not, since the importance of these places cannot be
 >    quantified in material and 'factual' terms.
 If you had any idea of what Ramakrishna said then you wouldn't said the above.
 A shrine, a temple is not as important as "self" ..go and figure what he
 meant by " joto moth toto moth" Ramakrishna and Vivekananda to find what
 they have to say about blind faith in religion..infact Vidyasagar had more 
 things to say about it but that is a different issue altogether.
 >    Further, Sunit Chatterjee or anyone is not a thekedar as to what is
 >    right place of Ayodhya, and what is not. There is quite diverse

with word 'help' in message body