Monday, September 24, 2007
This blog is in response to the following virulent anti Ram and Ram Bhakth blog:
1. Even if for argument sake I accept that the BJP is exploiting the Hindus for the sake of votes, I ask you - is there any other political formation that speaks for the Hindus? So my position is I would rather be ruled by an imperfect party supporting the Hindus rather than a perfect anti-Hindu party.
2. You talk about Ram being better-off before he was monopolized by Hindutva Jehadis. But you forget that the Hindus became weak a thousand years ago when the Muslims and then the British colonized India. The Hindus began regaining strength again only through movements of Sanyasis from the 19th century onwards, culminating in our independence and the betrayal of the Muslims in the formation of Pakistan. What we see now is a reassertion of the Hindus and Ram has become a symbol of this reassertion. It is only the anti-Hindus who insult Ram. Hindus are ready to protect Rama’s legacy.
3. Though many places in Ayodhya is claimed to be the birth place of Rama, consequent to the Ramjanmabhoomi movement, the Hindus have absolutely no doubt where exactly Rama’s birth place is.
4. Your perverted mind is displayed when you associate Ram with Jehadi and again with Sonia Gandhi. Jehadi and Sonia Gandhi are foreign, but not Ram, notwithstanding his claimed birth/death place in Ukraine. This is the same situation as the many so-called birth places in Ayodhya itself.
5. You talk of a Ram who cut off a Shudra’s head. What about a Ram who cut off a Brahmin’s head (Ravana’s)? And if you say Ram had reason to cut-off Ravana’s head because Ravana had kidnapped his wife, then he might also have had reason in the Shudra’s case because the Shudra wanted no less than to conquer ‘Devlok’. Rama may have seen the Raksha in such a person who was nurturing a wish to kill celestial beings.
6. About Ram being unable to protect his queen, it only shows the mighty evil that Ravana was, who dared to kidnap even a King’s wife. If Rama had not taken avatar, Hinduism may have disappeared then itself. If Rama exiled his queen, he was only showing how a King had to clear the erroneous notions of his subjects even at the cost of paying a personal price for it.
7. When you ask which Ram is the God of Hindus, be assured that it is the Ram, one and only Ram, who has an eternal place in the hearts of the Hindus, who is a God of the Hindus.
8. About Ram being an Imam e Hind, it is the opinion of a Muslim poet. At least to that extent the Muslim poet has acknowledged Ram existed.
9. Anyone, including Karunanidhi, has the right to ask who Ram is. No doubt they will be educated on the subject in due course of time.
10. About imposing Ram on all Indians, that is the Semitic creed, to impose their only true God on all mankind. Hindus do not impose any God and hence we live and let live with all the 33 crores gods we have.
