Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
It's official: Taj Mahal is among 7 wonders of the world- Hindustan Times
It's official: Taj Mahal is among 7 wonders of the world- Hindustan Times
It is a matter of pride that one of the Indian monuments has been accorded the honor of being one of the seven wonders of the world. Indians, Rejoice! the power of IT and mobile telephones can be put to good use and Indians have shown that those of us who sit at the computer for extended period of times can use our time and ability to achieve some distinction for India.
While we rejoice in our regained pride of hosting one of the new seven wonders, Taj Mahal, perhaps we should spare a thought to the historical accuracy of the monument we just helped anoint. There has been a long standing, well researched claim that the Taj Mahal was originally an ancient Hindu temple devoted to Lord Shiva called "Tejo Mahalaya".
Prof. P. N. Oak has worked tirelessly to study and promote this claim which has never really been refuted. More details on Tejo Mahalaya can be found on the net by doing Google search.
Sure, the ancient Hindu temple will not have the same romantic aura as a universally cherished story of love, but truth and integrity must prevail. If indeed it is scientifically and archaeologically proved that Taj Mahal was Tejo Mahalaya then the world must recognize Shah Jahan as a thief who duped all of the humanity for hundreds of years.
To folks like us to whom truth matters, Tejo Mahalaya vs. Taj Mahal is not a religious controversy, but an attempt to give credit where it is due.
The India Manifesto section on ancient Hindu monuments will focus on finding and assigning rightful owners of the historical monuments and places of worship and restoring the property to its rightful owner.
It is a matter of pride that one of the Indian monuments has been accorded the honor of being one of the seven wonders of the world. Indians, Rejoice! the power of IT and mobile telephones can be put to good use and Indians have shown that those of us who sit at the computer for extended period of times can use our time and ability to achieve some distinction for India.
While we rejoice in our regained pride of hosting one of the new seven wonders, Taj Mahal, perhaps we should spare a thought to the historical accuracy of the monument we just helped anoint. There has been a long standing, well researched claim that the Taj Mahal was originally an ancient Hindu temple devoted to Lord Shiva called "Tejo Mahalaya".
Prof. P. N. Oak has worked tirelessly to study and promote this claim which has never really been refuted. More details on Tejo Mahalaya can be found on the net by doing Google search.
Sure, the ancient Hindu temple will not have the same romantic aura as a universally cherished story of love, but truth and integrity must prevail. If indeed it is scientifically and archaeologically proved that Taj Mahal was Tejo Mahalaya then the world must recognize Shah Jahan as a thief who duped all of the humanity for hundreds of years.
To folks like us to whom truth matters, Tejo Mahalaya vs. Taj Mahal is not a religious controversy, but an attempt to give credit where it is due.
The India Manifesto section on ancient Hindu monuments will focus on finding and assigning rightful owners of the historical monuments and places of worship and restoring the property to its rightful owner.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Freedom of Speech, Salman Rushdie and Fundamentalism
An op-ed piece in Pakistani daily Dawn by Anwar Syed exposes hypocrisies of those protesting the Knighthood for Salman Rushdie. Iran's Ayatollaha Khomaeini issued a fatwa on Rushdie after the publication of his Brooker prize winning novel Satanic Verses, which Khomeini considered blasphemous.
Here are some excerpts from Anwar Syed:
-------------------
Government of Pakistan gave no thought to foreign reaction when it decided to honour Ahmad Faraz, a distinguished poet, and awarded him a “Sitara,” even though he has all along been a harsh critic of western policies towards the Third World. Why then do we feel entitled to condemn the British government for its failing to consider our possible reaction to its honouring of Salman Rushdie?
--------------------
-------------------
British Catholics reject Protestantism and the Jews reject all of Christianity. Yet many Catholics and Jews have been awarded knighthood and even higher titles. At least one British Muslim sits in the House of Lords. If this is how they feel about their own religion, how can we expect them to have developed the kind of sensitivity about Islam and its heroes that we do?
--------------------
Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God. They also believe in his resurrection after he had been lifted from the stake. Muslims say, no, he was not the son of God, and that the reports of his resurrection are false. Christians may view our rejection of their most fundamental doctrine as an attempt to belittle their Lord, and one that is intended to hurt their feelings. Nor should we be surprised if they mounted retaliatory movements against us. At the instigation of the popes in Rome, their knights and soldiers did fight crusades against Muslims in Palestine, but their object was to take Jerusalem, not to change Muslim beliefs about Jesus.
Hindus believe that their Lord Krishna was divine. He is often portrayed as surrounded by a whole bunch of young women (“Gopies”) and dancing with them. Muslims reject the claims of divinity for him, and many of them think he was inclined to be excessively romantic. Hindus might regard these Muslim assessments as an insult to their religion. Lucky for us that they do not think much of us or our views.
They have fought wars with us to consolidate their control over Kashmir, but not to change our views of Krishna. It is true that some Hindu extremists hope to change the Indian Muslims’ views by converting them to Hinduism, but note that we condemn their efforts on this front.
----------------------
The entire article is available here
Freedom of Speech is an important aspect of The India Manifesto. As the India Manifesto takes shape, it is important to ensure that India allows true freedom of speech and expression. Under the guise of various laws, the Government of India impedes up on this fundamental human right. For example, India was the first to ban Satanic Verses so as to not offend the Moslem sentiments. However, the same Government would does not see it fit to ban the nude and offensive paintings of Hindu Goddesses by M. F. Hussain.
The First Amendment to US Constitution guarantying absolute freedom of speech (except commercial speech or "shouting fire in a crowded theater" type speech) is a good model for India.
Here are some excerpts from Anwar Syed:
-------------------
Government of Pakistan gave no thought to foreign reaction when it decided to honour Ahmad Faraz, a distinguished poet, and awarded him a “Sitara,” even though he has all along been a harsh critic of western policies towards the Third World. Why then do we feel entitled to condemn the British government for its failing to consider our possible reaction to its honouring of Salman Rushdie?
--------------------
-------------------
British Catholics reject Protestantism and the Jews reject all of Christianity. Yet many Catholics and Jews have been awarded knighthood and even higher titles. At least one British Muslim sits in the House of Lords. If this is how they feel about their own religion, how can we expect them to have developed the kind of sensitivity about Islam and its heroes that we do?
--------------------
Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God. They also believe in his resurrection after he had been lifted from the stake. Muslims say, no, he was not the son of God, and that the reports of his resurrection are false. Christians may view our rejection of their most fundamental doctrine as an attempt to belittle their Lord, and one that is intended to hurt their feelings. Nor should we be surprised if they mounted retaliatory movements against us. At the instigation of the popes in Rome, their knights and soldiers did fight crusades against Muslims in Palestine, but their object was to take Jerusalem, not to change Muslim beliefs about Jesus.
Hindus believe that their Lord Krishna was divine. He is often portrayed as surrounded by a whole bunch of young women (“Gopies”) and dancing with them. Muslims reject the claims of divinity for him, and many of them think he was inclined to be excessively romantic. Hindus might regard these Muslim assessments as an insult to their religion. Lucky for us that they do not think much of us or our views.
They have fought wars with us to consolidate their control over Kashmir, but not to change our views of Krishna. It is true that some Hindu extremists hope to change the Indian Muslims’ views by converting them to Hinduism, but note that we condemn their efforts on this front.
----------------------
The entire article is available here
Freedom of Speech is an important aspect of The India Manifesto. As the India Manifesto takes shape, it is important to ensure that India allows true freedom of speech and expression. Under the guise of various laws, the Government of India impedes up on this fundamental human right. For example, India was the first to ban Satanic Verses so as to not offend the Moslem sentiments. However, the same Government would does not see it fit to ban the nude and offensive paintings of Hindu Goddesses by M. F. Hussain.
The First Amendment to US Constitution guarantying absolute freedom of speech (except commercial speech or "shouting fire in a crowded theater" type speech) is a good model for India.
Understanding Terrorism
For several decades, social scientists and historians in India have been trying to illustrate the true nature of radicalism and religious extremism that has manifested in attacks like 9/11 around the world. However, the far left of Indian politics along with the supporters and sympathizer who thrives on creating social and political anarchy has sought to undermine these efforts by casting these scholars as extremists themselves.
Now comes this remarkable op-ed piece from Daily Mail titled, "I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist" by Hassan Butt.
Here are some of the excerpts from Mr. Butt's article:
----------
And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice
------------
------------
the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.
------------
The entire article is available here.
This op-ed is very relevant for India. The basis for secularism in India is the Hindu philosophy which accepts diverse religious view points. However, radical Islam attacks the very basis of this secularism by dividing the world into believers and non-believers. This means that Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Jews and atheists have no place in the world idealized by 12% of Indian population.
The ability of radicals to promote this ideology under the garb or democracy and socialism means that democracy and secularism are themselves being used to undermine their fundamental tenets.
The anti-religious left sees no contradiction in joining hands with the religious extremists. The Manifesto of India will be based on true secularism - pure and unadulterated.
Now comes this remarkable op-ed piece from Daily Mail titled, "I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist" by Hassan Butt.
Here are some of the excerpts from Mr. Butt's article:
----------
And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice
------------
------------
the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.
------------
------------
For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).
Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.
-----------The entire article is available here.
This op-ed is very relevant for India. The basis for secularism in India is the Hindu philosophy which accepts diverse religious view points. However, radical Islam attacks the very basis of this secularism by dividing the world into believers and non-believers. This means that Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Jews and atheists have no place in the world idealized by 12% of Indian population.
The ability of radicals to promote this ideology under the garb or democracy and socialism means that democracy and secularism are themselves being used to undermine their fundamental tenets.
The anti-religious left sees no contradiction in joining hands with the religious extremists. The Manifesto of India will be based on true secularism - pure and unadulterated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)