Thoughts on economics and liberty

Category: Religion

Israel Folau is an HONEST religious man, like the “Islamists” and practitioners of untouchability

Christian “leaders” (what is that??) have apparently said that Folau is not representative of Christianity.

My comment:

The general rule seems to be that anyone who directly quotes from the religious scripture is an “extremist”/ Islamist/ terrorist.

Pretty malleable, these “religions”. In my view those who reject ANY verse in their religious scripture are imposters. You’ve got to represent the entire religion, whether for good or for bad. And then you’ll realise that you actually represent a truly immoral system.

Likewise I can’t be a Hindu without also accepting responsibility for untouchability and other heinous crimes of Hinduism. So I quit that “religion”.

The only honest way out is to REJECT all religion.

Religion is basically the worst form of hate speech and immorality one can imagine.

Continue Reading

Sanjay Sonawani’s response on Reddit to some misguided “rebuttal” of his views

On Reddit someone called Mad_Sanghi wrote:

This is weird. Instead of thinking vedas as the source of Hinduism, the author argues it is a later addition by some immigrants.

I think it is BS, because bramahnical society was using them, before the gupta period, as is visible by rise of Buddhism or Jainism before 5 th century BCE which took many Vedic concept and used them.

So if Buddhists were aware of the vedas and so were the Bramhins because the Buddhist were not a small group.

I think the author misinterprets existence of ritualism as vedas also have it but for Vedic gods. So the problem can be easily resolved when we accept that vedas were much earlier than we recognise them now.

SANJAY SONAWANI’S RESPONSE

His response has gone missing. No idea why. But I have a copy of it via email so I’m keeping it here fore the record.

==

Infact, it is weird that some think even after lot many archaeological proofs Vedas are the source of Hinduism. Vedic society had limited presence and that too in Magadha, Kurukshetra regions by 6th century BC. Nowhere else, even in Maharashtra traces are found of the existence of Vedic people or their religion prior to first century BC and in the south, Sangam literature proves that prior to third century AD Vedic religion was unknown to them. This only does mean that this religion gradually spread with conversions using missionary practices.

If you go through Tevijja Sutta, it will appear to you that Buddha has treated the Vedic religion as a distinct body opposed to Hindus those had several philosophical streams. Idolatry, Devotion, Salvation, Liberation was never part of Vedicism. In fact largest philosophical sect in Hinduism, that time was Sramana from which Ajeevkas, Buddism, Jainism, and many other sects sprang. Ajeevaka, Vratya were the oldest pre-vedic philosophical sects and were popular. This was the tradition of renunciation in Hinduism to which Vedas oppose. Pancharatrins promoted devotion, Yoga and Tantric rituals those were banned in Vedic rituals calling them Vedbahya. There were numerous Tantric sects (the foundation of Hinduism) centered around the worship of Shiva-Shakti as their chief deity. Shiva is nowhere to be found in Vedas. Common people of those times followed simple idol worship adhering to some or other sectarian ritualistic practice.
Vedics entered India sometime in 1200 BC and by sixths century BC did find some space in few states of northern India. Buddha challenges all the sects and their doctrines including Vedic as well. His mention and opposition to Vedas is as same as his opposition to Ajeevaka and Sankhya Doctrine. So this does not prove at all that the Vedas are the source of the Hinduism. This has been distinct religion and though Vedics has accepted idolatry to some extent, in Gupta era, they tried to vedicise them by creating easily detectable false myths around Hindu deities. Still, Shiva and Shakti remain non-Vedic and the scholars including Dr. RN Dandekar acknowledges this fact. There is no relation between Hindu and Vedic religion. Both have independent sources and different social order.

Vedic ritualistic practices also are too distinct the way their Gods are. Puja was never ever part of Vedicism. Had Vedas been source of the Hinduism, Vedas and Vedic gods would have remained dominant even today for entire Hindu society. But except for Vedics , none follows Vedic ritualistic practices and their Gods. It is ridiculous to consider both the religion one and the same and that Vedas are source of the Hinduism. The socio-cultural history does not support this claim!

Continue Reading

The Ayodhya land dispute – preliminary background research

I’m trying to understand the Ram Mandir issue. In this post (to be further elaborated when I find time), I’ll bring together some historical and legal details. In a further post I’ll try to form a view that is consistent with the principles of liberalism and India’s Constitution (prelim view here).

See this wikipedia entry.

1528: The Babri Masjid, a mosque in Ayodhya, is constructed by Mir Baki on the orders of Mughal emperor Babar. Some consider that it was built on the foundations of a temple which marked the birthplace of Ram.

1885: Mahant Raghubir Das files plea in Faizabad district court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure. British India Court rejects plea.

The land in the Babri Masjid-Rama Janmabhoomi area came under dispute in 1885, when the first suit was filed claiming rights over it. This was done by the Nirmohi Akhara, who cite traditional rights over this land, going back several centuries to when akharas were first set up to protect the Hindu faith. Coincidentally, this was also the year the Indian National Congress was born.

Under this suit, Mahant Raghubar Das’ application to build a temple on land adjoining the disputed structure was rejected by the Faizabad Deputy Commissioner. An aggrieved Das then filed a title suit in a Faizabad court against the Secretary of State for India, seeking permission to build a temple on the chabutara or raised platform in the outer courtyard of the disputed structure.

Dismissing the suit, the then Faizabad magistrate announced, given that the alleged demolition of an original Rama temple by Mir Baqi had occurred over three hundred and fifty years ago, in 1528, it was ‘too late now’ to remedy the grievance. ‘Maintain the status quo. Any innovation may cause more harm than any benefit,’ the court had said.

1949: On the night of December 22-23,1949, Hindu miscreants (some of them involved in the murder of Gandhi) in connivance with the local district administration, planted a Ram statue in the mosque (See Dark Night by Jha and Jha).

This led to widespread protests and both communities filed cases, Hashim Ansari for Muslims and Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das for Hindus. The government declared the site as disputed and locked the gates to it.

1950: Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das, the chief of Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, and Gopal Singh Visharad file suits in Faizabad, seeking permission to pray before the installed idols. The puja was allowed though the inner courtyard gates remain locked.

1959: Nirmohi Akhara, one of the main parties to the dispute, and others file a case and sought permission again to conduct prayers and seeking possession of the site.

1961: Sunni Central Board of Waqfs in Uttar Pradesh files a case claiming the mosque, and argues that the surrounding area was a graveyard.

1981: UP Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the site.

1984: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad constitutes a group to continue the movement as BJP leader L K Advani is made the leader of the campaign.

February 1, 1986: Faizabad district judge orders the gates of the structure be opened for Hindus to offer prayers. Babri Masjid Action Committee is formed soon after this. “The doors of the Bahri Masjid were opened for worship at the Ram shrine in 1986….When the gates to the disputed shrine in the Bahri Masjid were unlocked on February 1, 1986, Syed Shahabuddin took the lead in organizing a Muslim agitation in protest.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]

1989: Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi allows shilanyas or a ground-breaking ceremony in an undisputed site close to the structure. The hearing of the case is subsequently shifted to the High Court. “In 1989 Rajiv permitted the performance of shilanyas (laying of foundation stone). Indeed, he performed shilanyas himself near Ayodhya at the start of the 1989 election campaign”[Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article].

Aug 14, 1989: Allahabad HC ordered maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure. “The retired judge Deoki Nandan Agarwal collected revenue records and other documents to claim the land belonged to Ram before filing a writ petition before the Allahabad high court in 1989. In his suit, he appointed Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman—Ram himself—as the lead plaintiff. He pronounced himself Ram Lalla’s “next friend”—a provision that would allow him to conduct legal battle on Ram’s behalf.” [Source]

September 25,1990: Advani launches a rath yatra (pilgrimage procession) from Somnath to Ayodhya to galvanise support for the issue countrywide. The yatra traversed 10,000 kilometres through the country in a jeep designed like a chariot, with the rallying cry of “Mandir wahin banayenge”—the temple will only be built there. The yatra left a trail of communal clashes wherever it went. It came to a head with the demolition of the mosque by a 300,000-strong mob. The incident led to one of the worst outbreaks of communal violence in modern India. [Source]

November 1990: Advani’s rath is stopped and he is arrested in Samastipur, Bihar. Dissatisfied with the development, the BJP withdraws its support to the VP Singh government, triggering fresh elections. The saffron party makes giant strides in the assembly elections by winning a majority.

July 1992: The Bahri Masjid controversy flared up dangerously in July 1992 when the Uttar Pradesh state government showed great reluctance to stop the kar seva (holy volunteer work) at Ayodhya. On July 21 the Sant Samaj (congregation of holy men) rejected a proposal from Prime Minister Rao to suspend the ongoing kar seva for construction of the temple and enter into a dialogue with the central government. The following day the VHP asked the kar sevaks to ignore the Supreme Court’s commentaries on the dispute. As far as the VHP and the Sant Samaj were concerned, the dispute was beyond the competence of any court to decide. The BJP government of the state refused to countenance the use of force against the kar sevaks and prepared instead for central government intervention to enforce the court’s orders. [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]

November 23, 1992: “The National Integration Council had met on November 23, and the central government had received intelligence reports warning of specially trained squads being arranged during the kar seva for purposes inimical to the security of the Bahri Masjid structure.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]

Dec 6, 1992: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure demolished by Hindutva ruffians called “kar sevaks”, led by BJP criminals. A makeshift temple was placed in its place. The PV Narasimha Rao-led Congress government then moved court for status quo. “In the tense post-demolition atmosphere, the Shahi Imam was in the forefront, demanding the right of Muslims to offer namaaz (Muslim prayers) at the disputed site.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]

December 21,1992: “In the Lok Sabha debate on December 21, 1992, Narasimha Rao argued that Article 356 of the Constitution was too restrictive to have permitted him to dismiss the BJP government before the mosque’s demolition and that perhaps it needed to be amended.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]

“The Bajrang Dal, RSS, and VHP (and two Muslim organizations) were banned by the government after December 6 as communal organizations.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]

“Stung by allegations of having been too cautious in UP, Narasimha Rao took the extra-precautionary measure of dismissing all BJP state governments-Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh-after the Ayodhya demolition.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]

“Rao promised that the mosque would be rebuilt. But in the meantime, the Hindu mob that had destroyed the mosque had built a makeshift temple on the ruins and installed images of Ram. A new mosque could not be built on the site without first destroying the temple and the images.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]

On January 2, 1993, the district administration of Ayodhya lifted the ban and permitted Hindus to worship at the Ram shrine on the site of the demolished mosque.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]

“A mass BJP rally in Delhi at the end of February 1993 was thwarted by a massive police deployment.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]

“Whatever Hindus might think … of the installation of Ram idols in Ayodhya, the sobering fact is that it was accomplished by mob rule of the worst sort: defiance of constitutional authority with the passive connivance of the police and the state government.” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]

Apr 3, 1993: ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ passed for acquisition of land by Centre in the disputed area.

“On January 24, 1993, the government promulgated a presidential ordinance to acquire almost 68 acres of land in and around the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid complex at Ayodhya. The land is to be handed over to two trusts, one to build a temple and the other a mosque” [Ramesh Thakur’s 1993 Asian Survey article]

1993: Various writ petitions, including one by Ismail Faruqui, filed at Allahabad HC challenging various aspects of the Act.

Oct 24, 1994: SC says in the Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

May 4, 2001: Special Judge SK Shukla drops conspiracy charge against 13 accused, including Advani and Kalyan Singh. Bifurcates Crimes 197 and 198.Allahabad HC upholds May 4, 2001 special court order, dismisses the CBI’s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Advani and others.

Apr, 2002: HC begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site.

March 5, 2003: The Allahabad High Court orders the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate the disputed site in order to determine whether a temple existed where the mosque stood.

Mar 13, 2003: SC says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature be allowed at the acquired land.

Mar 14 2003: SC says interim order passed should be operative till disposal of the civil suits in Allahabad HC to maintain communal harmony.

August 22, 2003: ASI submits its report to the Allahabad High Court, saying it had found features of a 10th century temple beneath the site of the masjid.

August 31, 2003: All India Muslim Personal Law Board says it would challenge the ASI report.

June 30, 2009: The Liberhan Commission, constituted soon after the Babri Masjid demolition by the P.V. Narasimha Rao-led government, submits its report. In its report, retired High Court Judge MS Liberhan concluded that several BJP leaders had a role in the incident.

July 26, 2010: The bench reserves its judgment and advised all parties to solve the issue amicably. But no one was keen.

September 23, 2010: The plea for an out-of-court settlement reaches Supreme Court and the apex body says it would hear it again on September 28.

September 28, 2010: Supreme Court rejects petition for deferment and gives the nod to the Allahabad High Court to deliver the judgment. The High Court chooses September 30 as verdict day.

September 30, 2010: The Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority, rules three-way division of the 2.77 acres of the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site between Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla Virajman.

February, 2011: CBI moves Supreme Court, argues that “the actual demolition of the Babri Masjid and the continuous assault on media persons form a single connected transaction and can well be a concerted conspiracy.”

May 9, 2011: Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya land dispute. [“In 2010, the high court in Allahabad ruled that one-third of the land would go to Ram Lalla, while the remaining would be split between the other two plaintiffs. The next year, the Supreme Court stayed the order on grounds that no party had wanted a three-way split – Source].

December 25, 2014: Mohammad Farooq, the oldest litigant in Babri Masjid case passes away. Farooq, a resident of Ayodhya, was one of the seven main litigants from Muslim side in the 1949 Babri Masjid case.

Feb 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in SC seeking construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site.

March 21, 2017: Suggesting an out-of-court rapprochement among rival parties in the 68-year-old Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, Chief Justice of India JS Khehar advises peace negotiations instead of a pitched court battle, even offering help to settle the fight amicably.

March 23, 2017: A Supreme Court Bench of Justices PC Ghose and Rohinton Nariman posted for detailed hearing the CBI appeal against the dropping of the criminal conspiracy charge against veteran BJP leader LK Advani and other top party leaders after two weeks.

April 6, 2017: Supreme Court indicates it will use its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer the Babri Masjid demolition related trial in Rae Bareilly against top BJP leaders LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi to Lucknow, where a CBI court was hearing conspiracy and other serious criminal charges against “lakhs of unknown kar sevaks” for the actual act of razing down the 15th century mosque.

April 19, 2017: Supreme Court revives conspiracy charges against LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and 13 others in the 25-year-old Babri Masjid demolition case.

May 30, 2017: Senior BJP leaders LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar charged with criminal conspiracy in the Babri Masjid demolition case.

Aug 7, 2017: SC constitutes three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad HC.

August 8, 2017: Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board informs the Supreme Court that they would settle for a masjid located in a “Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the most revered place of birth of Maryada Purushottam Sri Ram.”

August 11, 2017: Supreme Court schedules hearing of 13 appeals in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute on December 5, 2017, the eve of the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the 15th century mosque.

Sep 11, 2017: SC directs Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC to nominate two additional district judges within ten days as observers to deal with the upkeep of the disputed site.

Nov 20, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow.

Dec 1, 2017: Thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad HC.

December 5, 2017: Supreme Court defers the commencement of final hearing in the Ayodhya dispute matter to February 8, 2018. The stakeholders had moved the SC after the Allahabad High Court directed the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla to settle for a three-way division of the disputed site.

Feb 8, 2018: SC starts hearing the civil appeals.

Mar 14, 2018: SC rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene as parties in the case.

Apr 6, 2018: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in SC to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench.

Jul 6, 2018: UP government tells SC some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of an observation in the 1994 verdict.

Sep 27, 2018: SC declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. Case to be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29.

 

KEYWORDS

Babri masjid, Ram mandir

Continue Reading

The Rakhigarhi DNA confirms that VEDAS ARE A FOREIGN RELIGION – just like Islam or Christianity

I know the final paper by Shinde et al will be published sometime this month but there are a few key issues to note here.

Vasant Shinde is the same person who released Sanjay Sonawani’s book on the origins of the Vedic religion.

However, it appears that Shinde is inclined to the view that Vedas originated in India. For instance he said to Economic Times in June 2018:

the DNA is clearly local,” Shinde told ET. He went on to add: “This indicates quite clearly, through archeological data, that the Vedic era that followed was a fully indigenous period with some external contact.”  According to Shinde’s findings, the manner of burial is quite similar to the early Vedic period, also known as the Rigvedic Era. The pottery, the brick type used for construction and the general ‘good health’ of the people ascertained through the skeletal remains in Rakhigarhi, he said, pointed to a well-developed knowledge system that evolved further into the Vedic era. The study has, in fact, noted that some burial rituals observed in the Rakhigarhi necropolis prevail even now in some community

This argument is, of course, absurd. The fact that there are common rituals with Hinduism is precisely what Sanjay Sonawani has been writing about. That’s the MAIN Hinduism. Shinde’s argument would imply that the IV civilisation was the cradle of the Vedas, which is absurd since the Vedic civilisation is pastoral while IV is URBAN.

Thereafter, there is OVERWHELMING evidence regarding the influx (small or moderate) of steppe peoples into India.

Sanjay Sonawani’s analysis confirms the Vedas originated in Southern Afghanistan and these people MIGRATED AS REFUGEES into India.

It appears that Shinde’s co-author Niraj Rai has a different – and correct – view. The India Today article of 31 August 2018 states:

[Rai] … was emphatic in acknowledging that while “a mass movement of Central Asians happened and significantly changed the South Asian genetic make-up“, the inhabitants of ancient Rakhigarhi “do not have any affinity with the Central Asians”. In other words, while the citizens of the Indus Valley Civilisation had none of this ancestry, you, dear average Indian reader, owe 17.5 per cent of your male lineage to people from the Steppe.

To me the matter is clear as day.

The Indus Valley Civilisation is the ORIGINAL HINDU civilisation. This is definitely thousands of years old.

However, after the IV civilisation, came the Vedic ideas. There was also a significant impact of these migrants on the general population of India, particularly the “upper castes”.

I’ve written a lot on this issue. My latest views on this topic are found in the following blog posts over the past year:

Vedic Hinduism is an Afghan religion – 100 per cent proofs

The Aryan invasion theory that I was taught in school – Rawlinson’s text

Sanjay Sonawani’s forensic analysis of caste – something quite radical and unprecedented

Inviting all those who know Hinduism. Please examine Sanjay Sonawani’s draft book which demolishes the caste system

Be prepared to change ALL your views about India. Sanjay Sonawani’s work will turn your understanding of India up side down.

The data are now overwhelming: There was no mingling of the indigenous Hindu populations with the Vedic people till AFTER the Indus Valley civilisation.

This clearly shows that the Vedic people came AFTER this date, and that’s also borne out by a whole host of other data.

VEDAS A FOREIGN RELIGION TO INDIA. Just like Islam or Christianity.  Sanjay Sonawani is 100 per cent right.

Anyway, let the scientists keep working and interrogating evidence.

My concern is that Sanjay’s book on caste – based on his extensive research – has not yet been widely appreciated by Indians.

Continue Reading