India Unvarnished

Chowkwallas ,

Could someone explain why ``India Unvarnished`` which I had the pleasure of reading last night is a permanently featured item on chowk ? Never mind sweeping comments like ``In response to most Indians craving for self-praise`` it is a serious distortion of south asian history. It really deserves to be languishing in some forgotten corner of chowk archives. If you have to feature it I would suggest another feature right next to it that presents a differing view ... or even a ``Pakistan Unvarnished``. Maybe have another area of chowk called Itihaas where differing views of history may be debated ?

I really believe giving preferential status to this article is counter to chowks objective to be a place for impartial debate and dialogue.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

this article desreves to be laughed out of a first year undergraduate class.

Hi,
I know i have joined chowk too late to commet on this spurious and motivated article.
Obviously hiding behind all those ``high`` references is a wolf in ``sheepskin``.
The Bias is so transparent ..one sometimes wonders WHY most paki sites host ``sponsored`` articles. This is akin to lifafa journos penniing articles glorifying all things official ..back in Pakistan.
The most surprising thing was it was chowk staff and not the author who furnished the list of references when one of the first few replies asked him to furnish those.
Why ``chowk staff`` and NOT the author?
The ``chowk support`` is so transparently obvious!
Other sites such as satribune.com (now defunct) were worse.
One such site www.pakistanidefenceforum.com invariably has articles with ``no bhindies please`` appended to them in the end!
``head in sand`` and dada-giri in one form or another coupled with fowl language, low intellectual standards, and hate mongering of all and sundry are the ``hall-marks`` of most pakistani related sites, i have seen on the web.
This is one is an exception to soem extent, but ``official sponsoring`` of this article either points to misheivous intent, or out right hat for all things indian!
Jayen

Hi,
I know i have joined chowk too late to commet on this spurious and motivated article.
Obviously hiding behind all those ``high`` references is a wolf in ``sheepskin``.
The Bias is so transparent ..one sometimes wonders WHY most paki sites host ``sponsored`` articles. This is akin to lifafa journos penniing articles glorifying all things official ..back in Pakistan.
The most surprising thing was it was chowk staff and not the author who furnished the list of references when one of the first few replies asked him to furnish those.
Why ``chowk staff`` and NOT the author?
The ``chowk support`` is so transparently obvious!
Other sites such as satribune.com (now defunct) were worse.
One such site www.pakistanidefenceforum.com invariably has articles with ``no bhindies please`` appended to them in the end!
``head in sand`` and dada-giri in one form or another coupled with fowl language, low intellectual standards, and hate mongering of all and sundry are the ``hall-marks`` of most pakistani related sites, i have seen on the web.
This is one is an exception to soem extent, but ``official sponsoring`` of this article either points to misheivous intent, or out right hate for all things indian!
Jayen

The intolerance of Hindu fanatics on this article is enough of a reason to read this article carefuly and with an open mind.

Does the Ramayana have any historic basis?

Some of the comments are pure stupid...
In Ramayana, the journey was eastwards from Ayoudhya. How come Caspian sea etc...coming into picture...It was purely Indian stuff...
The aryan/dravidian concept is formulated by Max Mueller. No literature/historic document proves it.

I had the opportunity of reading this very good article of Mr. Murad Baig. I have written a Blog in the following site similar to this:-
http://mbahmed786.indiainteracts.com/2008/05/27/the-debate-on-the-period -in-which-lord-rama-lived/

Following are the contents of the blog:-

The debate on the Period in which Lord Rama Lived

I happened to read the article written by Dr. Satya Pal Singh, Commissioner of Police, Nagpur in the Rediff.com posted on 14th April 2008 on “Proving the historicity of Ram”. ( http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/apr/14guest.htm )

At the outset the article written by him is completely biased and is neither scientific nor rational. It is not understood as to how a senior IPS officer, has devoted so much of time in writing this article, inspite of his pressing duties as a Commissioner of Police of a big city like Nagpur. If his approach is biased like this then what will be the fate of the inquiries that are being dealt by him is a big question. Definitely all the cases dealt by him must not have had a fair dealing.

No one in this country ,irrespective of religion, caste or creed have ever questioned the existence of Lord Ram. At times due to some compulsions some leaders would have challenged. It is difficult to prove the events that have been narrated in the Epics. At the same time, there is every likelihood of the events being exaggerated. Once in a debate between Arignar Anna and Professor R.P.Sethu Pillai, the former had questioned about certain remarks made by Kambar in the Kamba Ramayanam. For this, Prof. Sethu Pillai had politely replied that while narrating it in a poetic or literary form, some imagination has been made and that should not be taken for challenging the very existence of the Characters mentioned in the work. In the same way the message narrated in the Great epics must be taken and instead trying to justify the Historicity of Ram on the basis of what has been mentioned in the Epics will not work out to be correct.

Dr Satya Pal Singh has tried hard to prove that Lord Ram lived sometime between 18,149,108 and 869,108 years ago. For this he is also blaming the Western historians and Anthropologists for their biased approach. It is realy unimaginable that Lord Ram lived such long back. Even for argument sake if we accept that he lived during that period, how is it that no other evidence is available. After the happenings of Ramayan between 18,149,108 and 869,108 and the Mahabarath sometime later, as per Dr. Satya Pal Singh, no other incidents have taken place for so many tens of thousands of years till the last 5000BC, which have not been recorded at all. Does he mean that no important events took place in the intervening period.

It is nothing but making fools of ourselves. It is not understood why a section of the people, are not accepting the reality. The people who are floating this theory want to suppress the facts that the Aryans had invaded India from the Central Asia and had overrun the Indus Valley Civilisation. As the existing Civilisation was much superior, they have started to float the theories that Lord Ram lived long back. If we are to accept the theory floated by Dr. Satya Pal Singh then the Geography of the Indian Sub-continent itself has to be changed. He himself accepts due to the long lapse of time there could be so many changes. Definitely the Geographical/Geological features would not have been the same as it is now or a few thousand years ago. It would have been drastically different lakhs of years ago. After the recent Tsunami in 2004, the coastline is said to have changed. There are ample proof that parts of Poompuhar and Mahabalipuram have been submerged in the sea a few hundred years ago. The Adams Bridge or the Ramar Sethu is just a few hundred kilometers from the Poompuhar coast. When Poompuhar has been subjected to sea incursions, we cannot say what all would have happened to the Adams Bridge or the Ramar Sethu over the years. So if we accept the hypotheses of Dr. Satya Pal Singh, then to say that Lord Ram was born at the present Ayodhya and he constructed the Adams Bridge or the Ramar Sethu, is not at all acceptable.

It is a fact that till the First Millennium BC, the languages in the Indian Sub-continent were not being written. In a bid to usurp the creativity of the Indus Valley Civilisation, such theories are being floated, time and again.The language/s spoken by the people of the Indus Valley Civilisation had a script but has nothing to do with the Aryans. As the original occupants were conquered/driven away, they had lost touch of their language and the place. It has been scientifically proved that Brahui - the language spoken in the present Pakistan is the remnant of the Indus Valley Civilisation and is a Dravidian Language. Further, the Aryans as per their Vedas were the worshippers of the Nature and it only after they had come to India they have adopted worship of the Idols and images. In the Indus Valley, Idols and Image worshipping has been reported. Another factor is that the dead were being burried as per the customs of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Whereas the Aryans burn their dead. Thus these facts itself is sufficient to prove that it was not an Aryan Civilisation. M/s. Jha and Rajaram tried hard to prove that it is an Aryan Civilisation by fabricating but have been exposed. Like that Dr. Satya Pal Singh wants to claim what is not a fact. Luckily most parts of the Indus Valley Civilisation are now in Pakistan, otherwise, it would have seen the same fate of the Babri Masjid and people like Dr. Satya Pal Singh may later say that no such Civilisation was there at all.

It is a fact that India has been invaded by the Muslims, Huns, Mughals and the Britishers . None have denied it. Similarly it is also a fact that the Aryans are originaly from the Central Asia, have come down and settled in India. They are the first amongst the outsiders to come to India.

Lord Rama had set an example as to how as a Human being one should live and as to how a King should rule. Let us follow it. But at the same time let us accept the fact that the Ramayan and Mahabarath took place between 1500 BC and 500 BC. As true Indians let us propogate the ideals taught by the Great mortals and not make them as a mark of controversy.