BEFORE HUMAN RACE EVOLVED RAMA’s BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

SEARCH RAM FIRST BEFORE REACHING RAM’s BRIDGE 

[Dravida Kazhagam General Secretary K.Veeramani is convening an All Party Meeting on 8 th May 2007 to counter the false propaganda unleashed by BJP and VHP on the so called Rama’s Bridge, which they claim as Heritage site and needs protection. We all know once upon a time
India was an island nation surrounded by seas hence it had the name
நாவலந் தீவு . Continental Drifts had altered the world map many times. Once all continents were in one super-continent called Pangaea which in Latin meant all earth. The drifts continue. Certain oceans are expanding and certain are shrinking. In such a scenario to claim that a Land Bridge built 1,750.000 years ago when no human being had inhabited the Earth, is intact and it must be protected lacks logic and mere faith cannot be scientific foundation for a claim like this. Dravida Peravai challenges the contention and puts forward our views, which is open to debate, as we are rationalists, we will not run away from debate. Nandhi Varman General Secretary Dravida Peravai] 

The BJP and its policies based on a mythical hero with no relevance to people’s issues is a mirage chase. A mirage which BJP cannot reach to quench its thirst for power. Hue and cry over non existent Ram’s bridge had been catapulted into a matter of national debate. Dravida Kazhagam, the parent body of all major and minor Dravidian political parties including Dravida Peravai had done the logically correct thing to counter the propaganda of falsehoods unleashed by the forces of fascism.

Paula Richman wrote a book titled “Many Ramayanas” Yes the question before us is to accept which Ramayana as true story?. Vishwa Hindu Parishad is not ready to accept truth or explore hidden truth or accept the multiplicity of Ramayana versions. That is fascism and nothing else. Paula Richman refers an incident in her book. “In 1993 the VHP destroyed an exhibition because it depicted the Jain Dasaratha Jathaga version of Rama and Seetha as siblings.” Who could be the arbiter? Should anyone take the matter to International Court of Justice because it involves Ramayanas originating from different cultures and countries? Individuals cannot go to International Court of Justice. Some nation must take the matter to court, to prove its version of Ramayana as true history. Till the matter is decided, no question of resolving Ram’s birth place and Ram’s Bridge could be resolved or settled. First and foremost to be decided is which of the Ramayanas is true history? 

Laos Ramayana: Buddha recited the story of Rama to his disciples, in
Laos; they believe that the jataka tale to be tale of Buddha’s previous birth. There are two popular versions of Ramayana namely Phra Lak Phra Lam and Gvay Dvorahbi. According to these Ramayanas, Ravana is the nephew of King Dasarath. Rama while roaming in desert in search of Sita eats a fruit and becomes a monkey. [The biblical Adam and Eve’s story and its resemblance could also be taken note of] After becoming monkey Rama meets Nengsi, a woman turned into monkey and marries her. Hanuman is their son. After killing Ravana, Ram marries his widow.

Thai Ramayana: The earliest version of Ramakien dates back to 13 th century and Thais believe their version to be the original story. In Ramakien many places in Thailand have been identified with Ramayana episodes. The city of Ayutthaya i.e. Ayodhya has been mentioned as capital of the kingdom. Ramakien vividly describes the marriage of Hanuman. According to Thais, Hanuman had many affairs and children. 

Jain Ramayana: According to historian D.N.Jha in Jain Ramayana it is Luxman who kills Ravana. Neither Ram, Luxman nor Hanuman is monogamous. Luxman has 16,000 wives while half that number Ram has, says D.N.Jha. “In Buddhist Ramayana Rama and Sita are siblings who later got married while in Jain Ramayana Rama has 8000 wives. Historian D.N.Jha links the monogamous Rama to the patriarchal society, a symptom of which is also Sita’s agnipariksha.” 

Cambodian Ramayana: Cambodian version “The Reamkher” states Ram as incarnation of Vishnu.  Akaingameso which means God’s doorkeeper was reborn as Ravana. Sita, in her earlier birth was the wife of Indra, who was insulted by Ravana. To avenge the wrong she was born as Ravana’s daughter. Ravana was cautioned by his astrologer and brother Bibhek about his daughter’s evil birth. Ravana put her in a chest and buried her. King Janaka later discovered her. The Reamkher follows Valmiki episodes on Ram’s friendship with monkey chiefs and construction of the bridge. There is one important deviation. Sita gave birth to a son named Ramalaksha parented by Valmiki.One day she went to the river for a bath with her son when the sage was in deep meditation. After meditation Vamiki could not see his son, hence created another son by his yogic power and named him Jupalaksha. 

These are some of the versions. BJP and VHP must first of all find out whether Sita is the wife of Valmiki ? They must find out whether Rama had 8000 wives, Lakshman had 16000 wives or Dasarathan had 60000 wives. The Ravana and Sita being father and daughter and the Rama and Sita being brother and sister, are existing stories in various cultures. We did not write these Ramayanas, and all Ramayanas are written by pious people and not atheists like me.

The Dravidian Movement took up cudgels against the Kamban’s version of Ramayana and the journal Kudi Arasu edited by Thanthai E.V.Ramasamy Periyar published series of articles by Chandrasekara Paavalar. Aringnar Anna challenged Tamil scholars to come for open one to one debate on the purpose of Kambaramayanam and its imposition on Tamils to subjugate them under Aryan Illusion [ஆரிய மாயை ] .

Navalar Somasundara Bharathiar and சொல்லின் செல்வர் R.P.Sethu Pillai debated with Anna and openly admitted they have lost the debate. This debate in Tamil Book “Let Fire Spread” தீ பரவட்டும்  wants to illuminate Tamil hearts by symbolically burning Kamba ramayanam. Pulavar Kuzhanthai wrote  இராவண காவியம் .  Ravana Kavyam  can be considered as Dravidian version of Ramayanam.  

The question before us which of these versions is based on true historical facts. These are not days where everyone will accept anything with blind faith. If you place new facts to reopen a settled issue in history, you should place facts and prove it. Blind faith of BJP and VHP will not stand the scrutiny of the Age of Science.

Chinese had some truth to add to world’s history, yes they wanted to tell the world that their sons only discovered America and not Columbus. Gavin Menzies wrote a book: 1421 : The Year China Discovered America. The book states about the 7 expeditions by Admiral Zheng He between 1405 and 1423 with a fleet of 317 ships and 28,000 men. Chinese Government organized exhibitions, and the postal authorities of Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand issued postage stamps commemorating Zhen He’s discovery. At a cost of 50 million dollars a Museum is being set up. If BJP and VHP had truth in their arsenal let them use it first. Lungpower alone will not establish truth. When they ruled India, BJP combine tried its best to use all money at its command to prove many falsehoods; ultimately they failed in all such adventures.

HOW FAST DO MONKEYS FLY? 

In October 2004, a lecture by Berkeley Professor R.P.Goldman titled “How fast do monkeys fly? How long do demons sleep” which took place in New Delhi is reported in the Times of India [Mumbai edition] dated Saturday October 30 2004. According to Dr.R.P.Goldman “ancient Sanskrit scholars who made intense study of Hindu mythological texts like Ramayana tried to rationalize several of the seemingly improbable tales like Ravana’s ten heads, or how fast Hanuman the monkey god could have flown to get the sanjivini or elixir, for Laksman or even how long Kumbakarna, Ravana’s brother, might have slept.”

In order to apply the rationalist paint to the absurd story of Ravana having 10 heads, since none of the findings about extinct  species have found a single 10 headed human fossil, they said that Ravana actually had one head and the other 9 were reflection on the large 9 polished gems that he wore around his neck. The success of rationalist movement compels scholars to spin new tales to justify foolish tales.

Another important question that these scholars raised was how long could Hanuman have taken to fly to the Himalayas to the Mahodaya Mountain to fetch the life giving herb for Laksmanan from Lanka, where the battle was raging? Goldman says that some of the scholars calculated that roughly at a speed of 660 kilometers per hour Hanuman flew, plucked the mountain, and flew back to Lanka. Then “Hanuman was quite ecologically conscious” the Professor R.P.Goldman states in order to save ecology Hanuman flew again back to Himalayas and pasted the plucked mountain with an adhesive still not found by scientists.

This is the scholarly research which BJP and VHP want us to accept. Can anyone with brain assimilate this research as proven scientifically and established beyond an iota of doubt? No one will swallow this foolish finding. Dravida Peravai wants BJP and VHP to prove all these impossible feats first before staking claim to Rama’s Bridge in Gulf of Mannar. 

RAMA’s BRIDGE 

So far historians have found evidences that first human on Earth dates back to 60,000 years. Journey of Man by Spencer Wells which was also telecasted in National Geographic Channel claims that first human beings were from Africa. The book also claims that all humans are one; there exists a common gene named Sangene in all human beings. While writing about this book in my article titled Black Race and Brahma’s Face, I had written that these findings which prove human race is one is a severe indictment of a race that claims superiority among others and one which never accepts all humans as equals, thus people who claim to have born from Brahma’s face who built castles of lies in the name of varunasharadharma, have been proven to be totally unscientific and idiots claiming superiority on earth at the cost of fellow human beings,

The reason to state this is because in www.virtuallibrary.com of Srilanka claims:

NASA Images Find 1,750,000 Year Old Man Made Bridge between India and Srilanka” 

Under this title the Aryan lobby writes “In the 18 th incarnation of Lord Krishna, the Lord appeared as King Rama. In order to perform some pleasing work for the demigods, he exhibited superhuman powers by controlling the Indian Ocean and the killing of the atheist King Ravana, who was on the other side of the Sea”…. Srimad Bhagawatham, the site claims.

Let us examine the falsehoods one by one. We from the Dravidian Movement are atheists but not Ravana; all know that Ravana as per epics is a devotee of Lord Siva. The doubt which arises to me is why should a reincarnation of God perform superhuman deeds to impress demigods? Does it mean that Demigods are more powerful than the Original God on reincarnation?

How does God control Indian Ocean? 

UNESCO had constituted an Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission to undertake research of the Indian Ocean. This commission had not found yet anything that Gods did in Indian Ocean as per Srimad Bhagawatham. Well Dravida Peravai urges the Indian Government to refer the matter of Rama’s Bridge to this Intergovernmental Commission and if this commission says that there is no Rama’s bridge, will all BJP and VHP followers give up their religion and become atheists. Graham Hancock had written a book titles Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization. In 1981 Daniel Behrman had written a book Assault on the Unknown. There are many books on Indian Ocean. All these books give us evidences on the continental drift, the submerged lands of the Lemuria, which Tamils prefer to call as the Kumari Kandam. The challenge posed by BJP and VHP must be accepted and we must use the National Institute of Oceanography to indulge in the study of under water archaeology to bring to light the great past of the Tamils. Tamil literature says 49 countries were lost to the seas, including River Kumari and River Pahruli. If Ramayana, an epic says Rama constructed a bridge and if that has to be probed, we Tamils demand that what all Tamil literature says about First and Second Tamil Sangams and the land loss to Tamil homeland namely Kumarikandam also should be studied.

In 2004 Dinamani Tamil Daily reported that in Bangalore a scientist Graham Cook displayed finds from the under water exploration he made near off the coast of Poompuhar, the Chozha Port and displayed video scenes of submerged Poompuhar and bdisplayed out 2000 artifacts from the Sea. Using carbon dating and other scientifically proven methodology in archaeology he said that the Poompuhar Civilization dates back to 7500 B.C. Tamils must be proud to have scientific evidence that pushes its civilization to an earlier period compared to Indus Valley Civilization. Instead of repeating like parrots that we have 2000 years of history, Tamil scholars must claim that we have a civilization which is 10,000 years old.

The probe BJP wants to undertake will only prove the Tamils past. It is well known fact that due to rise and fall of sea level both India and Srilanka got linked up in land 65,000 years ago, Before 27000 years due to rise in sea level India and Srilanka got separated. Around 17,000 years ago when sea level dropped both land masses joined and later parted. The study made by Trichirapalli Bharathidasan University Earth Sciences department states that before 1.4 million years sea was close to Madurai. Before 90,000 years Chennai, Puducherry and Vedaranyam were surrounded by seas. We all know that global warming will result in rise in sea level and Tamilnadu coast will undergo changes. These are all natural phenomenon. When lands get linked and then gets separated sand domes will naturally be formed. Such domes could not be claimed as bridge. Contrary buildings exist beneath the seas near Poompuhar, where we can prove Tamil civilization,

Right from the beginning Srilanka had been conspiring to stall Sethusamudram project, and we all know the proposal by Srilanks to construct a bridge linking Srilanka and India, for which it gave an eye catching name  Hanuman Bridge, perhaps to hoodwink the BJP. For argument sake if Hanuman
Bridge had been constructed instead of Sethusamudram project will it not affect the Rama’s so called Mirage Bridge? Dravida Peravai opposed it by calling it a Berlin Wall across the Seas.

Now again with no economic programme in its arsenal BJP wants to use an emotional appeal, hence resorts to Ram’s bridge. But BJP conveniently forgets that Atal Bihari Vajpayee speaking in Indian Parliament in 1974 called Kachateevu as Valideep, where Rama fought Vali. Why BJP is silence on Valideep? Why they don’t want to reclaim Valideep? Loss of Kacchateevu results in out fishermen getting killed. Reclaiming Kachateevu is not in BJP’s agenda, but a Bridge is, what a mentality these fascist forces have ?

Nandhi Varman General Secretary Dravida Peravai

8 thoughts on “BEFORE HUMAN RACE EVOLVED RAMA’s BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

  1. VEDAPRAKASH

    My attention is drawn to your posting in WordPress.com.

    I offer my comments to your post:

    “India was an island nation surrounded by seas hence it had the name நாவலந் தீவு”.

    Is to so? Kindly tell me, where the expression “நாவலந் தீவு” is found in the ancient Tamil literature or “Sangam” literature?

    “In such a scenario to claim that a Land Bridge built 1,750.000 years ago when no human being had inhabited the Earth”

    In haste, you are mentioning as 1,750 years (1,750.000 = 1750).

    Paula Richman wrote a book titled “Many Ramayanas” Yes the question before us is to accept which Ramayana as true story?.

    You claimed youself as a rationalist / atheist etc. Then, you have to be careful in quoting from secondary sources, because, non-Hindus or anti-Hindus can write anything and quoting such biased ideas make you unbecoming of a “rationalist / atheist”. You should have read H. D. Sankalia also before jumping into the so-called “debate”.

    Your mention about Jain / Buddha Ramayanas: As Ramayana has become so popular, even Jains and Buddhists had to imitate Ramayana by changing the story, just like Kulandai. Therefore, there is nothing new in it. As a researcher or scholar or historian, you have to demythologize and find out the truth, instead of relying upon “such myth on myth”, straightaway.

    [The biblical Adam and Eve’s story and its resemblance could also be taken note of] Sita becoming a monket after eating a fruit: This shows that either you have not read the story properly or misquoting or rather drawing wrong parallel with the biblical Adam and Eve (don’t try to escape by telling that I am a rationalist and all). I do not know as to whether Eve became monkey to have such forceful comparison!

    You furthering the above story: Here, you are perhaps nearing the biblical fables, as Jesus also reportedly married to May Magdelene. Perhaps, you decided to not stretch it.

    According to Thais, Hanuman had many affairs and children: Naturally, if the wishes are horses, even blind can fly. Why Thais, even Annba did it. As you are a rationalist and atheist, you quote all these things, so enjoy.
    Anna’s inconclusive debate on Kamba Ramayanam: “Navalar Somasundara Bharathiar and சொல்லின் செல்வர் R.P.Sethu Pillai debated with Anna and openly admitted they have lost the debate. This debate in Tamil Book “Let Fire Spread” தீ பரவட்டும் wants to illuminate Tamil hearts by symbolically burning Kamba ramayanam. Pulavar Kuzhanthai wrote இராவண காவியம் . Ravana Kavyam can be considered as Dravidian version of Ramayanam”.
    No, they were ashamed of the perversity and vulgarity erupted in the name of literary flow and hanged their heads. Any Tamil knowing or reading person would hang his head after reading as it is just like “yellow journalism” circulated under the “Dravidian” banner, that too, coming from Anna, wjo became Chief Minister of Tamilnadu taking oath under the Indian Constitution, that has been written by Ambedkar. Anyway, the facts are as follows:
     The so called debate was held in the auditorium of Law College, Madras on 09-02-1943 under Ramachandra Chettiyar.
     Anna started speaking and took more than one and half hours leaving no time to others.
     Pointing out the falsehood in his speech, R. P. Sethu Pillai openly spoke about his weakness in the argument. In fact, re ridiculed Anna for quoting from “Northern Nehru”, being a “Nakkiran” (one who always finds fault with others). Regretting that he could not speak for long time, he wound up his speech within ten minutes. He dared him that he would even come to Kanchipuram for another debate on the subject matter, if he would invite him.
     Ezattu Adigal, who followed him, was asked to cut short his speech within five minutes.
     Then Srinivasan started speaking, but he was prevented from speaking, as the DK activists created a riot-like condition. He had to stop his speech, because of the pandemonium created by them.
     But, Anna was given a chance to speak again!
     So that was the debate conducted with “freedom of speech” and respect for speakers!
     However, winding up, C. M. Ramachandra Chetti concluded that he could not give his opinion, as the debate had been inconclusive.

    The main point discussed was as to whether Ravana was an Aryan or Dravidian. Thus, the first debate had been the most undemocratic conducted under controlled conditions with rioters.

    The second debate was conducted on 14-03-1943 at Devanga Padasalai, Sevvaipettai, Salem. Salem College A. Ramasamy presided over Anna and Somasundara Bharathi spoke.

     Anna spoke as usual taking full time.
     Somasundara Bharathi pointed out that Anna spoke as an orator with brimming emotion not as a debater. He then, however brought out his points refuting Anna;s talk.
     He left, as his speech was over and moreover, he had to catch his train, as plannede by the organizers.
     But, after his departure, Anna was given a chance and he stressed upon Ravana’s race and concluded with the demand of burning “scriptures of Aryans”.
     A. Ramasamy, though did not gave any result about the debate, he pointed out that there was “vulgarity” in Kamba Ramayanam.

    In any case, such diverted reference has nothing to do with the “Ramar’s Palam”.

    “The question before us which of these versions is based on true historical facts. These are not days where everyone will accept anything with blind faith. If you place new facts to reopen a settled issue in history, you should place facts and prove it”.

    Yes, yes. Nowadays, everybody can get information easily and they decide about truth behind it. Even in those days (when Anna debated), the other scholars were not allowed to speak or threatened with dire consequences. In other words, they used their own type of terrorism in those days. Now, let us see, how truth is faced.

    “Let us examine the falsehoods one by one. We from the Dravidian Movement are atheists but not Ravana; all know that Ravana as per epics is a devotee of Lord Siva. The doubt which arises to me is why should a reincarnation of God perform superhuman deeds to impress demigods? Does it mean that Demigods are more powerful than the Original God on reincarnation?”

    Interestingly, the answer is there in the so-called above debate, as they debated only about the race of Ravana as to whether he was an Aryan or Dravidian! Rationalist or atheist has to deny such myth. Having believed it as a myth, why one should worry about it as to whether it works or not? Without Ramayana myth, there is no Ravana. If Ramayana is myth, Ravana is also a myth. Then, why debate about his “racist credentials”?

    “There are many books on Indian Ocean. All these books give us evidences on the continental drift, the submerged lands of the Lemuria, which Tamils prefer to call as the Kumari Kandam”.

    Yes, but note again, the western scholars do not believe in such hypotheses. Why them, even Indian eminent historians not only do not accept, but also dub them as myth.

    Mr. Nandi Varman, go to Endo-eurasian group and other forums, where Tamil literature is misinterpreted and disrespected. Steve Farmer openly accuses that your friend R. Mathivanan is a foregerer. They go on debate even without knowing the fundamentals of Tamil and Tamil literature. I feel it is better spend your energy there instead of politicizing the issue.

    VEDAPRAKASH,
    Researcher, Chennai.
    vedamvedaprakash@yahoo.com

  2. K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

    Now, knowledge is at finger tip and we can get data and information easily and verifiable.

    Your tone and tenor calling yourself a rationalist and atheist and drawing reference from some selective secondary sources do not appear to be correct method of putting forward the issue.

    You try to communalize and politicize the issue of Rama-sethu, evidently without caring the sentiments of Hindus. “Belief” or “thinking” is a right to everybody and all start to think and write, there is no limit.

    As for as the concern about “Kumarikkandam”, I tell you, I am also more anxious about it, but, unfortunately, no historian accept such hypothesis or theory. Remember about the “Riddles of three Oceans”, our people made a great fuss, but it all ended with translating into Tamil. That is all, without producing any material evidence.

    Tamil scholars themselves have been divided about the existence of “Sangam”, leave alone one or two or three. From where you get information about the existence “three Sangams” other than the “Iraiyanar Agapporul”?

    Last year, when I mentioned that “Bharatam” has been in the ancient Tamil literature, our friends ridiculed me. Even my posting was blocked and then, it appeared, where, I had given the evidences.

    Why you depend upon Sanskrit literature to prove your stand?

    Historians know about different Ramayanas and they know that from Valmiki Ramayana only, other Ramayanas were copied, imitated and even modified to suit their country or culture. As for as the Jain and Buddhist Ramayanas are concerned, they are propagandist literature written just like Kulandai one side to blaspheme and at other side to propagate their “faith” among the “existing believers”.

    K. V. Ramakrishna Rao.

  3. M. Nachiappan

    About the meeting at Salem, I would like to point out as follows:

    1. Anna took more than two hours, thus leaving no time to others.

    2. Moreover, the moment, Somasundara Bharathi started speaking, the crowd was booing at him and Sittaiyan, the friend of Bharathi, who compelled to bring him for the meeting felt very sad.

    3. Bharathi himself openly informed in his starting of his speech that he did not want to come there as Anna and others had already
    decided what they wanted to do.

    4. After bringing him booking ticket by train, Anna was speaking even after 8 pm on March 14, 1943. Therefore, Bharathi had no other way buyt to cut short his speech and catch the train as per his schedule.

    5. He exposed Anna of his authoritarian atttude and the hostile crowd.

    6. Therefore, nowhere Anna could win intellectually Bharathi or
    R. P. Sethupillai. With crowd-power, Anna wanted to shout down the debaters.

    7. Ironically, Ramachandra Chetti, the President of “Hindumatha Paripalana Nilayam” felt ashamed of Anna’s speech. As the crowd on that day was about to run riot, the organizers were afraid of the crowd and concerned about the safety of M/s. RPS and Srinivasan. That is why when Srinivasan started speaking, the crowd started showing their mob-behavior.

    M. Nachiappan
    omnachiappan@yahoo.com

  4. brahmallahchrist

    The responses are interesting.

    But, why the person challenged has been keeping quite is not known. His assertion, “Dravida Peravai challenges the contention and puts forward our views, which is open to debate, as we are rationalists, we will not run away from debate”, should have some response.

    At least, he should have read the sources once, before jumping to write something based on the secondary evidences.

    Criticism could be there and debate also, as they are not all new for the Indian tradition. But, the one initiated by Nandivarman appears to be malicious, venomous and blasphemous too.
    His posting filed under “Stateless Indians” proves that he has bent upon anti-Indian posture and it is not known what this posting has to with such anti-Indian attitude coupled with anti-Hindu.

    First of all, it is not known as to whether, he is writing such things from India or outside India.

    Anyway, since he has challenged, let us see that he would run away as he has asserted!

    Brahmallahchrist,
    A True Secularist.

  5. M. Nachiappan

    It is evident that this man is a pervereted having links with anti-nationals. Though anti-national, posing as an Indian, he supports not only anti-nationals, but also terrorists.

    His anti-Hindu psyche is exhibited under the couche of “Dravidian ideology”.

    He is afraid of facts, though claimed that as an atheist, he is not so, particularly in the debates.

    Anyway, he is a coward and followed the path of Anna vomitting venom and keeping quite.

    He has no guts and evidently living as a parasite.

    M. Nachiappan.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s