Sabarimala controversy

Sabarimala controversy

स्वे स्वे कर्मण्यभिरतः संसिद्धिं लभते नरः।

स्वकर्मनिरतः सिद्धिं यथा विन्दति तच्छृणु॥

స్వే స్వే కర్మణ్యభిరతః సంసిద్ధిం లభతే నరః l

స్వకర్మ నిరతః శుధ్ధిం యథా విందతి తచ్ర్ఛుణుll

Swe swe karmanyabhiratah samsiddhim labhate narahl

Swakarmaniratah siddhim yathaa vindati tacchrinu ll

(Bhagadgitha - mokshasanyasayogam - ll18.45ll)

Each man, devoted to his own duty, attains perfection. When a person acts according to his nature the entire personality supports the action. His body mind and intellect cooperate. He finds fulfilment in what he does. The environment or circumstance may not allow a person to act wholly according to his nature. Yet he should pursue to the extent he can leaving rest to God.

Let us now extend it to the issue of Sabarimala. Now we equate man to Electrical Energy. By itself it is not visible. It is felt in the form of several electrical appliances. A grinder cannot condition the air, a bulb cannot grind and an air conditioner cannot lit. Though the energy is the same every appliance is different to the other. No appliance can discharge the other ones duty. The same case with temples also. Some are meant to men, some for women and some for both. Even then there will be certain days where the entry is restricted. This concept we should understand. More over the temples in Kerala are more Tantric by nature than of Agama Shastra. They meticulously abide by the temple laws.

In Kerala the deity is a celibate, only in Sabarimala as against five Ayyappa Temples prevailing in Kerala. As such the other four temples allow devotees of all kinds with no restriction.

In Sabarimala, the deity is Naishthika Brahmachari (నైష్ఠిక బ్రహ్మచారి) and thus he does not want to see ladies of procreation ability. Beyond 10-50 age group stipulation is not correct as it cannot be taken for granted. There is also scriptural evidence from the sthalapurana which is otherwise called as Bhuthanadhopakhyanam (భూతనాథోపాఖ్యానము).

 We now come to the present situation. Naushad Ahmed Khan, President of the Indian Young Lawyers Association, is one of the two lawyers who had filed a plea in the Supreme Court against women been barred from entering the temple.

 Here is an open letter written by a professional women from Kerala slamming all these double standards people, who cannot work on women’s equality in their own religion but poke their nose into other religions. It was first published by Mission Bengal on 30 January 2016.

 I shall try to give the gist of what she wrote in my own words.

 1. You as a Muslim raking up the issue is like a nude person asking the others to cover their clothes properly.

2. Kerala ladies have exclusively their own festivals where the gents will have no entry. These ladies include highly educated, big executives of renowned Organisations, journalists, poetess, writers etc. Thiruvathira, is an exclusively women’s festival and no men allowed in the vicinity. During Pongala a specific Pooja for ladies, the streets of Thiruvananthapuram will be crowded by ladies thrusting the devaswom board to shut the doors of Padmanabha temple.

3. They have a temple where once a year the priests there will wash the feet of every woman devotee who comes there because a woman is the representation of the Goddess.

4. In the same way Sabarimala is for men where women of the age from which they do not get menstruation are eligible to see the God.

5. There are men who while going to Sabarimala take their mothers aged sisters, kith and kin along with them. The devotees are creating a social bondage in the society. The refrain from taking intoxicating drinks and lead a pious life for all the 40 days. This practice enables a thick reunion with the better half and freshness among the men to attend to their routine with enriched enthusiasm.

Let us come to the people who have raised the issue.

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has said no one would be allowed to stop women devotees of menstruating age from going to Sabarimala..... The Asian Age. With this assurance

Activist Rehana Fatima, who had made an attempt to enter Sabarimala temple, has been expelled from the Muslim community for "hurting the sentiments of lakhs of Hindu devotees", the Kerala Muslim Jama'ath Council said.

journalist Kavitha Jakkal of Hyderabad based Mojo TV, on Friday is another lady who was within the age of menstrual cycle have started walking towards the Sabarimala temple with tight police escort amid strong protests by devotees opposing entry of women of menstrual age into the Lord Ayyappa temple in Kerala.

While Kavitha tried for want of exposure of her bravery Rehana wanted to belittle the customs and traditions of Devaswom.

One lady by name Mary of 46 years also tried but in vain. I need not tell why she tried, as you can assess by her name itself.

One simple question to these three ladies is ‘whether can they try to go into a mosque at the time of prayer. Why don’t they fight for that?

With due respects to Mr. Sujit Nair I am bringing to your notice the facts he exhorted.

The Government tried to amend the Travancore Cochin Hindu religious institution Act. The act was institutionalized in the year 1950. Let us see the clause no.5 of the amendment.

5. Amendment of section 29- In subsection (2) of section 29 of the principle act, the word who shall be appointed by the board. “He shall be a Hindu” shall be omitted. What the communist Government wanted to bring about is the board should contain a member other than a Hindu. Will it be possible for a Church and a Masjid? If it is not possible then why only for a Hindu Temple.

The Government intends to control the board of any Temple but not other religions’ revered places. Is this not the conspiracy by the Govt.?

Going into the chronology of the Sabarimala verdict, in 2006 Indian Young Lawyers’ Association filed the petition against Devaswom to scrap non entry of women of age in between 10-50. Actually this constituted body is entitled to take care of the secular aspect of maintenance only and not Temple customs. When the deity is consecrated with Mulamantra Upadesha he is deemed to be a living being as far as the temple is concerned. He being celibate.

5 ladies put this petition, but ironically Prerana Kumaran who was one of the petitioners confessed that she was not aware of the Devaswom regulations while joining hands with the other four, further she added she was not from Kerala. After coming to know several facts after going through books and journals she felt she was wrong. Though she wanted to withdraw it was too late for her to do so. On Nov.27 the LDF Govt. of Kerala files an affidavit in support of that PIL resting with the court regarding entry of ladies in question. The matter was going cold, however the Kerala Govt. again raked it up and submitted another affidavit on 7^th Nov 2016, stating that they favored entry of ladies of all age groups. This says that the Govt. was keen for the verdict and on the verdict. In a 17 member Polite Bureau of communists there are only two women.

This it-self shows their commitment for women.

However in the 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court Indu Malhotra who was the only lady gave her verdict in favor of the defense council and two petitioners among all the five ladies withdrew themselves, which can be considered as moral victory for the defense. Of these two Prerana Kumaran whom I referred above was one.

When we thoroughly go over these things we can conclude that the LDF Govt. is keen on any amendment detrimental to the interests of Hindu religion with special reference to Sabarimala, for the reason that it is one of the most famous temples of India, and any verdict against its customs and traditions will cripple the Hindu religion and shaker the spirit of Hindus in Kerala vis-à-vis the nation.

The head of one house cannot have power to administer other house with which he has nothing to do. It is the same case with two different Organisations also. How that a Muslim or a Christian can poke his nose into Hindu cultural rituals.

Sabarimala temple is one which was constructed on par with great temples of India according to Sthapathya Veda. According to the plan devised by the Sthapathis the construction takes place. Hence every construction will abide by certain axioms and they are to be followed verbatim by the devotees. They will be bestowed with repercussions and rewards. Hence, than to disobey the stipulated terms better to go by them for the good. More over one thing that we should remember is a temple is not a prayer hall like in the case of other religions.

The temple is said to have been constructed before 12^th Century as per Historians. Right from that time till the date of verdict by the court things were in place. A keen observation of proceeding that took place just before the matter was referred to court prompt to conclude that the Sanatana Dharma should receive a fatal attack for its detriment.

Swasti.

Amma read this as an annex to my above article. Afterwards we can speak on the topic.

SR.ADVOCATE K PARASARAN ROCKS SUPREME COURT WITH HIS ARGUMENTS ON SABRIMALA TEMPLE

Brilliant submissions by Sr. Advocate Shri K Parasaran today before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sabarimala matter

(Source: People for Dharma @People4Dharma)

1. Arguments in the Petition resume. Mr. Parasaran now argues for the Nair Service Society.

2. Mr. Parasaran submits that Kerala is an educated society.

3. Mr. Parasaran submits that 96% of the women in Kerala are educated. They are independent. It is a matrilineal society. Therefore to assume that the practice of the Temple is based on patriarchy is fundamentally incorrect.

4. Mr. Parasaran submits that the practice of the Temple is not comparable to Sati. In fact, Sati itself has not connection to the Hindu faith.

5. Mr. Parasaran cites the examples of the wives of Dasaratha and Kunti to prove that they did not commit Sati after their husbands' death.

6. Therefore Mr. Parasaran submits that we should not approach the issue of with notions of patriarchy.

7. Mr. Parasaran says that a right question will lead to the right answer, a wrong question will lead to the wrong answer.

8. Mr. Parasaran submits that if a person asks "can I smoke when I pray?" he will get a slap. But if he asks "can I pray as I smoke?" he will be appreciated.

9. Therefore, Mr. Parasaran says the right questions must be asked in this case for the Court to get the right answers.

10. Mr. Parasaran further submits that in this case he has to be even more careful and prepared because he is answerable not just to the Lordships but also the Lord above.

11. Mr. Parasaran is now reading out portions from the Shirur Mutt decision of the Supreme Court.

12. Mr. Parasaran submits that even democracies, especially democracies, must protect religion and tradition.

13. Mr. Parasaran submits that Hindu religion respects merit and wisdom wherever it comes from. He says for neeti, it is still Vidura neeti which is cited. That is the greatness of the faith.

14. Mr. Parasaran submits that while the court must listen to activist voices, it must equally listen to voices which seek to protect tradition.

15. Mr. Parasaran submits that the Legislature is Brahma, Executive is Vishnu and Shiva is judiciary because only Shiva's Ardhanarishwara form epifies Article 14, equal treatment of both sexes.

16. Mr. Parasaran submits that Shiva is no Brahmachari, but even when his meditative state was sought to be disturbed by Kama Deva, he was reduced to ash because he failed to respect that state of Shiva.

17. Mr. Parasaran submits that we must not proceed with the presumption that the ancients knew nothing and that we know better in all aspects of life.

18. Mr. Parasaran that Lord Ayyappa's character as a Naishtika Brahmachari (Not NASTIKA BRAHMACHARI) is protected by the Constitution.

19. Mr. Parasaran is placing reliance on the judgment of the Court in Tilkayat Govindaji Maharaj (1964).

20. Mr. Parasaran refutes the argument of the Petitioner that some women may die before they reach the age of 50, Mr. Parasaran says that a person carries her or his fate with him. That's not a legal consideration to reverse the tradition

21. Mr. Parasaran points out that there are thousands of ppl who register for Padi Pooja at , the consequence being that the pooja will be conducted in their name only long after their deaths.

22. Mr. Parasaran therefore submits that using death as an argument to upset the tradition is neither here nor there.

23. Mr. Parasaran submits that the basis of the practice is the celibate nature of the Deity, not misogyny. Devotees who visit the Temple too are expected to observe celibacy in letter and spirit. Hence, during the journey, company of women must be avoided.

24. Mr. Parasaran is reading out portions from the Sundarakanda of the Ramayana to explain the concept of Naishtika Brahmacharya.

25. Mr. Parasaran submits that Lord Ayyappa is a yogi. To define who a Yogi is, Mr. Parasaran is quoting Adi Sankara.

26. Mr. Parasaran submits that misogyny is not supported by Hindu Shastras nor is chastity the sole obligation of the woman. In fact, chastity is a greater obligation on the man and he is duty bound under the Shastras to give a pride of place to the woman.

27. Mr. Parasaran submits that the practice in Sabarimala by no stretch of imagination is informed by misogyny. The only consideration is the nature of the Deity.

28. Mr. Parasaran now proceeds to address Article 25.

29. Mr. Parasaran submits that Article 25(2)(b) applies only to social reform, it still does not apply to matters of religion covered by Article 26 (b).

30. Justice Chandrachud wonders if Article 25(2)(b) applies to only Hindu institutions. Mr. Parasaran responds that the practice sought to be addressed by the said Article is peculiar only to Hindu institutions.

32. Mr. Parasaran resumes submissions post lunch. Mr. Parasaran submits that women do not fall under the protection of Article 25(2)

---

 [D1]

‘Alexander’s invasion’ and facts thereof

‘Alexander’s invasion’ and facts thereof

https://ramamohanraocheruku.blogspot.com/2018/10/alexanders-invasion-and-facts-thereof.html

It is very pathetic to note that the countrymen of this Aryavartha do have subtle interest to know both the greatness and grandeur of their own country which is the greatest among the great of the world. We have least interest to know about our past. We don’t care to know about the pseudo historians who thrusted in our minds all the fictions and concoctions and the fables and parables of the West with a view to depicting them mighty by courage, scientifically wise and intellectually brilliant ignoring even a minuscule achievement of any ancient Indian Acharya. In the process they are so abominable to purposefully ignore the valor and knighthood of great people like (Porus) Purushottham who was also called as pourav Raj or Parvateshwar, who confronted Alexander( Who was conferred ‘The Great’ by the pseudo Historians) and defeated him in the battle.

Though my thinking is hypothetical, you may feel, with all the yearning I am attempting to write, that a few at least evince a little Interest to read this article and know about the great knights of the soil, of whom Purushottham is one.

Contrary to what Western historians made us to believe that mighty Alexander conquered the border kingdoms of India, he failed utterly in his India invasion. This is the truth behind Battle of Hydaspes (The battle took place on the east bank of the Hydaspes River, as called by ancient Greeks. 

(The river Vitastā (Sanskrit: वितस्ता) in Rigveda is termed as Hydaspes by the ancient Greeks and is mentioned as one of the major rivers by the Holy Scriptures — the Rigveda, which is now familiar to us as Jhelum). (Jhelum River, is a tributary of the Indus River, what is now the Punjab Province of Pakistan.) The war took place on the banks of Jhelum between Alexander and Porus.

Alexander’s invasion of India is regarded as a huge Western victory against the disorganised East. But according to Marshal Georgy Zhukov, the sturdy Macedonian army suffered a fate, worse than Napoleon in Russia.

In 326 BC a formidable European army invaded India, led by Alexander. It comprised battle hardened Macedonian soldiers, Greek cavalry, Balkan fighters and Persian allies. The total number of fighting men numbered more than 41,000. Their most memorable clash was at the Battle of Hydaspes or The Battle at the River Jhelum against the army of Porus, the ruler of the Paurava kingdom of western Punjab. For more than 25 centuries it was believed that Alexander’s forces defeated the Indians. Greek and Roman accounts say the Indians were outwit by the superior courage and stature of the Macedonians.

Two millennia later, British historians latched on to the Alexander legend and described the campaign as the triumph of the organised West against the chaotic East. Although Alexander defeated only a few minor kingdoms in India’s northwest, in the view of many gleeful colonial writers the conquest of India was complete.

In reality much of the country was not even known to the Greeks. So handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad.

In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy-Dehra Dun, Zhukov said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright defeat. In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon in Russia. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived, and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty.

So if Zhukov was comparing Alexander’s campaign in India to Napoleon’s disaster, the Macedonians and Greeks must have retreated in an equally ignominious fashion. Zhukov would know a fleeing force if he saw one; he had chased the German Army over 2000 km from Stalingrad to Berlin.

Alexander’s troubles began as soon as he crossed the Indian border. He first faced resistance in the Kunar, Swat, Buner and Peshawar valleys where the Aspasioi and Assakenoi, known in Hindu texts as Ashvayana and Ashvakayana (Rathamulu), stopped his advance. Although small by Indian standards, they were very tiny kingdoms, they did not submit before Alexander’s killing machine.

The Assakenoi offered stubborn resistance from their mountain strongholds of Massaga, Bazira and Ora. The bloody fighting at Massaga was a prelude to what awaited Alexander in India. On the first day after bitter fighting the Macedonians and Greeks were forced to retreat with heavy losses. Alexander himself was seriously wounded in the ankle. On the fourth day the king of Massaga was killed but the city refused to surrender. The command of the army went to his old mother, which brought the entire women of the area into the fighting.

Realising that his plans to storm India were going down at its very gates, Alexander called for a truce. That night when the citizens of Massaga had gone off to sleep after their celebrations, Alexander’s troops entered the city and massacred the entire citizenry. A similar slaughter then followed at Ora.

However, the fierce resistance put up by the Indian defenders had reduced the strength – and perhaps the confidence – of the Alexander’s army. In his entire conquering career Alexander’s hardest encounter was the Battle of Hydaspes, in which he faced king Porus, a small but prosperous Indian kingdom on the river Jhelum. Porus is described in Greek accounts as standing seven feet tall.

To be continued………….

   ‘Alexander’s invasion’ and facts thereof-Part-2

 Ambhi the ruler of the neighbouring kingdom Taxila, who was a rival of Porus, had offered to help Alexander on condition that he would be given the kingdom of Porus.

In May 326 BCE, the European and Paurava armies faced each other across the banks of the Jhelum. By all accounts it was an awe-inspiring spectacle. The 34,000 Macedonian infantry and 7000 Greek cavalry and the extra army bolstered by the Indian king Ambhi however did not fructify.

Facing this tumultuous force led by the genius of Alexander was the Paurava army of 20,000 infantry, 2000 cavalry and 200 war elephants. Being a comparatively small kingdom by Indian standards, Paurava couldn’t have maintained such a large standing army, so it’s likely many of its defenders were hastily armed civilians. Also, the Greeks habitually exaggerated enemy strength.

The elephants of Porus, and the two meter bows of pourava infantry with massive arrows which could transfix more than one enemy soldiers.

The sarissas used by the Greek though pierced into some elephants the beasts got wild and could create havoc added to the phenomenal damage to the enemies created by the above referred bows and arrows. [The sarissa or sarisa (Greek: σάρισα) was a long spear or pike about 4–6 meters (13–20 ft.) (Here the troops of Alexander were said to have used sarissas of 17 feet length.), in length. It was introduced by Philip II of Macedon and was used in his Macedonian phalanxes as a replacement for the earlier dory, which was considerably shorter.]

The terrified Macedonians were left with no option but to push themselves back in the battle. These elephant fleet and the archery was new to the enemies.

In the process of the battle Porus’s brother Amar was successful in killing Alexander’s favorite horse which forced Alexander to dismount. In all the combats the Greek soldiers were successful in not allowing their enemy like Amar to penetrate so much and cause damage to their side. They never allowed to even to leave a scratch on their king’s body. Not only this, but the Indian army killed Nicaea who was one of his leading commanders.

According to the Roman Historian Marcus Justinus, Porus challenged Alexander who charged him on horseback.  In the ensuing duel Alexander fell of his horse and was at the mercy of Porus. However Porus dithered, and the bodyguards of Alexander rushed in, to save their king.

Plutarch the Greek historian and biographer, says there seems nothing wrong with the Indian morale. Despite initial setbacks when their vaunted chariots got stuck in the mud, Porus’s army “rallied and kept the Macedonians with unsurpassable bravery.” Although the Greeks claim Victory the fanatical resistance put up by Indian soldiers and ordinary people everywhere had shaken the nerves of the Alexander’s army to the core. They refused to move further east. Alexander’s all efforts were futile to enthuse his soldiers. “The army was close to mutiny. The combat with Porus took the edge of the Macedonians’ courage and staid their further progress into India. For having found it hard to defeat the farther kingdoms and hence determined to go back against the will and wish of their king.” says Plutarch. He also adds “To the other side of Ganges where Magadha kingdom was situated and ruled by Dhananand was a very big empire with Cavalry, elephants, chariots and infantry in abundance. The soldiers when came to know that Nanda was waiting with 2,00,000 infantry 80,000 cavalry, 8000 war chariots and 6,000 fighting elephants. Undoubtedly Alexander’s army would have walked into a slaughter house. Hence far away from the Indian heartland Alexander ordered a retreat enabling a great jubilation among his soldiers. On the way back Alexander’s army was harried by Indian partisans, republics and kingdoms. In a campaign at Sangala in Punjab they faced a ferocious attack from the local Royals and the destruction of Alexander’s army was so devastating.

Alexander was forced to attack them by bare feet. In the next battle with the Malavs of Multan, Alexander was felled by a warrior’s arrow that pierced into his breastplate and ribs.

Military History Magazine says “Although there was much fighting, Alexander’s wound put an end to any more personal exploits. Lung tissue never fully recovered, and the thick scarring in its place made every breath very miserable. Alexander never recovered from the wound and died in Babylon which is now in the present day Iraq at a young age of 33.

It is for you now to decide whether we have to regret or feel great for him to lose life for adamance.

Thus the people of Northern-Indian Plains (Punjab) resisted the great army of Alexander and successfully halted his so far unchecked advance resulting in the end of his campaign and life.

Swasti.

Decoding the mystery of Mahatmas and sex

Decoding the mystery of Mahatmas and sex
In the hagiography of modern India, Mahatma Gandhi is a near-divine superstar.
Published: 07th October 2018 05:00 AM  |   Last Updated: 04th October 2018 11:54 PM in INDIAN EXPRESS By Ravi Shankar

In the hagiography of modern India, Mahatma Gandhi is a near-divine superstar. The year of his 150th birthday is being celebrated with great pomp starting this week with a tribute to his ‘swachhata’ philosophy. But how clean was Bharat’s greatest moral force really?

Gandhi’s driving obsession after satyagraha was sex. The man who became a father at 16, and went on to have four more children ranted vehemently against sex in marriage, advising his followers not to marry and if they did, to live separately from their wives. Like all mass leaders, Gandhi’s monumental arrogance was both a weapon and a flaw. In the contradictory terrain of his spiritual imagination, desire and denial nourished each other. He was so convinced about his own charisma that he expected riots to stop when he went on fast—and they did. However, his dark side tormented him to perverse excess.

That he slept naked with his nieces and other women and got massages in the nude are well-documented. Gandhi’s quest for “purity” mesmerised his victims who felt they were part of something greater than themselves: his grand niece Manu, who he caressed in bed in the buff, died a sick, 40-year-old spinster. His personal physician Dr Sushila Nayar was made to sleep and bathe with him naked: reasons why his close aide P Parasuram left Sabarmati Ashram. On January 1, 1947, he berated Gandhi’s experiments with brahmacharya: “How many are the days when she (Dr Nayar) has not wept? She is a doctor and yet she is always a patient, always is ill.” Vallabhbhai Patel accused Gandhi of ‘adharma’, which the Mahatma dismissed, claiming it was his ‘moral duty’ to sleep naked with girls.

Was Gandhi a dirty old man? In today’s age, his sexual experiments seem lecherously similar to Asaram Bapu’s (no pun intended) or Ram Rahim’s; men who claimed divine sanction to sexually exploit women who trusted them. Gandhi’s affair with the married Sarla Devi, when he was himself married to Kasturba, was nothing short of infidelity for such an extreme moralist: a ‘spiritual marriage’ he had to end on the insistence of C Rajagopalachari.

Sex is a historical force that has toppled many reputations. Two foreign Gandhians, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, were no paragons of virtue: recently declassified FBI documents revealed King hired prostitutes and was a sexual deviant. Mandela married thrice, and many women later claimed he had fathered their love children.

When revolutions overturn the established order, their leaders are invested with superhuman virtue, which discounts the frailty of human character. Newborn India and the Congress party needed a patron saint in 1947. Mahatma Gandhi was it. But let it not be forgotten that the pedestal was built with sacrifice, all of which was not his.

Ravi Shankar

ravi@newindianexpress.com