Congress leaders Buta Singh and Sheila Dikshit, during Rajiv Gandhi's premiership, made an attempt to initiate a debate on the very existence of Lord Ram and if he was born in Ayodhya.
Congress, in September 2007, had also filed affidavits in the Supreme Court claiming there was no historical or scientific evidence to establish existence of Lord Ram and Ram Setu as a man-made bridge.
Even, late Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar, in 1990, had also questioned the Lord Ram's existence.
This was the first time that an organised view was expressed by historians, representing the Babri Masjid Action Committee, contested Ayodhya as the birthplace of Lord Ram.
In 1998, archaeologist MVN Krishna Rao declared that Banawali in Haryana along the banks of ancient River Saraswati was the birthplace of Lord Ram, in a paper titled, "Ram and Ravan in Indus seals."
In 2000, Rajesh Kochhar, a physicist with deep interest in culture and history, claimed in his book that Lord Ram was not born in Ayodhya, but Afghanistan.
In 2015, Abdul Rahim Quraishi of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) argued, in his paper, that Lord Ram was born in Rehman Dheri of Pakistan, citing writings of former ASI official Jassu Ram to arrive at his conclusion.
However, none of these alternative claims is universally accepted.
Then, what are the claims universally accepted?
The existence of Ram as a historical figure is not only supported by the domestic folk narratives, but also outside India, in countries like America, Russia, Latin America, Europe, Africa, Iran, Philipines, Nepal, Burma, Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, China, Mangolia and Thailand.
Interestingly, Rama is mentioned in the Bible. Matthew's Chapter 2:18 mentions "A voice was heard in Rama."
Rama was about 6 miles northwest of Jerusalem, near Bethel, and was some 10 or 12 miles from Bethlehem.
Rama is the place where Joseph lived who begged the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:57). This is also the same place in which Samuel was born, where he resided, died and buried.
It is for the Biblical Society to define why was the city named as Rama and who was Rama?
Maharishi Valmiki had written Ramayana, a historical epic, woven around the heroism of Lord Ram, who was Dashratha's son and was born in the clan of Raghu. Similarly, Mahakavi Kalidas wrote Raghuvansham, which chronicles the lineage of Raghu and various kings who ruled after Lord Ram.
If Lord Ram was a mythological hero, then Valmiki would not have provided the history of His forefathers, and Kalidasa would have failed to provide details of His forefathers, and various successors, who ruled after Him?
Even today, Sri Lanka believes in Ramayana and proudly shows the coronation of Vibhishan in its parliament. It not only has converted Ashok Vatika into a famous tourist attraction, but also paying pension to the descendants of Ravan.
Thailand, even though it is a Budhist country, has a place named Ayodhya and the king there is called Ram.
The Dutch handed over New Guinea to Indonesia by reciting verse 30-31 from Valmiki Ramayana's Kiskindha Khand, Sarg 40, after it asked the agitating Indonesian public asking for an irrefutable proof.
The verse says, "Yatanvanto yavdweepam ... shishiro naam parvat", which meant - "Sughreev had advised the leaders in his army to visit the eastern frontiers, in search of Sita, to go to Yavadwipa (Java) - the conglomeration of seven kingdoms, and from there to visit Swarnadeep (Sumatra) and after Sumatra to visit Shishir mountain (New Guinea) inhabited by gods and demons, which kisses the sky with its summit."
Can anyone question the historicity of Lord Ram and other characters of the Ramayana? Rishi Valmiki was a contemporary of Lord Ram and has used the present tense in Ramayana, not the past and future tense.
In the historical epic, Valmiki proudly introduces himself to Lord Ram as the 10th son of Pracheta, who did not lie ever.
Can our ancient visionaries and authors like Rishi Valmiki, Muni Vyas, Kalidas, Bhas, Bhavbhooti, Ashvaghosh, Samarth Guru Ramdas, Guru Govind Singh, Swami Dayanand, Swami Vivekanand, the leading lights of Buddhist and Jain traditions, be liars, selfish and believed in fictitious characters?
In other words, are some of us are saying that what present-day professors and scholars of colleges and universities, writing on culture and history, are the only ones who are committed to truth?
Are they saying all the Western legends and mythologies all are true and our history, puranas, smritis and Upanishadic parables and fairy tales?
The lives of Rishi Valmiki and Lord Ram have been chronicled in detail in Skand Puran, Valmiki Ramayana, Tulsidas' Sri Ramcharitmanas, Bhavishya Puran and Adhyatma Ramayana.
In fact, the Supreme Court delivered Ayodhya verdict on November 9, relying upon Skand Puran, Sri Ramcharitmanas and Valmiki's Ramayana.
Referring to Skand Puran, the court said there is a reference to the place of birth of Lord Ram in an extract for scripture.
"The witness relied on an extract from Shri Tulsi Dohashatak by Goswami Tulsi Das and on Episode 18 (Bal Khand) of Valmiki Ramayan and the Vaishnav Khand of Skand Puran to sustain the faith and belief in the birthplace of Lord Ram," it said in its verdict.
The court also said Shlok 10 of Valimiki Ramayan stating that Kaushalya gave birth to a son who was the Lord of the whole world and Ayodhya was blessed with his arrival.
The court also referred to the accounts of English historian William Flinch, Jesuit missionary Joseph Tiefenthaler and British surveyor Robert Montgomery Martin.
One of the most vital observations made by these travelers, was former chief officiating officer of Faizabad district P Carnegy's, who noted: "Ayodhya is to Hindu what Macca is to the Mohamedan and Jerusalem to the Jews."
What could be the proudest moment for Hindus that the Supreme Court has sent a very strong message to the world that, in fact, Lord Ram is not a mythical, but a real hero.
No comments:
Post a Comment