Poor Saisuresh Sivaswamy and his prejudices, he cannot even see the role of Ramayana in South Indian culture. South India for him is Tamil Nadu DMK and its fake ideology. Even among DMK supporters in Tamil Nadu, there are staunch Hindus. Saisuresh Sivaswamigal did not even notice them.
I Agree with you completely. You seems to be the person who doesnt believe in getting carried away by fakey tales by others. Instead you research yourself for the truth what is right and what is wrong. Every Indian or everyone should be optimist and should have the ability to declare the falsehoods and its propogandas as False. Just by thorough research with a clear sense of mind with optimistic Attitude by each, peace is really near then not only in between nations, but also between hearts.
Well I can clearly see the intent of writer to ask people to look ahead.What's intention in writing"Gods had shade of Gray & devils had stint of divinity"?What do you mean?Nothing which has shade of Gray is GOD.GOD is ultimate almighty beyond him there is nothing,albeit that power has many forms of manfestation to control various mechanisms which run the show called 'LIFE'.I think you should better inform yourselves with accurate history.In which episode(Kand) of Ramayana you find denigration Dravidian culture.Entire dravidian culture is born out of Legacy of a North Indian Rishi(Agastya Muni)Are you aware of it?Perhaps not.What kind of crap you write?Every dravidian priest enchants Malyalam,Tamil & sanskrit in equal proportions,then how will you Judge history from these verses?Do you know how much objectivity History requires to study in absolute neutrality.How can you be so lame & unfaithful to yourself while commenting about history(which you've gained from petty text books which were under controlled regime of few stupid & cowards who thought that revealing truth may be dangerous to them first & country later)?You should think twice,while writing such an artice.Be careful next
RE:History a debate?
by subbaraman on Jun 26, 2005 03:28 PM Permalink
Hi Ashok! You should not merely "think" something and consider it to be right. If Sanskrit has its origin in Dravidian languages, ok so be it. But what proof have you? Any authentic research? And how many dravidian languageS? Other than Thamizh, can you cite any other language? More than ninety per cent words in Malayalam are sanskrit terms. And Kerala was supposed to be founded by Parasurama (the preceding avatar of Rama)!
RE:History a debate?
by Kaushik Das on Jun 15, 2005 09:15 PM Permalink
I think the north indian culture has derived from the dravidian one in many places, especially language.
RE:History a debate?
by sujith on Jun 14, 2005 04:10 AM Permalink
I agree with you Tejas. Mr Sai, you probably need to do much deeper study and thought. As Tejas says - with more objectivity and then drive the PECEPTION/REALITY YOU see. As there are lot of comparisions up in your article. Write it unbaised knowledgeably! as again, it is you as media make considerable part of information and influence.
As personal views, I do hate the person(s) initiating to divide the country in the name of religion which has killed so many lives and lost peace in people! We, living-people are important ! Without humans what religion or caste to follow???
Hope to see more such debatable articles for the good of people and media.
RE:History a debate?
by Ashok on Jun 14, 2005 12:18 AM Permalink
I think Sanskrit was born out of Dravidian languages and the extent of Dravidian impact up on Hindu culture is underplayed by vested interests. (It will be interesting to see how many people (Aryans) are offended by this. For them its ok.to say Dravidian languages/culture were impacted by Aryan culture and so Dravidians should toe their line but all hell will break loose if you talk about Dravidian impact on Indian culture).
yes, i totally agree with your views. I rather think that originally Jinnah was a secular person & it was mere politics which made him think & do that way. As far as partition is concerned I think it was more of Mr J.L Nehru who was responsible for it otherwise in 1946 when a union province was proposed, it was outward denied by our very own Mr Nehru & not by Mr Jinnah.This clearly explains that once it was clear that India is goin to be free from the British rule, the only thing our leaders lead by Mr Nehru were eyeing on was the "KURSI". Finally when in the election congress won all the hindu votes & ML all the muslim votes, it was overt that a different muslim state was into formation. This politics itself made the chasm much bigger in between Hindus & Muslims.Blaming Advani now won't do any good.the need of the time is to find a mutual camarederie between each other so as to reach to an amiable decision on the ties with Pakistan.
If I have to think why Advani did what is "supposedly" told by press, I would come up with the same logic. Very logical and in my opinion correct assesment. There is nothing wrong in what happened.
