Who do you want to believe? Lord Rama or M. S. Golwalkar?

In this short post, we show a serious inconsistency between whatever Lord Rama called as "Janmabhoomi" and what M. S. Golwalkar claims as the motherland of Hindus.

Lord Rama, in the Ramayana, tells Lakshmana that he wants to return to his "Janmabhoomi" after having vanquished Ravana at Lanka. The poet renders it in impeccable Sanskrit verse thus:
ಅಪಿ ಸ್ವರ್ಣಮಯೀ ಲಂಕಾ ನ ಮೇ ಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಣ ರೋಚತೇ |
ಜನನೀ ಜನ್ಮಭೂಮಿಶ್ಚ ಸ್ವರ್ಗಾದಪಿ ಗರೀಯಸೀ ||
Translation: O Lakshmana, I don't like Lanka though it's full of gold ; Mother & Birthland are greater than heaven.

From the above it's clear that Rama considers a kingdom or country removed from Lanka as his Janmabhoomi (translatable as "Birthland" or "Motherland"). Ayodhya is certainly not anywhere near Colombo!

However, Golwalkar's ideological excesses make him claim Lanka as part of his "Motherland". Says the former RSS chief in his Bunch of Thoughts in a fit of claiming more and more land under the umbrella of his ideology, as if in an attempt to attribute sufficient "bigness" to the "motherland" of his conception so as to defy circumscription in any Swayamsevak's intellect:

In the South, Lanka has had the closest links and was never considered as anything different from the mainland.

We ask humbly, "hey, what's going on here?". And we'd like our friends in the RSS to resolve once and for all whether they'd like to believe Lord Rama or M. S. Golwalkar.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

ರಾಮಾಯಣವನ್ನೇ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ಓದಿರದೆ ಇಂತಹ ನಿಲುವನ್ನು ಇಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡು ಇಡೀ ದೇಶವನ್ನೇ ಹಿಂದುತ್ವದ ಹಿಂದೆ ದೂಡಿ ಒಗ್ಗಟ್ಟನ್ನು ಸಾಧಿಸಲು ಹೊರಟಿರುವ ಇವರ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನವನ್ನೇನೋ ಮೆಚ್ಚಬೇಕು ಅನ್ಸತ್ತೆ! ಆದರೆ ಇವರು ತಮ್ಮ ಮಿಕ್ಕ ನಿಲುವುಗಳಲ್ಲೂ ಇನ್ನು ಅದೆಷ್ಟು ತಪ್ಪುಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೋ, ಇವರು ತೊಗೊಂಡಿರುವ ಮಿಕ್ಕೆಲ್ಲಾ ನಿರ್ಧಾರಗಳಲ್ಲೂ ಅದೆಷ್ಟು ಇಂತಹ ಪೊಳ್ಳು ನಿಲುವುಗಳು ಪಾತ್ರ ವಹಿಸಿವೆಯೋ!?

ಆದರೂ ಈ ರಾಮಾಯಣದ ಶ್ಲೋಕವನ್ನು ರಾಮನೇ ಹೇಳಿರುವ ಅನ್ನುವುದು ನಿಜ ಅಂತ ನಂಬುವುದು ಹೇಗೆ? ಅಥವಾ ರಾಮನೆಂಬ ಯಾರಾದರು ಆಗ ಇದ್ದಿದ್ದರೇ? ಹೀಗೆ ಕೇಳುತ್ತಿರುವ ತಮಿಳುನಾಡಿನ ಮು.ಮಂತ್ರಿಯ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೂ ಉತ್ತರ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ಕೊಡದೇ ಇರಕ್ಕೂ ಇಂತಹ ಅರ್ಧ ತಿಳುವಳಿಕೆಯ RSS ಅವರ ನಿಲುವೇ ಕಾರಣವೇನೋ!

ಆದರೂ ಇದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸಂಪಾದಕ ಏನು ಹೇಳ್ತಾರೋ? ಇಂತಹ ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯ/ಶ್ಲೋಕಗಳ ಹೇಳುಗರು ನಿಜಕ್ಕೂ ಯಾರೋ? ರಾಮನೇ ಹೇಳಿದನೆಂದರೆ ರಾಮನೆಂಬುವ ಪಾತ್ರ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಲ್ಪನಿಕವೇ? ರಾಮನ ಹಾಗೆ ಒಬ್ಬ ಇದ್ದ ಎಂದು ವಾಲ್ಮೀಕಿ ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿರುವೆನೋ? ಅಥವಾ ಅವನಿಗೆ ಅಲ್ಲೆಲ್ಲೋ ನಡೆದುದರ ದಿವ್ಯ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯೋ? ಅಥವಾ ರಾಮನಂತಹ ಒಬ್ಬ ಮನುಷ್ಯ ಇದ್ದರೆ ಅವನು ಇಂತಹ ಧರ್ಮದ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವೆನು ಎಂದು ಸಂದೇಶ ಕೊಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾನೆಯೇ ವಾಲ್ಮೀಕಿ? ರಾಮ ಎಂದರೆ ಧರ್ಮಕ್ಕೆ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಪದ, ಧರ್ಮದ ದಾರಿಯೇ ರಾಮ ಹಾಕಿರುವ ದಾರಿ ಎಂದೇ ಇವನ ಅರ್ಥ? ಅದಕ್ಕಾಗಿಯೇ ಈ ಕಾಲ್ಪನಿಕ ರಾಮನ ಪಾತ್ರದ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ?

ನಾಳೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜವನ್ನು ಆಳಲು ಒಬ್ಬ ರಾಮನೂ ಬರಬಹುದೇ? ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಹಿನ್ನೆಲೆಯಾಗಿ ಏನೇನು ಘಟನಾವಳಿ ನಡೆಯಬಹುದು? ಇಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ರಾವಣನೆಂಬ ಕೆಟ್ಟ ಪ್ರೇರಣೆಯ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆ ಇದೆಯೇ?! ಹಾಗಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಆತ/ಅದು ಯಾರು/ಏನು?

Anonymous said...

I hope someone here would translate my comment into English for the benefit of those who cant read it in Kannada. But more than that, I hope the editor replies to some questions I've posed there in.

Goomi said...

Sariyagi heldri Anonymous avare.

maaysa said...

Usage of statement by a as mythological character is irrational. This is as irrational as the statements of RSS.

That too quotation is in alien Sanskrit. How come Sanskrit mythological has become the fact and guide to Kannada land's history?


Don't we have enough Kannada scriptures and literature as moral, spiritual etc guides? Where are the Vachanas, Old Kannada epics?
Why cannot you quote, what Nruptunga has said in Kavirajamarga?

The biggest blunder here is that, this article poses Valmiki as a super natural person and his litrary work of Ramayana as a historical fact.

Come on.. are u kidding? Why in Ramayana demons are always from South? Why a demon in Sanskrit literature is always generally black?

As per a number of scholars Ramayana is also a racist book. The people above the Godaranya were Gods or Nagarikas, people below Godaranya were monkeys and down the Kaveri were demons.

It is again pathetic attitude and Sanskrit slavery which made us not to think of our Kannada literature first and give unwanted important to alien Sanskrit.

In this sense Karnatique is same as the one whom they oppose in this article.

When quoting about mother land of Kannadas, one must quote Kavirajamarga's "Kaveriyindamaa godavarivaram" hymm first. It is the first and most important historical great document available about Kannada country, ethnicity, pride, culture, language etc etc.

What so ever, language and ethincity are secular entities. A Kannadiga can be a Christian, Hindu, Muslim or an atheist.

If we dig Kannada history the earliest available Kannada scriptures inform that Kannadas we majorly Jains once upon a time.( U can dispute and say the same old story that from crores of years every body in Indian Subcontinent was a follower of Vedic religion and hence a Hindu. But is that true? )

Jockey said...

>>>Usage of statement by a as mythological character is irrational. This is as irrational as the statements of RSS.

Use the adjective "mythological" carefully. Everything in history is mythological. Even Pulakeshi is known through mythological stories and carvings here and there. So is Rama, so is Valmiki.

>>>That too quotation is in alien Sanskrit. How come Sanskrit mythological has become the fact and guide to Kannada land's history?

Try to read before you blurt out nonsense. The article does not talk about Kannada or Kannada Land in the way you're mentioning. It talks about the concept of motherland and how Valmiki and Golwalkar differ there.

>>>The biggest blunder here is that, this article poses Valmiki as a super natural person and his litrary work of Ramayana as a historical fact.

Wrong. Read again. The article does not say anything like that. You're assuming things.

>>>As per a number of scholars Ramayana is also a racist book.
Irrelevant comment, and loaded with religious animosity against Hinduism.

>>> It is again pathetic attitude and Sanskrit slavery which made us not to think of our Kannada literature first and give unwanted important to alien Sanskrit. In this sense Karnatique is same as the one whom they oppose in this article.

There is nothing wrong in importing good things from everywhere. Sanskrit has given Kannada and Kannadigas many a good thing. If you don't like it personally, then that's your choice. While I agree that too much Sanskritization of Kannada reduces Kannada's "pure-Kannada-ness", remember that pure Kannada (like the Pure Tamil of folks like Periyar) is useless. What the language carries - science, technology, learning, knowledge - which is more importance than the "purity" of language. In fact, I don't like using the word "pure" myself. It's more for want of a better word that I use. I refuse to believe that Kannada's purity reduces if more Sanskrit words are used. The thing here is not purity. What reduces is the simplicity of the language.

>>> When quoting about mother land of Kannadas, one must quote Kavirajamarga's "Kaveriyindamaa godavarivaram" hymm first. It is the first and most important historical great document available about Kannada country, ethnicity, pride, culture, language etc etc.

Now shut up and cut your crap - because the "mother land of Kannadas" is not the topic of this article. Read before you blurt out your nonsense. The topic of this article is the difference between the motherland of "Rama" and the motherland of "Golwalkar". This is a different discussion.

Hey, did you post your nonsense on the wrong blog? Did you get the blog wrong?!!!

maaysa said...

Yes Yes Mr Jockey..

Kannada king Pulikeshi is also a mythological character who made stones float, turned a stone into a women, and what else chased a golden deer.

All the history and the craving in Karnataka says miracles Pulikeshi, Krishnadevaraya, Durvinita etc etc did supernaturally.

Wow I didn't know.. may be I didn't read a HOLY Sanskrit fantasy mythologically authentic history book. So misunderstood.

You are very authentic and damn correct with historic facts and rationality.

Ramayana is 100% truth and each and each word written by his holy Valmiki can be scientifically proved.

"Now shut up and cut your crap"
Oh huh! As your highness ;)

What is the theology of Hinduism? Does Mr Jockey understand the question?

"religious animosity against Hinduism."
Offcourse... You are 100% correct.

Vedas which say "Until u have a boy child, you don't get Moksha" are not sexist.

Manusmruthi which says "Kill the Shudra who hears vedas. Women doesn't deserve education and must be under a male control" is not sexist, discriminative and are very humane work of morality.

Bhagavadgeetha which says "Varna sankara brings catastrophe" is a moral book for equailty.

I am so sorry. I am a communist and anti-Hindu by just quoting what it is there in those books. May be I quote out of context. :D

Oh one more sorry, for my wrong assumption that Karnatique is about Kannada land, ethnicity and nativity. Its about the spreading the gospel of believing Lord Rama and high quality moral values of Hinduism.., the true Hinduism.

I really utterly apologise for my misunderstanding..

The amazing question was "Who do you BELIEVE? ~LORD~ Rama or M S Golwalkar ?"

Oh my gosh. I don't have an option not to believe both. I forgot.!

Anonymous said...

Mr. maaysa,

kaviraaja maarga is not written by nrupatunga. It is by shree vijaya. kaviraaja maarga does not speak about kannada mythology. It talks about writers, their way etc...
Shiva is a god worshipped all over india, and he is beliweved to be from south. Shri krishns is black - and considered as god of all gods. Please come out of illusions. There is no village/town in india which does not have a hanumaan temple.

You have become blind against sanskrit. I am reading your blogs as well as different comments. Your patron for kannada is appreciable. But the dream of your pure kannada (100% kannada) evidences your hatred towards sanskrit. We should accept that sanskrit has influenced kannada very much. Even the poets in kannada from ages used sanskrit words. To that matter Even kaviraaja maarga's vijaya did.
So don't say kannada vachanas are not based on sanskrit. Even they have sanskrit words. There is no language in this word which has not taken words from other languages.

Regards

subba

Anonymous said...

Thanks to the author for succesfully bringing out the inconsistency in RSS's thoughts. It's now glaringly visible in what Rama considers as motherland and what MS Golwalkar considers as motherland.
The article has been succesfull in achieving this objective but in the course the author has used the term 'Lord' Rama in the sense synonymous to 'God'. This may lead to think that the author does believe in Rama as Lord/God which is debatable. Can karnatique please calrify it's stance regarding the use of the term 'Lord' for te Ramayana character 'Rama'

Jockey said...

maaysa,

Go and read about something called as a Metaphor, and why that is used. Develop some appreciation for poetry before you blurt out crap in the form of what you think is poetry.

Oh fool, the point is not whether things in the Ramayana are scientifically provable. Ask, if you dare to ask, the following question: What can I do to free myself from the duality of science and non-science? It is this question that is answered in the Ramayana, and it is this question that your limited intellect has failed to chance upon.

>>>Vedas which say "Until u have a boy child, you don't get Moksha" are not sexist.

Who said that is not sexist? I didn't say that is not sexist. And if parts of the Vedas are sexist, what prevents you from learning from the parts that are not sexist? As an analogy, if your professor at the university was a rapist, why should that prevent you from learning say mathematics from him?

>>>Manusmruthi which says "Kill the Shudra who hears vedas. Women doesn't deserve education and must be under a male control" is not sexist, discriminative and are very humane work of morality.

Who said Manusmruthi is not sexist, not discriminative, very moral? And why the !@#$ are you talking about this here?

>>>Bhagavadgeetha which says "Varna sankara brings catastrophe" is a moral book for equailty.

Demonstrate that you understand what "Varna sankara" means before you talk crap about Bhagavadgeeta.

>>>The amazing question was "Who do you BELIEVE? ~LORD~ Rama or M S Golwalkar ?" Oh my gosh. I don't have an option not to believe both. I forgot.!

Who said you don't have the option to not believe both? Go ahead and believe neither. The article only points out to those who would believe Rama that Golwalkar makes a claim which Rama doesn't make. Or Valmiki, to be precise.

maaysa said...

@subba..

:D

@Jockey

Come on.

As I told you already we don't understand divine Sanskrit. It's the only person like you with an underwear brand name and who is so polite and elite to call the debater 'fool. !@#$ ' is the true survivor of the great Hinduism.

"you understand what "Varna sankara" means before you talk crap about Bhagavadgeeta."

Yes sir. We only misinterpret your HOLY Bhagavadgeeta.


I really understand now why your NON-fanatic, Hindu mind SUCCESSFUL to understand the point the I failin in making. Obviously I am not from an upper caste to be born with your "AUTHORITY ON VEDAS and etc". Its always the YOU who make the rules, interpret the scripture and guide us to the path of enlightenment.

:D

Jockey, you are very good debater. The way you put your point is amazing and the points are too good be cared of!

maaysa said...

@Karnatique.

"The article has been succesfull in achieving this objective but in the course the author has used the term 'Lord' Rama in the sense synonymous to 'God'. This may lead to think that the author does believe in Rama as Lord/God which is debatable. Can karnatique please calrify it's stance regarding the use of the term 'Lord' for te Ramayana character 'Rama' "

As an Anonymous points. This, you need to clarify.

editor, KARNATIQUE said...

The term 'Lord' is used in reverence of the character of Rama in the Ramayana, who is worshipped by many Kannadigas as one of the incarnations of Vishnu. The question is not whether the author of the article believes in Rama as Lord/God. The question is - whether Kannadigas do. And the answer is yes.

Also, it would be shortsightedness to conclude that we do not accord the status of 'God/Lord' to that other names of God from other religions.

Hope this clarifies.

Anonymous said...

I think Maaysa seems to have taken things (written in this blog) in a wrong direction. He may be right (in his sense) about the wrongness of relying (helplessly) on Sanskrit (by Kannadigas) in drawing conclusions or making decisions in life. But hey! that was not the point of this blog I am sure.

The point was simple, and as some others have pointed out too, it was just about the sad difference in the way Golwalkar seems to have drawn conclusions about an Indian's motherland, even while displaying belief in Rama, and apparently all conclusions that Rama himself had projected.

Also, as Jockey rightly points out somewhere here, it is going to be utter stupidity that one hesitate (or even rule out) learning about good things from someone just because he speaks not the language of one's choice! Or does Maaysa feel agreeing to good statements made in non-dravidian languages itself is Tabu!? Do we want to re-invent the wheel if it wasnt invented by a Kannadiga? I hope not, for that would be utter stupidity!

Given the kind of life we lead today, such a stance (as Maaysa's) would sound highly hypocritical when it is commonplace that we understand, borrow, and even obey, everyday, to something that is in English!

maaysa said...

"The term 'Lord' is used in reverence of the character of Rama in the Ramayana, who is worshipped by many Kannadigas as one of the incarnations of Vishnu. The question is not whether the author of the article believes in Rama as Lord/God. The question is - whether Kannadigas do. And the answer is yes."

So are arguing that a popular, majority account can be considered as ideal, fact, appreciable etc etc..

BJP won 19/28 seats in Karnataka. Hence majority Kannadigas now worship BJP. So are you not going against this logic or rational be opposing the RSS which is the base of the BJP?

By opposing BJP, you are opposing the opinion, belief, appreciation of majority Kannadigas.

I don't think it rational to argue like this the Lord Rama just because majority believe or worship something. It's irrational and logically goes against regionalism.

Many think Hindi as the national language of India, so why don't u respect that?

So who is shortsighted? rather blur-sighted!

editor, KARNATIQUE said...

maaysa,

We are deeply pained by your extremist attitude which is apparent in your mention that worshipping Rama is "irrational and logically goes against regionalism", as if Kannadigas should shun everything that unites them with other human beings because that goes against "regionalism".

We do not subscribe to such thought, and such thought is not good for the future of Kannadigas. We do not believe that regionalism is an end or virtue in itself. It can only be a means to an end - an end where Kannadigas are better human beings, where there is no poverty, where there is an overflowing of knowledge.

Going by your argument, one would have to shun all religions since religions cut across every sort of political boundary. By the same account, one would have to shun inter-state commerce, too! Why, going by your argument, one would have to shun the fact that Kannadigas have two legs, two eyes and one nose like other human beings!

While we are certainly secular even to the extent of admitting the 'Lokayata' and 'Charvaka' philosophies, we do not subscribe to the ill-founded idea that everything that integrates Kannadigas with the rest of the world must be shunned because it is against "regionalism".

There is nothing wrong in accepting majority-thought if that does not work against the future of Kannadigas (for example, the need to try and use more and more Halagannada words instead of Sanskrit words). But it is childishness to believe that accepting one majority-thought is proof of accepting all majority-thought.

Hence, we urge Kannadigas to differentiate between accepting the great Sanskrit epics such as Ramayana/Mahabharata (which is welcome), and accepting Hindi Imposition (which is unwelcome), and even extreme Sanskritization of Kannada itself. These are subtle differences, and one needs to think with a clear mind to see the differences.

We are closing further comments on this thread

editor, KARNATIQUE said...

Opening for comments on popular demand. But comments will be monitored for relevance to the topic of the article. We want a healthy and relevant debate.

fullmeter said...

1. "The term 'Lord' is used in reverence of the character of Rama in the Ramayana, who is worshipped by many Kannadigas as one of the incarnations of Vishnu. The question is not whether the author of the article believes in Rama as Lord/God. The question is - whether Kannadigas do. And the answer is yes."

Please explain us how you were able to arrive at a generalized conlusion meaning that Kannadigas believe Rama?

If one takes a close look at Karnataka's demography, the number of casts in Karnataka and the diety they worship; The number of casts and hence the Kannadiga population that doesn't worship Rama outnumbers the Kannadiga population that worships Rama. Your conclusion that 'Kannadigas believe Rama' is not close to reality.


2. " Hence, we urge Kannadigas to differentiate between accepting the great Sanskrit epics such as Ramayana/Mahabharata (which is welcome), and accepting Hindi Imposition (which is unwelcome), and even extreme Sanskritization of Kannada itself. These are subtle differences, and one needs to think with a clear mind to see the differences "

Please justify your usage of the term "Great” as used in 'Great Sanskrit epics such as Ramayana/ Mahabharata '
Why does Karnatique consider Ramayana/ Mahabharata as "great" epics and why does Karnatique urge Kannadigas to accept these Sanskrit epics?

editor, KARNATIQUE said...

Kannadigas worship many deities, and Rama is one of them. Therefore, it is correct to say that Kannadigas believe in Rama. We never said "Kannadigas believe only in Rama". Hence, it is incorrect to say that we have made a generalization. Perhaps the only generalization we can make about Kannadigas is that they speak Kannada!

We call Ramayana and Mahabharata as "great" because they are storehouses of knowledge for humans. These two great epics have shaped the thought, culture, religion and spirituality of generations after generations of Kannadigas - again, we don't mean 100% of the population, and we don't endorse 100% of the epics themselves. It is important to get out of the "100% mindset" with respect to everything. Like the Buddha said, Kannadigas must believe only in those things which their minds acknowledge as based in reason. At the same time, there is no need to denigrate or shun things that are not 100% perfect in our own judgment. It is best to personally filter out the wheat from the chaff and benefit by becoming wiser.

We have not "urged" Kannadigas to "accept these Sanskrit epics" as "fullmeter" alleges. We do not urge Kannadigas to accept anything blindly. Although flattering for Banavasi Balaga, it is a sorry situation wherein Kannadigas blindly "accept" what we say! We can only display a menu of things we believe are good for the future of Kannadigas, and it is up to our audience to decide whether or not to accept them. We believe that our audience is mature enough.

In choosing items for that menu, we refuse to be constrained only to what was produced in Karnataka, by Kannadigas, in Kannada. The sum total of the world's produce of useful things is, to say the least, greater than what has been produced by K-K-K. Kannadigas must have the humility to accept this fact. In possessing such humility, we at Banavasi Balaga differ from many Kannada workers who believe that everything K-K-K is golden and sufficient for building a golden future. In our mind, nothing could be farther from reality.

We believe Kannadigas should learn from everywhere in the world, and make use of good things from everywhere in the world - not just items such as the Sanskrit epics in question, but also science and technology as well as their fruits (such as mobile-phones, laptops, cars, buses...).

There is an urgent need for Kannadigas to use the entire world as a textbook, school and supermarket. There is no other way to build a better Karnataka.

fullmeter said...

“We call Ramayana and Mahabharata as "great" because they are storehouses of knowledge for humans”

This is debatable again. There are other schools of thoughts which consider these epics as racist and advocate that disregarding these epics and the characters idolized in it is good for Kannadigas and for the South Indians as a whole. For the sake of brevity, I don’t want to digress to the discussion regarding the truthfulness of Ramayana/ Mahabharata and it’s relevance for the progress of Kannadigas.

Quoting some points from the editor

‘There is nothing wrong in accepting majority-thought if that does not work against the future of Kannadigas’
.
"Hence, we urge Kannadigas to differentiate between accepting the great Sanskrit epics such as Ramayana/Mahabharata (which is welcome), and accepting Hindi Imposition (which is unwelcome), and even extreme Sanskritization of Kannada itself"
.
“We can only display a menu of things we believe are good for the future of Kannadigas”

As per my understanding a line of thought put forward by Karnatique is that:

Accepting the Sanskrit epics Ramayana / Mahabharara (although not 100% of it) is welcome as it is good for the future of the Kannadigas. Hence it is currently listed in Karnatique’s list of menu items as Karnatique believes that it is good for the future of Kannadigas

My question is ‘If acceptance of Ramayana / Mahabharata / Rama is proved to be fatal for the future of Kannadigas then does Karnatique dare to disregard its current belief and remove this thing from its menu list?’

editor, KARNATIQUE said...

‘If acceptance of Ramayana / Mahabharata / Rama is proved to be fatal for the future of Kannadigas then does Karnatique dare to disregard its current belief and remove this thing from its menu list?’
Most certainly.

fullmeter said...

Many Thanks for the answer!!

Jayant said...

ಅಪಿ ಸ್ವರ್ಣಮಯೀ ಲಂಕಾ ನ ಮೇ ಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಣ ರೋಚತೇ |
ಜನನೀ ಜನ್ಮಭೂಮಿಶ್ಚ ಸ್ವರ್ಗಾದಪಿ ಗರೀಯಸೀ |

Folks, does the above verse read "api svarnamayi lanka na me lakshmana rochate, janani janmabhumishcha svargadapi gariyasi"? (I cannot read Kannada)

If yes, this verse does not have Valmiki Ramayana as its source. I would appreciate if the author can provide exact reference in Valmiki Ramayana.

Madhukara said...

I am not seeing or making out any difference in the view of Lord Rama and Mr.Golwalkar about 'Janmabhoomi'(Motherland).

If you read Ramayana completely and also try to understand it rather than just quoting the portions or one shloka of it to mislead the people, you will come to know that, never Valmiki mentioned that complete Aryavarta or Hindusthan( i.e Bharat today) ,was under one empire of Dasharatha or Ayodhya.

In Ramayana it self, we see that there is reference about Kousala Desha, About Mithila Desha about Kishkindha , about kekaya desha etc.

These states together other more states would make complete Aryavartha which is mentioned by Mr.Golwalkar as Motherland of Hindu.(tht is Hindusthan)

But where as Rama was mentioning as janmabhoomi for Ayodhya. No complete Aryavarta as his motherland. And definitely he wanted to go back to his Montherland.

He has never mentioned I am completely out of Aryavarta and I want go to Aryavarta.

Even Mr.Golwalkar for that matter, from the quoting you have selected, never mentions directly that Lanka was completely part of Aryavartha. But he infers that, Aryavarta(he uses the world 'mainland') had great influence on Lanka. And Lanka was considered as one of the state of Aryavarta. That's it. Its fairly straight.

I am not finding any difference in the view's of both the stalwarts about the Motherland.
Hope, this clarifies.

To add to it, During the age of Ramayana , the word 'Hindu' it self was not in Use I suppose.

editor, KARNATIQUE said...

Jayant,

Please checkout the following link for references of the shloka:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=api+swarnamayi+lanka+na+me+lakshmana+rochate&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enIN283US284&ie=UTF-8

Madhukara,

Yes, point is the following:

1. Valmiki never considered Lanka as part of Aryavarta
2. Rama did not consider Lanka as part of his Janmabhoomi
3. Mr. Golwalkar did - and you also do - as is clear from what you yourself write: "And Lanka was considered as one of the state of Aryavarta". Both Mr. Golwalkar and you have to use the word "considered" carefully when you're "considering" something as large as Lanka for inclusion into a larger landmass!

editor, KARNATIQUE said...

@ Jayant,

Your comment has not been approved because you need to provide solid evidence that the shloka is not part of Valmiki Ramayana. Your saying so does not suffice. As far as we know, that shloka is part of the Valmiki Ramayana - but we may be wrong.

If it's not part of Valmiki Ramayana but is part of another Ramayana, it doesn't harm our argument even in the slightest way. In any case, that shloka is popularly known as one uttered by Lord Rama.

We are more than happy to admit if we have erred on the exact source of the shloka - but the point remains that Mr. Golwalkar was aggrandizing his idea of India to include Sri Lanka which really never was part of that India which Mr. Golwalkar calls as Matrubhoomi.

Jayant said...

Mr. Editor,
How is one supposed to prove that the particular shloka does not belong to Valmiki Ramayana? I thought the burden of proof lies on the author of the post who made an unsubstantiated claim in the first place. While it may be true that the verse is NOW popularly attributed to Shri Rama in some parts of southern India, the entire shloka is unknown elsewhere. What is actually popular is the second half of the shloka,"janani janmabhumishcha svargadapi gariyasi" which does occur in some literary works like Bankim Chandra Chatterji's Ananda Math. This is also the national motto of Nepal, but they do not attribute it to Shri Rama or Ramayana.
You could have argued about your idea of matrubhumi or janmabhumi, and refuted the "flawed" ideas of Golwalkar and others of Indian nationalism without dragging poor Rama and Valmiki into it. These folks did not have any position on matrubhumi or nationalism.
And as for the term Aryavarta, it just denotes northern and central India and excludes even southern India, let alone Srilanka.
I am surprised that my earlier comment was moderated because I did not provide any "solid proof", but you seem to have no problem in publishing malicious and nonsensical comments.
You could consider withdrawing or editing the article for the sake of intellectual honesty. Or else someday somebody might cite this article as a proof for the existence of this verse in Ramayana!

editor, KARNATIQUE said...

Jayant,

This is South India, and we as South Indians have attributed that Shloka to Rama of the Valmiki Ramayana. If we have made an "error" in so attributing, it is exactly the same "error" made by many learned South Indians well versed in their version of the Ramayana - in which this verse exists. Besides, there is no reason to believe that the Ramayana as known in North India is the true Ramayana.

We will certainly edit the article for "the sake of intellectual honesty" - if proven that we have exhibited intellectual dishonesty. The burden of that proof is on those who have alleged such dishonesty. Such proof must involve a definitive source which cites that the shloka must never be uttered by anybody reciting the Ramayana - even if by oral tradition. That source must also argue what would go wrong if the shloka is indeed recited, for e.g., if it goes against the general progression of the epic, or say has a metrical error, or say conflicts with another shloka in a very direct way.

Valmiki might not have had the concept of Nationalism - but Mr. Golwalkar definitely did. And his concept of Nationalism involved a mix-up between spiritual and political unity - because of which he even argued against a federal polity for India. And as per the Shloka known to us, Rama did not include Lanka in his "Janmabhoomi" while Mr. Golwalkar did. This is exactly the confusion between spiritual unity and political unity.

ravi turuvekere said...

shivalli brahmins think it was quoted by Sri ramachandra:
http://shivallibrahmins.com/english/articles/indian-way-of-life/

some more links where I found this quote:
http://www.mihironline.com/2009/08/janani-janmabhoomischa-swargadapi.html

Proud Dog:
http://vivblogs.blogspot.com/2009/02/proud-dog.html

http://www.adi-shankara.org/2008/05/happy-mothers-day.html

http://www.hindutemplenebraska.org/share/sharedfiles/newsletter/deepam%20july-august%202006.pdf

Jayant said...

Mr. Editor,
1. "...it is exactly the same "error" made by many learned South Indians well versed in their version of the Ramayana - in which this verse exists."
The shloka does not exist in ANY recension(dakshinatya, bangya or paschimottariya) of Valmiki Ramayana. If you are sure that it exists in the Valmiki Ramayana, why is there hesitance or reluctance in citing the recension of the book, and the kanda and sarga where the shloka occurs? I would appreciate if you can also provide a few shlokas preceding the shloka in question.

2."Besides, there is no reason to believe that the Ramayana as known in North India is the true Ramayana."
I never claimed that. In fact, the southern recension is believed to be the oldest, and closest to the original text.

3. "Such proof must involve a definitive source which cites that the shloka must never be uttered by anybody reciting the Ramayana - even if by oral tradition."
I can respond to this only if you provide me the exact reference in your elusive version of Valmiki Ramayana.

4. "This is South India, and we as South Indians have attributed that Shloka to Rama of the Valmiki Ramayana. If we have made an "error" in so attributing, it is exactly the same "error" made by many learned South Indians well versed in their version of the Ramayana"
Please don't bring a bad name to South Indians by claiming to speak on their behalf. They are as much, if not more, knowledgeable about the epic and other Sanskrit literature as people elsewhere in India. Besides, nobody who has cared to read the epic has ever argued about the existence of the shloka in it.

5. "We will certainly edit the article for "the sake of intellectual honesty" - if proven that we have exhibited intellectual dishonesty."
I commented because I felt the author of the article had exhibited ignorance. Making is a factual mistake is not dishonesty, but refusing to admit the mistake when it is pointed out by somebody does display lack of honesty and sincerity.

This website belongs to you and its for you to decide on the veraciousness of the articles published here. My concern is about people like Ravi Turuvekere who take articles/blogs on internet seriously and even use them as a definitive proof while arguing.

editor, KARNATIQUE said...

@ Jayant,

You win the argument.

Thank you for your perseverance and logical arguments. The article has indeed made a mistake in saying that the shloka is from the Valmiki Ramayana. It is not in the Valmiki Ramayana, but only in the Ramayana as popularly recited in some oral traditions. The article has been edited to remove 'Valmiki' from the text.

As you correctly pointed out, this is not a question of "intellectual dishonesty" but a "factual mistake". We certainly have the intellectual honesty to own up and correct our mistakes. I only wanted to ensure that the author is not penalized for a mistake he has not made.

We are open to entirely removing this article if anybody can prove that Rama considered Lanka as part of his 'Janmabhoomi'.

Post a Comment

 
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...