September 21, 2007
8:15 am
Does karunanidhi somehow make a connection between the so-called ‘scientific temper’ and questioning the existence of Lord Ram? And wishes to prove that he is among the more forward thinking individuals who do not believe in mythology or anything that cannot be scientifically established? To all those who tend to disregard anything and everything not ‘proven’, the simple reply has always been that what is not known is not ne
cessarily nonexistent. Existence of something is independent of proof. We never believed Homer’s Iliad before the remains of Troy were recently found. And now we cannot disregard the proven fact that Troy did exist once. And if this is true, in all probability battle of Troy is also a part of the era bygone, and so is Achilles and his proverbial ‘heels’. The same may well be true of Lord Ram.
Ram Sethu or Adam’s Bridge (for the western oriented) is not manmade, NASA says. Well, Ramayana doesn’t say it is. It was made by Nal and Neel, who were not humans of course. They were vanaras (kind of apes). That’s one part of it. Another relevant question could be: what makes a man made bridge different from a natural bridge or that of any other kind? I am no scientist but this much is obvious that the only way to say that something is not manmade is by saying that something was made not the way we humans would make it, or by saying that it was made in a way much like the way some other agency is known to make it. How do we know pyramids were made by human beings when even today, with all the technology at our command, we would find it difficult to imitate the structural perfection of the pyramids? But we cannot say it was not made by human beings because they are graves to dead men and, therefore, have to be necessarily made by human beings. The purpose is clear and right in our faces, and we cannot turn our faces on it. This is what Ram Sethu lacks. It was made to cross over to Ravan’s Lanka, mythology tells us. But the bridge has no inscription to that effect. Thus, the confusion.
The most important, however, is not whether or not Ram existed. It is about the religious belief of the people in this country. And beliefs are not open to question. Ram’s factual existence may be debatable, his social and relig
ious relevance cannot be. The controversy ends there. There should be just an apology and the chapter be considered closed. And people like Mr. Karunanidhi must be told to restrain himself before he goes down the public memory as one of the makers of the bridge. The species is known to be unnecessarily naughty. That would be a more plausible explanation for his otherwise inexplicable antics.
cessarily nonexistent. Existence of something is independent of proof. We never believed Homer’s Iliad before the remains of Troy were recently found. And now we cannot disregard the proven fact that Troy did exist once. And if this is true, in all probability battle of Troy is also a part of the era bygone, and so is Achilles and his proverbial ‘heels’. The same may well be true of Lord Ram.Ram Sethu or Adam’s Bridge (for the western oriented) is not manmade, NASA says. Well, Ramayana doesn’t say it is. It was made by Nal and Neel, who were not humans of course. They were vanaras (kind of apes). That’s one part of it. Another relevant question could be: what makes a man made bridge different from a natural bridge or that of any other kind? I am no scientist but this much is obvious that the only way to say that something is not manmade is by saying that something was made not the way we humans would make it, or by saying that it was made in a way much like the way some other agency is known to make it. How do we know pyramids were made by human beings when even today, with all the technology at our command, we would find it difficult to imitate the structural perfection of the pyramids? But we cannot say it was not made by human beings because they are graves to dead men and, therefore, have to be necessarily made by human beings. The purpose is clear and right in our faces, and we cannot turn our faces on it. This is what Ram Sethu lacks. It was made to cross over to Ravan’s Lanka, mythology tells us. But the bridge has no inscription to that effect. Thus, the confusion.
The most important, however, is not whether or not Ram existed. It is about the religious belief of the people in this country. And beliefs are not open to question. Ram’s factual existence may be debatable, his social and relig
ious relevance cannot be. The controversy ends there. There should be just an apology and the chapter be considered closed. And people like Mr. Karunanidhi must be told to restrain himself before he goes down the public memory as one of the makers of the bridge. The species is known to be unnecessarily naughty. That would be a more plausible explanation for his otherwise inexplicable antics. 
