What a lot of tosh this paper is churning out. Repeatedly, it tramples upon hindu sentiments using false statements.
If it were a norm, can the author Aparajita give a few examples where temples were so "replaced". And this process of replacement, did it involve desecration and destruction of the old temple and building a new one over its ruins?
The Hindu : Open Page : Ayodhya and a true Ram Rajya
If it were a norm, can the author Aparajita give a few examples where temples were so "replaced". And this process of replacement, did it involve desecration and destruction of the old temple and building a new one over its ruins?
The Hindu : Open Page : Ayodhya and a true Ram Rajya
In those days, it was almost a norm that if a Shiva worshipper won a battle with a Krishna worshipper, then the former would replace all Krishna temples with Shiva temples. That can never justify a reciprocative action today.
Posts
4 comments:
On the contrary I think it was a norm to build a Shiva or related temple in the premises of Vishnu temple and vice-versa in many temples.
I happened to stumble upon this observation by chance when we visited Draksharamam - one of the five aramams in Andhra Pradesh. I asked the purohit why the Shiva temple has a resident vishnu temple (its a venu gopala swamy temple) in the premises of the main aramam.
He explained that it is a norm in any shiva temple of historical importance to have a residing vishnu diety. This is to show oneness of shiva and vishnu. On the other hand a vishnu temple without an in house shiva diety is not acceptable because to do any homam or yagnam, Shiva is invoked before any other diety. The same applies to shakti temples or any other diety. The requirement is because each diety ushers a specific boon on the devotee and ones presence without the other in the sanctum sanctorum wouldnt give the best of the benefits.
I have never found one big temple missing this inevitability.
If the Hindu's eminent historians dont have any thing else to write about, they should try writing some articles on SRK and his exploits in India. That would at least spare us from hearing this balderdash about our ancestors!
We should ask some EMINENT historians like Romila Thapar or Ramachandra Guha for their opinion on this article ;)
Lol @ Venkat's suggestion.
In any case, this one line is enough to not take her seriously -
"Why not use the disputed land in Ayodhya to build a health centre that would serve the poor for free?"
""Why not use the disputed land in Ayodhya to build a health centre that would serve the poor for free?"
This is brilliant!
Yes, I support that completely!
Yes! Destroy the disputed mosque and build a health centre there :)
Post a Comment