Na thu Ram God say the governments
ASI denied existence of Ram. They did shallow sea diving, found no bones (no pun here), decided the long stretch of platform between Rameswaram and lankan tip is not a sethu and also denied existence of Ram. Down south, nearer the Sethu, the CM of TN has questioned "Who is this Ram? In which engineering college did he study and become a civil engineer? When did he build this so-called bridge? Is there any evidence for this?"
Profound statements -- one by a government body giving official affidavit in no less place than the Supreme Court and another by a Chief Minister.
In the former's case the UPA ministers, and the "God woman" herself did the knee jerk retreat and in the later case we will soon see winding denials and convoluted, nevertheless jerked knee statements and abuses clearly covered inside so-called rational and progressive self-esteem.
When it is questionable -- the ASI's method to find out whether or not the platform was man made, is scientific or not -- there was no need for ASI to include existence or non-existence of Ram. By the way how ASI is capable of proving or disproving existence of Ram beats me. With this method the ASI will prove there is no God (be it Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva etc). Is it a proof that no evidence available now is non-existence? Then until Newton there was no gravity on the earth. While it was pathetic for a govt. body to give unverifyable statements as affidavit it was equally pathetic for the govt. to withdraw it quickly. What does the withdrawal prove - that ASI lied in SC? A clear case of perjury, if so. Mind it, the govt. cannot hide behind the "sensitive issue" veil here because it was not a finding and report of ASI to conceal it as confidiential because of the sensitive nature of the "finding", rather it was an affidavit/proof given in the capacity of a defendant in the supreme court.
Let us come to the revealing statements of non other than the self-righeous CM of TN. Mr. CM did not know that Ram was an aluminus of the same engineering college (OBC quota) where Shahjahan did the BE Civil Engineering before building the Taj Mahal. He also does not know that Ram was the aluminus of the same prestigious group of educational institutions in whose agricultural college Akbar and Ashoka studied before planting trees on the roadsides. Yeah! yeah! Akbar, Ashoka(r), Shahjahan were to struggle to get their places in those institutions because that time there was no social justice done by giving minority quota for them, carving out from the existing quota. What to do they did not live in the time of Karunanidhis. Poor souls, nevertheless they made it to those colleges and that is why built Tajmahal and planted trees.
Hey! Ram.
Profound statements -- one by a government body giving official affidavit in no less place than the Supreme Court and another by a Chief Minister.
In the former's case the UPA ministers, and the "God woman" herself did the knee jerk retreat and in the later case we will soon see winding denials and convoluted, nevertheless jerked knee statements and abuses clearly covered inside so-called rational and progressive self-esteem.
When it is questionable -- the ASI's method to find out whether or not the platform was man made, is scientific or not -- there was no need for ASI to include existence or non-existence of Ram. By the way how ASI is capable of proving or disproving existence of Ram beats me. With this method the ASI will prove there is no God (be it Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva etc). Is it a proof that no evidence available now is non-existence? Then until Newton there was no gravity on the earth. While it was pathetic for a govt. body to give unverifyable statements as affidavit it was equally pathetic for the govt. to withdraw it quickly. What does the withdrawal prove - that ASI lied in SC? A clear case of perjury, if so. Mind it, the govt. cannot hide behind the "sensitive issue" veil here because it was not a finding and report of ASI to conceal it as confidiential because of the sensitive nature of the "finding", rather it was an affidavit/proof given in the capacity of a defendant in the supreme court.
Let us come to the revealing statements of non other than the self-righeous CM of TN. Mr. CM did not know that Ram was an aluminus of the same engineering college (OBC quota) where Shahjahan did the BE Civil Engineering before building the Taj Mahal. He also does not know that Ram was the aluminus of the same prestigious group of educational institutions in whose agricultural college Akbar and Ashoka studied before planting trees on the roadsides. Yeah! yeah! Akbar, Ashoka(r), Shahjahan were to struggle to get their places in those institutions because that time there was no social justice done by giving minority quota for them, carving out from the existing quota. What to do they did not live in the time of Karunanidhis. Poor souls, nevertheless they made it to those colleges and that is why built Tajmahal and planted trees.
Hey! Ram.
posted by Kupps at 7:43 AM
1 Comments:
In the outset let me make it clear that I am writing this comment based on the newspaper reports.
What apparently ASI has told is that there is no scientific evidence that the bridge was man-made. To strengthen their claim they have given "Non-existane of Ram" evidence. Withdrawing the this affidavit in no way builds a case of perjury. ASI has not lied. All they have said is, if I am allowed to put in lucid terms, "As far as the methods employed by us we did not find any evidence to prove this bridge is man-made".
The affidavit has been withdrawn due to its politically incorrect position but not for its flawed logic.
Having said all this, let me also add that Supreme court could easily have questioned ASI's methods.
In my opinion most part of history research hinges on available evidences and are not verifiable; And therefore unscientific.
Typically governmental agencies prepare their affidavits to suit the goverment positions. Affidavits suiting goverment's position were filed when effect of Setu project on gulf of Mannar's marine ecosystem was analysed. Degradation of ecology is not a political subject and therefore noone really bothered about glaring assumptions in that affidavit
Post a Comment
<< Home