P. Lal, L.K. Advani, Rama, and Shyam Chand

Home page > 2007 > September 29, 2007 > Mainstream, Vol XLV, No 41
Ram Setu: Myth or Reality? by Shyam Chand Friday 5 October 2007

Blessed are these who have no history. Condemned are those who forget their history. Damned are those who treat mythology as their history. The instinct for survival precedes any notion of morality. The priestly class, which denigrated Rama, Krishna, Hanuman and the Hindu Triumvirate, had suddenly tried to apotheosise them for its survival....

INTELLECTUAL dishonesty is worse than crime. In his furious interview given to an English TV Channel L.K. Advani inter alia mentioned the name of Aurobindo who upheld the Rama heritage. The RSS adopted Aurobindo Ghosh as its hero and the icon of saffron culture whom Advani, during his Rathyatra from Somnath to Ayodhya, buried somewhere on the way as, according to Aurobindo Ghosh, Rama was not a historical figure. He was the figment of Valmiki’s imagination. Can anybody imagine monkeys invading a kingdom? (P. Lal in the introduction of Valmiki’s Ramayana translated into English)...

MANY Hindus like me, without accepting the Ram Setu as man-made, consider Rama a historical figure and worship him, empathise with him that he was the victim of Brahmanic revenge and denigration. Rama was accused of milling Sambuka. Laxman, son of a Shudra woman, Sumitra, was dear to Rama. Guha, a Shudra King, was the family friend of Rama, who offered him hospitality during the entire exile. Rama ate the tasted plums of a Shudra woman in whose presence he felt honoured. In his battle against Ravana, tribals (Shudras) provided him with manpower and logistic support. The killing of Sambuka was an interpolation to dissuade Shudras from siding with Kshtriyas in their wars against Brahmins.