Archive for the ‘saint thomas’ Category

EVR’s atheism, Deivanayagam’s petition, Veramani’s counter and the Judgment!

September 8, 2019

EVR’s atheism, Deivanayagam’s petition, Veramani’s counter and the Judgment!

WP 2017 filed by Deivanayagam

2017 petition heard and decided in 2019: That the petition W.P. No.28021/2017 was heard two years later and the judges to deliver judgment on 04-09-2019 has been intriguing. None reacted to the judgment or protested to remove any paragraphs from the judgment arguing that they offend their belief or so.  Perhaps, most of them are not interested at all. The duo Rajiv Malhothra and Aravinda Neelakantan[1] made much fuss about their favorite duo Deivanayagam and Devakala[2] also keeping quite! Though from 2014 onward, many Hindutwa advocates, lawyers and legal experts have been out, it appears that they do not bother such cases. Of course, they might write in their own websites and journals, read by hundred or two hundred, applause and enjoy time otherwise.

Duo vs duo

Thanthai Periyar, had advocated both atheism and self respect[3]: Emphasizing the right to propagate views questioning existence of God, the Madras High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation which sought to remove atheistic inscriptions below the statues of Thanthai Periyar in Tamil Nadu[4]. The bench comprising Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that followers of Thanthai Periyar, in exercise of the rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, has a right to disagree with the existence of God.

There is no God, no God, no god,
Those who preached God is fool
Those who spread God Rogue
Those who pray God are Barbarians

These inscriptions below the statue of Thanthai Periyar erected all over the State of Tamil Nadu, offended Dr.M.Deivanayagam[5] who filed a PIL seeking to remove them on the ground that it is an offensive language, and against the ‘Universal God’. According to Dr. Deivanayagam, Periyar had always advocated self-respect and not atheism. He further contended that Periyar had not uttered such words offending people[6]. He contended that during his lifetime, Periyar had never uttered these words, inscribed below the statues, and it was the Dravidar Kazhagam, led by its president K. Veeramani, that had inscribed these lines[7]. A division bench of Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Subramonium Prasad said it was of the view that it was an undisputed fact that Periyar, in all his speeches and publications, from 1928, had declared that[8] “there is no God, God doesn’t exist, one who has created God is a fool”. “The propogation of the philosophy of self respect, social reform, ending caste system, equal rights and Periyar’s vision to establish a society of brotherhood can be deciphered, and according to him, the belief in God was the sole reason for the inequalities in society[9]. Speeches and expression, extracted supra, from 1928, makes it clear without an iota of hesitation that it was Periyar’s philosophy and ideology that became a self respect movement and later on, a party,” the bench said.

Atheism case, the so-called words

Periyar had declared that there is no god, God doesn’t exist, One who has created is a fool: Justice Manikumar, in his judgment, made many references to writing and speeches of Periyar and concluded that he had, in all his speeches, publications, from 1928, had declared that there is no god, God doesn’t exist, One who has created is a fool[10]. The court also observed that, people recognize Periyar as a non believer of God and the one who fought for social justice and self respect. The court said[11]: “Propagation of philosophy of self respect, social reform, ending caste system, equal rights, and Thanthai Periyar’s vision to establish a society of brotherhood could be deciphered, and according to Thanthai Periyar, belief of God, was the sole reason for the inequalities in the society. Speeches and expression, extracted supra, from 1928 and enclosed in the typed set of papers makes it clear, without any iota of hesitation, one can clearly come to the conclusion that it is Thanthai Periyar’s philosophy and ideology, which became a self respect movement and later on, a party”.

Ezra, Veeramani, Deivanayagam, Seeman together

Followers of Periyar Has Right To Propagate His Atheistic Views: The court further observed Dravidar Kazhagam Party, has every right under the Constitution of India, to fight for social justice in eradicating inequality, right for upliftment of women and downridden people, express views on religion and existence of God[12]. It further observed that divergent views on philosophy should be allowed to be expressed, and that there cannot be a prevention of freedom of expression, with permanent interest of human progress[13]. It said: “The petitioner has a constitutional right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, to express his views on religion and existence of God, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalai Singh Yadav’s case, we are of the view that the 2nd respondent and the members of the party, or followers of Thanthai Periyar, in exercise of the rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, has a right to disagree with the same.”

How Cristians and theist dupe Hindua 04-09-2019 judgment

Who is Deivanayagam, the Petitioner of the case?: M. Deivanayagam has been a Christian, completed M. A. Tamil fom Madras Christian College, working as a lecturer in Loyola College, done a Ph.D from the chair created by the former Archbishop R. Arulappa, that was reportedly affiliated to the University of Madras. With the publication of his controversial book, “Viviliyam Tirukkural Saiva Siddhantam,” he go some publicity. However, Rajiv Malhothra of Infinity Foundation had given undue publicity through his book, “Breaking India.” Though he never saw and met Deivanayagam he engaged certain people to get information about Deivanayagam. That is why, the information the Rajiv Malhothra group got has been confused and given full credit to Deivanayagam and her daughter Devakala. Aravinda Neelakantan, evidently collaborated for such “Deivanayagam research” making him famous, popular rather than notorious hitherto. Some persons of Hindutva groups have worked as conduits for the information exchange between Deivanayagam and Hindutwa groups. Thus, in 2017, Deivanayagam got this fantastic idea of “Universal God” and filed a writ petition.

Deivanayagam claimed ER was not an atheist

What Deivanayagam claimed in his petition: Based on the petition filed, the following points are listed:

  1. The Parliament of World Religions was held between 15th and 19th of October 2015 at Salt lake city, USA. On behalf of our trust [“Trust for the Unification of World Religions through Soulology of the Tamils”], we rented two booths to establish the existence of the Universal God on the basis of the Soulology of the Tamils and all the questions raised by the religious scholars had been answered rationally.
  2. On the basis of the invitation of the Vice Chancellor of Madras University. We have established the existence of Universal God in a rational way on 2nd January 2016.
  3. The President of Dravidar Kazhagam have advertised that, those who prove the existence of God will get a reward of 1 crore rupees and those who prove Pilliyar eats Kozhukattai will get a reward of 2 crore rupees and specifically they have to prove in the premises of Periyar Thidal. Accepting his challenge, we wrote letters to K.Veeramani. We wrote articles explaining a reply to his challenge and published in our magazines. After reading this, due to the fear of losing his challenge, he has hidden himself in his own premises at the specified time. The complete details are published in our Tamizhar Samayam magazine. We are always ready to prove the above challenge at any time.”

WP 2017 f-what veeramani said about deivanayagam

What K. Veeramani frecorded about M. Deivanayagam in his counter: What K. Veeramani recorded abot M. Deivanayagam:

  1. It is the further contention of the 2nd respondent [Deivanayagam] that the petitioner used to spend time, in the premises of 2nd respondent’s party [K. Veeramani] under the guise of an atheist and non believer of God.
  2. It is their further contention that after some time, the petitioner has started preaching that in the world, that there are two religions, one is Saivait and the other is Vaishnavait and Gods are Shiva and Vishnu respectively.
  3. The second respondent has further stated that the petitioner is having an organization called “அனைத்து தன்மான தமிழர்களது கூட்டமைப்பு”. Using this organization, on one side, he preached about Periyar and on other side, tried to achieve his individual views, by using 2nd respondent’s party.
  4. As he refused to attend his meeting, he filed this petition as a revenge.

WP 2017 f-judment last parasThe judgment and its beneficiaries and of course the affected: It is not known as to where the Hindutwa lawyers, advocates and others have gone. Thus, it is very clear that both played dubious play and mischief, just to get publicity through the petition, because, hther it is head or tail, they are the winners and the opponents or the gullible attacked [who always do not know that they are attacked] and the Judges cleverly delivered the judgment giving much publicity to EVR with the English translation that occupies 60% of their judgments. Definitely, the DK, K. Veeramany and Deivanayagam have been the most benefited with the dismissed petition and the judgment.

© Vedaprakash

08—09-2019

Atheism case, the judges who delivered

[1] Authors of the book “Breaking India,” holding that these two were responsible for all the Christa activities carried on in India.

[2] More than half the book deals with a father-and-daughter duo, Devianayagam and Devakala; have you heard of them? They are Tamil evangelists, and while I hold no brief for either of them, I find it hard to believe, as Malhotra does, that they are Enemies Number One and Two in India.

Outlook, A study on Bible-thumping activism ignores titular faultlines, concocts plots couched in anti-imperialism, GITA RAMASWAMY, 23 MAY 2011

https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/yankee-hindutva-strikes/271815

[3] Livelaw, Right To Atheism: Madras HC Reject PIL To Remove Atheistic Inscriptions Under Periyar Statues [Read Judgment], BY: ASHOK KINI6 Sep 2019 6:31 PM

[4] https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/right-to-disagree-with-existence-of-god-147845

[5] He has been a Christian posing as a Sanyasi donnig ochre robes and writing against Hindu religion, scriptures and Gods. The Catholic chrch supports him, though, they pretend to oppose each other.

[6] The Hindu, Madras High Court dismisses plea to remove inscriptions on Periyar statues, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, CHENNAI, SEPTEMBER 06, 2019 00:45 IST; UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 06, 2019 11:11 IST.

[7] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/high-court-dismisses-plea-to-remove-inscriptions-on-periyar-statues-dravidar-kazhagam/article29345201.ece

[8] The Times of India, Madras high court upholds right to deny God’s existence, TNN | Updated: Sep 6, 2019, 13:19 IST

[9] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/periyar-e-v-ramaswamys-followers-have-right-to-question-existence-of-god-madras-hc/articleshow/71001704.cms

[10] TheNewsMinute, Constitution grants right to say ‘there is no god’, says Madras High Court, Megha Kaveri, Friday, September 06, 2019 – 17:41

[11] https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/constitution-grants-right-say-there-no-god-says-madras-high-court-108493

[12] Business Standard, HC throws out plea seeking removal of “no God” slogans from Periyar’s statues, Press Trust of India | Chennai , Last Updated at September 5, 2019 21:55 IST.

[13] https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/hc-throws-out-plea-seeking-removal-of-no-god-slogans-from-periyar-s-statues-119090501548_1.html

Advertisements

Thomas myth spread by Historians – Historian-liars on the increase in India!

October 17, 2015

Thomas myth spread by Historians – Historian-liars on the increase in India!

I was surprised to see an article / paper written by one Dr. K. Sadasivan, Professor & Head. Department of History, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli appearing in the “Journal of Indian History and Culture” (JIHC) March 2003, Tenth issue, published by C. P. Ramaswami Iyer Institute of Indological Research, The C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar Foundation, 1, Eldams Road, Chennai – 600 018. The journal is edited by Dr. G. J. Sudhakar and the editorial board consists of –

  Dr. K. V. Raman,

  Dr. R. Nagaswami,

  Dr, T. K. Venkatasubramanian and

  Dr. Nandita Krishna.

The editor in his note recorded –

“Dr. K. Sadasivan, of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University has added his scholarship to this issue through his paper “Early Tamil oral, Literary and Archaeological traditions and St. Thomas Christians

The learned editor’s complimented paper is appearing in the journal spreading to twenty pages (JIHC, pp.17-38). What and how the Professor has added his scholarship? Anything new? NO.

The learned Professor has just vomited what the propagandist missionaries and fraudulent group has already aided and abetted with the unscrupulous Archbishop & fundamentalist elements. Dr. Sadasivam has ironically not read what Dr. N. Nagaswamy has written about “the doubtful Thomas”. He has happily concluded as follows:

It can be understood from the foregoing study that even in the absence of any documented history, the universal and local Christian traditions are unanimous in their views that St. Thomas arrived in India in 52 A. D., reached Mylapore via the west-coast (Thirivithancode-Aralvaimozhi pass), performed there his apostolic service in converting the natives to his religious fold and suffered martyrdom there at the hands of a native in A. D. though there are differing versions are there about his killer(s) and the place of his martyrdom. Moreover, the presence of a strong St. Thomas community, the tomb, the Chapel and the Cross, and the architectural remains, makes us believe that St. Thomas was living among the Tamils of first century A. D. however, it is premature to postulate a theory of Christian influence in Tamil works, particularly, Tirukkural, though it seems to display the possibility of having been influenced by the Bible or Christ/s Sermon on the Mount. But, a spark of Christian influence on the Tirukkural is not impossible as this didactic work is believed to have been written in the second century A. D., when St. Thomas Christians in the West Coast were still entrenched and began spreading the Gospel of Christ” (pp.33-34).

   So the cat is out. Denying Christian influence on Tirukkural is to place it in 2nd century and accept it! This makes one to remember what M/s. Arulappa and Acharya Paul Company has done in early 1980s. Now who is doing that to make Sadasivam to come to the same conclusion?

   He asserts to conclude: “the universal and local Christian traditions are unanimous”. What is that universal tradition? Something alien or superman-type? Came from heavens or sent by Christ and revealed to Sadasivam? And that too the traditions are unanimous! It is unfortunate that as an historian should he lie like this.

   . Moreover, the presence of a strong St. Thomas community, the tomb, the Chapel and the Cross, and the architectural remains, makes us believe that St. Thomas was living among the Tamils of first century A. D. Are the historians so naïve and gullible to believe instead of asking for historical evidences? Definitely, something has happened to this gang of historians who decided to accommodate such false, that too, already well-known forgery and fraudulent act. Who gives such dating of first century A. D and all? Not only his dating is wrong but also the notation, as now only BCE and CE are used. The learned historian has been so “christianic” to follow Anno Domini! Any way to follow fraudulent and forge history such dubious dates have to be followed.

    “But, a spark of Christian influence on the Tirukkural is not impossible as this didactic work is believed to have been written in the second century A. D., when St. Thomas Christians in the West Coast were still entrenched and began spreading the Gospel of Christ”. Very well indeed. Had Arulappa been alive, he would have generously funded to Sadasivam of Tirunelveli,  as he did to Acharya Paul of Sri Rangam. How e gets the same “research methodology” of Arulappa and Co.?

   The acknowledgement of Dr. G. J. Sudhakar is unbelievable: “Dr. K. Sadasivan, of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University has added his scholarship to this issue through his paper “Early Tamil oral, Literary and Archaeological traditions andSt. Thomas Christians“. He has been a history Professor of Loyola College, editor of several history-journals, office-bearer of IHC, SIHC, TNHC etc. So his admission and appreciation of “scholarship” aiding and abetting false history, fraudulent history etc., is intriguing and appears to be heading for dangerous situation.

   Dr. Nandita Krishna has been of course not new for the spread of myth, as she has already contributed her mite in “The Hindu”. For details: See www.hamsa.org However, being a great-daughter of C. P. Ramaswami Iyer in his name the Foundation runs and publishes this journal, this is something unfortunate, as she could have avoided it. At least, she could have told Sudhakar not to publish it. But, what is done becomes history!

   Anyway, why Indian historians have been becoming liars? One has to study this aspect.