Posts Tagged ‘historicity’

The so-called 300 / 3000 Ramayanas: The Dravidian propaganda

March 6, 2012

The so-called 300 / 3000 Ramayanas: The Dravidian propaganda

 By Sri Vedaprakash, March 16, 2008
Note: This topic is again and again brought to the notice of the readers. However, the atheists, the Dravidian propagandists, Communists, Christians and Muslims hiding under such banners again and again rake up the issue without reading Ramayana. Unfortunately, they even do not read what these Ramanujan, Paukla and others have written. Yet, they go on rehash the stuff. Therefore, I have to point out their hollowness to plant such mischievous postings appearing then and there.
Ramayana once again[1]!:Ever since the Sethu-Samuthram controversy has cropped up, the Dravidian ideologists, Karu’s Court Historians[2] and others ganged up together circulating the old-stories as authentic histories. Of course, the propaganda carried on by this hysterical gang has parallel only in Hitler’s camp. Of course, any reader can note it is the Black Parivar[3] and the Red Parivar[4] would very often take the Hitler-stick to beat others, but they do not realize that they have been following only Hitler. Coming to the point, now their main attack has been against Rama and Ramayana and therefore, the Karu’s Court historians started digging up old polemical writings, scurrilous pamphlets and anti-Hindu literature to serve their perverted purpose.

The “Viduthalai” [5] (March 14th and 13th dated), the DK-mouth piece, but with the blessings of Karu has brought out one brief of A. K. Ramanujam’s paper “Three Hundred Ramayanas”. T. R. Balu has made a visit and met Karu on 14th. Therefore, the coincidence can be noted and there would be raking up the issue again. The Communist super intelligent leaders have also started the nonsensical blabbering that Ramayana is myth and so on.

The Dravidian Love for Paula Richman: Recently, the Dravidian protagonists have again started their blasphemy against Sri Rama under the guise of historical research, analytical wisdom, Aryan-Dravidian race hypotheses[6] , their (Aryan-Dravidian) continuous struggle-for- ever in India and other ideologies. Incidentally, now, one way or the other, as they have drawn attention to Paula Richman’s book, “Many Ramayanas”, it is imperative to read what exactly, she mentions about the subject, which has been so fascinated to these atheist rabble-rousers. I have read the book carefully and particularly, the interpretations, many times to understand the psyche behind it. Actually, the whole story has not been new Indian scholars, researchers and at least, those who know about the origin of Ramayana[7]. A. K. Ramanujam’s paper[8] “Three Hundred Ramayanas” appears in “Many Ramayanas” of Paula Richman.

The book is nothing but compilation of articles of different personalities, purportly to look into the diversity of a narrative tradition in South Asia. Narrative, rendering, oral tradition, from oral to writing and vice versa, translation etc., can be entertained only literary criticism, when such liberality of literature is there in a society. Where, the thought process is control, such exercise cannot be undertaken. In fact, in many non-Indian societies, such narrative, rendering, oral tradition, from oral to writing and vice versa, translation etc., had been done away long back. Even today in the so-called modern, civilized, advanced, progressed, etc., times, such exercise is not possible in other non-Indian literature. Therefore, the literary critics should understand and appreciate the nuances, before criticizing the “many Ramayanas” or sending wrong signals.

Paula Richman has stories of A. K. Ramanujan, Frank E. Reynolds, Kathleen E. Erndl, David Shulman, Velcheru Narayan Rao, Clinton Seely, Staurt H. Blackburn, Paula Richman, Patricia Y. Mumme, Philip Lutgendorf, and Ramdas Lamb discuss about such narratives etc., and it appears as English rendering of any Tamil Pattimandram discussing the very old questions of mutilation of Surpanaka, Sita’s fire ordeal, etc. Unfortuinately, the sole aim of the compilation appears to deride, disparage and denigrate by choosing the topic under the guise research with historical camouflage.

300 or 3000 Ramayanas?: That there are “300 Ramayanas” as exactly counted has not been the original idea of A. K. Ramanujan, but, as he himself confessed that it belongs to one “student of Ramayana”, Canille Bulcke[9], who only counted so – exactly 300! Then to add his contribution, A. K. Ramanujan mentions[10] that according to a Kannada scholar[11] there are more than a thousand Ramayanas in Kannada! Then, adds that according to a Telugu scholar[12] there are more than a thousand Ramayanas in Telugu! At least, the Telugu scholar appears to be probably reasonable, as he said “more than a thousand”! It is not known why the learned scholar stops with, as he could have consulted Malayali scholar, Marathi scholar, Oriya scholar, Bengali scholar, Gujarathi scholar, Rajasthani scholar, Hindi scholar, Kashmiri scholar and so on.

So here, the point is that Ramayana story has been so popular among every society of the ancient civilizations and accepted by the members of different societies, each member wanted to recognize and transform such Ramayana character to the identified members of society or vice versa for exhibiting similar or same characteristics. When one asks, “Ey, why are you sleeping like Kumbakarna?” , it does not imply that his brother is like Ravana and so on. It has been used figuratively to drive out the point as such characterization has been known to everybody. Thus, he cannot be considered to have created one more Ramayana!

The so-called freedom of thought expression and opinion: The existence of 300 or 3,000 or 30,000 Ramayanas has been the credit to the popularity of Ramayana as a human-literature, Universal literature long back and it does not discredit as the existence of more Bibles[13] or Quarans or Korans[14], as the very mention would be anathema. Perhaps, the persons, who talk about “300 Ramayanas” do not know the existence of more Bibles or Korans., but the faithful believers destroyed many or all according to their own estimate and accounting and finally have one “printed version”, declared as infallible and revealed through God as the “Word of God”, so none could change anything thereafter. But they do not explain why there were hundreds of Bibles and Korans and why they were destroyed. How they could have selected the existing version only as the exact tract as revealed to their respective prophets to be accepted as authentic and authorized. How such divine grace had descended on the chosen group to decide and do accordingly.

Indians have not leaned the art of editing, expurging and interpolation of verses of books, as done by the non-Indians. They have not learned the art of destruction of earlier, differing or opposing versions and to claim that this is the only “Authorized version” or “Revealed Book”.

The Arabic tradition of rendering Poetry and Koran: The Arabic tradition has been that the Arabic poets would only recite their poems, be listened and enjoyed and appreciated by others and they were never written down. Particularly, in the case of Koran, it was strongly believed that as it was revealed by Allah through Jibreal / Gabriel to the Prophet Mohammed (PBCH), it has to be learned by heart by listening to the recital by the experts. There had / have been groups exclusively for the purpose of recital of Koran. Only later, the writing down of Koran and its translation into other non-Arabic languages started. As Ibn Warraq has elaborately dealt with about it, it is not discussed here. In fact, Mohammed Mamaduke Picthall[15] in his foreword clearly records the following points:

1.. It may be reasonably claimed that no Holy Scriptures can be fairly presented by one who disbelieves its inspiration and its message.
2.. The Koran cannot be translated. That is the belief of old-fashioned sheikhs and the view of the present writer (H. M. Pitchall).
3.. …the Glorious Koran, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy.

In India, the society has been liberal, democratic and egalitarian, so the members have liberty to pursue their literary pursuits. Thus, they make one God to many Gods; make male and female Gods with child God also; many times lover; employer and slave; chieftain, king and emperor and so on. It increases his thinking and creativity. The painter and sculptors too follow such pattern and depict Gods and Goddesses accordingly. This is the real freedom of thought, expression, and exhibition of artistic talent. That is why the negative characterization is opposed and condemned. Nowadays, it has become fashion for elite artists, eminent historians and social activists to come out and support such errant perverts, but it is not correct, as could be seen. For example, A cannot of sleeping with B’s wife, just because, he has the freedom of thinking. Having such freedom of thinking, he cannot express openly to B, because he has freedom of expression. As B too have such rights and starts exercise his rights of freedom of thought and expression the consequences are well known. Therefore, there are individual rights which should not violate the rights of others. If this fundamental is not known or knowingly, continuously violated, definitely the peaceful people may react one day. Therefore, it is better to live amicably instead of provoking others. In such situations and conditions, only the provoking forces are barbaric, medieval, lumpen and so on.

Any other world literature does not have such elasticity, flexibility, liberality, democracy, egalitarianism proves that they are controlled and suppressed. Therefore, there cannot be any freedom of thought, expression and opinion entertained in such societies. Even, there is no freedom to tell the fact that there were 300 / 3000 Bibles and Korans, but they were destroyed and now there is only one! Here, Salman Rusdie and H. F. Hussain can be contrasted in the context; Ibn Warraq and EVR; Karunanidhi and Taslima Nasreen; Bertrand Russell and Thomas Paine; and so on.

Ramayana characters could be human beings of any age: As mentioned, because of the flexibility of the characterization of Ramayana, it is applicable to any time and place. Ramayana and Mahabharata are played everywhere by the people with their available men and materials. Therefore, in such depiction, dramatization and adapted-rendering, there would variance in all aspects. Taking these literary critics cannot make big fuss out of it. Now Rama and Ravana may come with pants and shirts also. If it becomes, popular, it would be carried on enjoyed by a group. Can it we say, it is 301th Ramayana or 3001th? Yes, it is correct, “as long as there are many Ramas, there would be more Ramayanas”.

But no other literature could be subjected to such process, as in the non-Indian tradition, the very such thought might be unthinkable. We cannot have many non-Indian heroes or Gods. Can Paula Richman produce an edition of “Many Bibles”, “Many Qurans”, like that or any narratives and oral traditions of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Mohammed, Fatima etc.(just for example, it is asked). Believers of the respective lands and countries know the existence of such narratives, renderings and oral traditions available here and there, but Paula cannot compile. Why even the New Testament apocrypha or Hadis renderings are not discussed, debated and papers presented.

Who can analyze the non-Indian characters (including heroes and heroines, deified heroes and heroines and Gods and Goddesses themselves), criticize or justify their acts of omission or commission, and bring all renderings along with Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersol, Salmon Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen etc. Even Tembavani[16] and Sirappuranam[ 17] cannot be rendered in English, as the orthodox might oppose some verses. In fact, they had already objected to “Kesadhipada varnanai” (= the Tamil traditional narrative of a woman character whoever may be from head to feet, part by part) and removed such verses. Therefore, without going into the details, the western scholars go on commit blunders under the guise of research and it is totally wrong. They should ponder over. As they have big-big University labels, our Dravidian friends immediately, take their renderings and they produce their own renderings to blaspheme Hindus. Here only, the problem comes.

SUN-TV and Ramayana: In SUN-TV group of companies, Karunanidhi and his family members have shares. So why SUN-TV all of sudden start broadcasting “Ramayana”, that too, the much hated, criticized and blasphemed one. Why not the “Ravana Kaviyam” of Kulandai? It is promoted, looked. Loved and considered as “divine” by the Dravidian protagonists including Karnanidhi. He has already accepted that he supports Ravana and he belongs to such clan! Of course, even Kalainjar TV cannot be prevented in broadcasting Ramayana or Mahabhrata, but what about the ideology? They cannot abuse Hindus and cater them with this tamasha. They cannot kill Hindu culture and do this nonsense. They cannot soil the sanctity of temples and try to do some gimmicks. Of course, we know they do not follow the dictum of “Padippathu Ramayanam, idippathu Pillaiyar koil”, but, they meddle with Ramayana and demolish the Temple of Ramayana. That is why now the target is Ramar-palam!


[1] Today when I started typing this, SUN-TV of the Black Parivar has started broadcasting “Ramayana”! Even Kalainjar TV broadcast Ramayana!

[2] Vedaprakash, Why Tamilnadu Historians tell lies?, http://www.indiainteracts. com

[3] DK-DMK-PMK-Viduthal ai Puligar, their affiliated parties, associations and ideological subsidiaries.

[4] Al Communists parties CPI-CPI(M), CPI (ML) their affiliated parties, associations and ideological subsidiaries.

[5] It is only summarized one, of course with abusive language used characteristically in the Tamil translation.

[6] In spite of the fact that the Aryan-Dravidian hypotheses and Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) have been proved unhistorical and baseless, these ideologists continue to believe and carry on the propaganda and rouse passion in the same language as they used to speak some 40 to 60 years back.

[7] In the Journals of Royal Asiatic society, All India Oriental Conference and others, enough has been discussed and debated about Valmiki Ramayana and the Jain and Buddhist version of their Ramayanas.

[8] A. K. Ramanujam, “Three Hundred Ramayanas”, Many Ramayanas, edited by Paula Richman, 1991, University of California Press, USA, pp.22-49.

[9] A. K. Ramanujam, opt.cit, p.24.

[10] Ibid, however, he does not mention the name of the Kannada scholar who could count exactly 1000!

[11] This “According to….” makes one remember, “The Gospel according to St. Matthew”, “The Gospel according to St. Mark”, “The Gospel according to St. Luke”, “The Gospel according to St. John”, and so on!

[12] Ibid, here also, he does not mention the name of the Telugu scholar who could count more than 1000!

[13] H. G. G. Herklots, How the Bible Came to us?, Penguin Books, UK, 1959.

[14] Ibn Warraq, Why I am not a Muslim, Promethecus Books, New York, 1995, p.20, 73-76.

[15] Mohammed Mamaduke Picthall, The Meaning of the holy Quran, Crescent Publishing Company , New Delhi,

[16] A Tamil literary work produced on the lines of or rather imitating Kamba Ramayanam.

[17] A Tamil literary work produced on the lines of or rather imitating Kamba Ramayanam, but some Mohammedans claim that it is even superior to Kamba Ramayana, of course, they do not talk about the editing, expunction and removal verses and other modifications done.


History, faith and Indian historians A rejoinder to Romila Thapar.

July 16, 2009
History, faith and Indian historians A rejoinder to Romila Thapar.
Published on September 29th, 2007 In Uncategorized |  Views 1116
The following is my response to the Editor, The Hindu. However, “The Hindu” has not been publishing views opposing to its ideology. Generally, it is said that N. Ram does not encourage anything that is against Marxism etc. Whatever, may be the fact, the copy is posted here for debate and discussion:A rejoinder to Romila Thapar Romila Thapar, an eminent historian of India has written her opinion in “The Hindu” under the caption, “Where fusion cannot work – faith and history” (The Hindu, September 28, 2007). For the article, see: and with reference to this, I respond as follows:

Historians have never been honest in dealing with the historical issues involving faith and history, and there only faith and history have been brought into conflict. It is not fusing faith and history or vice versa. Historians know very well that it is their belief that history can be only based on what is written or has been written. It is their faith that they do not believe that if lived man of one million or 1 billon did not live if he has not left any historical record. But how scientists would say about it?

Historians believe about past events that they should have happened like this; at the same time other set of historians interpret that the same events could have happened in different way. Historians have accepted that they do not require any objectivity in their historical studies or methodology. So again, it their strong faith that they believe that objectivity is not required. But any other professional would accept it? Therefore historical faith and history cannot be independent. Without faith of the past or faith ion archaeological methods, historians cannot work independently. When historians have decided to differ, there would be difference only. Historians believed that Aryans invaded India destroyed Dravidians and so on. At that time itself, the believers and even Sanskrit scholars clarified that it was gross misinterpretation of Vedas. But none cared. Now, the historians have retracted, but the books remain containing such unhistorical writings. So how can their premises, their methods of enquiry, and their formulations be dissimilar?

You say, “When historians speak of the historicity of person, place, or event, they require evidence — singular or plural — that proves the existence of any of these and this evidence is based on data relating to space and time. The two important spaces in the Valmiki Ramayana are Ayodhya and Lanka, on the location of which scholarly opinion differs”. Yes, what are those “scholarly opinions”? An opinion is nothing but belief or faith only as their views is estimated depending upon their attitudes and outlook.

What you say about the foot print of Mohammed kept in Jama Masjid or the hair kept in a Kashmir mosque? Have you ever recommended for chemical analysis or DNA test? Have historians ever tried their scientific methodology? Where has gone their scientific temper? You claim, “It is said that the Ram Setu is cultural heritage and therefore cannot be destroyed even if it is a natural geological formation and not man-made. Has the idea become the heritage? To search for a non-existent man-made structure takes away from the imaginative leap of a fantasy and denies the fascinating layering of folk-lore”. When H. D. Sankalia [1972:46] asserted that there were no evidences for Asoka, Chandragupta Maurya etc., as no horizontal excavations had been done, historians did not worry and search for Asoka or Chandragupta. When Vincent Smith [1990:231-267] wrote that Asoka killed his brothers etc., you also repeated the song in your book [1963:20-54]. Accepting Kalhana as historian, you ignored the Asoka, as he recorded. So why can’t deny this Asoka and accept the Asoka of Kalhana? It is only “the majority idea / opinion / faith” that only this Asoka could be “Mauryan Asoka” in spite of lacking historical evidences, created and established one Asoka! So even existed person was consigned to imaginary leap of fantasy and made fable!

Even after the so-called “authorized / critical edition” [Vol I-1960, II-1962, III-1963, IV-1965, V-1966, VI-1971], the mention of different Ramayanas is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent.

As a historian, it is surprising that you have lied to the whole world like this:  “This does not happen with the biographies of those who were known to be historical figures and who founded belief systems: the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammad. Their biographies adhere largely to a single story-line and this helps to endorse the ‘official’ narrative of their life. Their existence is recorded in other sources as well that are not just narratives of their lives but have diverse associations. The historicity of the Buddha, for example, is established, among other things, by the fact that a couple of centuries after he died, the emperor Ashoka on a visit to Lumbini had a pillar erected to commemorate the Buddha’s place of birth. This is recorded in an inscription on the pillar”.

6      This does not happen with the biographies of those who were known to be historical figures and who founded belief systems: the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammad.

It is well known that there are no biographies of Buddha, Jesus Christ and Mohammed as you asserted. This is blatant lie. Give me references of such biographies. What was written after such existed or non-existed personalities after them perhaps even after 300 years cannot be a biography. About different Buddhas, I am surprised that you say nothing is there. You do not remember how a Buddha had to come to fight with Adi Sankara? Moreover, it is well known about the different versions of Jesus, Christs etc., even before and after the so-called Jesus Christ combine. About Mohammed, I am also afraid of giving details just like you. Any way, just I tell there are books – M. Cook [1983:65], P. Crone [1987:75-76], Ibn Warraq [1995:66-85].

6      Their biographies adhere largely to a single story-line and this helps to endorse the ‘official’ narrative of their life.

Why they should largely adhere to a single line? How this helps “official” narrative? How “official” it could be of “their life”? Why can’t you write as a historian instead of believer here?

That the “biographers” were compelled or forced to accept or adhere to a single line proves that many lines were left out. And still small number of biographers who did not adhere to a single line is also exposed. Then, what you are talking about? Majority view and minority view? Condemn the “lesser” and accept or approve the Larger”! Adhere to one-line and forget many lines! What sort of historian you are? That man Karunanidhi has become a senile man and talks differently. Do you also do the same think as a senile lady?

How you endorse such one-liners? Is there any historical methodology to that effect? Which University teaches such approving of one-line biography by eminent historians like you?

Do not fool Indians. Ernest Renan, J. M. Robertson and so many reputed authorities are there on the subject matter of Jesus Christ and Christianity. Any way, it is your cowardice gets exposed, as you never whispered anything, when there was much Christian opposition to screening of “Da Vinci Code”. However, when the so-called “Hindutva judgment” came out, you vociferously jumped and asserted that “We would go to Court”. Everything appeared in “the Hindu” itself with your face. Madam, what happened? But now you come siding with atheists, anti-Hindus, anti-nationals as a historian suppressing the recent past and forgetting your own past!

6      Their existence is recorded in other sources as well that are not just narratives of their lives but have diverse associations.

So also Rama.

Why then your argument goes differently.

In fact, their associations differ. But, Ramayana core story, as H. D. Sankalia in his “Ramayana Myth or Reality” that it had been there nearly for 3000 years [1972:62].

How “That their existences is recorded in other sources” help you to decide?

It may be noted that historians and scholars have pointed out that Christ story was copied from
Krishna! Rama was repeatedly mentioned in different literature not because of variance, but influence and impact created on the people well before 2500-3000 YBP. Was the Sangam poet a fool to record in his poem about his discussion with his army about the mode of crossing over the ocean to Lanka”. How that poet was imaging that that Lanka should have been the Lanka of Ramayana in his times i.e, 2500 – 3000 YBP?

6      The historicity of the Buddha, for example, is established, among other things, by the fact that a couple of centuries after he died, the emperor Ashoka on a visit to Lumbini had a pillar erected to commemorate the Buddha’s place of birth. This is recorded in an inscription on the pillar

Recently, there has been lot of information coming out as to how the British historians including the ASI officials, specifically Alois Anton Furher had fabricated the Stone Casket with Asokan inscriptions and planted there. For his forgey, he was dismissed from the service. The sudden disappearance of Buhler also intriguing in the context. For more details see: . note now also the ASI officials are in a soup!

6      “From the point of view of archaeology and history, the Archaeological Survey of
India was correct in stating that there is to date no evidence to conclusively prove the historicity of Rama. The annulling of this statement was also a political act. Reliably proven evidence is of the utmost significance to history but not so to faith”.

The present ASI officials are not like A. A. Fuherer to fabricate or forge Asokan inscriptions or like John Marshall to suppress the ASI report of Banrejee. They could have verified the greatest Indian archaeologist view in their affidavit. But, evidently, being the stooges of politicians, as politicians they acted ad they would get the sack, unless they are innocent or have guts to expose the politicians, who ordered them to do so. Leave alone the ASI people. The ASGCS / other standing councils who drafted the affidavit, vetted the affidavits etc.., also are responsible. Therefore, if all acted as a gang to malign and blaspheme Rama, it is not history but mystery. And do not you think that such culprits should be punished?

6      Blasphemy does not lie in doubting historicity.

Yes, Romila you doubt the historicity of others also as listed – Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammed – Do not be contended with one-line official version. You are a historian. You should go by primary sources – historical documents. Nothing more, nothing less!

To what extent you can doubt the historicity of them along with Rama or otherwise, we are going to see. Or children will wait and see!

Of course the question of blasphemy, who will decide? The Courts? Let us see!

6      The historian is not required to pronounce on the legitimacy of faith. But the historian can try and explain the historical context to why, in a particular space and time, a particular faith acquires support. And we need to remind ourselves that our heritage has been constantly enriched not just by those of faith but also by those who contend with faith.

Yes, you know very well if you start analyzing with the legitimacy of faith of – Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammed.

So you decide which faith has to be supported in a particular space in time?

Accordingly, it is evident that you do not support the faith of Rama.

Yes, Rama baktas have been living with content even after what you historians have done in the case of Ramajanmabhumi issue.

Of course, they may not be knowing what your people have been doing in the Indian History Congress presenting papers taking Ayodhya to Afganisthan etc. Note that even in
Calicut, during last IHC, you have to live on Rama just like Karyu. The lady who got selected as GS said some thing on Rama! Poor Rama-baktas kept quite.

6      If there is a strong faith — in the religious sense — among millions of people, then it does not require to be protected through massive demonstrations and the killing of innocent persons, through political mobilisation. Nor do archaeology and history have to be brought in to keep that faith intact. Faith finds its own place and function, as do archaeology and history. And the place and function of each is separate.

Yeah, oh woman, you do not know how many Ramabaktas were burned and killed. You want Rama-baktas to forget everything. But try to interpret mischievously, what happened to the three in Bangalore. Note, it is because of Karu, that happened. Fighting with Karnataka, he earned enormous enmity with Kannadigas. And this man used to come there and say as he used to go to Gopalapuram and Oliver Road

. So not vulgarize the issue with your perversity. Do not suppress the facts.

The honesty of archeologists and historians, only Indians have to certify.

6      To say that the partial removal of an underwater formation in the Palk Straits is going to hurt the faith of millions is not giving faith its due. Is faith so fragile that it requires the support of an underwater geological formation believed to have been constructed by a deity?

You can blast Bamian Buddhas, you can destroy IVC. Like Aurangazeb you can go on demolish temples. Like Dr. F.J A. Flynn, you can smuggle artifacts and coins. Your historians and archaeologists aid and abet. But he would be caught red-handed in
Delhi airport. So demolish Rama-sethu! Yes, nothing will happen or happens.

6      Making faith into a political issue in order to win elections is surely offensive to faith?

Karu is doing that. Cong is coding that. None else links it with politics.

6      What is at issue is not whether Rama existed or not, or whether the underwater formation or a part of it was originally a bridge constructed at his behest. What is at issue is a different and crucial set of questions that require neither faith nor archaeology but require intelligent expertise: questions that are being willfully (sic) diverted by bringing in faith. Will the removal of a part of the natural formation eventually cause immense ecological damage and leave the coasts of south India and Sri Lanka open to catastrophes, to potential tsunamis in the future? Or can it be so planned that such a potentiality is avoided?

Scientists have discussed enough. I do not think you have ay competency here.

6      What would be the economic benefits of such a scheme in enhancing communication and exchange? Would the benefits reach out to local communities and if so, how? Equally important, one would like to know precisely what role will be played by the multinational corporations and their associates in
India. Who will finance and control the various segments of such an immense project? It is only when such details are made transparent that we will also get some clues to the subterranean activities that are doubtless already simmering. These are the questions that should be asked of this project and that at this point in time should be occupying public space.

Oh now, it is clear. You write like what Karu talked and talking. Do you have any alliance with Karu? The “Mount Road Maha Vishnu” has marriage alliance with Karu. You have connection with Ram. So also Karu, Kanimozhi and Ramajayam with “The Hindu”. So what is the alliance. At whose behest, you are writing and talking the language of Karunanidhi?

Any way thank you for exposing yourself.

Thank you for revealing that Karunanidhi, Congress, you and others are doing this only for election.



57, Poonamalle High Road,

Maduravoyal, Chennai – 602 102.,


The Editor,

The Hindu,

Mount Road,

Chennai – 600 002.