Sangh Parivar

The
Delhi High Court gave a deliberate death blow to the religious
feelings, sentiments and susceptibilities of nearly one billion Hindus
of India in absolute majority and several millions of Hindus abroad
last week (19th
of May 2008) when it dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Ms.Monica Arora
on behalf of Shri Dina Nath Mishra, Dr.Ravindra Nath Pal,

Sri
Vidya Sagar Verma, Sri Achraya Sohan Lal Ram Rang, Dr. Payal Mago, Shri
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Shri Ramgopal Agarwal and Shri Atul Rawat under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing of writ or
direction or order in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ or
Direction or order directing the respondents (University of Delhi
represented by its Vice Chancellor, Members of its Academic Council,
Dr.Upinder Singh, Reader in History, University of Delhi and others) to
withdraw the derogatory, defamatory and offensive Article written by
Mr. A.K.Ramanujam, compiled by Dr. Upinder Singh being taught in
B.A.(Hons) II Year History course in Delhi University under the title –
Culture in India: Ancient. The
petitioners included eminent educationists, former Ambassador, former
Pro-Vice Chancellor of University, Principal, Lecturer, Teacher,
Journalist, Deputy Mayor of MCD and renowned socio-religious leaders. I AM QUOTING THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THEIR WRIT PETITION: The
petitioners are deeply aggrieved by the course curriculum of B.A.
(Hons.) II year History Course being taught in Delhi University. The
aforesaid course consists of three articles in which the article under
controversy is written by Shri A.K. Ramanujan titled, ‘300 Ramayanas: five examples and three thoughts on translation.’ …………. 

That in the aforesaid article the revered figures of Hinduism
(Sanatana Dharma) namely Lord Ram, Lakshman, Sita and Hanuman have been
depicted in bad light. It uses derogatory, defamatory and offensive
language, regarding Hindu Gods and Goddesses. 

i. That the Article terms Lord Hanuman as henchman of Lord Ram and then again as a ‘Tiny monkey’.

 ii. The Article states that Ravana became Pregnant, his month wise pregnancy has been described and that he gives birth to Sita through his sneeze.

 iii. It is further stated that both Ravana and Laxman used to seduce Sita. 

 iv. Sita has been described as unfaithful to Ram.

 v.  That the King of Gods Indra has been described as a base and a perverse man.

vi.   Revered Hindu Saintly mother Ahalya has been described as unfaithful to her husband –The Great Rishi Gautama.

vii. That the Great Rishi Gautama curses King Indra in such a manner that his Testicles fall down. Then on the request of the gods animal’s testicles are implanted on his body.

 viii. That the body of God Indra gets covered with vaginas of thousands of women

4.
The language of the article is so abusive, perverse and below the
accepted standards that it will cause irreparable damage to the
impressionable minds of the students studying in B.A. (Hons) II year
History Course in Delhi University.

 5.
That there is growing concern and alarm among the public at large
regarding the teaching of such a sacrilegious and perverse material
being taught in Delhi University. That the said Article is not only
derogatory, defamatory and hurtful to the Hindus but also is an offence
under various provisions of Indian Penal Code.

 6.
That there has been considerable opposition to this syllabus and demand
for removal of this Article by students, teachers, lecturers,
academicians, historians, religious & political leaders and social
activists. They have sent many representations, legal notices and
Memorandums to the President of India, Minister of Human Resource &
Development and Vice-Chancellor of Delhi University. There have also
been signature campaigns and Demonstrations for the removal of the
aforesaid Article. That many Newspapers have also carried out Articles
against the aforesaid Article being taught in Delhi University and
called for its removal.

 7.
That the aforesaid article is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25
and Article 15A of the Constitution of India. That it is an offence
under Section 153,153(A), 295(A), 298,505(2), 292,293 and other
provisions of Indian Penal Code. That it is also violative of the
judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aruna Roy v. Union of India,
W.P.(C) No.98/2002, 2002AIR (SC) 3176.

  HENCE THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION.In
their Writ Petition, the Petitioners had alleged that the respondent
No.3 is Dr. Upinder Singh, Reader Department of History, University of
Delhi. That she has compiled the course material for B.A. (Hons) II
year History course being taught in Delhi University. All the educated Hindus of India have taken due note of the fact that Dr.Upinder Singh is the daughter of our de jure Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh (a surrogate non-entity!), who is nominally heading an
Islam-embracing, Christianity-coveting, Hindu-hating, Hindu-baiting and
Hinduism destroying UPA Government under the strangle hold of a de facto woman
Prime Minister – a dictatorial imposter from Italy owing her allegiance
to the Pope in Rome and not to the letter and spirit to the Indian
Constitution.  The Hindus of India are therefore not
shocked that Sonia Gandhi and her anti-Hindu men operated through the
surrogate Prime Minister to influence Delhi University to get
A.K.Ramanujan’s anti-Rama and anti-Ramayana essay included in the
syllabus of Delhi University in an effortless manner.

The
Delhi High Court rejected the contention by the Petitioners that the
Hindu Gods and Goddesses were referred to by A.K.Ramanujan in a ‘defamatory’ and ‘derogatory’ language by saying that these are folklore and interpreted in various ways.  The High Court said that the Ramayan subject was part of a well-researched article done by noted scholar A.K.Ramanujan.

I
reliably understand that the following conversation took place between
Ms.Monica Arora, the Advocate for the Petitioners and the Chief Justice
of the Delhi High Court, during the course of the judicial proceedings
in open court.

Chief Justice:  Have you read Periyar’s Keemaayana?Advocate: No, my Lord.Chief Justice: Do you know that Periyar’s Keemaayana is very popular in Tamilnadu?  Are you aware of the fact that in Kamba Raamayana there are extensive references to Ahalya and her intimate overtures?Advocate:
The language of A.K. Ramanujun is so abusive, perverse and below the
accepted standards that it is causing irreparable damage to the
impressionable minds of the students studying in B.A.(Hons) II year
History Course in the University of Delhi.

Ms.Monica Arora invited the attention of the Chief Justice in open Court to the brutal fact as to how the University of Ranchi, on 1st
of May 2008, had hurriedly cancelled its post-graduation history paper
after thousands of Muslims took to the streets protesting against a
reference to Prophet Mohammed in a history question paper which they
said was derogatory. Ranchi University Vice Chancellor A.H. Khan,
shortly after his meeting with Chief Minister Madhu Koda, announced: ‘a
five-member committee has been constituted (to probe) the question
paper. The examination has been cancelled’. Muslim organisations
organised a march and ransacked the university office to protest
against the offending question in the history paper. The police used
force to control the mob.  Finally Chief Minister Koda
said: ‘We have asked the vice chancellor to probe the matter and take
suitable action against the person who prepared the question. We appeal
to people to maintain calm’.

Against this factual background, not belonging to superstitious ancient Hindu History but to Ranchi city of 1st of May 2008, Ms.Monica Arora posed these questions to the Chief Justice: ‘How
can there be two different kinds of responses from Government, Courts
of Law and other Public Organizations? One kind of paternal response
towards the beloved Muslims and another kind of malignant response
towards the hated and hunted Hindus? If Muslims go on a rampage, they
would be heard with fear, kindness and reverence, whether they are
right or wrong?  If Hindus make a reasonable
representation to the public authorities, their requests and entreaties
would be treated with indifference, and insensitivity (particularly towards their long-cherished and sacred religious feelings and beliefs), in a manner bordering on supreme contempt?’

Ms.Monica Arora also invited the attention of the Chief Justice to the ruling given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Manzer Sayed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 491 and 491/ 2007 (05/04/2007) in 2007 AIR (SC) 2074 that ‘intention
has to be judged primarily by the language of the book and the
circumstances in which the book was written and published’. Applying
this judicial yardstick, she told the Chief Justice that A.K. Ramanujan
has picked up anything negative found in different versions of Ramayan
spread all over the world with malicious intention of defaming and
denigrating the characters of Lord Ram, Hanuman, Laxman and Sita. The
Article aims at projecting the entire epic of Ramayana and its
characters as fallacious, capricious, imaginary and fake.  She
asserted as a practicing Hindu that this article is greatly humiliating
and grossly offending to the religious belief and faith of the Hindu.
Finally she said that A.K.Ramanujan is neither a historian nor an
authority on such historical or religious texts. The Petition of
Ms.Monica Arora, constitutes by itself, a great piece of  legal literature.

Chief Justice Hidayatullah once observed that the Prime Minister of India couldn’t function like a great Mughal.  The
common Hindus of India would like to declare to all the anti-Hindu
Judges of India that they too cannot function in a capricious manner
like great Mughals. I would like to invite the kind attention of the
Delhi High Court to the following irreplaceable words of American Justice Benamin Cardozo spoken in 1921: ‘My
analysis of the Judicial process comes then to this, and little more:
logic, and history, and custom and utility, and the accepted standards
of right conduct, or the forces which singly or in combination shape
the progress of the law’.  127 years earlier, another
great British Justice Thomas Erskine, Lord Chancellor of England had
declared in a similar manner in 1794: ‘The rules of evidence are
founded in the charities of religion – in the philosophy of nature — in
the truths of history, and in the experience of common life’.  In
short they are not based on the banalities and prejudices of political
pseudo-secularism, career-oriented servile political opportunism,
blatant philosophy of undeclared and unstated Hindu discrimination and
in the private lives, prejudices and passions of transitory individual
Judges, holding their briefs for the moment, in our Courts of Law.  Individual
and mortal Judges may come and go but eternal Hinduism will go on
forever. No Court of Law in India can shake this deathless faith of the
Hindus of India. 

(To be continued…)