Guest guest Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 Dear friends, A number of you have sent in your feedback and comments to me on my posting yestderday, "Rama: Despot or Democrat". They are all very interesting viewpoints and I thank you all for sharing them with me. ***************** I would be very happy too if my posting aroused not only scriptural views/comments but also encouraged comparison with current events in India even as they are happening and unfolding today. Please permit me to say that the dramatic events of the past two days in the political scene in India (at least as I see it) bear a striking and very remarkable resemblance to the events of the Ramayana essayed in my posting y/day. Making due allowances for changes in cast, characters, context and script, what happened y/day in New Delhi finds unmistakable echoes and parallels with the details of the Valmiki-Ramayana events I described. Last night amidst tumultuous scenes of political high-drama (as we all saw on our TV screens), Smt.Sonia Gandhi refused to take over the reins of power in India as Prime Minister. There was not a single obstacle in her way to ascend the throne -- she had the so-called Will of the People behind her, she had the Constitutional legitimacy to back her claim and she had any number of allies to back her and support her... There was the shadow of just one taint upon her -- the taint of suspect citizenship. (It was a bit like the taint of suspected fidelity that was upon Sita in the Ramayana). And yet last night Smt. Gandhi went to the nation and said "No, I shall not wear the crown". And the reason she gave was "My "antaryAmi" -- my inner voice or self"! She said her "antaryAmi" told her the position of Prime Minister of India is not for her. People were aghast. They were dumbfounded... They were begging her, entreating her to reconsider... but she did not relent. To me personally, it was all so reminiscent -- virtually like some strange replay in a time-warp -- of some of those scenes Valmiki so graphically describes in the "ayOdhya kAnda". Let me hasten to add that the personalities of yesteday's drama in New Delhi are of no interest to me at all. Nor do the related political developments have any significance for me. But I think I learnt one important truth from what I saw yesterday and it convinced me beyond doubt about this: The 'Will of the People' is not supreme even in a democracy. There is a force, a Will that is far, far greater and superior that manifests and asserts itself, from time to time, in the affairs of men and nations. That force is the force of Dharma, the Will of God, which somehow at the end is the only force that prevails over all else... Smt.Sonia Gandhi, for want of a better word, called it "antaryAmi" -- Soul Force. In the Ramayana, Lord Rama called it 'Dharma'. Thanks and regards, dAsan, Sudarshan ______________________ India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Dear Shri Sudharsan Swami, It is with great pain that i finished reading your article where you have compared Sonia and Rama. Iam not interested to post politics here but as you have compared as said "inner voice" of sonia with that of Lord Rama, iam forced to write this. Please read thru carefully and decide reasons which forced sonia to opt out. Sonia's life from 1968 is full of mysteries and iam not able to digest any comparison between this female and Lord Rama. Thanks, Srinath Whose inner voice? Pioneer News Service/ New Delhi Did Sonia Gandhi step down from the race to be Prime Minister because her "inner voice" suddenly told her to do so? Why did this "voice" speak now, despite her being elected Congress Parliamentary Party leader and after obtaining letters of support from all allied parties? Apparently, it was not the "inner voice" but certain queries that could have been put to her by the President of India, custodian of the Constitution, which caused her to withdraw her name. Contrary to attempts by Congressmen and Communists to portray her eleventh-hour retreat as a "personal decision" spurred by her children, it could be the clarifications apparently sought by President A P J Abdul Kalam that resulted in the rethink. The President, it is reliably learnt, did not outrightly reject her candidature for the post of the Prime Minister. However, he is believed to have sought certain clarifications on a few points regarding the precise status of her Indian citizenship. In doing so, he may have referred to some pointed queries referred to him by legal luminaries who met him since the declaration of the Lok Sabha election results. That probably explains why Ms Gandhi's decision to opt out came only after she emerged from the Rashtrapati Bhawan after meeting the President on Tuesday at 12.30 pm. That could also explain why she did not allow the entourage of allied parties to accompany her for the meeting, contrary to custom. According to highly placed sources, the President may have conveyed to her that in view of the legal and constitutional queries raised, he would need some more time to examine the matter. Accordingly, there could be no swearing-in on Wednesday, May 19 - a date unilaterally announced by Left leaders and enthusiastically endorsed by Congressmen on Monday without consulting the Rashtrapati Bhawan. Highly placed sources in the Government told The Pioneer that on the basis of various petitions submitted to him, the President could have sought to clarify a few issues from Ms Gandhi. He is said to have informally communicated to her on Monday evening that certain queries needed to be answered, even as he invited her to have a discussion on Government formation. On the basis of pleas submitted to him by people like Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy and BJP leader Sushma Swaraj against any person of foreign origin occupying a top constitutional post, and the legal advice that he had obtained from top constitutional experts, the President could have sought three clarifications from Ms Gandhi. This would be a haunting experience for Ms Gandhi. The BJP leaders had already declared that they would continue to support any form of agitation on the foreign origin issue. The most damaging clarification that has apparently been sought relates to Article 102 of the Constitution that says: "A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament" on any or more of five possible grounds. Clause(d) of the same Article says "... or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state". The term "adherence" had to be clarified specifically as Ms Gandhi in her affidavit before the Returning Officer of the Rai Bareli parliamentary constituency had stated that she owned ancestral property, namely portion of a house, in Orbassano, Italy, the country of her origin. This fact of ownership, legal experts say, makes her subject to Italian law in this matter and could be interpreted as "adherence" to a foreign country. Since this portion of the ancestral property was apparently bequeathed to her by her father in his will, she inherited it only after his death. Consequently, the property was not her's when she filed her 1999 nomination affidavit. Article 103 states that "if any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to disqualification mentioned in Article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision to the President and his decision shall be final". Clause 2 of the Article says: "Before giving any decision on such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion." This means that the President is required by the Constitution to undertake an elaborate process of examining the legal and constitutional issues involved. Thus, Ms Gandhi's swearing-in could not happen before the matter was fully clarified and resolved. Another point that came in the way of Ms Gandhi was Section 5 of the Citizenship Act. Under this, there is a reciprocity provision whereby citizenship granted by India to persons of foreign origin is circumscribed by the rights that particular country confers upon foreigners seeking citizenship there. The crux of this provision of "reciprocity" is that a person of foreign origin, who has acquired the citizenship of India through registration by virtue of marrying an Indian national, cannot enjoy more rights (like becoming Prime Minister), if the same opportunity is not available to an Indian-born citizen in that particular country. While it is not known whether the President mentioned this, legal luminaries pointed out there could be a further lacuna over the issue of her surrendering Italian citizenship. It is believed that while acquiring citizenship through registration in 1983, she surrendered her Italian passport to the Italian Ambassador in New Delhi but did not obtain a formal notification from the Italian Government that her citizenship of that country had been cancelled. This might be only a technicality that could be rectified in a few days,but it would have certainly helped the BJP raise the pitch of the campaign once the citizenship issue returned to the fore. Another petition submitted to the President on Tuesday by Sushma Swaraj pointed out that as the Supreme Commander of India's Armed Forces, the President should examine a key issue. It referred to the fact that a Defence or Indian Foreign Service official cannot even marry a foreign national without permission, or must quit his post. How could a person of foreign origin be handed over the nuclear button in such circumstances, Ms Swaraj's petition demanded to know. What could have prevented Sonia? Article 102 of the Constitution says: "A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament - (d) if he or she is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state." Sonia Gandhi, in her affidavit, had declared she owned a house in Italy and may thus invite, the term "adherence" of the said provision. Under Article 103, the President is the sole adjudicator on the issue who has to decide on such matter in consultation with the Election Commission. Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, dealing with the reciprocity clause for a person who registered herself as an Indian citizen, says the said person could not enjoy more rights than those available to an Indian born person in that other country if he/she acquires citizenship of that country, like Italy for instance. The clauses of the Citizenship Act were apparently not fully met when Ms Gandhi relinquished her Italian citizenship. sudarshan madabushi <mksudarshan2002 wrote: Dear friends, A number of you have sent in your feedback and comments to me on my posting yestderday, "Rama: Despot or Democrat". They are all very interesting viewpoints and I thank you all for sharing them with me. ***************** I would be very happy too if my posting aroused not only scriptural views/comments but also encouraged comparison with current events in India even as they are happening and unfolding today. Please permit me to say that the dramatic events of the past two days in the political scene in India (at least as I see it) bear a striking and very remarkable resemblance to the events of the Ramayana essayed in my posting y/day. Making due allowances for changes in cast, characters, context and script, what happened y/day in New Delhi finds unmistakable echoes and parallels with the details of the Valmiki-Ramayana events I described. Last night amidst tumultuous scenes of political high-drama (as we all saw on our TV screens), Smt.Sonia Gandhi refused to take over the reins of power in India as Prime Minister. There was not a single obstacle in her way to ascend the throne -- she had the so-called Will of the People behind her, she had the Constitutional legitimacy to back her claim and she had any number of allies to back her and support her... There was the shadow of just one taint upon her -- the taint of suspect citizenship. (It was a bit like the taint of suspected fidelity that was upon Sita in the Ramayana). And yet last night Smt. Gandhi went to the nation and said "No, I shall not wear the crown". And the reason she gave was "My "antaryAmi" -- my inner voice or self"! She said her "antaryAmi" told her the position of Prime Minister of India is not for her. People were aghast. They were dumbfounded... They were begging her, entreating her to reconsider... but she did not relent. To me personally, it was all so reminiscent -- virtually like some strange replay in a time-warp -- of some of those scenes Valmiki so graphically describes in the "ayOdhya kAnda". Let me hasten to add that the personalities of yesteday's drama in New Delhi are of no interest to me at all. Nor do the related political developments have any significance for me. But I think I learnt one important truth from what I saw yesterday and it convinced me beyond doubt about this: The 'Will of the People' is not supreme even in a democracy. There is a force, a Will that is far, far greater and superior that manifests and asserts itself, from time to time, in the affairs of men and nations. That force is the force of Dharma, the Will of God, which somehow at the end is the only force that prevails over all else... Smt.Sonia Gandhi, for want of a better word, called it "antaryAmi" -- Soul Force. In the Ramayana, Lord Rama called it 'Dharma'. Thanks and regards, dAsan, Sudarshan ______________________ India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/ Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Dear Bhagavatas: While there are very good and interesting points on both sides, it tends to become a futile discussion without having any worthwhile bearing on "Bhagavad Ramanuja Darsanam" or "Swami Desika Satsampradyam". I request Bhagavatas to stop posting in "Sri Ranga Sri", any more on the subject, unless it has reference to the above parameters. Thank you for your understanding. Dasoham Anbil Ramaswamy Moderator "Sri Ranga Sri" Dear Sri Srinath, If you view the matter dispassionately and understand it correctly, there will be no need at all to feel any pain or anguish. Sadly, you have misread my posting. Sonia Gandhi has not been compared with Lord Rama at all. I wrote very clearly that there is Force far greater than the 'Will of the People' in a democracy which asserts itself in the affairs of men and nations and it ultimately prevails. Rama called such a force as "Dharma" and Sonia Gandhi called it as "antaryAmi" (inner voice). If one is a true adherent of 'sanAtana dharma' one should have no problem at all, and feel no pain whatsoever, in being convinced that the great 'Voice of Dharma' can and does speak indeed with equal force through any human heart or being -- no matter what his or her origin of birth. I believe firmly in 'sanAtana dharma'. Do you? Thanks and regards, dAsan, Sudarshan --- Srinath Venkatakrishnan <srinath_venkatakrishnan wrote: > Dear Shri Sudharsan Swami, > > It is with great pain that i finished reading your > article where you have compared Sonia and Rama. Iam > not interested to post politics here but as you have > compared as said "inner voice" of sonia with that of > Lord Rama, iam forced to write this. Please read > thru carefully and decide reasons which forced sonia > to opt out. > > Sonia's life from 1968 is full of mysteries and iam > not able to digest any comparison between this > female and Lord Rama. > > Thanks, > Srinath ______________________ India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2004 Report Share Posted May 23, 2004 Dear Shri Sudharshan Swami, Please refer your last paragraph. Is this not comparison? " Smt.Sonia Gandhi, for want of a better word, called it "antaryAmi" -- Soul Force. In the Ramayana, Lord Rama called it 'Dharma'. " What i meant by my posting is that reasons for Sonia's decision was different. I request you not to bring her in the same sentence even where Lord Rama is referred who has lived and acted as per Dharma. There is no piece of Dharma in Sonia's act and her "antaryami" theory is an excuse to her decision for opting out due to legal and other problems. What happened to her antaryami till that day afternoon? Why it started speaking after meeting the president? What was her antaryami doing when she accepted garlands after being elected as CPP leader? There is no piece of Dharma in Sonia's act and her "antaryami" theory is an excuse to her decision for opting out due to legal and other problems Lord Rama opted out due to sathya and dharma. He could have come back to kingdom after Dasaratha's demise or when Bharatha requested him to return. He respected his father's words and fulfilled all the conditions. Thanks, Srinath. sudarshan madabushi <mksudarshan2002 wrote: Dear Sri Srinath, If you view the matter dispassionately and understand it correctly, there will be no need at all to feel any pain or anguish. Sadly, you have misread my posting. Sonia Gandhi has not been compared with Lord Rama at all. I wrote very clearly that there is Force far greater than the 'Will of the People' in a democracy which asserts itself in the affairs of men and nations and it ultimately prevails. Rama called such a force as "Dharma" and Sonia Gandhi called it as "antaryAmi" (inner voice). If one is a true adherent of 'sanAtana dharma' one should have no problem at all, and feel no pain whatsoever, in being convinced that the great 'Voice of Dharma' can and does speak indeed with equal force through any human heart or being -- no matter what his or her origin of birth. I believe firmly in 'sanAtana dharma'. Do you? Thanks and regards, dAsan, Sudarshan --- Srinath Venkatakrishnan wrote: > Dear Shri Sudharsan Swami, > > It is with great pain that i finished reading your > article where you have compared Sonia and Rama. Iam > not interested to post politics here but as you have > compared as said "inner voice" of sonia with that of > Lord Rama, iam forced to write this. Please read > thru carefully and decide reasons which forced sonia > to opt out. > > Sonia's life from 1968 is full of mysteries and iam > not able to digest any comparison between this > female and Lord Rama. > > Thanks, > Srinath ______________________ India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/ Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 Adiyen's humble pranams to the bhagavathas in this group. My humble request to the group members : "Please refrain from making such comparisons ...(Lord Rama with any person on this earth)" It is next to impossible for the ordinary person to follow the Dharma in full as displayed by Lord Rama. Hence there should not be an attempt to do that even in our wildest dreams. This is the forum to get enlightment of our acharyas' teachings so that we can try to refine our thoughts and action during our stay here (Earth). In this regard I fully concur with Shri. Srinath Venkatakrishnan and other bhagavathas who share the same view. If adiyen had offended anyone by expressing the above views, my sincere apologies. Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.