Threat to Thirumangai AzhwAr’s thirumadhil at Srirangam temple


திருவரங்கத்தில் அரங்கனைக் காண வரும் ஸேவார்த்திகள் ஆலிநாடன் திருமதிலைத்தாண்டி குலசேகரன் திருச்சுற்றில்
உள்ள நாழிகை கேட்டான் வாசலுக்கு, ரயில் நிலையங்களில் காணப்படும் Over Bridge போன்றதொரு அமைப்பு உண்டாக்கப்பட்டு அதன்வழியாக
அழைத்துச் செல்லப்பட உள்ளனர். இதன் விளைவாக ஸேவார்த்திகள் அனைவரும் திருமங்கையாழ்வார் திருமுடிமேல் கால் வைத்து
நடந்து செல்ல உள்ளனர். திருமங்கையாழ்வாரைக் காட்டிலும் அவர் எழுப்பிய திருமதிலே அரங்கனுக்கு அரணாக அமைந்துள்ளது.
திருமங்கையாழ்வாருக்கு அமைந்துள்ள பெருமை அவர் எழுப்பிய மதிலுக்கும் உண்டு.

For more detailed information, Click here to download the Panchajanyam July 2012 Editorial

Advertisements

Stoppage of Vishvaroopa seva at Srirangam


1) Shocking Developments in Srirangam Temple

With the advent of Adi Masam, (ashada) a new development has taken in
Srirangam temple,on all fridays considered holy.The Joint commisioner
has abolished Viswaroopam It is against all agamic norms. The
justication stated by the EO is to “make room for sevarthis
uninteruupted darshan from morning 6.00 AM onwards to 10.00 PM”

2) The meaning of Viswaroopam
The Lord who went to symbolic sleep the previous night, has to be
woken up formally with the relevent mantras in viswaroopam,then
request has to be made to him to shower his blessings on the devotees
The Joint Commisioner unilaterally has stopped viswaroopam seva, all
of a sudden which will take about half an hour time.

3) Lord Forced to take prasadams for Breakfast Lunch and Dinner
Similarly on all purtasi saturdays, the pradsadam offered in the
morning is known as pongal , and mid day prasadam is know as ‘peria
avasram’ and evening offering is ‘ksheera annam’ as per the norms
extant .The Present Day Executive Officer is making the lord to eat
all the Breakfast , Lunch and Dinner by five o clock in the morning
all the same in one go. The reason stated is much crowds are expected
during these months, just to have uninteruppted darshan from morning
six to nigt 10.00 Pm.

4) In Thirumala
In Thirumala more than lak of devotess throng everyday. Not on a
single day the Viswaroopa seva, Suprabhata Seva, Thiruppavai seva is
stopped. With less than 30000 devotees visting everyday, why such
rituals have to be be stopped in Srirangam, is a reflection of poor
management.

5) Temples are not commercial vehicles;

Temple are not commercial vehicles to fill the Government coffers.
Will the Joint Comissoner eat breakfast, lunch and Dinner in one Go?

It is high time that the devotess step in and register their protest
wit the commisoner HR & CE and EO of Sri Ranganatha swamy Devasthanam.

Devaotees ACT NOW: If you do not act now, a time will come when all
the sacred rituals will stop forever.

Contact

J.Jayaraman
Joint Commisioner and express your protest
srirangamtemple@yahoo.com
srirangamtemple@gmail.com
Telephone Phone 91-431-2432246
Fax – 91-0431-2436666

Atrocities committed by pseudo H.R.and C.E.in Tamilnadu


Illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable action of the Joint Commissioner and the Board of Trustees of Srirangam Temple.
Customs and Traditions are part and parcel of Temple worship. Faith is the root for almost everything in life. Srivaishnavism insists on implicit faith, on God and the words of the preceptors. The administration of Srirangam Temple was in the hands of Sri Ramanuja who introduced various reforms in the Temple administration during the 12th Century. All these administrative reforms were in vogue till the year 1802.
Administration of the Srirangam Temple was taken over by the East India company in the year 1803.A.D. and Mr. Wallace the then collector of Trichy district took over the administration of the Temple. In the year 1890 there was an objection by Vadakalaiyars who gave a petition to the collector stating that the Brahmaratha Mariyathai given to the descendants of the Bhattar and Arayar are not according to tradition. However the then Collector did not accept their contention and documented who were all eligible for this Brahmaratha mariyathai – the highest honour bestowed upon an individual by Lord Himself by ordering him to be taken to his house on the Palanquin where he is taken on procession by those people who carry Him – vide the judgements given on 10th January 1890 and 22nd November 1890.
This is a tradition continued in this Temple for more than 800 years on the Kaisikapuranam day and more than 1200 years incase of Vedaparayana Brahmaratham and  Arayar Sevai. The Brahmaratha Mariyathai was given all these years i.e., upto the year 2009 without any interuption to the persons who were eligible for that mariyathai.
With the takeover of the Temples by the Government they started slowly interfering with the religious activities.  People who do not have faith in God and Temple rituals are today occupying important posts and the Chief Minister of  Tamilnadu himself is a sworn atheist.  Under his regime more and more injustice is done to Hindu Temples and Hindus. Among the Hindus there is no unity. We never voice our concerns when injustice is done to Hindus and their customs. Principles of natural justice are not followed. The law of the land is more disobeyed than respected.
The stoppage of Brahmaratham on 18.11.2010, 26.12.2010 and 27.12.2010 respectively to Vedavyasa Bhattar, Parasara Bhattar and the Arayars was Illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable. A letter was sent by the J.C./ E.O. to the affected parties on 20-9-2010, seeking the views on the stoppage of the Brahmaratham. Arayars and Bhattars gave their reply collectively on 7-10-2010. In the meanwhile on 27-9-2010 a resolution was passed in the Trust Board meeting “that the Brahmaratha Mariyathai is to be stopped within the precincts of the Temple effective this year” (2010).
There was a news item in the Dinakaran Tamil Daily 15-10-2010 that the Brahmaratha Mariyathai would be stopped based on a Trust Board resolution, which was refuted by the Chairman Thiyagarajan in a T.V. interview. He thus uttered a lie just to hoodwink people. He tried to create an  impression as if he was a pious person interested in keeping the age old traditions of the Temple.
However the Devasthanam authorities never bothered to give a proper reply to the affected parties, who gave their representation on 17-10-2010. Even a copy of the Board resolution was not given to the affected parties i.e;  but was given along with the documents in the High Court when the writ petition filed by Vedavyasa Bhattar came up for hearing on 15th November, 2010. In the meanwhile the  J.C. forwarded the resolution of the Board to the Commission H.R.&.C.E. on 29-9-2010 seeking his permisson. I asked for the reply of the Commissioner through R.T.I. on 6-12-2010. I received a reply from the H.R.&.C.E.Commissioner office on 10.12.2010 stating that the Commissioner did not give any permission to the J.C. to stop the Brahmaratha Mariyathai. This goes to prove that the J.C. had acted on 18.11.2010 without any authority and had also disobeyed the orders of his superiors. The Temple rituals are conducted according to the whims and fancies of the J.C. which is highly condemnable and despicable.
The employees union of the Rangathaswamy Devasthanam passed a resolution on  23-10-2010 stating that under the social principle of Men/ Man should not carry another Man they would not carry the Brahmaratham in the coming the  days. (Obviously this was schemed by the officials.) In the meanwhile one of the affected parties namely Veda Vyasa Bhattar, filed a writ in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court coupled with some other family issues in performing Kainkarya. The Judgement was not delievered till 17th     November.
The atheist parties joined together and they waged a wall poster war wherein they ridiculed brahmin community, and theratened that the tuft and the sacred thread of the brahmins would be cut, on 18.11.2010 and that VedaVyasa Bhattar should be arrested under the Goondas act and so on. Nobody in this Temple town was bothered about this and everyone was more interested in protecting their self image, glory, commercial interests etc.
The Madurai Bench of the High Court gave the Judgement one day after the Brahmaratham i.e., on 19-11-2010, directing the peti tioner to go to the Commissioner & seek relief under section 63 E of the H.R.&.C.E. Act. Various judgments of Supreme Court had clearly stated that under the H.R.&.C.E. Act 0f 1959 clause 28 and 105 the Board of Trustees have no power to interfere with the long standing customs and traditions.
Before passing the resolution on 27.9.2010, proper procedure was not followed and the same was passed unilaterally without consulting anybody without any reasons mentioned for taking such a decision.  The resolution was passed to fulfil the whims and fancies of the board members keeping aside the sentiments of the devotees.
Several devotees expressed their anguish and dismay at the hasty and unnecessary resolution dt. 27.9.2010  which is not supported by religious or spiritual values or sentiments, but it was a commercialized and propagandized exercise.
The resolution is illegal, unjustified, violative and ultra vires to the Fundamental Rights under Article 25 of the Constitution and under the provisions of Tamilnadu Act of 1959. None of the letters written by the Editor were replied by the Joint Commissioner Srirangam Temple on this account sofar.
The Commissioner and the Executive Officer should preserve the sanctity of the Temple at all times.
The resolution dt 27.9.2010 cannot be termed as an emergency matter and it is an arbitrary and unjust resolution passed illegally. Further, the resolution is unconstitutional since it is in violation of the fundamental rights given under Article 25 of the Constitution, which mandates that take over of the temples shall only be for the management of the properties and secular and religious aspects cannot be touched.
The policy decisions should be with regard to transportation, accommodation, catering, water supply, orderly darshan for worship, safety to person and property and such other matters of policy of general superintendence and review in relation to the administration of the Srirangam Devasthanam, having regard to public interest. Therefore, it cannot be out right in as much as Article 25 of the Constitution of India is very specific that take over of the temple shall be only for maintenance of the property, administration and security aspects of the temple, but the religious aspects cannot be considered.
Therefore, the resolution is arbitrary because it lacks statutory sanction, in asmuch as for the proposal there is no statutory sanction anywhere in the Rule or in the Act for passing such a resolution. Denial of Brahmaratham attracts provisions of Section 295 of the I.P.C. applies in regard to the situation like this.
Srirangam Temple is not an ordinary Temple, it is a world famous Temple, wherein age old customs and practices are in vogue. Therefore, the Board has exceeded its powers by passing such a resolution.  The resolution is unconstitutional and it interferes with the freedom of religion. It is completely outside the secular activity for which the Board is empowered. The Board has no right whatsoever to interfere with the religious practice.
The Board of Trustees do not have any power or right to make any permanent changes into the religious practices of the temple. It is arbitrary. Third part of Article 25 not only guarantees freedom as far as religion is concerned, but also to freely profess, practice and propagate religion and regulate or restrict any economic function, political or secular activity which may be associated with the religious practice. The resolution does not disclose any discussions or participations by members.  Apparently, it is a hurried through decision.  Such an important decision could not have been taken either in haste or without a proper peep into its pros and cons.
Any Social change comtemplated cannot be implemented by  a mere resolution of the Board of Trustees, as it is not a law making body. If the state has got power it has to bring a bill in the legislative assembly after examination by a select committee and notify in a gazette. Until then no change in the existing customs and traditions  can be brought in.
Offering of Brahmaratham is as per the long standing custom and tradition. The significance of such a tradition cannot be understood by officials and Trustees who are political appointees. Their order to stop the Brahmara tham has to be taken as an interference in managing the religious offers which are the exclusive right of the worshippers.
Even though Sri Parasara Thiruvenkata Bhattar and others approched the minister Sri. Jagat Rakshagan through the good offices of Sri. Velukkudi Krishnan to get a fair deal nothing materialised. With the help of Sri T.C.A. Srinivasan Advocate, a representation was made to the Commissioner on 21.12.2010, but no action was taken by him to give a stay on the resolution of the Board of Trustees on 27.9.2010.
People who have no faith in God and Temple rituals became more active by waging a poster war. They ridiculed the brahmins, their customs and hailed the action of the Joint commissioner in denying the Brahmaratham as a historic one.  It is a pity that a few Srivaishnavites colluded with the Joint Commissioner and derived sadistic plassure out of these events. By denying Brahmaratham and executing an illegal resolution the Joint Commissioner has opened a Pandora’s Box.
At Thirukkurungudi the Siva idol was removed in the year 2004, and a criminal complaint was lodged with Thirukkurungudi police on 5.4.2005. After 6 years of legal battle we won the case and strictures were passed by the honourable judge Ms. Mala in her judgement dt. 29.11.2010. The denial of Brahmaratham at Srirangam is akin to the Tirukkurungudi Pakkam Nindrar case. The resolution of the Board dt 27.9.2010 is equivalent to the demolition of the Pakkam Nindrar Sannidhi in the year 2004. Like the police complaint given in the year 2005 a criminal complaint against Jayaraman the Joint Commissioner, P.K.Thiyagarajan, The Chairman Board of Trustees and other members of Trust board by name. Eventhough we will not get immediate justice on these matters i.e., quashing the resolution of 29.9.2010 and initiation of criminial proceedings against those who committed the crime we have to fight it out and wait for some years when defintely we would achieve success.

Panchajanya 2011 Editorial – English Portion


Illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable action of
the Joint Commissioner and the Board
of Trustees of Srirangam Temple.
Customs and Traditions are part and parcel of Temple worship. Faith is the root for almost everything in life. Srivaishnavism insists on implicit faith, on God and the words of the preceptors. The administration of Srirangam Temple was in the hands of Sri Ramanuja who introduced various reforms in the Temple administration during the 12th Century. All these administrative reforms were in vogue till the year 1802.
Administration of the Srirangam Temple was taken over by the East India company in the year 1803.A.D. and Mr. Wallace the then collector of Trichy district took over the administration of the Temple. In the year 1890 there was an objection by Vadakalaiyars who gave a petition to the collector stating that the Brahmaratha Mariyathai given to the descendants of the Bhattar and Arayar are not according to tradition. However the then Collector did not accept their contention and documented who were all eligible for this Brahmaratha mariyathai – the highest honour bestowed upon an individual by Lord Himself by ordering him to be taken to his house on the Palanquin where he is taken on procession by those people who carry Him – vide the judgements given on 10th January 1890 and 22nd November 1890.
This is a tradition continued in this Temple for more than 800 years on the Kaisikapuranam day and more than 1200 years incase of Vedaparayana Brahmaratham and  Arayar Sevai. The Brahmaratha Mariyathai was given all these years i.e., upto the year 2009 without any interuption to the persons who were eligible for that mariyathai.
With the takeover of the Temples by the Government they started slowly interfering with the religious activities.  People who do not have faith in God and Temple rituals are today occupying important posts and the Chief Minister of  Tamilnadu himself is a sworn atheist.  Under his regime more and more injustice is done to Hindu Temples and Hindus. Among the Hindus there is no unity. We never voice our concerns when injustice is done to Hindus and their customs. Principles of natural justice are not followed. The law of the land is more disobeyed than respected.
The stoppage of Brahmaratham on 18.11.2010, 26.12.2010 and 27.12.2010 respectively to Vedavyasa Bhattar, Parasara Bhattar and the Arayars was Illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable. A letter was sent by the J.C./ E.O. to the affected parties on 20-9-2010, seeking the views on the stoppage of the Brahmaratham. Arayars and Bhattars gave their reply collectively on 7-10-2010. In the meanwhile on 27-9-2010 a resolution was passed in the Trust Board meeting “that the Brahmaratha Mariyathai is to be stopped within the precincts of the Temple effective this year” (2010).
There was a news item in the Dinakaran Tamil Daily 15-10-2010 that the Brahmaratha Mariyathai would be stopped based on a Trust Board resolution, which was refuted by the Chairman Thiyagarajan in a T.V. interview. He thus uttered a lie just to hoodwink people. He tried to create an  impression as if he was a pious person interested in keeping the age old traditions of the Temple.
However the Devasthanam authorities never bothered to give a proper reply to the affected parties, who gave their representation on 17-10-2010. Even a copy of the Board resolution was not given to the affected parties i.e;  but was given along with the documents in the High Court when the writ petition filed by Vedavyasa Bhattar came up for hearing on 15th November, 2010. In the meanwhile the  J.C. forwarded the resolution of the Board to the Commission H.R.&.C.E. on 29-9-2010 seeking his permisson. I asked for the reply of the Commissioner through R.T.I. on 6-12-2010. I received a reply from the H.R.&.C.E.Commissioner office on 10.12.2010 stating that the Commissioner did not give any permission to the J.C. to stop the Brahmaratha Mariyathai. This goes to prove that the J.C. had acted on 18.11.2010 without any authority and had also disobeyed the orders of his superiors. The Temple rituals are conducted according to the whims and fancies of the J.C. which is highly condemnable and despicable.
The employees union of the Rangathaswamy Devasthanam passed a resolution on  23-10-2010 stating that under the social principle of Men/ Man should not carry another Man they would not carry the Brahmaratham in the coming the  days. (Obviously this was schemed by the officials.) In the meanwhile one of the affected parties namely Veda Vyasa Bhattar, filed a writ in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court coupled with some other family issues in performing Kainkarya. The Judgement was not delievered till 17th     November.
The atheist parties joined together and they waged a wall poster war wherein they ridiculed brahmin community, and theratened that the tuft and the sacred thread of the brahmins would be cut, on 18.11.2010 and that VedaVyasa Bhattar should be arrested under the Goondas act and so on. Nobody in this Temple town was bothered about this and everyone was more interested in protecting their self image, glory, commercial interests etc.
The Madurai Bench of the High Court gave the Judgement one day after the Brahmaratham i.e., on 19-11-2010, directing the peti tioner to go to the Commissioner & seek relief under section 63 E of the H.R.&.C.E. Act. Various judgments of Supreme Court had clearly stated that under the H.R.&.C.E. Act 0f 1959 clause 28 and 105 the Board of Trustees have no power to interfere with the long standing customs and traditions.
Before passing the resolution on 27.9.2010, proper procedure was not followed and the same was passed unilaterally without consulting anybody without any reasons mentioned for taking such a decision.  The resolution was passed to fulfil the whims and fancies of the board members keeping aside the sentiments of the devotees.
Several devotees expressed their anguish and dismay at the hasty and unnecessary resolution dt. 27.9.2010  which is not supported by religious or spiritual values or sentiments, but it was a commercialized and propagandized exercise.
The resolution is illegal, unjustified, violative and ultra vires to the Fundamental Rights under Article 25 of the Constitution and under the provisions of Tamilnadu Act of 1959. None of the letters written by the Editor were replied by the Joint Commissioner Srirangam Temple on this account sofar.
The Commissioner and the Executive Officer should preserve the sanctity of the Temple at all times.
The resolution dt 27.9.2010 cannot be termed as an emergency matter and it is an arbitrary and unjust resolution passed illegally. Further, the resolution is unconstitutional since it is in violation of the fundamental rights given under Article 25 of the Constitution, which mandates that take over of the temples shall only be for the management of the properties and secular and religious aspects cannot be touched.
The policy decisions should be with regard to transportation, accommodation, catering, water supply, orderly darshan for worship, safety to person and property and such other matters of policy of general superintendence and review in relation to the administration of the Srirangam Devasthanam, having regard to public interest. Therefore, it cannot be out right in as much as Article 25 of the Constitution of India is very specific that take over of the temple shall be only for maintenance of the property, administration and security aspects of the temple, but the religious aspects cannot be considered.
Therefore, the resolution is arbitrary because it lacks statutory sanction, in asmuch as for the proposal there is no statutory sanction anywhere in the Rule or in the Act for passing such a resolution. Denial of Brahmaratham attracts provisions of Section 295 of the I.P.C. applies in regard to the situation like this.
Srirangam Temple is not an ordinary Temple, it is a world famous Temple, wherein age old customs and practices are in vogue. Therefore, the Board has exceeded its powers by passing such a resolution.  The resolution is unconstitutional and it interferes with the freedom of religion. It is completely outside the secular activity for which the Board is empowered. The Board has no right whatsoever to interfere with the religious practice.
The Board of Trustees do not have any power or right to make any permanent changes into the religious practices of the temple. It is arbitrary. Third part of Article 25 not only guarantees freedom as far as religion is concerned, but also to freely profess, practice and propagate religion and regulate or restrict any economic function, political or secular activity which may be associated with the religious practice. The resolution does not disclose any discussions or participations by members.  Apparently, it is a hurried through decision.  Such an important decision could not have been taken either in haste or without a proper peep into its pros and cons.
Any Social change comtemplated cannot be implemented by  a mere resolution of the Board of Trustees, as it is not a law making body. If the state has got power it has to bring a bill in the legislative assembly after examination by a select committee and notify in a gazette. Until then no change in the existing customs and traditions  can be brought in.
Offering of Brahmaratham is as per the long standing custom and tradition. The significance of such a tradition cannot be understood by officials and Trustees who are political appointees. Their order to stop the Brahmara tham has to be taken as an interference in managing the religious offers which are the exclusive right of the worshippers.
Even though Sri Parasara Thiruvenkata Bhattar and others approched the minister Sri. Jagat Rakshagan through the good offices of Sri. Velukkudi Krishnan to get a fair deal nothing materialised. With the help of Sri T.C.A. Srinivasan Advocate, a representation was made to the Commissioner on 21.12.2010, but no action was taken by him to give a stay on the resolution of the Board of Trustees on 27.9.2010.
People who have no faith in God and Temple rituals became more active by waging a poster war. They ridiculed the brahmins, their customs and hailed the action of the Joint commissioner in denying the Brahmaratham as a historic one.  It is a pity that a few Srivaishnavites colluded with the Joint Commissioner and derived sadistic plassure out of these events. By denying Brahmaratham and executing an illegal resolution the Joint Commissioner has opened a Pandora’s Box.
At Thirukkurungudi the Siva idol was removed in the year 2004, and a criminal complaint was lodged with Thirukkurungudi police on 5.4.2005. After 6 years of legal battle we won the case and strictures were passed by the honourable judge Ms. Mala in her judgement dt. 29.11.2010. The denial of Brahmaratham at Srirangam is akin to the Tirukkurungudi Pakkam Nindrar case. The resolution of the Board dt 27.9.2010 is equivalent to the demolition of the Pakkam Nindrar Sannidhi in the year 2004. Like the police complaint given in the year 2005 a criminal complaint against Jayaraman the Joint Commissioner, P.K.Thiyagarajan, The Chairman Board of Trustees and other members of Trust board by name. Eventhough we will not get immediate justice on these matters i.e., quashing the resolution of 29.9.2010 and initiation of criminial proceedings against those who committed the crime we have to fight it out and wait for some years when definitely we would achieve success.

Insult of Hindu sentiments by Indian Judiciary


mockery of hindu sentiments by indian judiciary

Arjun Sampath’s Nethiyadi Kavithai reply to Pseudosecular Kaamaanthakan Kamal


மன்மதன் அம்பு படத்திற்காக நடிகர் கமலஹாசன் எழுதியுள்ள திரைப்படப்பாடல் தமிழர் பண்பாட்டுக்கு எதிராகவும், இந்திய கலாச்சாரத்திற்கு கேடாகவும், இந்து மத நம்பிக்கைகளை புண்படுத்தும் வகையிலும் அமைந்துள்ளது. குறிப்பாக வரட்சுமி நோன்பையும், அரங்கநாதரையும் அவமதிக்கும் வகையில் இப்பாடல் அமைந்துள்ளது.
நடிகர் கமலஹாசனின் இத்தகைய அருவருக்கத்தக்க செயலுக்கு கண்டம் தெரிவிக்கும் வகையில் இந்து மக்கள் கட்சியின் சார்பில் கட்சியின் மாநிலத் தலைவர் அர்ஜூன் சம்பத் அவர்கள் எழுதியுள்ள கண்டன கவிதையை தங்கள் முன் சமர்பிக்கிறோம்.
கமலஹாசன் எழுதிய அதே கவிதை நடையில் இக்கண்டன கவிதை எழுதப்பட்டுள்ளது.
காமம் மட்டுமே வாழ்க்கையாய் நினைக்கும்
கமலஹாசனுக்கு எச்சரிக்கை!
தாய்க்கும் தாரத்திற்கும் பேதம் தெரியாத
தரங்கெட்டோருக்கு எச்சரிக்கை!
கல்லானாலும் கணவன்! புல்லானாலும் புருஷன்!
என்றே வாழும்  கற்புடை மகளிர் சார்பில் எச்சரிக்கை!
ஒருவில்! ஒரு சொல்! ஒரு இல்! என்றே
ஒருவனுக்கு ஒருத்தி பண்பாடு காக்கும்
பண்டைத் தமிழர் சார்பில் எச்சரிக்கை!
உடலில் பாதியை மங்கைக்குத் தந்த உமையொரு
பாகனின் அடியார்கள் சார்பில் எச்சரிக்கை!
திருமகள் வாழ மார்பினைத் தந்த
பெருமாள் அடியார்கள் சார்பில் எச்சரிக்கை!
தாய்ப்பாலோடு முப்பால் பருகும்
தமிழ் குலத்தில் சார்பில் எச்சரிக்கை !
காம தகனமும் இங்கேதான் !
காமசூத்திரமும் இங்கேதான் !
மனித குலத்தின் நன்மைக்கே
மனைவியைத் தவிர மற்ற மங்கையரை
தாயாய் நினைக்கும் பூமியது
மரத்துக்குச் சேலை கட்டினால் கூட
மயங்கிக் செல்லும் மடையன் நீ
கதையை நம்பி படமெடுக்காமல்
சதையை நம்பி பிழைப்பவன் நீ
ஆணும் பெண்ணும் சேரும் வாழ்வை
முன்னும் பின்னும் யோசிக்காமல்
ஆண் பெண் உறவை அசிங்கப்படுத்தும்
குறுக்கு புத்தி கிறுக்கன் நீ
காமதாகம் தீர்ந்த பின்பு
கட்டிய பெண்ணை துரத்தியவன் நீ!
பெண்களுக்கு எதிராய் பொய்யுரை பரப்பும்
உனக்குச் சொல்கிறோம் கேட்டுக் கொள்
கமலஹாசன்  : துணிச்சல் இல்லா கோழை நான்
தூய்மை இல்லா மனிதன் நான்
தனியே வர பயந்துதானே
தரங்கெட்டவரோடு அணி சேர்ந்துள்ளேன்.
பெண்  :  நல்வழிக்கு நீ வரமாட்டாய்;
நிச்சயம் நரகம் சென்றிடுவாய்!
கமல்  : Guilty As Accused
பெண் : அப்போ ஜட்ஜ்மெண்ட் சொல்றேன்
கமல் : ம் சொல்லுங்க
பெண் : உலகத் தமிழர் ஒன்று சேர்ந்து உளறல் நாயகன்
உன்னை ஒரு நாள் துரத்திடுவோம்.
அதற்கு முன்னால் உனது மகள்கள் இருவர் முன்பு
நீ எழுதிய கவிதையை சொல்லிடு
அதுதான் உனக்கு சரியான தண்டனை
கமல் : யாருக்குத் தண்டனை
பெண் : சந்தேகமென்ன உனக்கேதான்
கமல் : நான் பக்தியுமில்லை! புத்தியுமில்லை!
பெண் : உனக்கு பக்தியுமில்லை புத்தியுமில்லை !
கௌதமி புத்திமட்டுமே  உள்ளது
என்பதும் எங்களுக்குத் தெரியும்!
இந்து மக்கள் கட்சி  :  இந்து தெய்வங்களை மட்டுமே இழிவு படுத்தும்
இவர்களின் கொள்கை
இஸ்லாம், கிறிஸ்துவ நம்பிக்கையை
எதிர்த்து எழுதும்  துணிச்சல் உண்டா?
காமம் பற்றியே பேசி திரியும்
கயவர் பல்லை உடைத்திடவே
கனமான ஒரு தடி வேண்டும் !
காம வெறியார்கள் ஒழிந்திட வேண்டும்
கூடி நின்று நாம் எதிர்த்திட வேண்டும்!
இளைஞர் நெஞ்சில் நஞ்சைக் கலக்கும்
நரகல் கவிதைக்கெதிராக
கொள்ளை முழக்கும் செய்திடுவோம்!
வீசி எறியும் எலும்புக்காக
வாலை ஆட்டும் நாயாம்  வாலி
வக்காலத்து வாங்கினாலும்
கருணாநிதியும் உதயநிதியும்
உதவி செய்து  காத்து நின்றாலும்
காமக்கொடூரன் கமலஹாசனுக்கு
கடும் பாடம் புகட்டிட வேண்டும்.
உள் ஒரு வாழ்க்கை! புறம் ஒரு வாழ்க்கை !
பகல்வேசம் போடும் மேதாவிலாசம் !
நாத்தீகம் பேசும் பகுத்தறிவு போர்வை!
நாயன்மார்களும் ஆழ்வார்களும்
நயம்பட உரைத்த நல்லுரைகளை
திரித்து பேசித் திரியும் உன்னை
நாங்கள் எதிர்த்து நின்றிடுவோம்.
அடுத்தவர் வீட்டு குளியல் அறையை
எட்டி பார்க்கும் வழக்கம் எமக்கு
எப்போதும் இருந்ததில்லை
அரங்கநாதனை அவதூறு செய்ய துணிந்த
உந்தன் முகத்திரையை கொஞ்சம் கிழிக்க முயல்கின்றோம்.
கட்டிய மனைவி வாணி இருக்கையில்
மாதவியோடு சுற்றித் திரிந்தாய்
சரிகாவோடு சல்லாபம் செய்தாய்
நடிக்க வரும் பெண்களையெல்லாம்
படுக்கைக்கு அழைத்து பாழாக்கினாய்
மகள் வயது பெண்களுடனே
மானங்கெட்டு  சுற்றித் திரிந்தாய்
சத்தியவானின் உயிரை மீட்க
சாவித்திரி கொண்டது  வரலட்சுமி நோன்பு!
ஆயிரமாயிரம் ஆண்டுகளாய்
கற்புக்கரசியர் நோற்கும் வரலட்சுமி நோன்பு! 

அந்தரங்கம் யாவும்அறிந்து
அரிதுயில் கொள்ளும்  அரங்கநாதன்

உன்னை யொழிக்க சுதர்சனமாய், சாரங்கமாய்
எம்மை இங்கே படைத்துள்ளான்
உன்னை போன்ற அயோக்கியர்களை
அழித்தொழிக்க வந்துள்ளோம்
எங்கள் கூட்டம் சிங்கம் போல
எழுந்து நின்று கர்ஜிக்கும்
சீனிவாசனும் இராஜலட்சுமியும்
சேர்ந்து பெற்ற பிள்ளையா நீ?
சீனிவாசனின் தேசியமும்
இராஜலட்சுமியின் தெய்வீகமும்
உன்னைப்போல் ஓர் பிள்ளை பெற்றது
எம்மைப்போன்றோர்க்கு ஆச்சரியமே!
வரலட்சுமியின் மகிமை தெரிந்திட
உன்தாய் ராஜலட்சுமியை வணங்கி நின்றிடு!
அரங்கநாதனின் அருமை தெரிய
உன் தந்தை சீனிவாசனை தொழுது நின்றிடு!
அனுமன் சேனை! ஸ்ரீ ராம் சேனை!
பாரத சேனை!  சிவ சேனை!
ஒன்றாய் சேர்ந்து உன் கருத்தை முறிப்போம்.

Bhattar Brahmaratham and Srirangam J.C. audacity


Date 22.11.2010. Srirangam, Letter No.5. 10/2010.

Dear Sir,
Your attempt to introduce social reforms in the Srirangam Temple is against all ethical norms. You are not a religious leader but only a government servant to control the affairs of the Temple pertaining to the income and expenditure. You have no authority to interfere with the religious practices of this temple and in the name of introducing social reforms you have attempted to defile and desecrate the idol.  Under the provisions of HR &CE Act you and the Board of Trustees have no authority to interfere or modify age old customs.  Further you have not notified in writing your decision to stop Brahmaratham in advance to the person who was due for that honour.
This is against all Principles of Natural justice.  Further you should know that the “Kaisika Brahmaratha Mariyaadhai”  is given to the “Kaisikapurana” Scripture for which the Parasara Bhattar I, Son of Sri Koorthazhvan wrote a commentary.  Just as in ‘Yaanai Vahanam’  the Archaka is holding the idol sitting on the Vahanam and the vahanam is carried by men only , here, in the case of Bhattar’s Brahmaratham on the Kaisika Brahma Ratham Day the Kaisika Mahatmyam which is a part of Varahapurana which is considered holy is held in procession with the Bhattar clad in a special dress.  There he is considered as a Guru and his disciples are to carry him to express their gratitude towards the Guru.  But, unfortunately in the name of social reforms with scant respect for traditions you have sabotaged a long standing custom.with the help of extra constitutional persons who have no faith in God and the rituals. You have really opened a Pandora’s Box.

In the case S. Veerabhatra Chettiyar vs E.V.Ramaswamy Naicker and others in the year 1958 the Supreme Court in its Judgement (1958 AIR 1032, 1959 SCR 1211) has given the following landmark Judgement in the appeal made by the Veerabhatra Chettiyar on the Ganesh Idol breaking case of 1953.
“…….There are no such express words of limitation in S. 295 of the Indian Penal code, and in our opinion, the learned Judge has clearly misdirected himself in importing those words of limitation. Idols are only illustrative of those words. A sacred book, like the Bible, or the Koran, or the Granth Saheb, is clearly within the ambit of those general words. If the courts below were right in their interpretation of the crucial words in S. 295, the burning or otherwise destroying or defiling such sacred books, will not come within the ‘Purview of the penal statute. In our opinion, placing such a restricted interpretation on the words of such general import, is against all established canons of construction. Any object however trivial or destitute of real value in itself, if regarded as sacred by any class of persons would come within the meaning of the penal section. Now is it absolutely necessary that the object, in order to be held sacred should have been actually worshipped. An object may be held sacred by a class of persons without being worshipped by them. It is clear, therefore, that the courts below were rather cynical in so lightly brushing aside the religious susceptibilities of that class of persons to which the complainant claims to belong. The section has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds. Courts have got to be very circumspect in such matters, and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of different classes of persons with different beliefs, irrespective of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the court.
JUDGEMENT:
As a result of these considerations, it must be held that the courts below have erred in their interpretation of the crucial words, of S 295 of the Indian Penal code. But the question still remains whether, even after expressing our strong disagreement with the interpretation of the section by the courts below, this Court should direct a further inquiry into the complaint, which has stood dismissed for the last about 5 years. The action complained of against the accused persons, if true, was foolish, to put it mildly. but as the case has become stale, we do not direct further inquiry into this complaint. It there is a recurrence of such a foolish behaviour on the part of any section of the community, we have no doubt that those charged with the duty of maintaining law and order. will apply the law in the sense in which we have interpreted the law.
Your action in stopping Brahmaratham on 18th  November 2010 is an act fit enough to be the termed foolish by Supreme Court. They have also further stated that the law enforcing authorities should take notice of such incidents. You will recall that sometime back complaints were lodged against actress Kushboo at various places for her remarks on chastity. She got relief at the Supreme Court. But unfortunately for you the Supreme Court has already given a ruling that your action comes under the purview of Criminal Procedure act Section 295 and 295A. (Whether the practice is rational or otherwise you cannot interfere). A Criminal Complaint will be lodged against you and the Chairman Board of Trustees by devotees from TamilNadu and all Over India & overseas in the coming days keeping in view the judgement delievered by the Supreme Court as given above.
The contents of Article 25 and 26  of the Indian Constitution was discussed and analysed  in the Seshammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu which had been published in the Madras Law Journal Report (Supreme Court-1973) and the contents are as follows:-
“The contents of articles. 25 and 26 of the Constitution came up for consideration before this Court in the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Matt, Manapat Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. The State of Orissa, Sri Venkatamona Devaru v. The State of Mysore, Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali, and several other cases and the main principles underlying these provisions have by these decisions been placed beyond controversy.  The first is that the protection of these Articles is not limited to matters of doctrine or belief;  they extend also to acts done in pursuance of religion and therefore contain a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion.  The second is that what constitutes an essential part of a religion or religious practice has to be decided by the Courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion and includes practices which are regarded by the community as part of its religion.”
The learned judges have further stated that the Board of Trustees have to follow the provisions of 28/1 of the HR & CE Act 1959.
“In a Saivite or a Vaishnavite temple the appointment of the Archaka will have to be made from a specified denomination, sect or group, in accordance with the directions of the Agamas governing these Legislative temples.  Failure to do so would not only be contrary to section 28(1) which requires the trustee to follow the usage of the temple, but would also interfere with a religious practice the inevitable result of which would be to defile the image………………………………..will be bound to follow the hereditary principle as a usage peculiar to the temple.”
Under the pretext of social reform you can not introduce or modify the age old customs.  The Board of Trustees is not a law making body.  You can modify such customs only through a law enacted by the Legislative assembly or Parliament.  Further, you have not made public the resolution of the Board of Trustees as it affected the age old customs and traditions.  The Supreme Court had ruled out that (The Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu Case) “ the 1972 Act gives the indication that one of the purposes of the Act is to effect a change in the rituals and ceremonies followed in the temples.  On the other hand, section 107 of the principal Act. emphasises that nothing contained in the Act would be deemed to confer any power or impose any duty in contravention of the rights conferred on any religious denomination or any section thereof by Article 26 of the Constitution.   Similarly section 105 provides that nothing contained in the Act shall (a) save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or the rules made thereunder, affect any Honour, emolument or perquisite to which any person is entitled by custom or otherwise in any religious institution, or its established usage in regard to any other matter.  Moreover, if any Rule is framed by the Government which purports to interfere with the rituals and ceremonies of the temples the same will be liable to be challenged by those who are interested in the temple worship.”
You have not followed the principles of Natural Justice.  You had sent out a letter (No. 4555/1420/T1 dt. 20/9/2010) to the descendants of Vedavyasa Bhattar and Parasara Bhattar and Arayars stating that men should not carry man inside the temple precincts which is equivalent to hand rickshaw pulling (This is an odd comparison. Carrying and paying respect to an Acharya as ordained by Lord by the sishyas of the Acharya can not be compared to hand rickshaw pulling where he earns his livelihood.  You can not afford to wound the feelings of the devotees resorting to such unethical acts, since you are the guardian of the Lord).
The aggrieved Bhattars and Arayars had given the reply on 7-10-2010 but you have not intimated your stand on Brahmaratham. All the while when ever they met and represented orally their case to you and the Chairman CBT, you were telling them that Board of Trustees have not taken any final decision and no resolution was passed but you have produced the resolution in the court. By any standard the administrator of the Temple should intimate the aggrieved parties the official decisions taken by you, under the principles of natural justice.
If there should not be any discrimanation before the Lord in the name of Gender, Caste or Creed, Language then why certain people are given Honours when the Lord is in procession in preference to others.  When the collector comes to the temple why is a Dawali Servant accompanying him?  Why the Maniyar prostrates before the Stalattars?  one can ask thousands of such questions like this which you will not be able to answer properly.  In the name of social reforms you may like to change all these customs.  But you cannot do so.  Finally you will have to come with an answer that they are all, long standing customs and traditions bound by a court judgements etc..  Why have you not implemented till date the provisions of Rule 106 of the HR & CE Act, pertaining to the distribution of Theertham, Turmeric Powder, Kunkumam and cooked food (Prasadam) to women alongwith men without any discrimination.  Even though I had raised this question earlier under RTI you have not replied properly.  Before attempting to bring changes in the customs and traditions  like denial of Brahmaratham you better introduce changes in the temple in accordance with the provisions of HR & CE Act.
It is obvious that you have taken the support of the Atheist Parties who do not believe in God and Temple rituals and claim to have achieved victory which is false and ‘foolish’ in the eyes of Law.  You are bound to answer my queries in a court of Law soon.Your bone of contention in denying the Brahmaratham is that Men Should Not Carry Man inside the temple precincts.  But in replying to my RTI Query No. 10 vide your letter dt. 1900-1420-T1 dt. 17/11/2010  that there is no intention to stop the practice of carrying the persons dressed as Thirumangai Azhwar by another man inside the temple on the 8th Day of Raappaththu, as it is not called Brahmaratham. First of all, nobody calls this the event as Brahmaratham.  But your logic is irrational and wrong. You have denied Brahmaratham to Bhattar citing the social thinking that man should not be carried by men. If that is the basic underlying principle to deny an age old custom arbitrarily, what prevents you from preventing the act of “Man carried by Men” and that too inside the temple precincts on the 8th day of Rappaththu.  If you abolish one custom, based on a certain principles, whether right or wrong, are you not to apply the same principle to all the customs and traditions which you consider against social thinking inside the temple.  If it is not so I have to consider that you have double standards in the administration of this great temple which makes you unworthy to occupy the post of an Executive Officer who is supposed to be unbiased and who should respect the age old customs. ***

Garland of unusual tales
Zakir Hussain’s thematic ‘Sri Ranga Nayakam’ was backed by in-depth study and sincere approach in execution.
Recurring sounds of the temple bells and the conch during Bharatanatyam dancer Zakir Hussain’s latest solo production, ‘Sri Ranga Nayakam-The Heritage,’ kept the rasika within the Sri Ranganathaswamy temple in Srirangam all evening. The focus of the show organised by Brahma Gana Sabha, was in fact, the temple and its sthala purana, including the myths and facts about the deity and the devotees.
The temple sounds and the stories amounted to a narrative-heavy presentation that was only punctuated by occasional nritta sequences. Yet, it was an absorbing show thanks to the unusual stories and the involved characterisation. Zakir, a former student of Chitra Visweswaran, has carved a niche for himself as a researcher with particular interest in Sri Vaishnavism.
For the past few years, he has chosen various themes around the subject such as the Agama Sastras, the philosopher Ramanuja and others. This time too, the 75-minute solo production was backed by in-depth study.
The opening talamalika Thodayamangalam was a tailor-made dedication to the deity and the Cauvery river, with verses taken from the Divya Prabandam — Periazhwar’s ‘Thiru Pallandu’ verse, Thondaradippodi Azhwar’s ‘Gangai Neer’ verse and Nammazhwar’s ‘Oraa Yirammay Ulakezalikkum.’ Absorbing anecdotes Incidents regarding the sthalapurana such as the story of how Rama gifted the ‘kula deva’ to Vibhishana with instructions not to place it on the ground and how Vibhishana had to leave it behind finally in Srirangam, the story of the dasi who sacrificed her life from the Vellai Gopuram to protect Sri Ranganatha and the blind, 90-year old washerman who was able to identify the original utsava moorthy (Namperumal) by the taste of the abhisheka theertham, were some uncommon tales that the dancer wove together in the presentation.
By Zakir’s admission, he used the ‘Srirangam’ version of the Andal story as against the Srivilliputhur version that declares that Andal merged with Ranganatha en route to Srirangam. The closing scene of ‘Sri Vaishnava Koil Oonjal’ composed by Pillai Perumal Iyengar (Anandabhairavi) was an unusual composition brought into the repertoire.
Zakir’s strength is his simplicity. His mime is clear and uncluttered and reflects his sensitivity, while his nritta is painstaking. There are no frills here, only sincerity. But Zakir can cut down on his glittering aharya and improve his footwork timing to give his best. ‘Sri Ranga Nayakam’ was a coming together of good quality bhava-laden music (Gomathi Nayagam), fine scripting (Revathy Sankkaran), scholarly guidance (Krish namachariar) and well-visualised episodes. The other members of the orchestra were equal contributors: Lakshmi Venkatesh (nattuvangam), Sikkil Balasub ramaniam (violin), Nataraj (flute), Mayavaram Viswanath (mridangam) and Parthasarathy (special effects).                                      ***
In the Srirangam Temple, at many places there are drinking water taps have been provided. I would like to have the following details.
1. How many water storage tanks are inside the temple precicnts.
2. How many wells are there inside the Temple premises starting from Agalangan thiruveedhi to Dharmavarma Prakaram?
3. Of these wells how many are in use and how many are in disuse?
4. If it is in disuse what are the reasons?
5. Has any attempt been made to clean those wells to preserve them ?
6. How many overhead storage tanks are there in the temple.?
7. Are these tanks cleaned properly and periodically?
8. Under whose supervision these tanks are cleaned?
9. Are the dates of cleaning with due date for next cleaning notified to the worshipping public thru proper sign boards.
10. Do you have any records kept for the same?  Can I go through the records?
11. If there are multiple storage tanks, is the water tested and certified fit for human consumption?  Is any record maintained for such tests?  If so I wish to inspect those records.
12. At what intervals the water is tested and in which lab it is tested?
13. Are the pilgrims provided with proper tumblers at various points for safe drinking water to avoid contamination, consume water without wastage and due protection?
14. Have you ever ascertained the quantum of water needed and formulates plans to augument the supply to meet the requirements in the years to come?
15. Is the water used in the Madaippalli (Kitchen) periodically tested ? How many electric motors are in use inside the entire temple premises like various madaippallis,Vasantha mandapam,sub temples etc., Are they maintained periodi cally?Are all safety norms observed?  what are the capacities of the various motors in use inside the temple premises ?
16.Is LPG used anywhere inside the temple premises sub Temples?
17.Are the electrical equipments like tubelight fittings/switchboards checked periodically to avoid any untoward incident ? Is there a maintenance schedule? please provide details. Is safety audit conducted?
18.There is a huge neon sign Thenkalai Thirumann on the Rajagopuram.On several days it is found not lit (that is not glowing ) Are you maintaining a log book regarding its switching on/ off timings and records to show whether it was glowing on a particular night or not ?
SECTION-2
The Srirangam Temple occupies a wide area .There are many sub temples inside and outside the saptha prakarams.I would like to get clarifications for the following questions under the provisions of RTI act.
1.How many sub temples are there under the control of the Devasthanam?  What are the names of the temples and where are they situated.?
2.Who carries out the poojas?  Are they all appointed by Devasthanam or are they Hereditary?  Are they all qualified persons?  What is the criteria? Why Sripatham thangis  are in charge of Sub temples?
3.What are the darshan timings in these sub temples.Is there any public notification of the same. If not why?
4.Where is the Nampillai Sannithi of Srirangam Sri Ranganathaswamty Devasthanam ?Is it open for darshan to public.Are the darshan timings for the same notified to the public? Who is incharge of the temple?
5. Various thirunakshathrams and other festivals are conducted in these sub temples.  But the dates on which they are conducted, duration of the festivals, timings of the recitation of Divya Prabandam is not published.What action have you taken to notify the timings to the general public?  There is no notification of except timings few sannithis inside the premises about the timings.
6. Are there any arrangements to notify all these timings and dates at the information counter in Rangavilas Mandapam?
7. A co-ordinator has to be named from whom information can be elicited and his name with designation is to be intimated to the general public by a notification?
8. What is the monthly allowance (Dasthik allowance) given to sub-temple (Namely the quantum of Rice,jaggery,sandal paste and other articles essential for pooja) and cash?
9. Who  determined this quantum. Are there any guide lines? Who is the authority to approve this quantity and Cash allowance?
10. Has any study been conducted to improve the economic conditions of the sub temples.?
11. Are any Sradhham(Annual Death Ceremony), Yagnas, Homams performed inside the temple?What mechanism is there to monitor and prevent the performance of such ceremonies forbidden inside the temple premises.Has any action been taken against the wrongdoers ?