Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Arichal Munai point in Dhanushkodi on 21st January before the Pran Pratishtha (consecration ceremony) of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. Arichal Munai is believed to be the origin point of the Ram Setu.
He practised ‘anulom vilom’ and offered flowers at the site. He also performed meditation and Yoga at Arichal Munai.
#WATCH | Tamil Nadu: Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Arichal Munai point in Dhanushkodi, which is said to be the place from where the Ram Setu was built. pic.twitter.com/pj0yc5t6Fg
— ANI (@ANI) January 21, 2024
Furthermore, the prime minister performed pooja at the Sri Kothandarama Swamy temple in Dhanushkodi. The name Kothandarama means Lord Ram with the bow.
Dhanushkodi is the place where Lord Ram is believed to have taken the vow to defeat Ravana and proceeded to Lanka. It is stated that Vibhishana, the brother of King Ravana encountered Lord Ram here for the first time and implored him for refuge.
According to sacred texts and legends, this is also the location where Lord Ram conducted Vibhishana’s coronation. The Prime Minister prayed at Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple in Tiruchirappalli and Sri Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Temple in Rameswaram in the southern state earlier on 20th January.
He is visiting the holy places as part of his spiritual journey before the temple’s landmark inauguration event. He conveyed, “As we prepare for the auspicious occasion of the consecration of the Shri Ram temple in Ayodhya, it is heartening to visit these temples that hold deep religious and cultural significance.
Congress’ war on Lord Ram
During the tenure of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)-I led by the Congress party in 2007, the government used an affidavit to claim that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Lord Ram or any of the other characters in the Ramayana. It stressed, “The petitioner while seeking relief have primarily relied upon the contents of the Valmiki Ramayana, the Ram Charit Manas by Tulsidas and mythological texts, which formed an important part of ancient Indian literature, but which cannot be said to be historical records to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters or the occurrence of the event, depicted therein.”
The administration asserted that the Ram Setu was the result of naturally occurring formations “caused by tidal action and sedimentation.” The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) maintained that Ram Setu could not be regarded as a historical or archaeological monument and for the same reason unworthy to be declared as a protected monument based on the premise of corralling theory which would suggest that it was not a manmade structure.
It alleged, “The Ramcharitmanas by Tulsidas, the Valmiki Ramayana, and other mythological texts, which admittedly form an ancient part of Indian literature, cannot be claimed to be historical records that prove incontrovertibly the characters and events depicted therein existed or occurred,” in the affidavit while claiming that its major objective is to research human history scientifically.
While it proclaimed that the ASI acknowledged and appropriately honoured the profound religious significance that the Hindu community throughout the world has bestowed upon these texts, it further contended that the study of human history, which was the ASI’s main focus, must be conducted in a scientific manner with the use of current technological tools and that its conclusions must be supported by verifiable material evidence. Regarding the Ramayana, an allegation was made that there was no “historical record” that could definitively demonstrate the existence of the character or the events it describes.
In addition to the obvious denial that the Ramayana is historical, a closer examination of the UPA Government’s affidavit disclosed that great attempts were made to reduce Lord Ram to the status of “a character” alone. Additionally, it was purposefully stated that the religious works of Tulsidas’ Ramacharitmanas and Valmiki’s Ramayana were on par with “other mythological texts forming an important part of ancient Indian literature.”
As a result, the UPA government was forced to withdraw the affidavit and endure public outrage across India. The Ministry of Culture allegedly proposed the removal of at least three clauses from the affidavit, however, only two of these clauses were eliminated. One of the unremoved statements mentioned that the Ramayana was not historically accurate, a charge that was soon refuted.
