Put 295A on Pavan K Varma

Via India Uncut, I discover that Pavan K Varma has been committing blasphemy:

Indians’ faith in marriage reflects their faith in values, said Varma. “Marriage is an institution which is there to stay in any society. India needs to stand by the values. There is something called sanskar (values) and it is still alive in India though it may have been lost in the metropolises. All gods, at least in Hindu mythology, have consorts. Marriage is an ingrained concept in Indian philosophy,” he said.

I am appalled that this Macaulay-putra has insulted the religious sentiments of millions of Hindus. Has he forgotten all about Hanuman? Worse yet, is he trying to suggest that Hanuman is not a god?

Hanuman was the living embodiment of the power of Ram-Nam. He was an ideal selfless worker, a true Karma Yogi who worked desirelessly. He was a great devotee and an exceptional Brahmachari or celibate.

Hanuman possessed devotion, knowledge, spirit of selfless service, power of celibacy, and desirelessness. He never boasted of his bravery and intelligence.

(urday.com)

And what about Ayyappa? Does his celibacy count for nothing either?

Manikanthan was in a fix, as he had no desire to get married, being a celibate by instinct, choice and desire. (Celibacy is supposed to grant tremendous power, both physical and spiritual). Yet the young lady had a valid point.

(indiayogi.com)

He struck a deal with her. A temple of his would come up soon where people would come to worship. Their pilgrimage would not be considered complete unless they also worshipped at a shrine to her. All his devotees would grant her the status and respect of a wife. If there ever was a year when a new devotee did not come to the temple at the Sabarimala hills, he would give up his vow of brahamcharya and marry her. She is going to have a long wait as the list of pilgrims only grows ever more unmanageable each year.

Since the god is both a renouncer as well as a celibate, women in the menstrual years are not allowed into the temple. This is a traditional courtesy given to a swami, and does not represent any bias or prejudice against women.

(indiayogi.com)

It is only in today’s pseudo-secular environment that Pavan K Varma can get away with insulting the basic aspects of Hindu mythology. Would he ever dare to insult Muslim or Christian religious figures in this way? Fortunately Hindus have the law on their side and can file a Section 295A case against him.

0 Responses to Put 295A on Pavan K Varma

  1. Sriram says:

    This is horribly bad sarcasm.

  2. VK says:

    Since Hanuman-ji was simply an incarnation (“avataar”, not of the Yahoo kind) of Bhagwan Shivji, your outrage is rather uninformed. I wag my right-hand index finger in your general direction.

  3. Aadisht says:

    VK,

    a preposterous assertion, no doubt springing from the desperate attempts of Vaishanvites to portray Mahadev as some sort of magical negro in service to their deity. Once Pavan Varma is dealt with, the people spreading this canard will feel the wrath of cold Saivite steel.

  4. Aishwarya says:

    Is one to understand that you think consorts unnecessary?

  5. Aadisht says:

    Definitely necessary for Saivites.

Leave a Reply to Sriram Cancel reply