C'da I am as sentimental as you are on the preservation of historical /archaeological heritage. We can never emulate or replicate these original artifacts.
The essence of what I'm trying to say is that a lot these problems could be at least be warded off. Here, I blame the Municipality for being lax, the Sai Baba people to trying to somehow take advantage of a possibly corruupt district authority. I'm also quite sure that the ASI is totally unaware of what is happening. They might get into it after the temple is finisfed and you have devotees running around. But this: >>>Why did the interested public not protest before the construction >>>of the Sai Baba temple started? >I have been trying to educate you folks about that., But obviously >you don't learn do you? Hehehe! Still hasn't filtered thru yet, C'da. You will have to be much clearer. I'm wondering, why these interested people did not protest right at the begining. Why really wait till the temple is half-done? Now, of course, it is entirely possible that they had no earthly idea that the Baba temple people was going up. >Incidentally, when I become the Emperor of Xiboxagor Now, there you have my full support, because I know, you will atleast be ever vigilant and pre-empt any attempts that may affect ancient architecture and historical monuments.:):) --Ram On 3/27/08, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ram: > > To give you a nasty reply: > > Do you think the questions you ask about permits, neighborhood's > apporval etc. have any merit in the context? What--have you become > American or something ? > > > How did the municipality land got to Sai Baban's? Good question Ram. > But not a smart one if you forgot what I mean. > > > > >Why did the interested public not protest before the construction of > the Sai > >Baba temple started? > > > I have been trying to educate you folks about that., But obviously > you don't learn do you? > > > > >Lastly, why did the Sai Baba people want to build a temple right next > to a > >historical site? > > Take a wild guess! > > > > >Lastly, why did the Sai Baba people want to build a temple right next > to a > historical site? > > Take another wild guess! > > > > **** Bottom line Ram is this: These are structures of Assam's > historical /archaeological heritage . The deserve not to be > desecrated by new construction within its visual bounds -- no matter > dedicated to what god/s , no matter how beautiful. It is a matter of > cultural aesthetics, something our people need a ahuge amount of > educating on. > > Incidentally, when I become the Emperor of Xiboxagor, one of the > first things I will do will be to tear down that horrible water tank > that was built rifght near the Xibo-doul, nearly a quarter century > back. > > > *** The Texan Mosque v/s the Church is an issue of religious > bigotries on the part of the Church-wallas. > The Moswquewallas got the permit obviously because it is an area > zoned for Places of Worship. So the Zoning authorities were not at > fault. When the dispute goes to litigation, I would bet you a dollar > the Mosque-wallas will win. Exactly similar thing happened right here > in St. Louis, TWICE. Both the times the Mosques got built. > > c-da :-) > > > > > > At 8:48 AM -0600 3/27/08, Ram Sarangapani wrote: > >C'da, > > > >The preservation of historical and ancient idols are, of course, > paramount, > >and all of us should support such efforts. > > > >Some questions do arise though: > > > >How is it possible for any private organization to build on land owned by > >the Sivasagar Municipality Board? > > > >It seems the Sai Baba temple is being built as we speak, so how did the > >District authorities give it permissions? Aren't these authorities also > >interested in the preservation of these ancient idols? > > > >Why did the interested public not protest before the construction of the > Sai > >Baba temple started? (when the permits were issued or the when the > >foundations were just being laid). How does it benefit anyone at > mid-waters? > > > >Lastly, why did the Sai Baba people want to build a temple right next to > a > >historical site? > > > >In Texas there was something vaguely similar. > > > >A mosque was being built (on land purchased by some Muslim business > people). > >There was a Church nearby. > >The issuing authorities of course issued permits without batting an > eyelid. > >But, no one protested when the permits were issued. Then there was a huge > >public outcry against building of the mosque. > >Now, I think it is in in litigation, and there is lot of ill feelings in > >both communities. > > > >Sometimes such confrontations can be deftly avoided with some prudence by > >both the issuing authorities and the protesting public. > > > >Religious groups often want to force their presence in some place or the > >other, just because they have a 'right' to do so. And their reasoning > seems > >to be to propogate their brand of religion - make it more palatable among > >the natives, so to speak :) > > > >Also would a Naam Garh have made a difference? Don't know. > > > >Skeptical as always:) > > > >--Ram > > > > > > > >On 3/27/08, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Can we raise OUR voices in support of these 'scribes'? It will be a > >> worthy effort. > >> > >> cm > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/details.asp?id=mar2708\State2<http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/details.asp?id=mar2708%5CState2> > >> > >> > >> Scribes oppose Sai Baba temple near Bishnu Dol > >> From Our Correspondent > >> SIVASAGAR, March 26 - Scribes in Sivasagar, accredited to various > >> newspapers and channels met DC Sivasagar NM Hussain and submitted a > > > memorandum requesting him to intervene personally on behalf of > >> District Administration in the construction of a three storey mandir > >> of Sri Satya Sai Baba on a plot allegedly belonging to Sivasagar > >> Municipality Board barely a few meters away from historic Bishnu-dol. > >> It may be mentioned here that the three historic dols, Vishnu, Shiva > >> and Devidol built by Borraja Draupadi Modambika, 2nd queen of King > >> Shivasingha in 1731 AD are under preservation and protection of > >> Archeological Survey of India (ASI) since 1988. According to ancient > >> monuments and Archeological Sites & Remains Act 1959, no permanent > >> construction on excavation work can be undertaken within a distance > >> of 200 metres of the monuments protected by ASI. Therefore, the > >> scribes feel that the construction of the Sai Temple should be halted > >> and also other constructions in the entire area without ASI approved. > >> > >> The scribes included Prof Sonaram Boruah, Prof Guna Baruah, Manoj > >> Borthakur, Maniram Dutta, MI Bora, Mujhaheed Ali, Purusuttam Kalita, > >> Ratu Das, Ratul Konwar, Konkan Bora and Jyotirmoy Rajkhowa. The > >> scribes have also sent copies of the memorandum to regional director > >> ASI, NE Circle, Sivasagar Development Authority and Sivasagar > >> Municipality Board. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> assam mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org > >> > >_______________________________________________ > >assam mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org > > > _______________________________________________ > assam mailing list > [email protected] > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org > _______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
