Nov 2002
We will use throughout these pages the word Raam instead of Rama or Ram for the following reasons: Readers looking at Rama tend to pronounce it with an emphasis at the ‘a’ in the end, as if it were meant to be long ‘a’ as in ‘arm’.
Rama pronounced with long ‘a’ emphasis at the end would mean in Sanskrit language (a) a beautiful woman, a charming young woman (b) a beloved, wife, mistress (c) a woman in general (d) a woman of low origin (e) vermilion (f) Asa Foetida. Vaman Shivram Apte, Sanskrit English Dictionary, 1890, 2000, p.468.
A woman of low origin - this will not be a proper address for a person whom Hindus worship as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Readers (if unfamiliar with actual pronunciation) looking at Ram without the tailing ‘a’ will tend to pronounce it as the common English word ‘ram’, which so pronounced would mean in English a ‘male sheep’. This unintended distortion can be avoided by use of spelling Raam.
NOT a Place of Muslim Worship since 1936
On December 6, 1992 the Babri Mosque was demolished. 10 years later, many people believe that Hindus demolished a place of Muslim worship.
“A court ruling of 1951 cites testimony of local Muslims that the mosque had not been used since 1936, which means that in 1949 the Hindus took over an unused building… On March 3, 1951, the Civil Judge of Faizabad observed: It further appears from a number of affidavits of certain Muslim residents of Ayodhya that at least from 1936 onwards the Muslims have neither used the site as a mosque nor offered prayers there…nothing has been pointed to discredit these affidavits.
Prof. B. P. Sinha claims to know how this disuse of the Masjid came about: As early as 1936-37, a bill was introduced in the legislative council of U. P. to transfer the site to the Hindus (…) the bill was withdrawn on an unwritten understanding that no namaz performed.
Since 1949, the building is effectively in use as a Hindu temple, but many Hindus, and especially the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), want to explicate the Hindu function of the place with proper Hindu temple architecture, which implied removing the existing structure.” [Dr. Koenraad Elst]
What does this tell us? That it was not a place of worship for Muslims at least for past 56 years when the structure was pulled down in 1992. That the building was in use as a Hindu temple for past 43 years and the structure was pulled down in 1992 to replace it with formal Hindu temple architecture.
Were these facts insignificant? Was the media right in not giving them deserved publicity? What were the results? It divided Hindus with a feeling of guilt. It antagonized Muslims that Hindus destroyed their place of worship. It created a wrong world opinion of Hindus destroying other peoples’ place of worship. It served the purpose well for anti-Hindu elite who have remained determined to subvert Hinduism in every possible way they could.
Did the popular media act in the larger interest of the nation? The media is the opinion-maker for the nation and the world at large. Did they discharge their responsibility fully?
Supreme Court Decided Not to Decide
Often we see politicians making public statement on Raam Temple issue: ‘we should abide by Supreme Court decision’. Impression it creates that Supreme Court gave a decision on Raam Temple issue. No one cares to elaborate what that decision was. Not even media. Politicians do not because they have vested interest but why not popular media? Do they also have vested interest?
Justice M. Rama Jois was the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. Here is his commentary on the Supreme Court judgment:
“‘Decide not to decide’ the crucial question referred for its opinion by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution, is the sum and substance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Reference No. 1/1993 made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution in which the President sought the opinion of the Supreme Court on the following question: Whether a Hindu Temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Raam Janm Bhoomi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the areas on which the structure stood?”
I looked at the complete text of the Supreme Court judgment. There were two judgments, a majority judgment and a minority judgment. Here is the majority judgment and the minority judgment:
Chief Justice of India M. N. Venkatachaliah, Justice J. S. Verma and Justice G. N. Ray together signed this judgment on October 24, 1994 at New Delhi. Para 100(11) of the Judgment reads:
“We very respectfully decline to answer it and return the same”.
Justice A.M. Ahmadi and Justice S. P. Bharucha signed it on the same day October 24, 1994 at New Delhi. Para 165 of the Judgment read:
“The Presidential Reference is returned respectfully, unanswered.”
What does this say? That they decided nothing! So what are the politicians and the media telling the public? Are they telling the public the whole truth? Are they telling that much of the truth as much suits their purpose?
Misuse of the Courts for Political Games
Babri Mosque structure was in use as Hindu temple since 1949. Hindus wanted it to have proper Hindu temple architecture and they had approached the Courts of Law for necessary permission. What did Courts do with it? In what manner did the Courts manage the nationally sensitive issue?
“It is very desirable that a suit of this kind is decided as soon as possible, and it is regretted that it remains undecided after four years.” “That was the Allahabad High Court speaking in 1955 about the Raam Janm Bhoomi cases, which had by then been pending already for four years…” [Dr. Arun Shourie]
Let us compare this comment of Allahabad High Court with its own conduct for next 37 years:
“Even in July 1992 the hearings were still going on. When the Kar Seva began in July 1992 the Supreme Court said that if the UP Government could stop the Kar Seva the Supreme Court would transfer the acquisition cases to itself and decide them all together. The Kar Seva was stopped. But the Supreme Court eventually decided not to take over the cases …it stressed however that the High Court should expedite the hearings and decides the case expeditiously. Kar Seva was set for December 6, 1992. The High Court concluded its hearings on November 4, 1992. The UP Government and others repeatedly requested it to deliver its judgment, one-way or the other. To no avail; instead, one of the judges proceeded on leave. The structure was demolished on December 6, 1992. The High Court delivered its judgment on December 11, 1992…” [Dr. Arun Shourie]
Let us now look at how Muslim leaders stood by their word and how Supreme Court dealt with the matter:
“As Muslim leaders had said that if it could be shown that a temple had existed at the site before the mosque was built, they would themselves advise Muslims to hand over the site to the Hindus, Mr. Chandra Shekhar’s Government identified this as the ‘core question’ to be settled: Was there a Hindu structure at the site before the mosque was built? Barring holidays and the summer vacation, five judges of the Supreme Court heard the case three days a week from February to September 1994. And, alas! In the end they decided not to answer the Reference at all…
Several questions hit one at once. Evidence of various kinds, and of unanswerable authenticity showed that the question that the President had referred to the Supreme Court deserved but one answer: Yes, there was a temple at the site. Would the Court have returned the question unanswered had the evidence weighed as heavily on the other side – if it was as clear from it that there had been no temple at the site? Is it really the case that … the judges, not being specialists in these fields, could not adjudge the evidence?
Do they not routinely weigh evidence on matters on which they are not specialists – they are not surgeons, yet they decide whether a surgeon has been negligent; they are not experts in aviation, yet they affix responsibility for a crash; they are not irrigation engineers, yet they apportion river waters between the states; they are not technologists, yet they determine what effects some change in the location or technology of a refinery shall have, on its economics, its throughput, on the environment.
Similarly, courts – the Supreme Court in particular – routinely ask experts to assist them. Could the judges not have sought the assistance of experts this time round? In any case, was the evidence all that complicated? What sort of evidence would the Court have encountered had it examined the question? The case got nowhere after being knocked about the courts for 42 years. Will the decision to send them back to the same courts help solve the problem, or does it amount to planting a time bomb for the future?” [Dr. Arun Shourie]
What does this tell us? Justice delayed Justice denied!
Why did one of the judges have to proceed on leave at crucial juncture without delivering the judgment though the hearings had been concluded? Was this done on purpose?
Dr. Koenraad Elst writes:
“Considering the foolish haughtiness with which the Allahabad High Court had just decided, days before gathering scheduled for December 6, to postpone once more their verdict on the acquisition of some of the Ayodhya land by the UP Government (intended as part of a strategy towards a peaceful solution), after a full 42 years of endless litigation, it is not fair to accuse the over-enthusiastic Raam devotees of disrespect towards the judicial process and the democratic order which it is supposed to uphold. Rather, they have shown disrespect towards the misuse of the courts for political games, and they have rightly revolted against the judges’ contempt for Hindu society, which was evident from their unwillingness to settle the dispute brought before them, concerning no less a site than the Raam Janm Bhoomi…”
Think of an outsider like Dr. Koenraad Elst, who has no personal religious sentimental attachments to the issue, but who has studied the scenario himself, on site, says so. Then think of those who had been victim of all this game. How would you expect them to react? 10 years have passed since then and courts have not found time to decide on the issue. Finally, VHP gave its ultimatum and gave February 23, 2003 deadline for resolving the Ayodhya issue, and on February 22 The Free Press Journal reported on its front page that the Supreme Court has once again fixed the date as March 6 for hearing on the plea of the government to vacate its interim order banning all religious activities in the 67 acres of acquired land around the disputed site.
Isn’t it incredible that they all had to wait until one day before the deadline and then declare that they would start looking at it a week later? In any case, whenever they start looking at it how many decades more will they take to keep postponing the nationally sensitive crucial issue?
Is it that they are saying: we are Supreme as our name itself suggests and we care not of national sentiments and the sentiments of 80% of Indian population for we happen to be the judiciary placed above all! We have already taken over 50 years to think about the matter, so what, it is our prerogative because it is we that have to deliver the decision and we can take hundreds of years if we wish.
Look at this wonderfully secular and McCauleyite educated elite judiciary system and compare it with what foreigners have documented about Hindu sense of justice right from 404 BC till 18th-19th century (see first chapter on Hinduism). Don’t you think that today’s modern judiciary has lot to learn from the old Hindu judiciary system? No wonder Dr. Koenraad Elst calls it ‘misuse of the courts for political games’. How long can humans hold their patience when everyone seems to have been conspiring in one way or other against the Hindus who had been tolerant for ages?
Professor and major News Paper together promote Untruth
Times of India December 24, 2002 reports (page 2):
“Ten years after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, many archeological experts have remained mum instead of critically looking at the issue, said Shereen Ratnagar, prominent Mumbai-based archeologist and former professor of Archeology at the Center for Historical Research, Jawaharlal Nehru University…”
Let us see how much of this claim is true.
Dr. S. P. Gupta, a former Director of Allahabad Museum, writes in his commentaries:
“It is indeed a great pity that the Supreme Court had declined to examine the evidence on the question which had been referred to it by the President. Had it deigned to study it, it would have found it conclusive, and its imprimatur would have gone a long way towards quieting the claptrap of ‘secular’ ‘academics’. In brief, the position is as follows.
From 1975 through 1980, the Archeological Survey of India under the Directorship of Prof. B. B. Lal, a former Director General of the Survey, undertook an extensive program of excavation at Ayodhya, including the very mound of the Raam Janm Bhoomi [Shri Raam’s birth place] on which the so-called ‘Janm Sthaan Masjid [Birth place Mosque]’ or Babri mosque once stood and later demolished on 6th December 1992.
At Ayodhya Prof. Lal took as many as 14 trenches at different places in order to ascertain the antiquity of the site. It was then found that the history of the township was at least 3000 (three thousand) years old, if not more, and that at Raam Janm Bhoomi there stood a huge structure on a parallel series of square pillar-bases built of several courses of bricks and stones…He also found a door-jamb carved with Hindu icons and decorative motifs of yaksh, yakshi, kirtimukh, poornaghatt, double lotus flowers etc…Lal’s excavations also established that the pillared structure underwent repeated repairs, at least three times…Lal’s excavations also showed the existence of a huge fortification wall at the back of Raam Janm Bhoomi, built of burnt bricks, and going as far back in time as 3rd century BC…It is a common knowledge that in archeology there is always an element of luck – one may just miss a treasure by inches. Prof. Lal had a hard luck at Raam Janm Bhoomi. His southern trenches missed a huge pit with 40 and odd sculptures just by 10 to 12 feet. But he did get the pillar-bases of the pre-16th century demolished-temple, which others did not get.
On the 2nd of July 1992 another team of archeologists, consisting of Dr. Y. D. Sharma, a former Deputy Director General of the Survey, Dr. S. P. Gupta, a former Director of Allahabad Museum, and several other senior archeologists went to the site of Raam Janm Bhoomi. This team went to examine the 40 and odd art and architectural fragments of an ancient Hindu temple which had been found there in an ancient pit by the officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh who were engaged in leveling the ground on the eastern and the southern flanks of the Raam Janm Bhoomi, and which had been reported widely in the newspapers from the 18th June 1992. The team found that the objects were datable to the period ranging from the 10th through the 12th century AD, i.e., the period of the Late Pratihaars and Early Gadhvaals. The kings of these two dynasties hailing from Kannauj had ruled over Avadh [Ayodhya] and eastern Uttar Pradesh successively during that period.
These objects included a number of aamalakas, i.e., the coggedwheel type architectural element which crown the Bhoomi Shikhars or spires of subsidiary shrines, as well as the top of the spire of the main shikhar or pyramidal structure built over the garbh-grih or sanctum sanctorum in which the image of the principal deity is kept and worshipped. This is characteristic feature of all north Indian temples of the early medieval period and no one can ever miss it – it is there in the Orissa temples, such as Konark, in the temples of Madhya Pradesh such as Khajuraaho and in the temples of Rajasthan such as Osian. Nearly a month after the demolition of the disputed structure, on 1st January 1993 to be exact, an identical Aamalaka was found in a pit dug by the U. P. officials in the presence of the S. S. P. [Note: Senior Superintendent of Police] Faizabad when they were engaged in erecting a fresh barricade round the temple…The images of ChakrPurush, ParashuRaam, MaitriDevi, Shiv and Paarvati, etc. provide further proof to their being members of a 10th-12th century Hindu temple-complex.
The team of archeologists at a subsequent date undertook a couple of exploratory trenches at the eastern periphery of the Janm Bhoomi site, and also scraped more than 10 ft. thick eastern and southern sections which had been cut across the Janm Bhoomi mound by the Government officials. It located a huge deep pit in which…it also found the remains of at least three rammed floors datable to three different phases of the time-bracket between 10th and 16th centuries, and one floor of the Kushaan period (1st-3rd centuries). Two walls built of several courses of burnt-bricks belonging to the Kushaan period also came to light. A huge and sprawling flooring of burnt bricks was located by Prof. B. R. Grover.
The discovery of a number of Kushaan period terracotta images of gods and goddesses earlier made it clear, first, that at the Janm Bhoomi site Hindu temples were built several times during the last 2000 years with the interval of only about 450 years, from 1528 through 1992, when the Muslims destroyed the temple and occupied the site and also built a new structure they called ‘Janm Sthaan Masjid’ in their own records [Janm Sthaan Masjid = Place of Birth Mosque]; secondly, that the last time a huge stone temple was built at the site is to be dated between 11th and 12th centuries on the basis of the art and the style of sculptures, even though on the basis of the style of some weathered sculptures, it can safely be said that a stone temple of the 9th-10th century, belonging to the Pratihaar style, must have been present at this very place when during the Gadhvaal period a new and magnificent temple was attempted. In fact, it was, in a sense, jirnoddhaar [renovation, facelift].
And finally, that the temple was destroyed sometimes after 13th century AD, in every likelihood in the early 16th century, as is fully borne out by the inscriptions of Mir Baqi found fixed in the disputed structure far back in time, during British days as is clear from the accounts given by Mrs. A. Beveridge in her translation of Babur-Nama published in 1926.
Now what do the archeologists say? In order to seek the opinion of leading archeologists of the country on all these issues and also to give them an opportunity to see and handle the objects for themselves as well as to explore and locate more archeological facts at the side, the Indian History and Culture Society arranged a three-day (10th October 1992 through 13th October 1992) all-India workshop and seminar on ‘Archeology and History of Ayodhya’ in the main hall of the Tulsi Smaarak Bhavan at Ayodhya. The conference was attended by as many as 40 delegates, coming from Madras (Prof. KV Raman), Dhaarwaar (Prof. A Sundara), Bangalore (Dr. SR Rao), Ahmedabad (Prof. RN Mehta), Jaipur (Shri RC Agrawal), Saagar (Dr. SK Pandey), Naagpur (Prof. Ajay Mitra Shastri), Varanasi (Dr. TP Verma), Faizabad (Prof. KP Nautial), Patna (Prof. BP Sinha), Bhopal (Dr. Sudha Malaiya), Delhi (Prof. KS Lal and Davendra Swaroop), Allahabad (Prof. VD Mishra), Rewa (Prof. RK Verma) and several others including YD Sharma, KM Srivastava and SP Gupta, the excavators and explorers of Ayodhya.
They not only came to the same conclusions as we had arrived earlier but added at least two more and most vital pieces of archeological evidence – one, Epigraphical and second, architectural…The seminar proved to be a landmark in the history of Indian archeology as never before had Indian archeologists been called upon to examine for themselves archeological evidence on a subject which was so very vital for the political future of the country and which had shaken other countries also including Pakistan, Bangladesh, the two immediate Islamic countries where even legally erected temples, including the new ones, were destroyed”
Dr. Navaratna S. Rajaram writes:
“Archeologists have noted at least two temple destructions at Raam Janm Bhoomi – the first in the 13th century after which it was rebuilt, to be followed by second destruction in the 16th century; the first to be attributed to the successors of Ghurids, and the second to Babar.”
The very next day I wrote to Times of India in response to its report quoting some of these archeological findings. They however, chose to completely ignore it. The question is: What role do the opinion-makers to the nation have? What responsibility do they have? Is it to present both sides of the story or, one side of the story that suits their specific agenda?
Why did the former Professor of JNU made such an allegation against archeologist? She would have known all this and plenty more that is covered in the next episode, and yet she chose to avoid mention any of these? Was she trying to make the public wiser or was she trying to willfully misguide them? Was she playing the role of an honest academician whose objective would be to explore the truth or, did she have an agenda to promote a vested interest? Adharm' has many faces indeed!
Archeological Evidence of Hari-Vishnu Inscription
Dr. S. P. Gupta continues:
“And then, in less than two months, came the doomsday – on 6th December 1992, the structure disputed for over four centuries was demolished by the furious mass of those very Hindus whom recent history had written off as the ‘most docile race’ on the face of the earth. From the huge debris, the few ‘karsevaks’ or the volunteers of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, who had learnt from the publications and the news-items published in the national dailies from almost January 1991 about the historical importance of every bit of archeological remains at the Raam Janm Bhoomi site, picked up in the evening and the night of 6th December at random those stone pieces, around 250 and odd, which had some carving over them and then dumped them in between the two rows of semi-pucca houses, built by VHP for their offices some 200 meters away, towards the south from the Janm Bhoomi mound; the VHP called it ‘Raam Katha Kunj’.
Not all were ancient; since scores of them, generally rectangular marble tiles, bore the dedicatory inscriptions in DevNaagri script of the 20th century. However, at least three dozens of them were certainly ancient, belonging to the period bracketed between 10th and 12th century AD. Two of these are fragmentary and datable palaeographically to a period fifty years later than the third inscription…
The third inscription is, however, the most important one for historians, archeologists, epigraphists, saints, politicians, activist and even the masses of this country and beyond since it provides the most clinching evidence in favor of the Reference that the President of India had made to the Supreme Court…
This inscription, running in as many 20 lines, is found engraved on a 5 feet long, 2 feet broad and 2.5 inches thick slab of buff sandstone, apparently a very heavy tablet which must have required the hands and shoulders of at least four karsevaks to get it shifted from the Raam Janm Bhoomi. One can imagine their peril. By the time they reached the dumping ground they seem to have completely lost their balance. They practically threw it on the ground and against one of the several stones already brought and dumped there. In the process, the stone tablet got broken obliquely on the left proper – a few letters at the point of breakage are, therefore, found missing; a couple of them were found by us fallen on the ground. Three-fourths of the first line is found obliterated anciently. The last line is also not complete since it was anciently subjected to chipping off. A portion of the central part is found battered; maybe someone tried to deface it anciently. The patination is, however, uniform all over the surface, even in those areas where once there were inscriptions. About this inscription, Prof. Ajay Mitra Shastri, has said the following, as published in Puratattva, the official journal of the Indian Archeological Society, No. 23 (1992- 1993):
“The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a very small portion in prose, and is engraved in the chaste and classical Naagari script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD…It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stone, and beautified with a golden spire unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings was constructed. This wonderful temple was built in the temple-city of Ayodhya situated in SaaketMandal (line 17) showing that Ayodhya and Saaket were closely connected, Saaket being the district of which Ayodhya was a part. Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali (apparently the Vaaman manifestation) and the ten-headed personage (DashAanan, i.e., Raawan).
Line 20 contains an allusion to serious threat from the West, apparently posed by Sultan Subuktigin and his son Mahmud of Gazni, and its destruction by the king.
…The inscription certainly proves the building of a magnificent temple of Hari-Vishnu, the killer of Raawan, i.e., Raam.”
During the talks held between two groups of historians, representing the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee and the other Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Profs. R. S. Sharma and Athar Ali of the former group once asked the members of the latter group if they had any contemporary written document to prove that there was a Raam Temple at the site of Raam Janm Bhoomi prior to the coming up of the Babri Masjid built by Mir Baqi in 1528 AD since without that they were not fully convinced that there was indeed a Hindu temple at the site, let alone the Raam Temple. Well, my dear learned professors, what have you to say now, except for the usual Marxist alibi that it may have been forged and then planted here? – If so, we will stand by our old offer: the Reward of Rupees Two Lakhs to any one in the world who can forge it on a similar piece of stone and have the experts in the world take it as genuine as the present one has been accepted. History cannot be falsified the way it is being attempted by Sharmas and Athar Alis.”
Dr. Koenraad Elst writes:
“The same counts for the inscription found during the demolition, which clearly mentions that the site was considered Raam’s birthplace. At the time, many academics declared without any examination that the inscription, presented by scholars of no lesser stature than themselves, was a forgery. Thus, according to ‘a group of historians and scholars’ including Kapil Kumar, B. D. Chattopadyaya, K. M. Shrimali, Suvira Jaiswal and S. C. Sharma, the ‘so-called discoveries of artifacts’ during and after demolition were ‘a planned fabrication and a fraud perpetrated to further fundamentalist designs’.
If the secularists had really believed this, they would have requested access to the findings, which would readily have been granted by the Minister in charge, the militant secularist Arjun Singh. They would have invited international scholars as witnesses, and curtly demonstrated its falseness for all to see. Instead, just like B. B. Lal’s report, this inscription became a skeleton in their closet, which they have to keep from public view as long as possible.”
Politicized scholarship like this can only be a curse to the nation and soon the people get rid of these, better it is for them.
Plenty of Circumstantial Evidences
Dr. Koenraad Elst writes:
Encyclopedia Britannica states in its 1989 edition under entry Ayodhya: “Raam’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Mogul emperor Babur, in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple.”
“All the British sources, such as Edward Balfour in 1858 and archeological Survey of India’s field explorer A. Fuhrer in 1891, confirm the tradition that the Babri Masjid had replaced a Raam temple.
A wealth of documents from the 17th century onwards, by European travelers and by local Muslims, confirms unanimously that the Babri Masjid was considered to have been built in forcible replacement of a Raam temple. These witnesses also describe first-hand how the place was revered by the Hindus as Raam’s birth site, and that Hindus always came back to worship as closely as possible to the original temple site: they would not reasonably have done this except in continuation of a tradition dating back to before the Babri Masjid.
The VHP (Vishva Hindu Parishad) evidence bundle also contained a large number of quotes from ancient literature to prove that the Raam cult is not a recent development, and that the status of Ayodhya as a sacred city has been uninterrupted since at least 2000 years. The same counts for the inscription found during the demolition, which clearly mentions that the site was considered Raam’s birthplace.”
Mrs. A. S. Beveridge writes in Babar Nama: “The contemporary Tarikh-i-Babari describes how Babar’s troops demolished many Hindu temples at Chanderi when they occupied it. Some tough jihad rhetoric has been preserved from Babar’s war against the Rajputs, such as the quatrain: For Islam’s sake, I wandered in the wild, prepared for war with unbelievers and Hindus, resolved myself to meet a martyr’s death, Thanks be to Allah! A ghazi I became.”
Dr. Rajaram writes:
“Until very recently, Muslim chroniclers made no efforts to conceal their record of temple destructions; far from it, they took pride in it.
Here is just one example from the 19th century, written by Mirza Jaan, the author of a historical work known as Hadiqah-i- Shuhada that appeared in 1856: ‘…Wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus…the Muslim rulers in India built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed mu’azzins, teachers and store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the Kefirs. Likewise they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh [Ayodhya], too from the filth of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a great center of worship and capital of Raam’s father. Where there stood a great temple (of Raam Janm Sthaan), there they built a big mosque…what a lofty mosque was built there by king Babar!
Some of the old sources used by Mirza Jaan have yet to be unearthed, but one, which he quotes from, a Persian work known as Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasa’ih Bahadurshahi written in 1707 by a granddaughter of the Mogul emperor Aurangzeb is particularly interesting. The Mogul princess declares: …keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizya [religious tax on Hindus], grant no exception to Hindu Rajas from dancing attendance on Id days and waiting on foot outside mosques till end of prayer…and keep in constant use for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built up after demolishing the temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Avadh [Ayodhya]…”
Question arises: Why prominent media, politicians, historians have chosen to ignore highlighting any of these to public?
BMAC Employed Historians Falsely Claimed that they were Independent Historians
“In December 1990 and January 1991, at the request of the ChandrShekhar Government, the BMAC (Babri Masjid Action Committee) and the VHP (Vishva Hindu Parishad) exchanged historical evidence for their respective cases. Prof. Harsh Narain, Prof. B. P. Sinha, Dr. S. P. Gupta, Dr. B. R. Grover and Mr. A. K. Chatterji represented VHP. None of them formally associated with VHP except Gupta”. [Dr. Koenraad Elst]
BMAC approached Prof. Irfan Habib of ICSR (Indian Council of Historical Research) who in turn collected a team of genuine historians for them, led by Prof. R. S. Sharma to represent them. These historians tried to project themselves as ‘independent historians’ through media coverage and BMAC also endorsed that publicity. Public would naturally give them greater credence when they project themselves as ‘independent historians’ having no personal interest in the matter. Later it was found that from the very beginning these historians had been engaged as paid ‘employees’ to represent BMAC.
Using such tactic based on a lie speaks volumes about the character of these eminent historians. Thapar and Sharma have been quoted as representative of Indian Marxism in Tom Bottomore’s History of Marxist Thought, Oxford 1988, entry ‘Hinduism’. Habib has subtitled his recent book Essays in Indian History (Tulika, Delhi 1995) as Towards a Marxist Perception.
42 Historians Knowingly Signed False Public Declaration
“On January 24 the parties met in order to discuss the evidence. But the BMAC team leader, Prof. R. S. Sharma, well-known Marxist historian, said that he and his colleagues had not yet studied the VHP material (to which the BMAC had agreed to reply by January 10, i.e. 2 weeks prior to scheduled meeting date January 24). This is most remarkable, because the week before, he had led 42 academics in signing a much-publicized statement, saying that there was definitely absolutely no proof whatsoever at all for the pre-existing Raam Temple. He had issued more statements on the matter, and even published a small book on it (title: Communal History and Rama’s Ayodhya).” [Dr. Koenraad Elst]
What does it say? Prof. Sharma had signed and led others to do so making categorical statement that there was ‘definitely absolutely no proof whatsoever’ and a week later he says he had not studied the facts. Without studying the facts that were already available to him, how could he have made public statement that there was ‘definitely absolutely no proof whatsoever’?
That means he was lying to public willfully to misguide them. What about other historians? They too had no conscience? They also simply joined him and lied? What is their profession: to convey the truth about the history, or to lie about the history? One wonders if for some people the profession of history and profession of lying has same meaning. The higher they rise lower they fall it seems!
He had much-publicized that statement signed by him and others. So the public had believed him considering his eminence as a historian. Why did these 42 do so? The publicity did what they wanted. They broadcasted the lie and it was believed and it left its desired impression on the public memory. The popular media, in any case, does not care to expose these lies.
This is abuse of position and trusts that people place on them. This speaks lot more about their character. Characters built upon lie. Careers built upon lie. As we will see through the forthcoming episodes that these eminences had individually specialized in lies in their respective fields of expertise, and based on these lies they had gained national and international recognition of being eminent historians. The world has now come to know how the communists of USSR operated. We are gradually learning how communist intellectuals in India have been operating.
“The next meeting was scheduled for the next day, January 25. But there, the BMAC scholars simply did not show up. They had not presented written evidence worth the name, they had not given a written refutation of the VHP scholars’ arguments, they had wriggled out of a face-to-face discussion on the accumulated evidence, and finally they had just stayed away. Thus ended the first attempt by the Government of India to find an amicable solution on the basis of genuine historical facts.” [Dr. Koenraad Elst]
“They represented it at the meetings Mr. ChandrShekhar’s Government had convened for settling the matter by evidence. That was an outstanding initiative of Mr. ChandrShekhar: for such contentious issue ought to be dissolved in the acid of evidence. These leftist ‘historians’ had attended the initial meetings. They had put together for and on behalf of the Committee (BMAC) ‘documents’. It had been a miscellaneous pile. And it had become immediately evident that this pile was no counter to the mass of archeological, historical and literary evidence which the VHP had furnished, that in fact the ‘documents’ these guides of the Babri Committee had piled up further substantiated the VHP’s case.
These ‘historians’ having undertaken to attend the meeting to consider the evidence presented by the two sides, just did not show up! It was this withdrawal, which aborted the initiative that Government had taken of bringing the two sides together, of introducing evidence and discourse into the issue. Nothing but nothing paved the way for the demolition, as did this running away by these ‘historians’. It was the last nail: no one could be persuaded thereafter that evidence or reason would be allowed anywhere near the issue.” [Dr. Arun Shourie]
Historians Caught Destroying Documentary Evidence
“In fact, BMAC and secularist side has frequently opposed archeological research at the site, while the Hindu side wanted more of it. It is not unfair to conclude that some of the pro- BMAC authors have committed serious breaches of academic deontology [academic duty and obligation]. For me personally, seeing this shameless overruling of historical evidence with a high-handed use of academic and media power, was the immediate reason to involve myself in this controversial question…
Before concluding, we want to register a remark in a minor but quite significant chapter in the exchange of evidence: the VHP-mandate scholars have, in their argumentation, pointed out no less than four attempts where scholars belonging to the anti-temple party have tried to conceal or destroy documentary evidence. Those are of course cases where the attempt failed because it was noticed in time, but the question must be asked how many similar attempts have succeeded. At any rate, there has not been attempt from the anti-temple side to counter or even deny these four specific allegations. They have also not been able to point out any similar attempt by the pro-temple party to tamper with the record…” [Dr. Koenraad Elst]
They call themselves historians of repute, and they indulge in cheating by concealing or destroying evidence! Amazing character they possess. What is their credibility? But the media promotes them, and public opinion depends on media exposure. The voice of truth is suffocated.
Academic Fraud and Politicized Scholarship
“Foreign scholars might have played the role, which the Supreme Court judges rejected: that of independent arbitrators. But as it turned out, the established Western academics, to the extent that they cared to look into the Ayodhya debate at all, have only looked through the glasses which the India’s Marxist-Muslim combine has put on their noses…It is not reassuring to watch the ease with which foreign scholars have absorbed or adopted the non-temple thesis from their Indian colleagues (whom they assume to be neutral observers) even without being shown any positive evidence.
Future historians will include the no-temple argument of the 1990s as a remarkable case study in their surveys of academic fraud and politicized scholarship. With academic, institutional and media power, a new academic-journalistic consensus has been manufactured denying the well-established history of temple demolition by Islamic iconoclasm to the Babri Masjid- Raam Janm Bhoomi site, at least among people with prestige and influence but no first-hand knowledge of the issue. But the facts will remain the facts, and their ongoing suppression is bound to give way as new generations of scholars take a fresh look at the idea.” [Dr. Koenraad Elst]
“What the Ayodhya debate has done is raise historical awareness among the Hindus. So it is only a matter of time before the record of falsification of history by Secularist historians is exposed. Their careers and reputations are at stake.
Thanks to years of patronage by political and dynastic interests, these men and women have enjoyed recognition, positions and privileges out of all proportions to their true worth. Even worse, in the name of Secularism, they have indulged in large-scale falsification of history to advance their political agendas (and careers).
That is what is really at stake here: careers and reputations of these men and women not only as scholars, but even as ordinary human beings. It is hard enough to admit that one has been wrong, but to admit that one has built a career on a foundation of lies is to live in infamy.” [Dr. NS Rajaram]
Present Generation Lacked Moral Strength to Face the Truth
“An unfortunate aspect of Ayodhya debate has been a tendency to focus solely on the demolition of December 6, 1992 to the exclusion of thousand years of history enveloping it. …By no stretch of the imagination can a mosque like Babri Masjid be called a place of worship. It was never intended as such by Babar when he built it in 1528, and even today it is not seen as such by the Islamic clergy. It was intended as a mark of conquest – a continuing reminder of the defeat and humiliation of the people of India and their culture by the Muslim invader. This may not be how some Muslims want to view it today, but this is exactly how it seems to the Hindus. It would be in the interest of the Muslims to recognize this…
Shortly after the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya, the well-known British writer V. S. Naipaul expressed the view that it marked the beginning of a new historical awareness on the part of the Hindus… Those holding one point of view tell us that we must expose the facts of history and learn the truth about our past; the opposite faction claims that we must ignore the whole thing for it would amount to reopening the wounds of history which we must avoid at all costs. Negationism, however, is never a viable option in dealing with problems. We must be prepared to face the truth about our past if we wish to solve the problems of the present. I feel this is necessary because I find that many educated and well-intentioned Indians are still confused about the true historical facts…
In this we can draw a lesson from European history. The record of Christianity in Europe – with its wars of religion, the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-hunts and so forth – is no less blood soaked than the record of Islam in India. But Europeans have come to terms with their history. There are no ‘Crusade Negationists’ or ‘Inquisition Negationists’ in Europe comparable to the Jihad Negationists in India. Germans also have acknowledged the Nazi atrocities. This has allowed communal harmony to prevail in Europe. This message has meaning for Indians also: Indians too will have to come to terms with their history. This holds doubly for the Muslims of India… No one is asking that the Muslims today should be made to pay for the crimes of the past. All one is saying that the true version of history should not be suppressed. This is in the interests of the Muslims themselves.
There is also a deeper issue at stake here – a profoundly moral one: what is the message that we wish to leave for the future generations? Are we telling them that the present generation lacked the moral strength to face the truth about its history, and chose instead to fabricate a version that it is more comfortable with? Is this to be our legacy?” [Dr. Rajaram]
Indian Muslims need to realize
It is important that Indian Muslims understand what Ayodhya issue is truly all about. They need to realize that it is high time that they come forward and oppose their own leaders who have been unjustly politicizing the issue. It is the place where Muslims offered no namaz since 1936. It is the place that had been in use as Hindu temple since 1949. It is the place where stood Raam temple for centuries and it were these Muslim invaders who destroyed the Hindu temple and forcibly built mosque on it.
Indian Muslims need to realize that most of them were Hindus originally. Their forefathers were inhabitants of India and were Hindus. Their forefathers were converted to Islam at the point of sword, at the cost of inhumane tortures, at the cost of capturing and enslaving Hindu women and children who were their ancestors.
Indian Muslims need to realize that BMAC politicians and pseudosecularist politicized scholars are using them as their pawns. These politically guided people are loyal to none except to their own immediate agenda. Common Muslims must realize that injustice of this kind prolonged for too long can only hurt them.
Indian Muslims need to realize that it is the time they must united oppose these leaders of their own who are essentially working against their true interests.