THE LONG-AWAITED RAM JANMABHOOMI VERDICT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ON 24-9-2010 PART-II
V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.
The hardened anti-Hindu pseudo-secular raucous cabal in the sordid world of Indian mass media — both print and electronic — have an underground arrangement if not agreement with the Sonia Congress Party, the traitorous communist parties and all the other caste-based pseudo-secular parties to deliberately suppress and blackout all the solidly available documentary evidence — literary, epigraphic, archaeological — to uphold the fact that the first Mughal invader Babar built his Babri Masjid at Ayodhya in 1528 after demolishing the ancient Rama Temple at Ayodhya.
Dr N.S Rajaram
In a recent article titled ‘Evidence at Ayodhya’ Dr N.S RAJARAM has given a deathblow to all the anti-Hindu pseudo-secularists and more particularly the fraudulent antinational ‘Eminent Historians’ from Maulana Jawaharlal Nehru University and Aligarh Jihadi Muslim University by furnishing detailed evidence relating to the fact that A HINDU TEMPLE EXISTED AT AYODHYA TILL 1528 when Babar demolished that Temple and constructed his Babri Masjid, using the columns and panels from the rubble of the demolished Hindu Temple.
Let us hear the words of Dr N.S Rajaram in this context: “For all the sound and fury in the media about Ayodhya, the historical question is surprisingly simple: Was there or was there not a Hindu temple at the spot known as Ram Janmabhumi that was destroyed to build a mosque? The answer is also equally simple — ‘yes’. There are two parts to the question: (1) was there a Hindu temple, and (2) was it destroyed and a mosque known as Babri Masjid built in its place. Again the answer is — ‘yes’ to both questions. It is as simple as that. We should not allow ourselves to be diverted by the dispute whether Lord Ram was born at Ayodhya. It can neither be proved not disproved on the basis of existing evidence, just as we can neither prove nor disprove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Mohammed was born in Mecca. The point of this essay is the destruction of Ram Temple to build a mosque in Babar’s time.”
Essentially, there are two sources for objectively (not politically or pseudo-secularly!) studying history: literary sources and the archaeological records. Following the demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, a great deal of archeological and historical information has come to public view. Based on Dr N.S Rajaram’s analysis and review, I am presenting below a summary of the latest evidence — literary as well as archaeological.
The latest (fifteenth) edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in its article on Ayodhya tells us: “Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babur in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple.” I am mentioning this first because the pseudo-secularists and the Marxist Historians cannot allege that the Encyclopedia Britannica has been brought out by the ‘Communal’ Sangh parivar!
This is only one of hundreds of references to the destruction of Hindu Temple at Ayodhya available in several languages. The most comprehensive discussion of the primary material available is probably the book The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on the Muslim Sources by Harsh Narain. He cites more than a hundred and thirty references in English, French, Hindi, Sanskrit, Urdu, Persian and Arabic. Dr N.S Rajaram has identified several not found in his work.
When we survey the vast literature referred to by Harsh Narain, it is shockingly painful to note that till the anti-Hindu politicians of India (and the spurious scholars in their bonded labour!) raised a controversy about the existence of a prior Hindu Temple at the site where Babri masjid was constructed, there was absolutely no dispute among genuine scholars on this point and NO AUTHOR — Hindu, Muslim, European or British official — had questioned that a temple existed on the spot, which had been destroyed to erect the mosque.
Let us begin with a couple of references from European writers provided by HARSH NARAIN. These are from published sources that are widely available.
1. A. Führer in his The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Archaeological Survey of India Report, 1891, pp 296-297 records: ‘Mir Khan built a masjid in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name. This old temple must have been a fine one, for many of its columns have been utilized by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar’s Masjid.’
2. H.R. Neville in the Barabanki District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 168-169, writes that the Janmasthan temple ‘was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a mosque.’
Neville, in his Fyzabad District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 172-177 further tells us; ‘The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar’s mosque. The materials of the old structure [i.e., the temple] were largely employed, and many of the columns were in good preservation.’
Now let me refer to the non-European (Muslim, therefore anti-Kaffir and ‘Secular’) sources cited by HARSH NARAIN:
A. In 1855, Amir Ali Amethawi led a Jihad (Islamic religious war) for the recapture of Hanuman Garhi, situated a few hundred yards from the Babri Masjid which at that time was in the possession of Hindus. This Jihad took place during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah. It ended in failure. A Muslim writer, one Mirza Jan, was a participant in that failed Jihad. His book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada was published in 1856, i.e. the year following the attempted Jihad. Miza Jan tells us: “…wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the establishment of Sayyid Salar Mas’ud Ghazi’s rule, the Muslim rulers in India built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed mu’azzins, teachers and store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the Kafirs. Likewise they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too from the filth of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a great centre of worship and capital of Rama’s father. Where there stood a great temple (of Ramajanmasthan), there they built a big mosque, … Hence what a lofty mosque was built there by King Babar in 923 A.H. (1528 A.D.), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqqan! (Harsh Narain: p 105)”
B. In fact, as late as 1923, the book Asrar-i-Haqiqat written by the Hindu scholar Lachmi Narain Qunango assisted by Maulvi Hashmi confirms all of the above details.
C. This brings us to a Persian text known as Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasa’ih Bahadurshahi written in 1707 by a granddaughter of the Moghul emperor Aurangazeb, and noted by Mirza Jan in his Urdu work Hadiqah-i Shuhada previously cited. Mirza Jan quotes several lines from it which tell us: “… to 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 …” (Harsh Narain: pp 23-24; emphasis added.)”
Epigraphical Evidence at the site itself:
Then there is the evidence of the three inscriptions at the site of the mosque itself, at least two of which mention its construction by Mir Baqi (or Mir Khan) on the orders of Babar. Babar’s Memoir mentions Mir Baqi as his Governor of Ayodhya. Some parts of the inscription were damaged during a riot in 1934, but later pieced together with minor loss. In any event, it was well known long before that, recorded for instance in Mrs. Beveridge’s translation of Babur-Nama published in 1926.
Archaeological Evidence at the site itself:
Apart from the formidable and overwhelming evidence cited above, we also have the archaeological evidence that is even stronger. THE FIRST POINT TO NOTE IS THAT AYODHYA LIES IN A REGION THAT IS GENEROUSLY WATERED, AND HAS THEREFORE BEEN DENSELY POPULATED SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL. As a result, archaeological work at Ayodhya is more difficult, and has not been on the same scale as at Harappan sites lying a thousand miles to the west. Here is what a leading archaeologist, Dr. S.P. Gupta (former director of the Allahabad Museum), has to say about recent excavations at Ayodhya.
Discoveries at the site: The Temple City of Ayodhya
Dr. S.P. Gupta has stated: “From 1975 through 1980, the Archaeological Survey of India under the Directorship of Professor B.B. Lal, a former Director General of the Survey, undertook an extensive programme of excavation at Ayodhya, including the very mound of the Ramajanmabhumi on which the so-called “Janmasthan Masjid” or Babri Mosque once stood and was later demolished on 6th December 1992. At Ayodhya, Professor Lal took as many as 14 trenches at different places to ascertain the antiquity of the site. It was then found that the history of the township was at least three thousand years old, if not more… When seen in the light of 20 black stone pillars, 16 of which were found re-used and standing in position as corner stones of piers for the disputed domed structure of the ‘mosque’, Dr B.B. Lal felt that the pillar bases may have belonged to a Hindu temple built on archaeological levels formed prior to 13th century AD… On further stratigraphic and other evidence, Dr B.B Lal concluded that the pillar bases must have belonged to a Hindu temple that stood between 12th and the 16th centuries. “He also found a door-jamb carved with Hindu icons and decorative motifs of yakshas, yakshis, kirtimukhas, purnaghattas, double lotus flowers etc.”
Here I am in agreement with the expert opinion of Dr N.S Rajaram that Dr B.B Lal was able to find evidence for possibly two temples, one that existed before the 13th century, and another between the 13th and the 16th centuries. This corresponds very well indeed with history and tradition. We know that this area was ravaged by Muslim invaders following Muhammad of Ghor’s defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan in the second battle of Tarain in 1192 AD. This was apparently rebuilt and remained in use until destroyed again in the 16th century by Babar.
I HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO THE PIONEERING ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS DONE BY DR B B LAL AT RAMAJANMABHUMI AT AYODHYA AND HOW HE HAD COME TO THE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE CONCLUSION THAT BABAR HAD ATTACKED, LOOTED AND DEMOLISHED AN ANCIENT RAMA TEMPLE AT AYODHYA AND BUILT HIS BABRI MASJID ON THE SAME TEMPLE SITE.
Temple Ruins found at
the demolished site
of Babri Structure.
Less than 6 months before the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 (which of course no one knew at that time, was going to take place) an excavation of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) consisting of S P Gupta, Y.D. Sharma, K M Srivastava and other senior archaeologists conducted archaeological excavations from July 1992. What made them resume the excavations was the discovery of the fact that forty odd Hindu artifacts that had been discovered in an adjacent pit had earlier been completely missed by Dr B B Lal.
These finds relating to Hindu artifacts had been widely reported in the newspapers. S.P Gupta, a former Director of the Allahabad Museum and an expert on medieval artifacts had a special interest in examining the finds. He tells us: ‘The team found that the objects were datable to the period ranging from the 10th through the 12th century AD, ie, the period of the late Pratiharas and early Gahadvals. … These objects included a number of amakalas, i.e., the cogged-wheel type architectural element which crown the bhumi shikharas or spires of subsidiary shrines, as well as the top of the spire or the main shikhara … This is a characteristic feature of all north Indian temples of the early medieval period and no one can miss it — it is there in the Orissa temples such as Konarak, in the temples of Madhya Pradesh such as Khajuraho and in the temples of Rajasthan such as Osian.’
S P Gupta went on to say: ‘There was other evidence — of cornices, pillar capitals, mouldings, door jambs with floral patterns and others — leaving little doubt regarding the existence of a 10th – 12th century temple complex at the site of Ayodhya. So Dr B.B Lal had been right in believing there was an earlier temple — prior to the one destroyed by Babar. More discoveries were made following the demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992.’
So archaeology also leaves us in no doubt about the existence of the prior Hindu Temple. Then came the spontaneous Hindu Uprising of December 6, 1992, which resulted in the demolition not only of the Babri Masjid, a standing symbol of Hindu humiliation, but also the whole case of the anti-Hindu Congress pseudo-secularists and their, bullying traitorous communist allies. THE DEMOLITION OF BABRI MASJID ALSO REVEALED A MAJOR INSCRIPTION THAT SETTLED THE QUESTION OF PRIOR EXISTENCE OF HINDU TEMPLE AT THE DISPUTED SITE ONCE AND FOR ALL.
The demolition of Babri Masjid radically changed the picture, providing further support to the traditional accounts — both Hindu and Muslim — of destruction of Ram Temple by Babar in 1528. SOME OF THE KAR-SEVAKS, WENT ON TO PICK UP MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED PIECES OF STONE SLABS WITH WRITING UPON THEM. A few of these proved to belong to extremely important group / class of inscriptions and some of them were over a thousand years old. I fully endorse the view of Dr N.S Rajaram when he says: ‘In effect, the kar-sevaks had done what archaeologists should have done years ago; they had unearthed important inscriptions — in howsoever a crude form — something that should have been done years ago by professional historians and archaeologists.’
The Hari-Vishnu inscription found at Ayodhya
S.P Gupta is an archaeologist and not an epigraphist trained to read ancient inscriptions. Fortunately, the above Hari-Vishnu inscription found at AYODHYA was later carefully examined by Ajay Mitra Shastri, Chairman of the Epigraphical Society of India. After carefully examining the Hari-Vishnu inscription he gave a categorical finding to the effect that it is a 11th-12th century AD inscription. It was put on the wall of a beautiful HARI-VISHNU TEMPLE, which was built in the temple-city of Ayodhya situated in Saketamandala. It was embellished with a golden spire, unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings. According to Ajay Mitra Shastri, Line 19 of the inscription says that Lord Vishnu killed King Bali and also the ten-headed personage (Ravana).
What does this all mean? This Hari-Vishnu Temple was built in Ayodhya, which was known as a temple city even then, Saketa being the ancient name of the district. The inscription confirms what archaeologists Dr B.B Lal and S.P Gupta had earlier found about the existence of a temple complex at the Babri Masjid site. And yet the dastardly “secularists” and their allies, officially supported by the UPA controlled Government of India; our disgustingly ignorant High Court and Supreme Court judges with total contempt for the Hindus of India and unrequited love for the terrorist Muslims of India; and our ‘deliberately’, ‘consciously’ and ‘willfully’ ignorant men and women in the anti-Hindu mass media have been telling the whole world all the time that there was no temple at all at the Babri Masjid site and that their dear beloved Babar built his beautiful Babri Masjid on an empty site!
Dr N.S Rajaram in his landmark book titled ‘Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Voice of India, New Delhi)’ has raised the most elemental and heroic questions on behalf of all the oppressed and suppressed Hindus of India: “What is the real meaning of the Ayodhya movement? What gave Babar the right to demolish a temple at a site that the people of India have held sacred from times immemorial?”
As a practicing (therefore, ‘Communal’) Hindu, I cannot help quoting the clinching and scorching words of Dr N.S Rajaram in this context: “Ram Janmabhumi is sacred to the Hindus because they hold it to be the birthplace of Rama, who embodies for them the ideals of truth, heroism, chivalry and every other virtue. What is the justification for the mosque by Babar beyond the fact that he had the power to erect it as a mark of conquest and of humiliation of the Hindus? Does might make right? No one to my knowledge has satisfactorily addressed this question about the legitimacy of the Babri Masjid. One can understand that many Muslims hold the tomb of Moinuddeen Chisti in Ajmer to be sacred because he is venerated as a Sufi saint. No such justification exists for the Babri Masjid, for it was not intended as a place of worship. To understand temple destructions by Babar and his descendants --- and the building of mosques in their place --- we must recognize that it was part of their Islamic kaffir-destroying Arab-Supremacist ideology. Here is how one of his descendants, a granddaughter of Aurangazeb, described why mosques should be built at the site of demolished temples:
Islamic ideology of Babar, the barbarous invader of civilized Hindustan, is an ideology that sees everything outside the pale of Islam as an object of derision to be humiliated and destroyed. Accepting the legitimacy of the Babri Masjid at Ram Janmabumi means acknowledging the superiority of Babar’s ideology over that of the overwhelming majority of the people of India, and his right to impose it on others by force. This is Arab Islamic imperialism pure and simple!
Those who demand reconstruction of the Babri Masjid are openly upholding Babar’s right to impose his Arab Supremacist Islamic ideology by force on the innocent, civilized and peace-loving Hindus of India. Hundreds of Court cases and thousands of pseudo-secular anti-Hindu political postures and posturing cannot erase this cardinal and time-defying eternal truth.
The basic problem is that the concerned parties have avoided such fundamental issues. Instead of trying to understand what Ram Janmabhumi and Ayodhya mean to the Hindus, the Babri Masjid advocates have been trying to present it as a dispute over a piece of real estate and a structure in brick and mortar. Every living nation has its own national symbols and Ayodhya is India’s whether the Muslims of India, the Sonia Congress vermin and the traitorous Communists like it or not.
Mecca in Saudi Arabia is a sacred symbol for all the Muslims of the world in general and both a sacred and national symbol for the Muslim citizens of Saudi Arabia in particular. Likewise, Ayodhya is both a SACRED AND NATIONAL SYMBOL FOR THE HINDUS OF INDIA. And for the Muslims of India (Christians of India included in that category) it is a national symbol if not a sacred symbol. IF IT IS NOT A NATIONAL SYMBOL FOR THE MUSLIMS OF INDIA, THEN THEY ARE OPENLY DECLARING THAT THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS OF INDIA. IN THAT EVENT, ALL OF THEM MUST BE CHARGED WITH TREASON UNDER THE LAW OF THE LAND AND THEIR CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS REVOKED.
Dr N.S Rajaram is absolutely right when he concludes: “THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE BABRI MASJID EITHER IDENTIFY WITH BABAR’S IMPERIALISM OR ARE WILLING TO LIVE AS ITS SLAVES. INDIA MUST DECIDE WHETHER IT WANTS TO BE A NATION OR AN IMPERIAL COLONY --- IT CANNOT BE BOTH.”
The hardened vicious anti-Hindu pseudo-secular cabal in the sordid world of Indian mass media — both print and electronic — have a subterranean political arrangement if not agreement with the Congress Party, the traitorous communist parties and all the other caste based pseudo-secular parties to deliberately suppress and blackout all the solidly available documentary evidence — literary, epigraphic, archaeological — to uphold the fact that the first Mughal invader Babar built his Babri Masjid at Ayodhya in 1528 after demolishing the ancient Rama Temple at Ayodhya.
An English friend of mine who had been earlier associated with the British Museum asked me this question: ‘Why is building the Sri Rama temple at Ram Janmabhumi site at Ayodhya so important to you and to the Hindus of India?’ I gave him this rejoinder: ‘Would you and your fellow countrymen let an Islamic Mosque built by Osama bin Laden or the Talibans from Pakistan after demolishing the St Paul’s in London City? Is it not a fact that St Paul’s is something more than a Church — a sacred National Monument inseparably bound up with your country’s glorious history and tradition?’ My English friend said that they would never allow such a Mosque to exist at all at the site of St Paul’s. I told him that what Westminster Abbey or St Paul’s is to Englishmen and England, Sri Ram Temple at Ram Janmabhumi and Sri Krishna Temple at Krishna Janmabhumi at Mathura-Vrindavan and Kashi Vishwanath Temple at Varanasi are to the Hindus of India.
Koenraad Elst
Koenraad Elst, a famous Belgian scholar, is an authority on Hinduism in the context of Modern India. He has written many books on the Ayodhya Movement. He makes a very pertinent point when he writes in his book titled, ‘AYODHYA AND AFTER – Issues Before Hindu Society’: ‘The most important opponents of the Hindu Society today are not the Islamic communal leaders, but the interiorized colonial rulers of India, the alienated English-educated and mostly Left-leaning elite that noisily advertises it’s ‘secularism’. It is these people who impose anti-Hindu policies on Hindu society, and who keep Hinduism down and prevent it from proudly raising its head after a thousand years of (Islamic, word within brackets - mine ) oppression. The worst torment for Hindu society today is not the arrogant and often violent agitation from certain minority groups, nor the handful of privileges, which the non-Hindu communities are getting. The worst problem is this mental slavery, the sense of inferiority which leftist intellectuals, through their power positions in education and media, and their direct influence on the public and political arena, keep on inflicting on the Hindu mind. If Hindus take cognizance of the real tenets of Islam the real doctrines they embody, the real story of the Prophet’s Mission and career, and the real story of the application of these doctrines in the Islamic conquest of India, then they will soon shed their habit of eulogizing this imperialist ideology.’
Koenraad Elst’s book
Recently I happened to read Koenraad Elst‘s AYODHYA, THE FINALE — Science versus Secularism the Excavations Debate. I am presenting below a summary of his views from this book (courtesy
1. In Chapter III of his book, titled, ‘Escaping the ASI’s final conclusions’, Koenraad Elst sums up the position under the heading ‘Denial encore’ as follows: ‘After all the wild claims made about their findings, the experts themselves have finally spoken. Their report confirms that the disputed site contains the foundations of a large building complex. And this time too, the religious purpose of the building can be inferred from the numerous religious artifacts found in between the pillar-bases. In a normal setting, the ASI findings should finish once and for all the campaign of history denial by the Marxists and their Muslim camp followers. BUT THE WORLD OF INDIAN SECULARISM IS A FANTASY-LAND WHERE HARD FACTS DON’T COUNT FOR MUCH. SO, A GREAT MANY DIEHARDS UNFLINCHINGLY REJECT THE FINDINGS OF SCIENCE.’
2. In Chapter III, Section 3.2. titled ‘Deflecting attention’, we see that the editorial of the Hindustan Times (‘Structural flaws’, 27-8-2003) refuses to accept that any discovery worth the name was made. But it sets out first of all to deflect attention from the historical findings by emphasizing the alleged political implications over the obvious historical contents of the report. A petty and wicked anti-Hindu pseudo-secular journalist has written in this newspaper: ‘The ‘discovery’ of an ancient ‘structure’ underneath the demolished Babri Masjid by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has far more political overtones than historical or legal ones. (…) Nor does the ‘discovery’ make any difference to the various court cases, including those concerned with the title deeds of the site.’
What does this irresponsible writing in this newspaper mean? THE ASI IS A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ORGANISATION. THEY HAVE CARRIED OUT THE EXCAVATIONS AT THE AYODHYA SITE AS ORDERED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. THEIR INVESTIGATION AND FIELD SURVEYS HAVE REVEALED THAT A HINDU TEMPLE EXISTED PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BABRI MASJID BY BABAR IN 1528 ON THE SAME SITE. IF THIS CONCLUSION IS NOT AUTHENTIC AND AUTHORITATIVE TO THE HINDUSTAN TIMES, THEN WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY FOR MAKING AN AUTHENTIC AND ACCEPTABLE DISCOVERY AND DECLARATION IN THIS REGARD?
All I can infer is that if the journalist concerned is a Muslim then he would be willing to accept any declaration from the Government of Pakistan / Saudi Arabia! If he were a pseudo-secular Leftist hypocrite (crypto-communist) then he would definitely accept any statement in this regard from the Government of China!!
Here I cannot help quoting the rapier-like words of Koenraad Elst: ‘Whether the findings have any legal implications is for the judges to decide, not for the newspaper editors. And it is they who ordered the excavation in the first place, clearly on the assumption that the findings do make a difference to the court cases. … BUT THE DOMINANT POSITION CERTAINLY IS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ASI FINDINGS. This is a general phenomenon in the whole secularist press: instead of a thorough analysis and a lively debate worthy of the importance and unequivocal verdict of the ASI Report, the page is turned as quickly as possible. THIS IS, OF COURSE, A STRONG INDICATION THAT THE REPORT’S FINDINGS ARE EMBARRASSING FOR THE SECULARISTS BECAUSE THEY GO AGAINST WHAT THE SECULARISTS HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR ALL THESE YEARS. LIKE SPOILT CHILDREN, THE SECULARISTS ARE USED TO HAVING IT ALL THEIR OWN WAY, AND WHEN REALITY INTERFERES, THEY CLOSE THEIR EYES, SHUT OFF THEIR EARS AND REFUSE TO KNOW. AND THEY WILL LIE AND CHEAT IN ORDER TO PREVENT OTHERS FROM KNOWING’ (THE TRUTH).
For anti-temple lawyers too, this type of same hurry to get past the archaeological findings of the ASI seems to be the foundation of their favourite anti-hindu approach. In their case it is almost legally defensible, as their concern is not the discovery of truth but suitable manipulation of law to ensure a technical courtroom victory!
According to Koenraad Elst another way to deflect attention from the evidence is to dismiss the whole historical dimension of the Ayodhya dispute as an unwanted extra load imposed on everyone by history-crazy Hindu fanatics. Thus, Jyotsna Singh claims: ‘The existence of the temple became part of Hindu rhetoric in the dialogue process begun in 1989 between the All India Babri Mosque Committee and the hard-line Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).’ In answer to Jyotsna Singh Koenraad Elst says that this is a plain lie. These are his exact words in this context: ‘I assume she has borrowed in good faith from influential secularist sources. In reality, the existence of the medieval temple was a matter of long-standing consensus. What became part of someone’s rhetoric towards 1989 was its denial, launched by the secularists and picked up by the Muslims. As for the VHP, it didn’t base its claim on historical events (not truly in doubt anyway) but on the permanent and present status of the site as a Hindu sacred place.’
As a general rule, all of us can predict what the ‘secularist’ position on any issue will be once you know what the jihadi Islamist position is. Ranging from justifying terrorism to misrepresenting the Ayodhya evidence, the two positions, insofar as anti-Hindu pseudo-secularists are concerned, are rarely different. The whole time business of Sonia Congress Government of India seems to be to officially uphold either cause of Islamic terrorism or to misrepresent or suppress or completely blackout the Ayodhya evidence.
What is most shocking to note is that the Hindustan Times editor (‘Structural flaws’, 27-8-2003) also questions the integrity of the archaeologists of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI): ‘Insinuations have also been made about the ASI coming under political pressure. Since the first among the ruling parties at the Centre has long been insistent on the existence of a demolished temple at the disputed site, it is obvious that a government organization would have been uncomfortably aware of the stance, although that doesn’t mean that it affected its professional judgment.’ I have no doubt about the professional integrity of the archaeologists or technical competence of the ASI. But the journalistic integrity of the dishonourable and viciously anti-Hindu men and women in the Indian mass media --- both, print and electronic --- is too well known to merit any detailed reference!! This allegation against the integrity of the archaeologists is loosely made, without any evidence, on no other grounds than that their findings are to the liking of the Hindu nationalists.
Before I conclude, I would like to raise one more question: Why are the blatantly, brazenly, wickedly, viciously anti-Hindu High Court and Supreme Court Judges totally blind, deaf and dumb in regard to all the irrefutable evidence --- epigraphic, literary and archaeological --- available to prove the existence of a Hindu Temple at the sacred site prior to the construction of the disputed Babri Masjid by Babar in 1528?
Su Shi (1037–1101)
The Song era poet Su Shi (1037–1101) wrote a poem called ‘On the Birth of My Son’. In this well-known poem, he was poking fun at the situation of ignorant and stupid children from affluent and politically connected backgrounds having the upper edge over bright children of lower economic and social status. I am presenting below this poem:
Want it to be intelligent.
I, through intelligence
Having wrecked my whole life,
Only hope the baby will prove
Ignorant and stupid.
Then he will crown a tranquil life
By becoming a Cabinet Minister
By becoming a High Court Judge
By becoming a Supreme Court Judge.
If only Poet Su Shi were to be alive in the India of today, he would have added two more lines to the above poem after the line ‘By becoming a Cabinet Minister’ in order to accommodate our ‘Ignorant and stupid’ High Court Judges and Supreme Court Judges in his immortal poem in the manner indicated above. (Please see the last two italicized lines relating to the ‘Ignorant and stupid’ Indian Judges.)
‘For us ignorance is bliss and colossal ignorance very Secular Heaven’, seems to be the guiding chorus song in our totally decadent, corrupt, politically pliable and political patronage dependent Indian Judiciary today!!!
In my view the ever partisan, always pro-Islamic and anti-Hindu Supreme Court of India in its Order dated 23-9-2010 stayed the proceedings relating to Ram Janma Bhoomi in the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court directed the Allahabad High Court not to deliver its final verdict on the Ayodhya title deed issue on 24-9-2010. It had taken 60 calendar years (according to the irresponsible worthies in robes in the Supreme Court of Injustice this is no delay at all!!) for this case to come to that stage of delivery of verdict in the Allahabad High Court on 24-9-2010. The final delivery of Judgment on 24-9-2010 was put off by the Supreme Court in its Order dated 23-9-2010.
Dr Subramanian Swamy, the former Union Law and Commerce Minister and President of the Janata Party, issued the following statement on 23-9-2010:
“The Bench of two Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court is wasting time by deferring the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Temple issue.
It is a waste of time because there is no compromise on the issue except for the entire area of Ayodhya being allotted for building an appropriate grand temple for Bhagvan Rama.
It has already been held by a Constitutional Bench (5 Judges) of the Supreme Court in Farooqui vs Union of India (1994) that a mosque is not an essential part of Islam religion but merely a facilitation center for reading namaz. Hence the Muslims of India owe a debt to their Hindu ancestors by voluntarily giving up the claim for constructing a mosque inside the city of Ayodhya.”
After unnecessarily obstructing the due process of justice in the Allahabad High Court (Supreme Court Order of 23-9-2010) in the manner of a wayward and wavering Oriental Potentate, the Supreme Court today (28-9-2010) has directed the Allahabad High Court to deliver its final verdict on the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi case on 30-9-2010. Dr.Subramanian Swamy has issued the following statement today (28-9-2010) commenting on this latest Supreme Court Verdict
“The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Petition seeking deferment of the Ayodhya verdict is most welcome and timely. Now, it is hoped that the verdict to be delivered by the 3-Judge Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the next two days, will be in keeping with the two landmark judgments, firstfirst of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 1994, and the other of the House of Lords of U.K. delivered in 1991. According to these two judgments, a temple stands on a totally different footing from the mosque. In particular, a temple built according to Agama Shastra is where the God resides and hence the temple once built is always a temple even if in disuse or demolished. On the other hand a mosque is merely a facilitation center for reading Namaz, and not an essential part of religion of Islam. In fact a mosque can be demolished for widening roads and road construction as is being done even today in Saudi Arabia.
Hence after the Ayodhya verdict is delivered by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the Muslim community for peace and harmony in the country should agree to build a mosque away from the Ramjanmabhoomi, somewhere beyond the Saryu river bank. This will be an act of atonement for all the temples that have been demolished over the last eight centuries as well as temples that have been destroyed even today on daily basis in Kashmir.
The devout Hindu population of India will not accept any solution which does not restore the Ram temple at the place of his birth, and that the city of Ayodhya to become exclusively the epitome of glory of Ram Rajya.”
No comments:
Post a Comment