Friday, December 6, 2013


Courtesy: Kalyan97

Model of a temple planned at Ayodhya in memory of Sri Rama.

The Ayodhya movement: a trip down memory lane

Koenraad Elst  

December 06, 2013 

Romila Thapar, most eminent among India’s 'eminent historians' , protested against the Court verdict acknowledging the historical evidence that the Babar mosque in Ayodhya had been built in forcible replacement of a Rama temple. After two decades of living on top of the 
world, the eminent historians are brought down to earth.

In 1858, the Virgin Mary appeared to young Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes, France. Before long, Lourdes became the most important pilgrimage site for Roman Catholics and other Mary worshippers. France prided itself on being a secular state, in some phases (especially 1905-40) even aggressively secular, yet it acknowledged and protected Lourdes 
as a place of pilgrimage. Not many French officials actually believe in the apparition, 
but that is not the point. The believers are human beings, fellow citizens, and out of 
respect for them does the state respect and protect their pilgrimage centre.

For essentially the same reason, the mere fact that the Rama Janmabhumi 
(Rama’s birthplace) site in Ayodhya is well-established as a sacred site for Hindu 
pilgrimage, is reason enough to protect its functioning as a Hindu sacred site, complete with proper Hindu temple architecture.

Ayodhya doesn’t have this status in any other religion, though ancient Buddhism accepted Rama as an earlier incarnation of the Buddha. The site most certainly doesn’t have such a status in Islam, which imposed a mosque on it, the Babri Masjid (ostensibly built in 1528, closed by court order after riots in 1935, surreptitiously turned into a Hindu temple accessible only to a priest in 1949, opened for unrestricted Hindu use in 1986, and demolished by Kar Sevaks in 1992). So, the sensible and secular thing to do, even for those sceptical of every religious belief involved, is to leave the site to the Hindus. 

The well-attested fact that Hindus kept going there even when a mosque was standing, even under Muslim rule, is helpful to know in order to gauge its religious importance; but is not strictly of any importance in the present. For respecting its Hindu character, it is 
sufficient that the site has this sacred status today.

Secular Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had understood this, and from the court-ordered opening of the locks on the mosque-used-as-temple in 1986, he was manoeuvring towards an arrangement leaving the contentious site to the Hindus in exchange for some other goodies (starting with the Shah Bano amendment and the Satanic Verses ban) for the Muslim 
leadership. Call it Congress culture or horse-trading, but it would have been practical and saved everyone a lot of trouble.

That is when a group of “eminent historians” started raising the stakes and turning this local communal deal into a clash of civilizations, a life-and-death matter on which the survival of the greatest treasure in the universe depended, namely, secularism. 

Secure in (or drunk with) their hegemonic position, they didn’t limit themselves to denying to the Hindus the right of rebuilding their demolished temple, say: “A medieval demolition doesn’t justify a counter-demolition today.” Instead, they went so far as to deny the well-established fact that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a Rama temple.

Note, incidentally, that the temple demolition, a very ordinary event in Islamic history, was not even the worst of it: as a stab to the heart of Hindu sensibilities, the Babri mosque stood imposed on a particularly sacred site. Just as for Hindus, the site itself was far more important than the building on it, for Islamic iconoclasts the imposition of 
a mosque on such an exceptional site was a greater victory over infidelism than yet 
another forcible replacement of a heathen temple with a mosque. 

Though the historians’ and archaeologists’ ensuing research into the Ayodhya temple demolition has been most interesting, it was strictly speaking superfluous, for the sacred status venerated by most Hindus and purposely violated by some Muslims accrues to the site itself rather than 
to the architecture on it. The implication for the present situation is that even if 
Muslims refuse to believe that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a 
temple, they nonetheless know of the site’s unique status for Hindus even without a 
temple. So, they should be able to understand that any Muslim claim to the site, even by non-violent means such as litigation, amounts to an act of anti-Hindu aggression. Muslims often complain of being stereotyped as fanatical and aggressive, but here they have an excellent opportunity to earn everyone’s goodwill by abandoning their inappropriate claim to a site that is sacred to others but not to themselves.

After the eminent historian’s media offensive against the historical evidence, the political class, though intimidated, didn’t give in altogether but subtly pursued its own idea of a reasonable solution. 

In late 1990, Chandra Shekhar’s minority government, supported and largely teleguided by opposition leader Rajiv Gandhi, invited the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) to mandate some 
selected scholars for a discussion of the historical evidence. The politicians had 
clearly expected that the debate would bring out the evidence and silence the deniers for good. And that is what happened, or at least the first half. Decisive evidence was indeed 
presented, but it failed to discourage the deniers.

The VHP-employed team presented the already known documentary and archaeological evidence and dug up quite a few new documents confirming the temple demolition (including four 
that Muslim institutions had tried to conceal or tamper with). 

The BMAC-employed team quit the discussions but brought out a booklet later, trumpeted as the final deathblow of 
the temple demolition “myth”. In fact, it turned out to be limited to an attempt at 
whittling down the evidentiary impact of a selected few of the pro-temple documents and holding forth on generalities of politicized history without proving how any of that could neutralize this particular evidence. It contained not a single (even attempted) reference to a piece of actual evidence proving an alternative scenario or positively refuting the established scenario.

I have given a full account earlier in my book  ' Ayodhya, the Case against the Temple ' (2002).

Unfortunately, no amount of evidence could make the deniers mend their ways. Though defeated on contents, the “eminent historians” became only more insistent in denying the evidence. They especially excelled in blackening and slandering those few scholars who publicly stood by the evidence, not even sparing the towering archaeologist B B Lal. 

Overnight, what had been the consensus in Muslim, Hindu and European sources, was turned into a “claim” by “Hindu extremists”. 

Thus, the eminent historians managed to intimate a Dutch scholar who had earlier contributed even more elements to the already large pile of evidence for the temple demolition into backtracking. Most spectacularly, they managed to get the entire international media and the vast majority of India-related academics who 
ever voiced an opinion on the matter, into toeing their line. 

These dimly-informed India-watchers too started intoning the no-temple mantra and slandering the dissidents, to their faces or behind their backs, as “liars”, “BJP prostitutes”, and what not. 

In Western academe, dozens chose to toe this party-line of disregarding the evidence and denying the obvious, viz. that the Babri Masjid (along with the Kaaba in Mecca, the Mezquita in Cordoba, the Ummayad mosque in Damascus, the Aya Sophia in Istambul, the Quwwatu’l-Islam in Delhi, etc.) was one of the numerous ancient mosques built on, or with materials from, purposely desecrated or demolished non-Muslim places of worship.

Until the Babri Masjid demolition by Hindu activists on 6 December 1992, Congress PM Narasimha Rao was clearly pursuing the same plan of a bloodless handover of the site to the Hindus in exchange for some concessions to the Muslims. The Hindu activists who performed the demolition were angry with the leaders of their own Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) for seemingly abandoning the Ayodhya campaign after winning the 1991 elections with it, but perhaps the leaders had genuinely been clever in adjusting their Ayodhya strategy to their insiders’ perception of a deal planned by the PM. 

After the demolition, Rao milked it for its anti-BJP nuisance value and gave out some pro-mosque signals; but a closer look at his actual policies shows that he stayed on course. His Government requested the Supreme Court to offer an opinion on the historical background of the Ayodhya dispute, knowing fully well from the outcome of the scholars’ debate that an informed opinion could only favour the old consensus (now known as the “Hindu claim”). 

In normal circumstances, it is not a court’s business to pronounce on matters of history, but then whom else could you trust to give a fair opinion when the professional historians were being so brazenly partisan?

The Supreme Court sent the matter on, or back, to the Allahabad High Court, which, after sitting on the Ayodhya case since 1950, at long last got serious about finding out the true story. It ordered a ground-penetrating radar search and the most thorough excavations. 

In this effort, carried out in 2003, the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) 
employed a large number of Muslims in order to preempt the predictable allegation of acting as a Hindu nationalist front. The findings confirmed those of the excavations in the 1950s, 1970s and 1992: a very large Hindu religious building stood at the site before the Babri Masjid. 

The Allahabad High Court has now accepted these findings by India’s 
apex archaeological body. But not everyone is willing to abide by the verdict.

In particular, the eminent historians are up in arms. In a guest column in The Hindu (2 Oct. 2010: “The verdict on Ayodhya, a historian’s opinion”), Prof. Romila Thapar claims that the ASI findings had been “disputed”. Oh well, it is true that some of her school had thought up the most hilariously contrived objections, which I held against the light in my booklet '  Ayodhya, the Finale: Science vs. Secularism in the Excavations 


Thus, it was said that the presence of pillar-bases doesn’t imply that pillars were built on it; you see, some people plant pillar bases here and there once in a while, without any ulterior motive of putting them to some good use. And it was alleged that the finding of some animal bones in one layer precludes the existence of a temple (and somehow annuls the tangible testimony of the vast foundation complex and the numerous religious artefacts); and more such harebrained reasoning. The picture emerging from all this clutching at straws was clear enough: there is no such thing as a refutation of the overwhelming ASI evidence, just as there was no refutation of the archaeological and documentary evidence presented earlier.

Today, I feel sorry for the eminent historians. They have identified very publicly with the denial of the Ayodhya evidence. While politically expedient, and while going unchallenged in the academically most consequential forums for twenty years, that position has now been officially declared false. It suddenly dawns on them that they have tied their names to an enterprise unlikely to earn them glory in the long run. We may now 
expect frantic attempts to intimidate the Supreme Court into annulling the Allahabad verdict, starting with the ongoing signature campaign against the learned Judges’ finding; and possibly it will succeed. But it is unlikely that future generations, unburdened with the presently prevailing power equation that made this history denial profitable, will play along and keep on disregarding the massive body of historical evidence.

With the Ayodhya verdict, the eminent historians are catching a glimpse of what they will look like when they stand before Allah’s throne on Judgment Day.

Dr. Koenraad Elst was born in Leuven, Belgium, on 7 August 1959, into a Flemish (i.e. Dutch-speaking Belgian) Catholic family. He graduated in Philosophy, Chinese Studies and Indo-Iranian Studies at the Catholic University of Leuven. During a stay at the Benares Hindu University, he discovered India's communal problem and wrote his first book about the budding Ayodhya conflict. While establishing himself as a columnist for a number of Belgian and Indian papers, he frequently returned to India to study various aspects of its ethno-religio-political configuration and interview Hindu and other leaders and thinkers. His research on the ideological development of Hindu revivalism earned him his Ph.D. in Leuven in 1998. He has also published about multiculturalism, language policy issues, ancient Chinese history and philosophy, comparative religion, and the Aryan invasion debate.

" - - - . Not only were ' historians ' the advisers of the Babri Masjid Action Committee, its advocates in the negotiations, they simultaneously issued all sorts of statements supporting the Babri Masjid Action Committee's case - which was the 'CASE' they themselves had prepared ! A well practiced technique, if I may say so : they are from a school in which members have made each other famous by applauding each others book and ' theses ' !

And these very ' historians ' are cited as 
' WITNESS ' in the pleadings filed by the Sunni Waqf Board in the courts considering the Ayodhya matter ! :

- Witness number 63 : R.S. Sharma
- Witness number 64 : Suraj Bhan
- Witness number 65 : D.N. Jha
- Witness number 66 : Romila Thapar
- Witness number 67 : Athar Ali ( since deceased)
- Witness number 70 : Irfan Habib
- Witness number 71 : Shireen Moosvi
- Witness number 72 : B.N. Pandey ( since deceased )
- Witness number 74 : R.L. Shukla
- Witness number 82 : Sunil Srivastava
- Witness number 95 : K.M. Shrimali
- Witness number 96 : Suveera Jayaswal
- Witness number 99 : Satish Chandra
- Witness number 101 : Sumit Sarkar
- Witness number 102 : Gyanendra Pandey
( pp: 8-9)

To qoute Shourie :

" The major crime of these ' historians ' has been this partisanship : Suppresso Veri, Suggesto Falsi "

No comments:

Post a Comment