Monday, October 4, 2010

Eminent historians displeased with the Ayodhya verdict

Romila Thapar, most eminent among India's eminent historians, protests 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 (esp. 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.

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 Hindu militants 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 PM 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, viz. 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 evidential 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). http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/acat/index.htm

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 BB 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 hand-over 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”), http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article807232.ece , 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 Debate. http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/finale/index.html . 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 hare-brained 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 entreprise 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.

36 comments:

B.N.Gururaj said...

Thanks to their intellectually dishonest conduct, the term "eminent historian' has become a dirty word in India. Court verdict, which essentially accepts the accuracy of archaeological survey report has floored them. These eminent historians were the overlords of media blitzkrieg. But, the courts have a different perspective of the matter. Not only the courts respected and upheld the faith of the Hindus, but also demolished the claim of Waqf board on the ground of limitation. That they were rather late in filing the suit against the claim of adverse possession by the Hindu claimants.

That the archaeological survey report relied on by the court was specifically produced under the direction of the high court and that that report too agreed with the earlier archaeological survey report vindicates the Hindu stand that this was an efficacious evidence for restoring the land to the Hindus.

Purely on legal ground, one fails to understand how, the Waqf Board, whose plaint was dismissed and which lost its suit could get any benefit at all such as one third of the share of the disputed land. This part seems to me as what is known in India as "kazi nyay", or an inexplicable compromise.

Shankara said...

As usual incisive.

Deshabhakta said...

More than the muslims and their self proclaimed leaders in Bhaarat, it is these "eminent historians" who lost due to the Ayodhya verdict. How much ever canard they spread, court (with one muslim judge as well) has upheld the truth that the site is Rama Janmabhoomi. That 1/3rd donation to muslims was totally unnecessary though! This 1/3 allocation acts in a way acceptance of occupation of a holy land by force.
Thanks for the insightful writeup.

Vikas said...

It appears to me that only three things can satisfy our eminences.
1. An audio recording of Babar issuing demolition orders to Mir Baqi.
2. A video recording of the actual demolition exercise by the army of Islamic iconoclasts under Mir Baqi.
3. A 500 year old personal witness to the event.
But on second thoughts the "eminences" will beat me here too.
1. There wouldn't be any voice samples of Babar and his Liutenant to match them with the audio tapes. Supposing, they were, it's sure that like everything from the past, they would be in the possession of these eminences themselves. Besides the audio tape is not a very strong evidence in the eyes of our Courts.
2. The video tapes could also be accused of tampering. Besides with no one around to vouch for the contamporaneous topography of Ayodhya, how could one establish that it wasn't one of those latterday inventions called moving pictures or "movies".
3. And a 500 year old man can easily be accused of senility or alzheimer.
Lazy me, I have to think of some better evidences to prove them as concrete in the eyes of "my eminences".

Apuleius Platonicus said...

There are vanishingly few people in the Western world who are able to provide this kind of analysis. You are invaluable, Professor Elst.

Sandeep said...

I am not sure if you have made your case fool-proof in either this article on the ones linked before (though you have taken care of issues like lime-and-mortar) :

1. Just the words "massive structures", "pillar bases" and "figurines" does not prove anything. Why is no one publishing the photos?

2. What about the allegations of bones? Two of the judges say that this does not matter because Hindus did use to offer meat as prasad. But in that case shouldn't the bones be carbon dated, and the case be made out that they belonged to a period when such sacrifices happened (esp. with vegetarianism being strong in UP as well as among Vaishnavites)?

In addition, there are lots of allegations by the allegedly eminent Habib here, but as a layman how can I go about verifying whether the supposed absence of pillars, non-use of) thermoluminescence method, level numbers getting interchanged, summary containing stuff outside of main text etc.? Or ASI itself assigning glazed ware to Muslim periods (VII-IX)?

Defence said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Defence said...

Thank you Professor Elst! Your article reveals the lies which are routinely forced on us by the influential brokers of history.

Distortion of facts has become a norm instead of stray aberrations.

As always, your words helped me to get the right perspective.

Thank you!

Sandeep said...

To clarify, regarding (i) I meant to ask, what exact features of these pillar bases etc. makes one conclude that these were bases for temple pillars, and not for other structures. Prayers were in houses too, etc.

InternetHindu said...

I only wish that such issues on history are routinely bought up in Courts so that ultimately we will have a larger picture on the truth behind the nature of violent acts and the cover up processes behind minority appeasing politicians. Why cant historians like Koenraad Elst take up university positions or advice politically bankrupt parties in this country.
We can wish all this coming true if Narendra Modi comes to power in 2014. Satyameva Jayate.

Dinesh PC said...

Well, I doubt if they will be able to browbeat the Supreme Court into accepting their version of history when the overwhelming evidence proves otherwise. In fact, it was only in a court of law that their bluff could have been called off, since every other academic forum has already submitted to the eminents' whim and fancy.

M V Bhaktha said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
M V Bhaktha said...

Thank you Dr.Koenraad Elst. You have analyzed the situation to perfection. Its sad that the Muslim waqf board got a piece of this cake which was highly unexpected. What satisfies me is ultimately the "Truth Prevailed" what ever may be the Honorable courts verdict. Thank you once again for throwing light on this issue.

Hindu Vision 2020 said...

As for Waqf Board emissary Supriya Verma, she makes the most of the animal bones found at different layers: “If any shrine and a temple existed, how can anyone account for the animal bones?” As per the ASI findings, the site lay in ruins several times, circumstances in which animals may have made their home in it. Is she really an archaeologists that she doesn’t know how the strangest objects accumulate at sites of interest over the millennia? Or did she mean to say that the animals indicate a Muslim rather than a Hindu presence, with mosques as sanctuary for our four-legged brethren? It seems the anti-temple experts are clutching at straws in desperation.

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/finale/ch3.html

@sandeep

THis book was published in 2003, and should have been read there and then. Please read the full book. It answers all your questions

csb said...

Romila Thapar herself was of the opinion that there are references in the Vedas as to Hindus eating beef. So the presence of animal bones shouldn’t surprise her even if it surprises every one else.

Her words are quoted as below :

The controversy on my work involved some textbooks I had written for middle schools, where I had talked about the lives of Aryans as we knew it from the Vedic texts. I had mentioned, for instance, that the early Indians ate beef – the references in the Vedas are clear, and there is archaeological evidence for this.

CSB

csb said...

Romila Thapar herself was of the opinion that there are references in the Vedas as to Hindus eating beef. So the presence of animal bones shouldn’t surprise her even if it surprises every one else.

Her words are quoted as below :

The controversy on my work involved some textbooks I had written for middle schools, where I had talked about the lives of Aryans as we knew it from the Vedic texts. I had mentioned, for instance, that the early Indians ate beef – the references in the Vedas are clear, and there is archaeological evidence for this.

CHAKRAM said...

Koenraad sir,
as usual it is very good post.thanks for the same.

How do you feel about muslims getting a piece of the disputed site?

Sandeep said...

Hindu Vision 2020 : I did read that, which is why I said "though you had taken care of issues like lime and mortar". The book still does not answer questions like the absence of pillars (as opposed to pillar bases), not carbon dating the bones and other specific questions I mentioned in my previous comment.

As an aside, please don't mistake me : the reason I ask such pointed questions is that Prof. Elst is one of the few sources from where one can get serious historical ammunition to defend Hindus.

CHAKRAM said...

I think if they allow the Mandir and Masjid to co-exist at the same site, the problem of communal violence will continue forever

Abe said...

I hope now we can start now about liberating temples at mathura and kashi

CHAKRAM said...

Abe, the law of 1949 guarantees status quo to be maintained at kasi and mathura.Ayodhya was exception due to it's disputed status at that time.

gkanyady said...

i think if these thinks[never ending judicial process,partisan so called eminent historians,pseudo secularism]continued to happen,only an 'aggressive Hindutva'will remain answer.

Hindu Vision 2020 said...

The battle is now in the SC. It is important that the VHP now brings in their own battery of experts to testify against the Waqk board. Why wasn’t Dr Elst employed as an expert witness. Surely, the VHP can take care of the expenses involved? Remember, the judges will be under a lot of pressure to overturn the verdict.

Armchair intellectuals can also contribute by studying the judgment in detail (including the dissenting one by judge khan) apart from the critical ‘secular’ commentaries on the verdict. Then, build a iron cast argument and expose the secularists for once and all. All over, i see only an attitude of relaxation as if the judgment of the SC is a foregone conclusion. This is the old Hindu adage of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The secularists will come hard at us with new sophisticated yet sophistical arguments. But instead of getting ready for the mother of all intellectual engagements, a process of self congratulations is on, and speaking of appeasing minorities from such ignorant Hindus like Swapanda seems to be on the agenda

Raghu said...

@Sandeep,

ASI have done detailed research on the site and have given their opinion. Whats the point in Elst giving the picture of the structures. Do you think these pictures will out weight the report presented by ASI?

These pictures will only make us more angry at best :)

People like us are tempted to see those gory pictures, but in such scholarly research of Elst picture plays a small role.

CHAKRAM said...

Given below is the one of the paragraphs from Koenraad's book on Ayodhya :

'The Pioneer (“What lies ahead”, 27 Aug. 2003) betrays the same attitude. It likewise acknowledges the ASI’s findings, it even rejects the allegations of bias and fabrication against the ASI, but then swiftly shifts the focus to the judicial dispute: “For, the ASI’s findings can scarcely be the sole determinant in finding light at the end of the Ayodhya tunnel.” So, it’s back to Court now with the message: “We were wrong, Your Honour, to deny the existence of the temple, but we plead you still don’t grant the Hindus the right to rebuild it.”

just thought it is right occasion to remind

CHAKRAM said...

Now their side lost in the court, the secularist media found a new weapon to torture the Hindu side. They are saying that VHP,RSS and BJP's statement of plan to build a great temple at the site is "rubbing salt on the wound". Whose wound it is? How that wound happened?

The real wound happened when Babar demolished the then Ram temple and constructed his masjid.And the modern masjidwallahs rubbed salt on the wound by not agreeing to this fact inspite of numerous evidence thrown on their face.

Karan Thapar in a special 'Devil's advocate' program said the BJP's plans to build bhavya mandir is rubbing salt on the wound.Karan ji, your media has been rubbing salt on Hindu's wound since years and Hindus silently bore only out of their respect for Freedom of speech.Now stop crying or begging for mercy for ur Masjidwallahs.

When Karan was showing his palm with his first two fingers attached at Arun Jaitley in a manner of asking a question, it really appeared as if he is begging for mercy for all the media on-salught on behalf of masjidwallahs on Hindus and now asking Hindus to build a small temple so that it wont hurt the masjidwallahs.

When you media people get the chance u will kill the character, credibility and everything of the opposite side.If you are proved wrong, you still try to attack..or rarely..you beg. To shame with u all.

Sandeep said...

Raghu : I wanted the pictures published not for the sensationalist value in them, but to let people have a possibly better informed opinion about whether it was a temple or, say, a king's cow shed. Just saying "there existed pillar bases" does not show what the purpose of those pillar bases had been. Similarly, some of the figurines are supposed to be just decorated humans, not religious.

Usually Professor Elst is very comprehensive in demolishing the left liberal cases, but on this particular issue there seem to be (from my layman-perspective) issues I can't find the answer to in his work.

But I think I must stop on this thread, since already I have hogged too much of the comment space here; let me not take his generosity for granted.

Haarish said...

Abe said...
I hope now we can start now about liberating temples at mathura and kashi
October 5, 2010 8:26 AM
---------------------------
Not only Kashi and Mathura, we should actually start first with liberating Tejo Mahalaya(Taj Mahal), a Shiva Jyotirlinga temple forcibly appropriated by Shah Jahan. This is not a muslim religious place, it's a tomb and hence won't be subject to the Places of Worship Act 1993. Once you have a second instance of a Hindu religious place being converted to an Islamic structure, then the 1993 Worhsip act will become questionable / redundant and the case for Kashi and Mathura unstoppable.

jlmalhotra said...

About Hindus eating beef, the word used in the verse is 'MAHISHA' that means buffalo.(Agni cooking for his friend Indra) No where it is mentioned in Rig Veda that cows were killed for consumption.

Jitendra Desai said...

Sir,

You are right.History will not forgive these historians.You are also right about matters of faith.For Hindus, Ayodhya has been sacred, since the time of lord Rama.Muslims can't have such claims on Ayodhya or any such Hindu places of pilgrimage.This simple fact is being overlooked by all.Including muslim leadership.It will be wise for muslims of the subcontinent to voluntarily hand over the entire site to Hindus.That will put an end to this long festering issue.Appeals by RSS and other Hindu organisations to muslims are along this line.This can help all of us begin a new chapter in our history.It can also result in unemployment of the few.Belonging to secular extreme.

Hindu Vision 2020 said...

Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny. Before the ASI excavations, they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and, after the site had been dug up, they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa.
To the court's astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, found themselves withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displaying an "ostrich-like attitude" to facts. "Normally, courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not, but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements..." the judge has noted.



He said opinions had been offered without making a proper investigation, research or study in the subject. The judge said he was "startled and puzzled" by contradictory statements. When expert witness Suraj Bhan deposed on the Babri mosque, the weight of his evidence was contradicted by anotherexpert for Muslim parties, Shirin Musavi, who told the court that Bhan "is an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history".
Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the "introduction" to the book of another expert who deposed, Professor Mandal. She admitted she had no field experience.



He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were all connected —one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.



Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal deposed "whatever knowledge I gained with respect

to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told" (other experts). She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute "after reading newspaper reports and on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department." Supriya Verma, another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not

read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation. She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar.



Verma and Jaya Menon alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not present at the time the actual excavation took place.



Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the "introduction" to the book of another expert who deposed, Professor Mandal. She admitted she had no field experience.

manju said...

Till moments before the verdict the usual secularists brigade was strutting with confidence in the belief that the courts would not dare to give a verdict against the mosque. Now that it has their rantings and ravings have started.Their refrain is that the verdict is based on faith rather than facts and points of law. It was certainly a reference before the court to adjudicate upon whether the mosque stood on the ruins of a previous structure. The ASI findings have proved beyond doubt that there was a previously existing structure and from the artifacts recovered from the site it was a non muslim structure.The preponderence of probability, which is a sound principle of civil jurisprudence, vindictes what the Hindus have been saying all along .If so then how the judgement can be faulted on this ground. The only take from this whole episode is that Hindus have been and always remain loosers. They lost political power to muslims in 11th century and have never regained it ever since. The modern day Jaychands will never let that happen. In a democratic polity the power rests with the majority with due protection of the minority interests. But in India this principle has ben turned on its head by rampant minorityism. The wishes and feelings of majority can be trampled underfoot and ignored with impunity in the secure knowledge that the minority vote banks will deliver power to the ones who most stridently champion their cause. The majority because of division in its ranks can do little but wring its hands in dismay. I agree with Elst that the Supreme Court may be intimidated into overturning the judgement of the HC by vociferous Hindu hating and muslim hugging secular brigade.

Hindu Vision 2020 said...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-Allahabad-HC-exposed-experts-espousing-Masjid-cause/articleshow/6716643.cms

Sathu said...

Bickering Not only for this so called Babri masjid /Janmasthan masjid in ayodya, other famous buildings like qutab minar, Taj Mahal etc There is a skepticism about shahjahan's or qutabuddin's authorship of this buildings.

The Story that Shahjahan built taj for her wife's Tomb is a fairy tale cooked by mongals / mughal invaders for cover up.
Fact is,
1) Taj predates shahjahan by several centuries, he just acquired it from its previous owner(Rajputs)
2)Taj Mahal is originally a ancient Hindu temple palace called tejo mahalay built by Hindus for Demigod Shiva
I think
The whole world is duped about the origins of Taj, Indian history has been looted, taj history has been looted by muslim barbarian invader thieves

remember
HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THOSE WHO HAVE WON WARS & WHO HOLD POWER

seriously, some international body has to investigate the origins of these ancient buildings

(To know more about this controversy & for photographic evidence
just google
TAJ MAHAL WAS IT A VEDIC TEMPLE)
History is no history if it does not tells the truth

lee woo said...

I am quite unsatisfied by the distinctions between the oral and literate. See the link below for more info.

#unsatisfied
www.ufgop.org

Shea Kang said...

Good vibes. Everyday, all day.
imarksweb.net. God Bless :)