Ayodhya Ram Temple Did You Know Major Challenges Medieval History Minorityism & Politics Talk Snippets

Lies Spread by Left Historians to Keep the Ram Janmabhoomi – Babri Masjid Issue Burning

Kicking off a series of talks and interviews on the Ayodhya Ram Mandir issue, Srijan Foundation organised a Srijan Talk titled, “Case For Ram Mandir At Ayodhya” by Dr. Meenakshi Jain at INTACH, New Delhi.

The esteemed speaker, Dr. Meenakshi Jain holds a Ph.D from Delhi University and specialises in Cultural Studies. She is presently a member of the Governing Council, Indian Council of Historical Research.

Here is a snippet of Dr. Jain’s Srijan Talk, where she elaborates on the extent of lies spread by the Left historians to keep the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue burning.

Ever since the Left historians joined the Ayodhya debate in November 1989, they have been deceiving the country with their lies and preventing a settlement between the Hindus and Muslims on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue. Even as the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) carried out excavations as directed by the Allahabad High Court, these Left historians responded by mounting a well-coordinated campaign to discredit the ASI both within the Court and outside. Considering the atrocious, farcical statements they made in Court, it is a wonder that people take them seriously at all.

Modus Operandi Of Left Historians

The modus operandi of these Left historians was ingenious. There was an unspoken agreement amongst this extremely closed group that the big four viz. R.S. Sharma, D.N. Jha, Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib would not appear in Court themselves, but would tutor and send their colleagues and students to make statements.

One of the persons who gave statements in Court was Supriya Verma. She had done her Ph.D. under Shereen Ratnagar, who also attended Court sessions. Another one who went to Court was Suvira Jaiswal, who was under the tutelage of R.S. Sharma. Other attendees in Court were R. Thakraan, a student of Suraj Bhan, Sita Ram Roy, a pupil of R.S. Sharma, and S.C Mihra, who did her PhD under D.N. Jha. Supriya Verma, Shereen Ratnagar, Suraj Bhan, Sita Ram Roy and R.C. Thakraan, among others, were presented as archaeologists who were experts in excavation by the Sunni Waqf Board in Court. Interestingly, with the exception of Suraj Bhan, none of these pro-Babri archaeologists had any experience in field archaeology.

Vacuousness Of Left Historians Exposed

These so-called experts exposed their vacuousness during some hilarious Court proceedings. Suvira Jaiswal, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, who was in Court to give evidence as an expert in Ancient Indian History, stated that she had not studied whether Muslim rulers constructed mosques after destroying temples, nor had she read any report on the subject. She said that she was giving a statement on oath regarding the Babri mosque without any probe and that she was actually giving the statement on the basis of her opinion, not knowledge. According to her knowledge no evidence was found that could indicate that Babri Masjid was built after demolishing the Ram temple. She did accept in court that she had not read the Baburnama and had not studied the history of the Babur mosque, and that whatever knowledge she had gained with respect to the disputed site was on the basis of newspapers and reports of the Left historians to the nation. She informed the Court that she and her companions had published a pamphlet entitled, ‘Rajnaitik Durupyog: Babri Masjid Janmabhoomi Vivaad’, after gleaning information from newspaper reports and discussions with the Medieval experts in her department.

In response to Suvira Jaiswal’s testimony, the Court expressed surprise that despite the sensitive nature of this particular case, persons claiming to be experts were making statements without proper investigations, research or study and were aiding in creating more complications, conflict and controversy instead of aiding in a cordial resolution of the case. Further, Suvira Jaiswal was forced to admit in Court that in her Ph.D. thesis which was written before the controversy broke out, she had acknowledged that by the 1st-2nd century AD, Ram was recognized as an incarnation of Vishnu. The Left historians had been pushing the falsehood that Ram worship was an 18th-19th century phenomenon, which went against her research and which she was forced to admit.

Another ‘expert’ who gave testimony in Court was S.C. Mishra, who taught in Delhi University. He was a post-graduate from Allahabad University. In B.A. his subjects were History, Philosophy and Sanskrit, and in M.A. his major subject was Ancient History. He testified before the Court that he had carried out a deep study of the Babri mosque and as per his study, the mosque was built by Mir Baqi and no destruction of any kind had taken place during its construction and there was no evidence of the existence of a temple below Babri Masjid. He went on to state that he had discovered the actual birth place of Ram, which was between Ayodhya Brahma Kund and Rishi Mochan Ghat.

This specialist of Ancient History then proceeded to reveal the extent of his specialization in Court. He stated, in Court, that Prithviraj Chauhan was the King of Ghazni and that Muhammad Ghori was the King of the adjoining area. He said he had heard of Jazia but did not remember why it was levied, however he did not think it was levied only on Hindus. He further said it was wrong to say that Aurangzeb built the Gyan Vapi mosque after demolishing half of the Kashi Vishwanath temple but provided no substantiation to his statement. He also claimed that he had read many books starting from Baburnama up until 1989, on the subject of the construction of Babri mosque, but he did not remember the names of any of them at the time. Such were the farcical statements made in Court by a teacher of History at Delhi University, while testifying for an issue as sensitive as the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. The honourable Court, rightfully noted that S.C. Mishra’s statements failed to inspire confidence and lacked independent, fair and impartial opinion.

Another testifier was Shireen Moosvi, who had done her B.Sc. and M.Sc. from Lucknow University and subsequently her M.A. in History and Ph.D. from Aligarh Muslim University. She stated in Court that during her studies she did not come across any evidence or proof of the medieval period to suggest that Babri mosque had been built by destroying a temple. Upon her statement that the inscription at Babri mosque was divided in three parts, the Court remarked that this statement of hers alone showed that she had no knowledge at all of the subject.

One more testifier, Sushil Srivastava, had done his B.A. from Allahabad University in History and Political Science and had completed his Ph.D. after 11 years. He stated in Court that during his research, he found no evidence regarding the disputed site to suggest that a mosque was built after demolishing a temple. He then admitted in Court that he could neither read nor write in Persian, Arabic or Sanskrit and that his father-in-law had helped him in reading and writing his book and interpreting the Persian language. He could not even say for sure whether the inscription in Babri mosque was in Persian or Arabic. He had not studied the science of calligraphy, he had not studied the subject of epigraphy and he had mentioned in his book references of books he had not actually read.

The list of these Leftist ‘experts’ goes on. There was Suraj Bhan, who had done his M.A. in Sanskrit but who said in Court he could not speak in Sanskrit as he had not used it for quite some time, and that he faced difficulty in reading and following it. He further stated in Court that he could only remember that Ancient India and Early Medieval India were not in his course of study. Suraj Bhan went on further, stating that he did not try to find out what was written in the Ramayana by Tulsi Das, he could not tell when Indus Valley Civilisation was discovered, and that he was not a specialist in Epigraphy and Numismatics, he was not a geologist, he was not a student of History, he was not a specialist in Architecture, he was not a specialist in Sculpture, and that Epigraphy was also not his field. This was an ‘expert’ testifying in the Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.

There was D. Mandal who was very active on Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue. He said in Court that he had never visited Ayodhya and did not have any specific knowledge of the history of the reign of Babur. Whatever little knowledge he had of Babur was that Babur was a ruler in the 16th century. More than that, he did not have any knowledge of Babur and yet, he was testifying in Court on the issue. He then accepted in Court that the Communist parties issued red cards and that he was a holder of a red card, that he had no degree or diploma in Archaeology and that he had only acquired some knowledge in Archaeology.

It must be noted that none of these people showed any manner of expertise but made statements motivated by their biases and unsubstantiated by any facts or evidences. They had no qualms in going to any extent in ridiculing the entire Ram Janmabhoomi movement, simply because they wanted the pro-Babri group to win.

Where Things Stand Today

As things stand today, the Left historians are left clutching at straws. Their only hope is that the Supreme Court will overturn the verdict of the Allahabad High Court and rule in favour of Babri Masjid. It is hard to fathom how the Supreme Court can overturn the judgement of Allahabad High Court because there is not a single evidence found which shows continuous Muslim occupation of that site, whereas all the evidence present shows continued Hindu presence at the site. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence which shows that the Hindus were absent from the Ram Janmabhoomi site at any given period for any length of time.

Then, there is the fact that Muslims never filed a case in 1949 when the Ram Lalla idol was placed inside the mosque. They filed a case just 5 days before the 12th anniversary of the placement of the idol, because filing the case just 5 days later would have annulled their claim as a property dispute has a time-limit and must be filed within 12 years. The pertinent question to ask is why did the Muslims not file the case much earlier? Why did they wait for 12 years and file it just 5 days before the deadline? This goes to show that they actually have no attachment to the site. Courts in pre-independent and independent India have said that namaz can be offered anywhere and that a mosque is not essential for the practice of Islam, whereas Hindu worship is centred around sacred sites and sacred spaces.

When all factors went against the pro-Babri group, the Left historians came up with their last-ditch trump card asking for proof of Ram’s birth at that spot. What was the proof that Ram was born at the exact same spot, they asked. Now since the British period, Courts have said that it is not the duty of the Courts to examine or subject the beliefs of the people to scientific or judicial scrutiny, the Courts only have to take note of the fact that millions believe it. In the same vein, the Allahabad High Court gave space under the central dome to the Hindus because millions believed it was the birthplace of Ram.

We, The People, Must Play Our Role

While it is hard to understand what the Supreme Court can do to overturn the verdict of the Allahabad High Court, yet as concerned citizens, we need to play our part in building awareness around the issue. We all need to popularize the weaknesses of the Babri Masjid case and especially the duplicitous role that certain ‘esteemed’ academics have played in derailing the proceedings and deceiving the people of this country for two decades.

K.K. Muhammed, ex-Regional Director (North), Archaeological Survey of India, has written in his autobiography, “Njan Enna Bharatiyan” (I, An Indian), that at the time, the Muslims were seriously considering handing over the site to the Hindus as it meant so much to the Hindus and not as much to them. At that moment, he writes, the Left historians entered the fray and convinced the Babri group that they had a very strong case and that they would fight the case for the Babri group. This inopportune intervention by the Left historians made the Muslims of the Babri group change their minds about handing over the site to the Hindus as a gesture of goodwill, and they decided to fight the case.

It is extremely unfortunate and painful to see academics doing so much harm to the amity and goodwill between the two communities, thereby irreparably damaging the social fabric of this country. Given the enormity and seriousness of the tension between the two communities in the last 2-3 decades on this extremely sensitive and volatile issue, academics ought to be very conscious of their responsibility to society. It is important for them to present facts as they are in a non-partisan manner and to not deliberately distort them to suit their individual biases.

The Leftist historians need to undertake some serious soul-searching and, since each of their distortions has been exposed definitively, need to apologise to the country for the malicious deception and grave harm caused by them. That is the least they can do.

 

Reference: The Battle For Rama: Case Of The Temple At Ayodhya – Dr. Meenakshi Jain

Leave a Reply

You may also like

Ancient History History Maritime History Medieval History Miscellaneous

India-China Conflict: India’s Victory of 1967 and the 2020 Clash #Sangam Talk By Probal DasGupta

post-image

The Indian army veteran and author of Watershed 1967: India’s forgotten victory over China, Probal DasGupta talks of the Indo-China relations, particularly the lesser known incidents of 1967. The present standoff in Ladakh has raised questions of war and has brought up the historic narrative between the two countries. today. For fifty years, the event that dominated our memories was the 1962 India-China war, which India lost. However, the present crisis has focused on India’s victory over China in 1967. Probal’s book Watershed 1967 has played a significant role in reshaping the India-China narrative. In this talk he discusses China’s motives and India’s options today, and how 1967 is relevant in the current India-China skirmishes.

About the Speaker:

Probal DasGupta is an Indian army veteran and author…

Read More
Ancient History History Maritime History Medieval History Miscellaneous

Tibet: How Nehru lost India & Tibet in 1954

post-image

Courtesy: Sheshapatangi1 https://twitter.com/sheshapatangi1/status/1519882907455696899?s=21&t=Xt1Vy_kfGP9wkhdxbMWI8w

On this day in 1954, Nehru Government Officially DENOUNCED TIBET.

Excerpts from Tibet – The Lost Frontier by Claude Arpi.

On May 15, 1954 – Nehru summed up the debate in the parliament by saying “in my opinion, we have done no better thing than this since we became independent. I have no doubt about this… I think it is right for our country, for Asia and for the World”.

It took only few days for India to discover that all problems had not been settled. The first Chinese incursion in the Barahoti area of Uttar Pradesh occurred in June 1954. This was the first of a series of hundreds of incursions which culminated in the attack of October 1962.
In school,…

Read More
Ancient History History Maritime History Medieval History Miscellaneous

Weapons from Punjab and Rajasthan seized in Maharashtra

post-image

While the Hanuman Chalisa and Azaan issue is simmering in Maharashtra huge batches of Swords and other weapons transported from states like Rajasthan and Punjab are being seized in Maharashtra. In last few days three such cases have been registered by Maharashtra police. Isn’t it a clear message that violence is knocking on the door? The rioters being celebrated and awarded in Karnataka and the long list of benefiters from Karauli riots convey the same! Wake up Hindus!

Source: https://www.naidunia.com

Maharashtra के धुले में मिला हथियारों का जखीरा, तलवार और खंजर समेत 90 हथियार जब्त, 4 आरोपी गिरफ्तार। अजान को लेकर राज ठाकरे की होने वाली सभा के लिए, राजस्थान से भेजी जा रही थीं तलवारें।

महाराष्ट्र के धुले जिले से भारी मात्रा में हथियार…

Read More
Ancient History History Maritime History Medieval History Miscellaneous

One more territory lost to the changing Demography! The Uttarakhand!

post-image

Courtesy: https://twitter.com/anshul_aliganj/status/1517047053821825025?s=21&t=m0uR2PDEkJsDWLonYOQqAg

In Uttarakhand the Tourism Industry has been taken over by Samuday Vishesh. After the change in demography this was bound to happen.

Gadhwal was lost already and and now kumaon getting lost. Be it Nainital, Bhimtal, Ramnagar, Bageshwar,Jageshwar,Ranikhet and Kisano every where you will find them.
Locals have leased their hotels and restaurants to them.

Even when they are of not so well off background still they are able to do highest bidding and are able to get the hotels on lease.
Samuday Vishesh People from far off places have come and taken over Uttarakhand Tourism.

They have removed the local waiters , cooks and…

Read More
Ancient History History Maritime History Medieval History Miscellaneous

The Jama Masjid of Ahmedabad on the glorious Bhadra Kali Mandir

post-image

Source:
https://www.booksfact.com/archeology/jama-masjid-ahmedabad-bhadrakali-temple.html

The Jama Masjid in Ahmedabad was originally A Bhadra Kali temple. It was converted into a mosque by Ahmed Shah I. The intricate flowers, coiled serpents representing Kundalini and bells, the remnants of the glorious temple that it may have been. Such carvings are banned in Islam. This goes on to support the history of the temple. Goddess Bhadrakali was believed to be the Nagar Devi of Ahmedabad.

One of Ahmedabad’s ancient names was Bhadra which was after Devi Bhadrakali. Ahmedabad was named after Ahmad Shah I of the Muzaffarid dynasty who forcibly captured “Karnavati” in 1411.

Bhadrakali temple is believed to be one of the oldest temple of Ahmedabad and located inside Bhadra Fort in center of city.The exact date of construction is not known but as per the evidence this holy shrine…

Read More
Ancient History History Maritime History Medieval History Miscellaneous

Facts about Mahmud Ghazni

post-image

Courtesy: Eztainutlacatl

How many of you know that Mahmud’s father was a Kyrghyz Buddhist caught in childhood and converted forcibly? How many know that Mahmud is called Zabuli because he was born out of a forced union between that slave Sabuktegin and a Zabuli Princess?

And how many of you know that Multan sided Mahmud against the Shahis in the name of religion but Mahmud decided Multan was not Muslim enough and attacked it? And how many of you know that of the 17 raids of Mahmud, 14 are against his neighbour, the Shahis?

And how many of you know that Mahmud is not exactly great – he waged an annual jihad against India but in 31 his year rule, only 17 raids are known – what happened to the balance 13? And how…

Read More
Ancient History History Maritime History Medieval History Miscellaneous

Kastur Ba: the secret shadow

post-image

On her 153rd Birth anniversary

Courtesy: Sheshapatangi1

https://twitter.com/sheshapatangi1/status/1513352430250995715?s=21&t=i81i06F0q8_Wv8EeFTvdjg

“I simply cannot bear to look at Ba’s face, the expression is often like that of a meek cow and that in her own dump manner she is saying something” –
MKG

To keep the brand, “Mahatma” popular, they never told the miserable story of his wife.
On her 153rd birth anniversary, let us revisit a tragedy called #KasturbaGandhi.

Born on April 11, 1869 at Porbander, Kasturba was elder to Gandhi by 6 months, she married Mohandas with whom she played since her childhood.

Gandhi’s rejection of Kasturba came to the extent…

Read More
Ancient History History Maritime History Medieval History Miscellaneous

My people uprooted

post-image

Courtesy: Shri Tathagata Roy

HISTORY.
8 April 1950 a fateful pact signed betn Jawaharlal Nehru & Liaquat Ali Khan,PM of Pakistan. After 2 months of Govt-engineered pogrom,slaughter, rape of Hindus in East Pakistan. Estimated 50,000 Hindus killed. An instance of incredible political stupidity on Nehru’s part.

Upon Liaquat’s glib assurance that Hindu refugees would be taken back and restored,the gullible Nehru decided that no rehabilitation of Hindus was necessary in India. Result: no refugee went back and were forced to live under inhuman conditions in Indian camps.

The Pakis were so insincere about the pact that their Govt issued secret instructions not to restore any Hindu to his property. Even after the pact all Hindu passengers in down Assam Mail were pulled down and killed just outside Santahar station.

The two Bengali ministers…

Read More
%d bloggers like this: