Secularists’ lies and unscathed Truth - In the winter of 2002-2003, the Court had secretly ordered a search of the site with a ground-penetrating radar by the company Tojo Vikas International Ltd., which had gained fame with its role in the construction of the Delhi underground railway. Canadian geophysicist Claude Robillard concluded from the scans that “there is some structure under the mosque” (Rediff.com, 19 March 2003). In early 2003, the Court ordered the ASI to start excavations and either confirm or disprove the provisional conclusions of the radar scan. Strictly speaking, the existence of the medieval temple had already been proven by a wealth of documentary and archaeological evidence. It was only because of the brutal denial of the evidence by a group of vocal academics and allied politicians that the Court considered it wiser to come up with a new and as yet unchallenged type of evidence. The archaeologists were permanently scrutinized by archaeologists and historians employed by the Muslim parties. Moreover, many of the excavators were Muslims, unlikely to be willing accomplices in a pro-Hindu manipulation. According to the Press Trust of India (11 June 2003): “There were 131 labourers including 29 Muslims engaged in the digging work today”. All this was done to ensure truth from being manipulated.
In the months when the digging took place, the newspapers reported new findings once in a while. Thus, “an ancient stone inscription in the Dev Nagari script and a foundation were discovered in the ongoing excavation in the acquired land in Ayodhya today”, while “stone pieces and a wall were found in other trenches” and “a human figure in terracotta, sand stone netting, decorated sand stone in three pieces were found in one trench” (The Hindu, 5 May 2003). Following this, a Babri Masjid supporter, Naved Yar Khan, approached the Supreme Court with a petition to prohibit all archaeological digging at the contentious site which was rejected (“SC rejects plea against excavation”, The Hindu, 10 June 2003). The secularists had always opposed archaeological fact-finding at the site, arguing that this would open a Pandora’s box of similar initiatives at the literally thousands of mosque sites where temples used to stand.
The pseudo-secularist effort had been very strenuous. By contrast, the VHP took a very lackadaisical attitude towards the excavations. It had never attached too much importance to the history debate, firstly because it was a false and contrived debate about a demolished temple which all honest observers knew to have existed; and secondly because the Hindu claim to the site rested less on past history than on the continuous and present fact that Hindus consider the disputed site as a sacred site today. The VHP knew perfectly well that the excavations were bringing up more confirmation by the day of the existence of the temple. And all this while, the Marxist hate campaign targetted the ASI, a scientific institution, as much as it targetted the VHP.
For those unfamiliar with modern Indian history: the Marxists were handed a near-monopoly on institutional power in India’s academic and educational sector by Indira Gandhi involved in an intra-Congress power struggle when she needed the help of the Left. Her confidants P.N. Haksar and Nurul Hasan packed the institutions with Marxists. When, during the Emergency dictatorship (1975-77), her Communist Party allies threatened to become too powerful, she removed them from key political positions but left the Marxists’ hold on the cultural sector intact. They at once set out to falsify history and propagate their own version through the official textbooks. After coming to power in 1998, the BJP-dominated government made a half-hearted attempt to bring transparency at least in the history textbooks. This led the Marxists to start a furious hate campaign against the so-called “saffronization” of history.
In spite of a very aggressive campaign of lies by a few spearheads of “secularism”, the broad outline of the true story was in the public domain for anyone with the curiosity to find out. Yet, the International media’s reporting on the interim report consisted exclusively in copying the most mendacious version. The Reuters despatch for 11 June 2003 was titled: “Dig finds no sign of temple at Indian holy site”, quoting not the actual report, but a ‘source’. Like a babe in the wood, the world press never thought of taking a critical look at the secularist version. The BBC News titled: “‘No sign’ of Ayodhya temple” (11 June 2003). Here again, no information from the horse’s mouth, only from “widespread reports across the Indian media”. Distorted or even totally false reporting on communally sensitive issues is a well-entrenched feature of Indian journalism. No reporter or columnist or editor ever gets fired or formally reprimanded or even just criticized by his peers for smearing Hindu nationalists. And foreign correspondents used to trusting their Indian secularist sources have likewise developed a habit of swallowing and relaying highly distorted news stories.
Satyamev Jayate - In the Ayodhya case, for two decades, the secularists had worked hard to keep the lid on the evidence and they didn’t want some puny radar scanner or muddy-handed archaeologist to bring the facts to light and thereby expose their mendaciousness. After all the wild claims made about their findings, the experts themselves had finally spoken. Their report confirmed 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 artefacts found in between the pillar-bases.
In a normal setting, the ASI findings should have finished 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. 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 secularists claimed that 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 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.
The irresponsible and downright evil campaign of history denial by the secularist opinion-makers has prolonged the Ayodhya dispute by at least a decade. Denouncing all pragmatic deals, these secular fundamentalists insisted on having it their way for the full 100%, meaning the total humiliation of the Hindus. They exercised verbal terror against Rajiv Gandhi, Narasimha Rao and all politicians suspected of wanting to compromise with the Hindu movement, making them postpone the needed steps towards the solution. This way, they exacerbated the tensions in return for the pleasure of indulging their self-image as implacable secularists. A real secularist would have sought to minimize a religious conflict, but this lot insisted on magnifying it and turning it into a national crisis. For them, it was a holy war, a jihad, just as it was for their Islamist pupils and paymasters. So, the blood of all the people killed in Ayodhya-related riots from 1989 onwards is at least partly on their heads.
But now, the historical evidence has definitively been verified. After every single historical and archaeological investigation had confirmed the old consensus, the secularists have now been defeated in the final test. The deceit turns out to be their own. Their lies stand exposed and recorded for all to see. Their strategy to sabotage peace and justice in Ayodhya was based on history falsification. With all the blood on their hands, they have disgraced the fair name of secularism. Henceforth, India should be kind enough to ignore them except to hear the confession of their sins. Ideas have consequences, and so do lies. Before the “eminent historians” and other militant secularists are called up to purgatory, they would do well to clear their conscience by offering restitution to the scientists and Hindus they have smeared. And by begging forgiveness from the families of the Hindu and Muslim victims of riots triggered by a controversy that could have been old history already by 1989, had there not been the secularist obstruction.
On 30th September 2010, the three judge bench of Allahabad High Court delivered its landmark judgment. All the 3 judges agreed to the fact that there indeed was a “Hindu religious structure” below the disputed Babari mosque. Justice Aftab Alam did not concede that the temple was demolished to construct the mosque. He maintained that the mosque was constructed on the ruins of the temple. Justice Dharmveer Sharma and Justice Sudhir Agrawal ruled that the mosque was constructed after demolishing the temple and using its material. Justice Agrawal and Justicee Aftab Alam ruled for the division of the disputed site giving 2/3rd to the Hindus and still giving 1/3rd to Muslims, while Justice Sharma ruled that all land must go to Hindus. Justice Sharma retired the same day with a unique track record under his cap - none of his judgments, when challenged in the Supreme Court, were ever turned down, i.e. whatever Justice Sharma ruled, was always upheld by the Supreme Court. Interestingly enough, the concerned parties challenged the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in its hearing on May 9th, termed the decision of splitting the land into 3 parts given by Justice Agrawal and Justice Khan as ‘surprising’ and stayed it, making it amply clear that the land will only go to one party, seemingly resonating with Justice Sharma’s observations.
A patient India and Hindus across the world waits for the final verdict. Ram has ruled Indian and Hindu psyche since time immemorial, and the importance of Ayodhya can never be erased. For an Indian Muslim, they need to be told the fact that their brothers in Ayodhya themselves never went to offer a namaz at Babri mosque since 1934, a fact that a ‘secular’ media and wicked politicians deliberately hid from them, disturbing the peace. Like every nationalist peace loving Indian, IBTL too hopes for a quick and just settlement of the dispute and a feeling of comity prevail, through Ayodhya, across India, and India could truly become a Ramrajya of peace and development.
Disclaimer: The information presented in this series has been primarily taken from the documentary on Ram Janmbhoomi researched and scripted by Vivek Apte and the book “Ayodyha, The Finale: Science versus Secularism the Excavations Debate” by Dr. Koenraad Elst, an eminent Dutch Indologist. IBTL values Secularism but denounces its abuse as a tool to suppress truth and create tensions among countrymen. IBTL holds nationalism and foremost, Truth as most sacred and revered.