Romilla Thapar - so called "Eminent Historian" - whose crappy History our children read, does not believe the archeological evidence.Eminent historian displeased with the Ayodhya verdict
Koenraad Elst's note on the same.
Romila Tha par, 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, viz. the mere fact that the Ayodhya site 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 Buddhism in the Jataka story cycle accepts Rama as an earlier incarnation of the Buddha), most certainly not in Islam.
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. It helps to know, but is not strictly of any importance in the present, that Hindus kept going there even when a mosque stood there, even under Muslim rule. 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 ShahBano 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 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"), but went so far as to deny the well-established fact that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a Rama temple.
Though intimidated, the political class didn't give in altogether but subtly pursued its plans. In late 1990, Chandra Shekhar's minority govenrment, supported and largely teleguided by opposition leader Rajiv Gandhi, invited the Vishva Hindu Parishad and the Babri Masjid Action Committe 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
As for the second half, that didn't work out as hoped for. No amount of evidence could silence the deniers. 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". They managed to intimidate a Dutch scholar who had earlier contributed even more elements to the already large pile of pro-temple evidence 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.
Even in the world-renowned RISA collective, dozens chose to toe this party-line of disregarding the evidence and denying the obvious, viz. that the Babri Masjid (along with the Kaaba, the Mezquita, the Ummayad mosque, the Aya Sophia, the Quwwatu'l-Islam 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 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 activists who performed the demolition were angry with their own leaders for seemingly abandoning the Ayodhya campaign after winning the 1991 elections with it, but perhaps the Hindutva leaders had secretly been in touch with the PM or at any rate adjusted their policy to their inside perception of a deal planned by him.
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 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 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 ASI employed a large number of Muslims in order to preempt the predictable allegation of being a Hindutva outfit.
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 accept this.
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, or that the findings of some animal bones in one layer precludes the existence of a temple, and more such hare-brained reasoning.
The emerging picture was clear enough: there is no such thing as a refutation of the overwhelming ASI evidence, just as there is 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 expect frantic attempts to intimidate the Supreme Court into annulling the Allahabad verdict, 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.