While the Supreme Court gave the verdict in favour of the construction of the Ram Mandir, several left leaning historians and eminent lawyers spared no part in trying to mislead, fabricate evidence and even muddy the waters by casting aspersions on everything. Even the very question of the temple, despite overwhelming archaeological evidence, was continually hammered to create a false narrative. We list out these modern day Manthras who left no stone unturned in behaving obnoxiously.
Left Leaning Historians Make False Claims
- Left historians joined the Ayodhya Debate in November 1989 when CHS, JNU issued “Political Abuse of History: Babri Masjid – Ramjanmabhumi Dispute – An Analysis of 25 Historians”.Prof S Gopal, Romila Thapar and Bipin Chandra were head signatories
- According to the JNU historians there was no mention of a Ramjanmabhumi temple at Ayodhya before the 19th century Neither Abul Fazl nor Tulsidas referred to it
- JNU historians also questioned the assumption that “Muslim rulers were invariably and naturally opposed to the sacred places of Hindus”. They recommended that the Ramjanmabhumi be declared as a National monument
- Prof RS Sharma said that Ayodhya “has not been a tirtha of a very long standing”. He said there “was not a shred of historical evidence” to support the view that a Rama temple was demolished and that a mosque was raised in its place. He lamented thats “a lover of Hindu art and architecture (Babar) should be credited with the destruction of a Rama temple which in any case did not exist”
- Prof Romila Thapar in April 1990 speaking on “Different Versions of the Ramayana” censured the projection of Valmiki’s Ramayana and Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas as the sole authentic rendition of Rama’s story. This, despite the fact that Valmiki’s rendition is acknowledged as the earliest surviving account of Rama’s life. The core of Valmiki’s story was developed into Ram as God incarnate, and around 300 retellings, according to Camille Bulke, were all retellings of Valmiki’s story
- Left historians attempted to counter the centuries old belief & tried to assert that Babri Masjid was built on a vacant piece of land. Some of these historians appeared as experts of BMAC
- Kunal Kishore, OSD, Ayodhya under PM VP Singh & Chandra Shekhar said that the “Political Abuse of History: Babri Masjid – Ramjanmabhumi Dispute – An Analysis of 25 Historians” tried to falsely claim that Babri was a protected monument by the ASI.
- Eminent ‘historians’ RS Sharma, M Athar Ali, DN Jha and Suraj Bhan in 1991 wrote a letter to the then Union Minister of Home Affairs, attaching their report titled, ‘Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid: A Historians’ Report to the Nation’. They contended that there was no evidence of the existence of a temple, and added that the Hindus had not been able to cite any passage from ancient texts to back their claim, even calling the Skanda Purana, the only text quoted by these four, as full of interpolations and hardly authoritative in deciding on the existence of a temple.
- Irfan Habib mounted a forceful campaign that the Treta Ka Thakur inscription was stolen from Lucknow museum & placed at Ayodhya on 6th Dec 1992. In 2002, he alleged that the Vishnu Hari Shila was a plant and it belonged to a private collection. At the Indian History Congress 2006 he said that the inscription has been surreptitiously removed from Lucknow museum & paraded as a find from Babri Masjid. Eventually, through pictures it was established that Treta Ka Thakur and Vishnu Hari inscription found in 1992 are distinct epigraphs.
- D Mandal, a pro-Babri archaeologist in his book, ‘Ayodhya: Archaeology After Demolition’, attempted to disprove BB Lal’s findings. However, during an examination in Allahabad HC Mandal confessed that his book was chiefly based on the photograph taken by Prof Lal near Babri Masjid. Further, as per court records, D Mandal “is not a Ph D but many have been awarded Ph D under his guidance.”
- Sita Ram Roy was another historian to note who mentioned that Ramcharitmanas mentions Avadha or Koshala, not Ayodhya. Also, with respect to the Vishnu Hari Shila, he said that since the Vishnu Sahasranama did not mention Vishnu Hari as one of the names of Vishnu, he speculated that “Mandira” was used as a synonym for “House” and the place was home of a king named Vishnu Hari. At time of court examination however, he admitted that he had not seen full photograph – estampage of the inscription.
- Dr KM Shrimali of the Delhi University warned that stone inscriptions could be forged, trying to muddy waters.
- Ironically, with the exception of Suraj Bhan, none of the pro-Babri archaeologists had any experience in the field of archaeology. RC Thakran confessed in the court that he was just a “table archaeologist”, while D Mandal admitted that he had “acquired knowledge in archaeology”. Shereen Ratnagar admitted that she had “not done any digging & excavation on my own”, while Suraj Bhan confessed that he conducted excavations only prior to writing his Ph D Thesis. To top it all, Irfan Habib with no experience of archaeology called the ASI report an “unprofessional document full of gross omissions and one sided presentations of evidence to support the fiction of Sangh Parivar about the earlier existence of a temple”.
Identification Of Ayodhya And Its Recognition As Tirtha
- Left historians have questioned the identification of present day Ayodhya with Ayodhya of ancient times which they have located in Afghanistan & even Egypt.
- Kalidasa in his Raghavamsha mentioned Saket several times, while Mallinatha explained “Of Saketa” i.e. of Ayodhya
- RS Sharma’s former student Suvira Jaiswal deposed in the Allahabad High Court and admitted that it can be found from Jain religion that Ayodhya and Saket are the same, and that Lord Rama has been referred as Koshal Naresh. Further, popular memory only the present day counts as Ayodhya
- Left historians attach no importance to Ayodhya, despite the opening verses of the Ramayana starting off with the mention of Ayodhya. Further, Sri Rama while showing the city to Vanaras, Sugriva and Angada and Vibhishana said that Ayodhya is my birthplace, and north flows the Sarayu.
Obfuscators Acting As Lawyers
- Kapil Sibal of the Congress as a lawyer tried to stall the daily hearing of the Ram Janmabhoomi case in the Supreme Court, saying that this judgment would affect 2019 elections, which is why the verdict should be delayed till then.
- Rajeev Dhawan, when representing the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board in the Supreme Court tore Lord Ram’s ‘birthplace’ map following an argument between Dhavan and senior advocate Vikas Singh who was representing the All India Hindu Mahasabha and presented the fake Historians Report to the Nation to bolster his unfounded arguments.
- Zafaryab Jilani, Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board’s lawyer who contested the case, had dismissed the position of the Allahabad High Court judgment that the site in question was the janmabhumi of Sri Ram, and had also played a critical role in the failure of the talks during Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar’s short tenure.