Archive for the ‘AMU’ Category

Historians as witnesses and Sunni Wakf Board Experts!

October 16, 2010

Ramajanmabhumi-Babarimasjid, evidences and Court or

Hisorians as witnesses and Sunni Wakf Board Experts!


Ramajanmabhumi-Babarimasjid and eminent hisorians: The eminent historians would appear immediately, whenever “Rama” appears in the headlines of Indian media. They start interpreting historicity of “Ramayana” according to their own way without any regard for the other view or perspective[1]. Even in the case of Sethu-samuthram, they started writing in “the Hindu” and EPW grinding their mills as usual[2]. Of course, the left media does / did not want the opinion of the others[3]. They vociferously lecture and write that they would appeal against the judgment and so on, but disappear thereafter. They exploit every forum like IHC etc., only to project their viewpoint[4]. Romila Thapar roared, “We would appeal against this jugment”, when the so-called “Hindutva judgment” came[5], but nothing happened! And the faithful readers of “The Hindu”, Frontline, EPW and the devoted members of IHC etc., also do not bother as to why their eminent historians tell lies or play such dubious games? Why they believe the eminent historians, because of their eminence or for their duplicity? Have they ever thought about them as to why they behave like that? Now, again these left / eminent intellectuals / historians have been busy with issuing statements. Besides, historians and experts others too join!

130 experts sign – ASI report should be made public, says appeal to Chief Justice[6] (14-10-2010): Now 130 experts have come out with an open letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India! The news reports say like this, “The Allahabad High Court based a significant part of its judgment in the Ayodhya case on the evidence provided by the Archaeological Survey of India’s report on its excavations at the site, submitted to the court in 2003. They accuse that the report is still hidden from the public eye, and a virtual gag order placed on archaeologists who acted as observers during the excavation[7]. Now that the judgment has been pronounced, a group of 130 academics, activists and intellectuals have demanded that the ASI report be published. In an open letter[8] to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, they urged that the report “be made available for scrutiny in the public domain, especially to scholars, as it is now a part of the public judicial record.” The ASI report, which concluded that a temple had existed at the site, has been criticised by many archaeologists for ignoring evidence such as animal bones, which would not have been found in a temple for Ram, and the existence of glazed pottery and graves at all levels which indicated Muslim residence”[9].

Shereen Ratnagar and D. Mandal were slapped with contempt of court charges by the Allahabad High Court: “In May, archaeologists Shereen Ratnagar and D. Mandal were slapped with contempt of court charges by the Allahabad High Court for sharing their observations in a book, titled “Ayodhya: Archaeology After Excavation”, published by Tulika in 2007. The orders in that case have been reserved”. That means they know the implications of the law. That is why they have been keeping quite since 2003!

The open letter and signatories: “The open letter notes that, “the world at large is equally constrained to silence. Such a judicially ordained zone of uncertainty curbs freedom of expression and fair comment.” Indians have never seen them in other caes where such issues have been involved. Thus, they want to selective!

Signatories: “The letter was signed by well-known Indian academics such as Sumit Sarkar, Uma Chakravarti, K.N. Pannikkar, K. Satchidanandan, Ajay Dandekar and filmmakers such as Anand Patwardhan, as well as less well-known Indian citizens – a software engineer, a textile design consultant, a teacher[10]. Academics from abroad – including those from universities in London, Chicago, Stockholm and Copenhagen – have also signed the letter, as friends of India”. This type of letters have been issued since 1992 and many times, the so-called signatories say that they have simply agreed to include their names in such letters. In some cases, they did / do not know also about the inclusion of their names!

Romila Thapar and others: Statement issued through Sahamat (01-10-2010): Another report goes like this: “Questioning the verdict of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suits, a group of left-leaning intellectuals on Friday said the judgment was “yet another blow to the secular fabric of the country” and the “repute of our judiciary”.  The scholars, including Romila Thapar, K M Shrimali, K N Pannikar, Irfan Habib, Utsa Patnaik and C P Chandrasekhar, said in a statement through the platform of Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT) that the verdict had raised “serious concerns” because of the way history, reason and secular values had been treated in it. “The view that the Babri Masjid was built at the site of a Hindu temple, which has been maintained by two of the three judges, takes no account of all the evidence contrary to this fact turned up by the Archaeological Survey of India’s own excavations — the presence of animal bones throughout as well as the use of ‘surkhi’ and lime mortar (all characteristic of Muslim presence) rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque,” the statement noted.

The verdict on Ayodhya: a historian’s perspective[11] (01-10-2010): Under this caption, the view of romila thapar appeared in “The Hindu”. It goes like this, “It has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace it with religious faith.

“The verdict is a political judgment and reflects a decision which could as well have been taken by the state years ago. Its focus is on the possession of land and the building a new temple to replace the destroyed mosque. The problem was entangled in contemporary politics involving religious identities but also claimed to be based on historical evidence. This latter aspect has been invoked but subsequently set aside in the judgment.

“The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to commemorate the birth. This is in response to an appeal by Hindu faith and belief[12]. Given the absence of evidence in support of the claim, such a verdict is not what one expects from a court of law. Hindus deeply revere Rama as a deity but can this support a legal decision on claims to a birth-place, possession of land and the deliberate destruction of a major historical monument to assist in acquiring the land?

“The verdict claims that there was a temple of the 12th Century AD at the site which was destroyed to build the mosque — hence the legitimacy of building a new temple.

“The excavations of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and its readings have been fully accepted even though these have been strongly disputed by other archaeologists and historians. Since this is a matter of professional expertise on which there was a sharp difference of opinion the categorical acceptance of the one point of view, and that too in a simplistic manner, does little to build confidence in the verdict. One judge stated that he did not delve into the historical aspect since he was not a historian but went to say that history and archaeology were not absolutely essential to decide these suits! Yet what are at issue are the historicity of the claims and the historical structures of the past one millennium.

“A mosque built almost 500 years ago and which was part of our cultural heritage[13] was destroyed wilfully by a mob urged on by a political leadership. There is no mention in the summary of the verdict that this act of wanton destruction, and a crime against our heritage, should be condemned. The new temple will have its sanctum — the presumed birthplace of Rama — in the area of the debris of the mosque. Whereas the destruction of the supposed temple is condemned and becomes the justification for building a new temple, the destruction of the mosque is not, perhaps by placing it conveniently outside the purview of the case.

“Has created a precedent[14]: The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law that land can be claimed by declaring it to be the birthplace of a divine or semi-divine being worshipped by a group that defines itself as a community. There will now be many such janmasthans wherever appropriate property can be found or a required dispute manufactured. Since the deliberate destruction of historical monuments has not been condemned what is to stop people from continuing to destroy others? The legislation of 1993 against changing the status of places of worship has been, as we have seen in recent years, quite ineffective.

What happened in history, happened. It cannot be changed[15]. But we can learn to understand what happened in its fuller context and strive to look at it on the basis of reliable evidence. We cannot change the pas[16]t to justify the politics of the present. The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence”.

Earlier stand – Irfan Habib (01-10-2010): “With the three judges pronouncing differing opinions on the historical and archaeological aspects of the case in the Allahabad High Court’s judgement on the disputed land in Ayodhya, many leading historians have been left bemused. “It’s not a logical judgement with so many parts going 2-1. One does not accept the logicality of the judgement,” said Irfan Habib, a noted historian and a former Chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research who earlier taught at the Aligarh Muslim University. He noted that the verdict seemed to legitimise the events of 1949[17], when an idol was placed inside the mosque, by constant references. On the other hand, by minimising any mentions of the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the court seemed to be disregarding it, he said. He also expressed surprise that two judges questioned the date of construction of the Babri Masjid, as well as the involvement of emperor Babar or his commander Mir Baqi, since there had been clear inscriptions to this effect before the demolition. “Things that are totally clear historically, the court has tried to muddy,” he said[18].

D. N. Jha: “The historical evidence has not been taken into account,” said D.N. Jha, history professor at the Delhi University. Noting the judgement’s mention of the “faith and belief of Hindus” in reference to the history of the disputed structure, Dr. Jha asked why the court had requested an excavation of the site.“If it is a case of ‘belief,’ then it becomes an issue of theology, not archaeology. Should the judiciary be deciding cases on the basis of theology is a question that needs to be asked,” he said.

Supriya Verma, one of the observers: Professional archaeologists also noted that the judges did not seem to rely heavily on the Archaeological Survey of India’s court-directed excavation of the site in 2003, at least in the summaries of their verdict available on Thursday evening. “Somewhere, there is doubt about the credibility of that report,” said Supriya Verma of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, who acted as an observer during the ASI excavation. She noted that neither Justice Sudhir Agarwal nor Justice Dharam Veer Sharma even referenced the ASI report to support his conclusion on the existence of a temple on the site before the mosque was built. “It is almost as though they themselves were not convinced by the evidence. They are clearly conceding that there was no archaeological evidence of a temple or of its demolition…It is a judgement of theology,” she said.

Jaya Menon, one of the observers: Another observer of the ASI excavation, Jaya Menon of the Aligarh Muslim University, noted that the ASI report itself did not provide any evidence of a demolition, and only asserted the existence of a temple in its conclusion. “So I don’t know on what basis they made their judgements,” she said. The ASI report had been criticised by many archaeologists for ignoring evidence such as animal bones, which would not have been found in a temple for Ram, and the existence of glazed pottery and graves which indicated Muslim residents.

The eminent historians as witnesses of Muslims in the Allahabad case: The eminent historians, historical experts  and leftist manufacturers never bother about their secular credentials.  It is not known as to why these coteries should always support for the Masjid or Muslim cause. Ironically, the following have been the witnesses of the case in question, which is criticised by them:

Sl.No Witness no Name of the witness
1 Witness No. 63 R.S. Sharma
2 Witness No. 64 Suraj Bhan
3 Witness No. 65 D.N. Jha[19]
4 Witness No. 66 Romila Thapar
5 Witness No. 70 Irfan Habib
6 Witness No. 72 B.N. Pandey
7 Witness No. 95 K.M. Shrimali
8 Witness No. 99 Satish Chandra
9 Witness No. 102 Gyanendra Pandey

Then, where is their loci standi in criticising the judgment and Court? As witnesses, definitely, they could have deposed before the judges presenting their “historical facts” as they only know how to interpret! The public perhaps, even today do not know that in secular India, these historians stood witnesses to the Muslims! Why none has appeared for Hindus or temple cause? When the cold-blooded terrorist and heinous killer like Kasab is given legal aid, why none appeared for the non-Muslim and non-mosque group? Where is secularism? Would they come out in the public what they told to the judges in the Court? However, the poor show showed in the court by them raises many questions.

HC judge exposed experts espousing Masjids cause: Waqf Board Line-Up Accused Of Having Ostrich-Like Attitude:  The role played by independent experts, historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim has come in for criticism by one Allahabad High Court judge in the Ayodhya verdict. While the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed objections raised by the experts to the presence of a temple, it was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny. Most of these experts deposed twice. 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. During lengthy cross-examination spread over several pages and recorded by Justice Agarwal, the historians and experts were subjected to pointed queries about their expertise, background and basis for their opinions.
To the courts astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, were withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displayed an ostrich-like attitude to facts. He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were connected one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.

The vociverous historians could not give evidences properly as witnesses with all their extertise[20]: Some instances underlined by the judge are[21]:

  • Suvira Jaiswal[22] 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 on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department.

  • Supriya Verma[23], 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[24] 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.

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…[25] the judge 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[26]. Justice Agarwal noted that instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tends to create more complications, conflict and controversy. He pointed out that experts carry weight with public opinion.

When the matter is subjudice, one has to obey law: It is a simple matter that whenever, any issue / case is pending with the Court, as the matter is subjudice, it should not be discussed or the decisions cannot be drawn in favour of anybody. However, these left historians etc., have been always speaking and writing supporting for Muslim cause or against Hindus, as is evident from their own recorded / printed statements / articles always published in the selected in few journals / ndewspapers. Unfortunately, they have even agreed to be witnesses for the Wakf Board in the Allahabad Court as their names are figuring. Ironivcally, they are called as Sunni Wakf Board experts![27]

When religions rely upon belief system, so also secularism historians too belive so ignoring objectivity: Like believers and dis-believers historians too believe and compel others to believe their perspective without any objectivity. As their objectivity differes, their perspective also differ, but try to argue with ideology, as could be understood by others. With belief system, no two ideologists could come together; with objectivity no two historians could accept the same historical event in the same view or pwerspective; here, the media has been projecting only one view. So what about the other view and why the media does not provide opportunity to accommodate their view? Should “audi alteram partem – hear the other side and decide” be applicable only to the Courts according to the principle of natural justice or the historians do not want to follow?

The same pattern as noted in the case of DK, DMK and other rapid atheists and radical experts is noted in the case of these eminent historians or Sunni Wakf Board experts: As it is pointed out in the case of DK[28]-DMK[29] radicals and rabid atheist groups that they do not come to Courts or face courts, though, they used to cry and roar that they are not afraid of Courts and so on. Here, also, suppressing the facts, these historians talk and write one thing in the dailies and cover up their mumbling and bungling in the court. The court recordings of the witnesses have been actually exposing their hollowness of expertise, deceptiveness of historical knowledge and their dubious role as witnesses. That they accuse even without seeing, even without reading or just discussing with others etc, prove their capacity of manoeuvring and manipulation of academics. How they get PhDs etc., only prove such academic degradation and professional pampering without any shame or remorse. It is open secret that the JNU, AMU, DU, IHC, ICHR and others at one side and BMAC, Sunni Wakf Board, AIMPLB at the other side have been playing communalism under the guise of secularism. Just by accusing others they cannot live, survive and continue their careers in this competitive world.

Why the eminent historians and Sunni Wakf Board experts did not respond to the remarks of the Judge? Definitely, the remarks of the Judge have been questioning the integrity of the eminent historians and Sunni Wakf Board experts, who deposed before the court as witnesses! They cannot simply brush aside such exposure, as it casts aspersion on their position. The English reading Indians and Indian students may doubt their veracity, reliability and uprightness, as they read their writings or listen to them. Therefore, they should go to court to clear the mess instead of shooting out letters to the Chief Justice just like politicians.

Indians and Indian youth should note as to whether these Sunni Board experts should teach history. Very often, it is said, claimed and propagated that India is / has been secular. Yes, how then the eminent historians professional archaeologists acted as Sunni Wakf Board experts and deposed as witnesses to the Muslims? Why these retired historians, senile professors and their working agents always make clamor about history, historicity and historiography in India, as if they are the sole selling agents of such stuff? Nowadays, the fact is that a few have been takers for history and most of the universities have dispensed with history subject. Definitely, the so-called historians have lost their importance and thus they tried to struggle for survival with the political and communal support. Now, the documents are available to all and the facts are known to everybody who access them through internet or otherwise. Common people may not know or understand the deceptive talkings and writings of the eminent historians or Sunni Wakf Board experts, but slowly they come to know. They easily understand that who want to settle the dispute and who want to continue the dispute for their stakes. Definitely, Muslims and Hindus want to settle the issue once for all, but these history gamblers and politicians want to continue. Therefore, the will of people prevail.




[2] Romila Thapar, “Where fusion cannot work – faith and history” (the Hindu, dated September 28, 2007).

…………………., Historical Memory without History, in Economic and Political weekly, VOL 42 No. 39 September 29 – October 05, 2007, pp.3903-3905.

K. N. Panikkar, Myth, history and politics, Frontline, October 5, 2007, pp.21-24.

Suraj Bhan, “Government should have stood by ASI”, Ibid, pp.19-20.

[4] During the 2007-IHC session, Suvira Jaiswal was making such satatements. Then, in Delhi also they tried take up the matter. Now, in February 2011 at Malda, they may raise the issue. However, the Indians have to weait and see.

[5] In “the Hindu”, as usual, the news appeared with her photo and all, but after that everbody would have forgot about it! However, their warrior-like talk, veiled threatening and tactics of suppression of facts cannot be acquired by others.

[6] The Hindu, ASI report should be made public, says appeal to Chief Justice, Published: October 14, 2010 01:54 IST | Updated: October 14, 2010 02:03 IST;

[7] How this has been a blatant lie has been exposed by the judge and that is why these guys have now tried to save their image by writing such letters. Of course, the media gives due publicity to such hypes and gimmicks.

[8] However, their mumbling, jumbling and bungling deposes before the Court have been kept as closed secret!

[9] Thus the eminent historians look for a non-vegetarian kitchen of Muslims there instrad of a temple. The same experts declared that the 16” inscription was planted by the Karsevaks in 1992.

[10] When Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti works on the same lines, the same eminent historians make fun of having such diversified experts, but now they themselves have such signatories, just to project their strength.

[11] The Hindu, Published: October 2, 2010 00:41 IST | Updated: October 2, 2010.

[12] There is nothing new in Romila’s argument, as she repeats the same matter again and again. The unfortunate thing is that she like her friends always want others should accept their views!

[13] How they contradict in their views legally can be noted in such statements. When convenience comes, they forget law, when law is against them, they start talking generalization or raise the bogey of “Hindutva”!

[14] Law precedence is created in the Court. Yes, definitely, the judges are the persons to create and others have to accept. Of course, the appealable legal remedy is there.

[15] But whatever happened also cannot be forgotten. When the same historians want to whitewash the temple destruction of the Muslims and accept only the Muslim contribution, such type of exclusivist logic is not explained. Why the students should not know the facts? In law it is said audi alteram partem – hear the other side and decide. How then historians want to decide without knowing the other side?

[16] Why then the interpretation of the past is always different for different historians? Nowadays, historians do not want objectivity also. How then they woerry about accuracy, when they themselves are not worried about it?

[17] Acts and Rules are within the time frame work. All know that Places of Worship Act is there and it e3xempts only this place and not others. Why then they talk about pre-1947 and after 1947, when law its4elf  cannot do so?

[18]The Hindu, Historical evidence ignored, say historians, dated October 1, 2010,

[23] It is interesting to note that the ASI report talks about a shrine followed by a temple with different structural phases, it also talks of “animal bones recovered from various levels of different periods”. If any shrine and a temple existed how can anyone account for the animal bones, Supriya Verma asks? She also maintains that stones and decorated bricks could have been used in any building, not necessarily only in a temple. Also, the carved architectural members have come from the debris and not from the stratified context.

[24] She got appointment in the AMU after she started supporting the cause of mosque and appeared as Sunni Wakf Board expert!

[25] The historians who deposed as witnesses and as well as others should carefully read this and understand their postion. They cannot pretend as if nothing happened or pose as great authorities and roam here and there in historical forums and conferences. Now Indians have also understood their double-games, double-speak and double-standards.

[26] Nowadays, just like medical experts or specialized doctors, these historians ad archaeologists trading charges like this – so-and-so is an expert in that field and he alone can know the truth and others cannot know the truth. Such type of exclusive mind-set exposes their arrogance and weakness and not the real expertise.

[27]Asghar ali Engineer, Archaeological Excavations and Temple, September 1-15, 2003,

[28] Vedaprakash, Old Judgments and  New thoughts in the present context: S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker  others.,


Historians: Mythistory, Historical myths and Historiography in India

July 16, 2009
Historians: Mythistory, Historical myths and Historiography in India
Published on October 20th, 2007 In Uncategorized, Politics |  Views 1286
Historians: Mythistory, Historical myths and Historiography in IndiaThe Communist historians posing as “master of all arts”: K. N. Panikkar1, the rabid communist and Red Parivar fundamentalist has been out with his brigade and arsenal to attack the noble subject of history and historiography with professionally biased, ideologically corrupted and historically perverse duplicity. He follows Romila Thapar2 sincerely and faithfully without any historical sincerity, epistemological honesty and historiosophic faith, though, in his determination to write about politicization of history. Now, his new venomic dosage has poured in the form of “Myth, history and politics” with due accommodation in the propagandist communist mouth-piece of “Frontline”3.

Suraj Bhan4, the Babri-archaeologist says, “Government should have stood by ASI”. Ironically, he sided with the communal and divisive forces of BMAC at that time. More irony was that the BMAC was producing EVR books as evidence to the government. He now goes to assert that archaeology has nothing to do with religion. But it is archaeology, those archaeological evidences, which decides the fate of religion. He need not come out about the NASA pictures now, as archaeologists or scientists never opine, as do now, when the pictures were published in media and discussed widely. At that time itself, the scientific community could have openly asserted that it was only a ridge made of coral reef and so on.

Earlier, the eminent historian, Romila Thapar had the audacity of questioning the so-called “Hindutwa judgment” and declared, “We will file appeal in the Supreme Court”. But nothing happened. This had been a glaring example of historians meddling with religious sentiments, and judicial judgments.

“    So why these retired, senile, old-aged historians off and on, come out and roar and sleep like this?

“    Why they want to pretend to be “master of all arts or subjects”?

“    Are they really sincere in pursuing such path or just write something, get money and keep quite?

Indians are forced to study them carefully for their exhibited behaviour5 (shouting, fighting and beating during the business sessions of IHC, SIHC etc), eccentric statements and claims (that we would appeal to Supreme Court) and occasional explosive writings [as appearing in the Hindu, Frontline, EPW, Murasoli (mouth-piece of the militant anti-Hindu DMK) etc]. How the persons of various disciplines should be evidently ganged against one particular religious believers, religion and their belief system? Is it coincidence or orchestrated war against them? What is right or wrong with them?

Politicization of Ayodhya – the Myth and Reality: While the people of Ayodhya have started cursing BJP and Sangh Parivar for forsaking the issue, the Red gang at Faizabad tried to interpret differently6. But the local people who have been living there for thousands of years do not believe the communists. At one time, they have even driven away them and warned that they would not vote for them again (ironically, the people of Faizabad in which Ayodhya is situated elected Communist).

Had they known that these communist historians are propagating another myth that “Ayodhya” was in Afghanistan7, even local Muslims would have thrashed them out for “talibanization of Indian history”8. The people of Ayodhya have been angry with politicians, ideologists and government, as they have been disturbed, troubled and harassed by them always. Whenever, any problem is there, they land down to get sensational news and disappear.

But the continuing tradition, age-old worship, people participation in the festivals, fairs and celebrations have been curtailed by the government under the guise of security. So why the Red Parivar (Communists of all sorts), the Black Parivar (the atheist-politicians of all sorts) and the Green Parivar (not elsewhere specified) want to remember Rama?

The local Hindus and Muslims blame all, as they have lost their land, the traditional places of festivals and fairs, terribly disturbed by the police and security forces, as they could not carry out their routines, periodic festivals and fairs. Tourism, fairs and festivals only bring money for livelihood there. As they live on such fairs and festivals and now they are restricted and even banned, thousands of people of Ayodhya have been affected greatly. Their grievance has been two-fold –

  1. As BJP and Sangh Parivar forgotten Rama and Ayodhya, the people coming to Ayodhya has stopped and
  2. because of government restriction, terrorist attack etc., the strength of tourists coming there has also dwindled down.

They, painfully express that nowadays, people are afraid of Ayodhya, because of the politicization. Have historians noted this point? The mythologization of history of Ayodhya has only brought harm to the people and not any benefit. The fight of archaeologists9 at WAC-3 only exposed the Communal, fundamentalist, fanatic, ideologically oriented archaeologists and not any real archaeologists who work for the benefit or welfare of Indians.

Now, the Politicization of Rameswaram: The same thing has started happening at Rameswaram and the sacred spot Sethu-samuthram. For thousands of years, the Hindus have been faithfully going there coming from extreme north and north-west and even from foreign countries to have holy-dip at the Dhanuskoti. On every auspicious day, there would be lakhs and thousands of people gathering there to carry out their duties without any publicity.  It is not myth that every place, spot and even stones and earth there are named after Ramayanic characters, episodes and happenings, as no historian or mythologist has taught them to do so.

\    If there is no Rama and Ramayana, where is Rameswaram?

\    Can these archaeologists and historians could find pr suggest another name for this place?

\    How the engaged responsible scientists and others without consciousness, honesty and integrity, mention as “Adam-bridge” now in official documents and writings even in the science journals10?

\     Then, why can’t they change the name to Adam-samuthram Project instead of Setu-samuthram project?

\    With such mind-set, have they any morality or moral right to sit in the Committee?

But now, the politicians, engineers, workers and others have landed in gangs and started disturbing, troubling and harassing the locals. Not only the pilgrims even the locals have been annoyed by their behaviour and activities.

If Rama is not there, there is no Rameswaram. But the historians, politicians and the non-believing atheist evidently anti-Hindu have been out to attack the innocent Hindus. Still millions of Hindus do not know that their monument has already been subjected to demolition in the name of progress, project, and money-making political contracts where more than 2500 crores are involved.

So now, it has been the atheist DMK who wants to be in power blackmailing and extracting from the Congress, who are ironically supported by the very Communist crones of treachery. The political power brokers have ganged together under the guise of bastardized alliance burying their ideologies only with the aim of amassing crores through commissions, contracts and postings. They do not have anything for India, or anything connected with
India. Why then, they have ganged together to rule? So the intention has been very clear to loot the people under the name of pseudo-secularism, political fundamentalism and alliance gangsterism.

So their slaves and agents of historians, paid-writers and pert-journalists have no other business from their slumber, but suddenly wake up and start writing about Rama, Ramayana etc., in the accommodative papers and journals. Why the duplicity? And what these historians talk and write about?

Filing and withdrawal of Affidavits: An “affidavit” has been a sworn statement submitted to any legal or quasi-judicial; forum by the applicant or respondent in the involved case or dispute with usual appendage, “I do hereby solemnly affirm and say that the statements contained in the foregoing petition are true to my knowledge”. Generally, a lawyer or advocate would draft it taking facts from their client. After approval of the client, it would be vetted by the senior advocate and filed on the judicial forum. What is the role of historians or archaeologists here, that too, not connected with the case? If there has been any legal lacuna or deviation, even if one is not advocate or party, it can be pointed out for rectification.

Remember the affidavit and petition filed by one Chandamal Chopra11 in Calcutta High Court on June 18th, 1985 – popularly known as “Calcutta Quran petition”? Why these Communist historians were sleeping when it happened from their citadel? Even though, the petition and review petition filed by Chandamal Chopra was dismissed by the Judge Bimal Chandra Basak, the Court documents tell the history.

Take another classical case of Sri Ramakrishna Mission claiming minority status12 in the very same Calcutta High Court! What happened? Yes, the so-called Hindutwa Mission found by the communal Swami Vivekananda was declared as minority Institution by the Calcutta High Court! What these historians were doing at that time? Where Romila was roaming, Panikkar was poking or prowling upon and Suraj was snoozing? The affidavits did not bother them? They did not know the history or fooling the people of India?

Why “the only nationalist newspaper”,  “The Hindu” and the communist “Frontline” did not come out with articles questioning the affidavits, history, faith, myth, fusion etc., involved in the above cases? Why archaeologists like Suran Bhan did not come out to rescue archaeology or history or at least to suggest the government, as he doing now?

Why historians are sleeping and awakening suddenly? If these historians are committed to the historical cause with historicity in their minds, they should be consistent with every similar issue. They should be conscious, vigil, and awakened all the times and come out with their articles in The Hindu, EPW or frontline. But, they are active only when “Rama” is involved.

V     Why can’t their historical consciousness and historical thinking question the historicity of Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Christ, Mary, Mohammed,
Fatima and their connected events and happenings? 13

V     Location of their places of birth, so-journ and death?

V     Archaeology of such places? 14

As India is a secular state and the festivals of them are imposed on majority Hindus, all Indians have every right to know why Christmas, Easter, Miladi-nabi, Bakrid, and other festivals are celebrated15. The Hindus and true-secularists are bewildered and perplexed as to why the Muslims and Christians are greeted whenever their festivals are celebrated? Or their gods days of birth and death are celebrated, whereas that of others, particularly, the Hindus are neglected?

M  Why myth, history, faith, fusion etc., work differently here?

M  Why this variance in the approach of historians?

M  Is it historically allowed or hysterically followed?

M  Why methodology differs?

M  Why scientific temper in history fails?

M  Why secularism too stops working?

M  Why multivocal existence, folklore tradition, narrations of Bibles, Quarans etc., are not talked about?

M  If myth represent reality but represent it symbolically and metaphorically yet masking reality, why such myths are not told to secular Indians?

Thus, it is evident that these archaeologists and historians have been totally dishonest, corrupt, and perverse by being partial, biased and prejudiced. Definitely, these qualities are not for good historians. Hiding their cunningness and manipulative shrewdness, they now declare that they need not have any objectivity in history. As in the west, here there have not been any wagers for mythologization of history or historification of myth, but still, unofficial war is waged6 by the Communal Communist forces calling others as communal ands so on!

Of course, they might have done good work some 20-30 years back, but now, their psyche and mind-set are revealed and definitely, Indians cannot expect any historically faithful writings from them.

6      And they would continue to write like this with the same trend of faith, fusion, etc., creating “mythistory” 17 in Indian fooling millions of students of schools and colleges.

6      Can any responsible parent of
India allow these horrible and horror historians to write text-books for our children to read and become fundamentalists, fanatics and terrorists of new brand under the guise of pseudo-secularism, secular-fundamentalism and mythistory?

Myth, history, mythistory: Historically “myth” is not false, untruth or non-existent, in historical context at a particular historical time and historical place. Thus, historical myths are not opposed to historical facts, as from such myths only, the facts are culled out, grouped, analyzed and results are drawn for interpretation. Without myth or at least believing in myth, no archaeologist could proceed in his field study. He cannot locate any mound to start his dig.

History is not what is or has been or will be written but it is really what has or had happened in the past. In such understanding the past, historians cannot compel, dictate and force people with their own yardstick or scale

6      If historian says that your God is only 1000 years old or 2000 years old, that is his understanding of past, as the living tradition proves beyond doubt that certain people have been knowing that God for at least more than 4000 years. So historian fails in this simple case.

6      Historian says that one particular civilization has been illiterate and thus pre-historical in spite of their technology exhibited through material evidences excelling the present. Here also he fails miserably without understanding the facts.

6      He is creating a myth that only people with writing, that too that writing preserved and shown to them would be accepted as historical.

6      The limitation of understanding the past, misunderstanding or not-understanding of facts through material evidence, non-acceptance of available material evidence in historical perspectives etc., are only weaknesses of historians and not fault of such evidences. Here also historians create their myth.

6      If reconstruction of history is not possible with available constructive evidences, then, they cannot question the re-writing historians, adamantly, as again, they are creating a myth – the might of fascism that they can only write history and others cannot.

The historiography or rather historiographies of the pre-Christian or post-Christian, the pre-Mohammedan or post-Mohammedan, pre-Islamic or post-Islamic, pre-colonial or post-colonial interpretations, bias and prejudice at global level has been accepted one. The Indian history and historiography has been the adversely affected by all such impositions, censorship and professional bias-system operated and has been operating even today at different levels. Common Indians are not able to understand as to why these historians of all the above groups are ganged together and act against them? It is not the question of “Right” or “Left” but “Right” or “Wrong”. Indians cannot accept if “Right” is given by the “Right” or “Left”, or “wrong” is forced on them by the same categories. If both have problem in choosing which is right or wrong, Indians are not responsible for that, as they have books written and preserved in spite of the Muslim and Christian onslaught of destruction and carrying away the manuscripts and palm-leaf books ad other valuable historical evidences.

Unfortunately, Indian historical scholarship started reflecting some set of political or ideological groups degenerating into propaganda serving their political masters. The Congress has evidently nurtured the Communist or Marxist brand of historians since Nehru and they have been enjoying the postings in many historical and historian forums.

Politicians, historians, scientists and Adam-bridge: Now, we see not only historians, but also scientists have been ganged up with them. All have been under the control of politicians. They would have already sworn affidavit with their political masters. How then, they would faithfully come out with their professional expertise? When about one billion believers call it as “Ram-sethu”, these chosen numbers have audacity to mention as “Adam-bridge”, like Babri-Masid! Why such selective or specific bias on the part of scientists and experts?

It is obvious, the Communist historians may also get a share in the form of VC, members, directors in the thousands of Government controls academies, institutes etc., where they get income regularly with other regular facilities.

Appeal to Historians, scientists and politicians: If you want to earn money, go on build bridges in the city and towns. You can build two or more at required points or at non-required points, No problem. Lay four-track, six-track roads for MNCs, you get crores of rupees as commission. You can get funds from ADB, World Bank, American Bank, Communist Bank, Islamic Bank (perhaps without interest) etc., without bringing Rama. Shellout all agricultural lands to MNCs, no problem. Develop SEZs, kill people, immediately, you can bring revolution! Forget Rama and Sethu-samuthram project.

You can share with your scientists and historians by engaging them as “consultants”. Of course, corporate corruption always accommodates “consultants”, just like The Hindu, Frontline etc., accommodating communal communist historians. Do not taking Ayodhya to Afghanistan and Lanka to Madhyapreadesh or elsewhere, by actual talibanization of history.

The Indian politicians – please do play with the communist cronies and encouraging them to goon and spin mythistory. Do not try to wage war against innocent people of

N     By calling Rama a myth, a drunkard and so on, what you are going to achieve? We know you people always drink.

N     Can you get the status of Rama?

N     Or can you become a Rama?

N     By saying that my leader name is Ramaswamy, can any fool would believe that you are so friendly to Rama?

N     Do not you think that you are creating myth like roaming Romila, puny Pankkar and sullying Suraj?

Leave Rama to Ramabaktas, they are capable of taking care of him. Do not worry about Ayodhya or Lanka. Be happy with Ravana.

Notes and References

1.     K. N. Panikkar, a former professor of history, at Jawaharlal Nehru University and a former-vice-chancellor of Sree Sankarayacharya University of Sanskrit (sic), is currently the chairman of the Kerala Council of Historical Research. In IHC sessions, he used to give lectures in the evenings officially and unofficially to the Communist and Muslim groups separately.

2.     Romila Thapar, “Where fusion cannot work – faith and history” (the Hindu, dated September 28, 2007).

…………………., Historical Memory without History, in Economic and Political weekly, VOL 42 No. 39 September 29 – October 05, 2007, pp.3903-3905

3.     K. N. Panikkar, Myth, history and politics, Frontline, October 5, 2007, pp.21-24.

4.     Suraj Bhan, “Government should have stood by ASI”, Ibid, pp.19-20.

5.     It is very common during the sessions IHC. During business session of 51st session held atCalcutta in 1990, the members were about to clash with each other, but three delegates from Tamilnadu virtually-physically forced them apart. During the dinner hosted at the lawns of Victoria Memorial Building, the delegates all historians, professors etc., fall on the food without any discipline. The same three
Madras delegates came to rescue asking them to come in line to take their food.

K. Chitra Rao, Indian History Congress, a letter appearing in the Hindu dated December 10, 1991. It gives the gist of what happened at the Calcutta session. Of course, it has been edited version.During Warangal session, Bipan Chandra got angry and started shouting creating ugly scene during the session.

6.     A documentary film shown on Ayodhya few months back from 10 to 10.30 am.

7.     A delegate from Aligarh Muslim University presented a paper locating Ayodhya at Afghanistan during the IHC session held at Bhopal.

8.     The expression “Talibanization of history” has been used by the Christian-Communist-Muslim-atheist historian groups against the so-called Hindutwa historians, but in action, they are indulging in such “talibanization”. The accusers themselves enhaged in the action of the “accused”!

9.     World Archaeology Conference (WAC-3) held at New Delhi has been a blot on Indian archeology and history, as the so-called archaeologists openly fought with each other exposing their ugly minds.

10.  P. Seralathan, Disposal of dredge spoil from Sethusamudhram Ship Channel Project, Currenmt Science, Vol.90, No.2, January 25, 32006, pp.146-147.

11.  Sita Ram Goel, The Calcutta Quran Petition, Voice of India, New Delhi, 1986.

12.  Sri Ramakrishna Mission, founded by Sri Swamy Vivekananda, filed a petition in Calcutta High Court claiming “minority” status as a “non-Hindu. However, the Supreme Court held it as “Hindu”!

13.  A cursory browsing in the net gives you thousands of sites with facts.

14.  See “Bible and Archeology” books in the net. The general policy of the government has been, if evidences supporting Bible are found, funds would be given, otherwise no.

15.  Earlier for Miladunabi, etc., holiday was not there. But after V. P. Singh, communalization has crept into even in the declaration of “Government hoilidays”. Thus, as expected, the birth day of Mohammed is a holiday always, whereas that of Rama or
Krishna is not a holyday!

16.  Jerry H. Bentley, Myths, Wagers, and Some Moral Implications of World History, in Jounal of World History, Vol.16, No.1. Available in the following site:

17.  The word “mythistory” was used by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao in his writings during 1983. However, it is claimed that McNeill used it connoting, “a form of knowledge about the past that relies on the techniques of professional historical scholarship but also draws inspiration from perspectives that offer idealized visions of a community and endow its historical accounts with meaning”.

William H. McNeill, “Mythistory, or Truth, Myth, History, and Historians,” American Historical Review 91 (1986): 1–10;

…………………….., Mythistory and Other Essays (Chicago, 1986), pp. 3–22.

………………………….., “Mythistory,” p. 7. For an elaboration that perhaps represents what McNeill had in mind for his ecumenical world history, see J. R. McNeill and William H. McNeill, The Human Web: A Bird”s-Eye View of World History (New York, 2003).