Ayodhya verdict for dummies

I am very pleased with the Ayodhya verdict.

The Allahbad highcourt special bench had a dedicated website to release the verdict and unlike other government websites it dint die despite the whole load it must have faced.

Here are some salient points I drew up from the opinions of all three judges. (It is important to consider the opinions of all three of them unlike the TV channels which cited only Justice Khan’s verdict. Some have commented on the religion of judges and thats ridiculous.)

1. Who built the mosque?

Justice Khan: The mosque was built by or under the orders of Babar.

Justice Agarwal: The plaintiff have failed to prove that the mosque (building) was built by Babar or Mir Baqi. But it existed before 1766.

Justice DVS: It was built by Babar against the tenets of Islam. Thus we can not call it a mosque.

2. Whom did the land belong to when mosque was built ?

Justice Khan: Not sure whom it belonged but no evidence suggested that it belonged to Babar or whoever was carrying out his orders.

Justice Agarwal: It was worshiped by Hindus. But this does not affect anything since whoever built the mosque was the soul monarch and hence above all the laws applicable that time.

Justice DVS: Hindus worshiped the place and it was a place of pilgrimage for them since time immemorial.

3. Holy place of Hindus?

Justice Khan: Yes. The whole premises was considered holy by Hindus even before the mosque was built but not sure if any specific part was considered to be birth-place of ram.

Justice Agarwal: Yes. The place under the dome is believed to be the Janmasthaan of Lord Ram.

Justice DVS: Yes. The place is Ram Janamsthaan.

4.  Was there a temple in the place of mosque?

Justice Khan: No. No temple was demolished to build the mosque. But it was rather built over the ruins of a temple. Some material of the ruins was used to build the mosque. The ruins existed long before the mosque was built.

Justice Agarwal: Yes. The structure was built after a non-muslim building i.e. a Hindu temple was demolished.

Justice DVS: Yes. The ASC has proved that the demolished structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.

Note: Justice Khan admits that the place was important an holy for Hindus even before the mosque. He holds that there was a temple as well but he says it was in ruins. Does that mean Hindus kept their holy place in ruin? What for?

My Comments

I never thought of RJM as an issue of faith of millions etc. the way BJP and other Hindu organizations portrayed it neither a blot on secular nature of India the way congress and media portrayed it.

For me it was a people’s movement. It’s objective was not to correct historic wrongs but instead to show anger at the fact that Islamic iconoclast is not even acknowledged by our mafia historian, media and government. The issue had lost its steam immediately after the dome was demolished. People had given a way out to their anger and they had shown that even Hindus can get violent if their grievances are ignored as always.

This explains why people happily accepted the verdict today and there wasn’t any violence neither celebrations. The RSS seems to have learned it’s lessons as well as evident from Mohan Bhagwatji’s statements.

I am very happy about the point marked in red above. I feel the whole issue gathered steam only because this truth was denied by everyone. This one point kicks out any moral high-ground that secularists use to take by questioning the existence of temple in first place.


I wouldn’t count Waqf Board as losers solely because they were mere pawns in the game. As per me the real losers here as below

1. People who made comments such as “no matter who wins the nation is going to lose”, “let us build school, hospital etc. at the site”, “don’t care about the verdict but there should not be riots”, “verdict should be such that it will not cause riots”.

I can understand that no one wants riots. But, justice matters unless you are a submissive, docile moron willing to live a pointless life at the mercy of rulers and powerful. That is what some of the urban, educated and young people are in my opinion. Justice matters and courts responsibility is to deliver natural justice even if it is not popular.

The morons who are ready to give away anything by fearing riots are those who always give bone to the barking dog by encouraging the dog to bark in future. These are the people I guess vote parties like Congress in power.

2. Media Whores. The disappointment that Rajdeep, Barkha and Ghosh were showing that the verdict was a sadistic pleasure for me to watch and read. These are the people who don’t seem to know what the courts are really meant for.

I have some master pieces here.

If you have read my summary of verdict above it is clear why Mr. Diptosh from CNN-IBN thinks Mr. Khan = Reason. The real reason is Mr. Diptosh = Whitewashing History.

And exactly 4 hours before this guy made above “sweeping remarks” he found the verdict complex enough to sit and read with his lawyer friends. (It took him less than 4 hours to make above conclusion).

Barkha Raises doubts whether court should bend before the threat of violence.( in other words of course).

3. Left Liberals. The other biggest losers in the process seem to be the left liberals. These were the people who questioned the existence of temple first, when Archeological Survey of India found temple evidence they questioned ACS itself. Sophistry is their methodology.

Following people were witness in the case :

Witness No: 63 – R.S. Sharma;(b) – Witness No: 64 – Suraj Bhan;(c)Witness No: 65 – D.N. Jha;(d)Witness No: 66 – Padma Bhushan Romila Thapar ;(e)Witness No: 70 – ‘ Padma Bhushan’ Irfan Habib;(f)Witness No: 95 – K.M. Shrimali;(g)Witness No: 99 – ‘ Satish Chandra;(h)Witness No: 102- ‘Gyanendra Pandey

I refer to these people as mafia historians. These people once ruled the intellectual landscape of the country. These communist historians today find themselves isolated and discredited. After-all they were programmed for self-destruction. These people’s response to the verdict is predictable and on par with their usual line of argument.

For Hussein but not his defenders

MF Hussein has accepted Quatar’s citizenship offer and he is no more an Indian. Hussein had drawn naked paintings of Hindu deities such as Saraswati, Laxmi and Sita. For this he had suffered a great criticism from several parts of Hindu society. There were over 900 cases lodged against him. Several art galleries that showcases his work were vandalized.

I support ideas. Art and literature has often come up with things that the rest of society could not come on terms with. Artists, authors, philosphers have suffered as great deal because they said things that were against the accepted norms. But we must remember that the biggest changes in history were brough about by these people.

This is not to say that every person who comes up with something different is essentially a high class thinker like Socrates. There is very high probability that he might be a maniac. But then a society that seeks change, betterment must learn to tolerate these maniacs in order to give space to the true genius.

In Hussein’s case I am not sure about the quality of his work. But I feel that we must have given him enough freedom to draw whatever he wants. Those who dont like it have the right not to watch it.

But the problem the whole controversy highlighted was not really about Hussein but the intolerance that the Hindus showed. Support that Hussein received from media and other political parties was not really because they felt the need to protect his right of expression but they found this as an opportunity to show similarity between Hindu society and Islamic mindset.

The questions that were often raised by Hindu critic of Hussein were very uncomfortable for the pseudo-activists to answer. Can he draw a well clothed Prophet? Can he draw artistic depictions of any of the descriptions of prophet given in the Hadis? About the dreams that the prophet had about his 13  year old wife?

The answers are obvious. While the Hindu society restricted itself to peacefully lodging complaints, Islamic society not just in India but worldwide would have reacted in a way that could have cost him his life. Beyond any doubt, India certainly wouldn’t have protected him in that case. India did not protect Salman Rashdie nor did it protect Taslima Nasreen whose work was not really offending but actually a very sensible one.

I think the Hindu society’s unexplainable intolerance lies in this. Islam always got a treatment that it never deserved. When Salman Rashdie’s book was banned in India the intellectual class was pretty much silent. In fact they endorsed the ban. May be that was politically convenient but we lost an opportunity to prove ourself to be a modern society. We bend before Islam.

Like the adage “Barking Dog gets the Bone”, Hindu mindset is learning this double-face nature of rulers and public intellectuals. Unless their life and position is threatened these people will not support a Hindu cause.  Nevertheless more Islamic the Hindu society behaves more benefits that the ruling class and secular media has.

Many of them have manufactured arguments to support Hussein but to decry Rashdie. The argument is Hinduism allows nude portrayal of gods but Islam forbids any sort of representation.

The argument certainly is not a secular one. The artist must have freedom irrespective of what religion says.  And even if we look at Hindu traditions the nude portrayals are not really of deities that are worshiped. The Khajuraho etc are not really Hindu gods. The iconography lays down detailed rules when it comes to depiction of goddess like Saraswati. Raja Ravivarma’s painting which were the first paintings to give a face to Goddess like Laxmi and Sarasvati adhere to such traditions.

I dont think the real problem is Hussein or his paintings. The real problem I feel the the Hindu intolerance that is growing day by day. It is not the fault of Hindu society. Unlike Islamic society Hindu society was tolerant by nature but if we look into history, we will realize that Hinduism has enough material to provoke its followers to adopt violent mediums to defend themselves.

Whatever happened in the Hussein case was not really because of the content of the paintings. These paintings are pretty old but the outrage is only recent. Neither this is the conspiracy of “a few” to stroke communal feelings as often portrayed by the media. These double standards are getting exposed now and that’s the real cause of the rising Hindu intolerance. Unless we cautiously take steps to mitigate this threat, I am sure a complete lunacy awaits us in future.

Ayodhyaa: A cursed Kingdom?

In my opinion whole Ram Janmabhumi Babari Masque issue remains a shame for our judicial framework and concept of secular government. It takes 20 years to deliver a dud report on the whole issue itself is a testimony that no one actually cares about the justice. The generation that was actually behind the movement is forgotten and the younger generation is rarely aware of the issue.

Unfortunately the only thing we are told about the issue is that few Karsevaks destroyed a mosque claiming it was the birth place of Lord Rama. Indians have shown capability to remember historical facts for a very long time but then whether or not there existed a Lord Ram and whether or not he was born at that very same place can certainly not be proven. Destruction of a building irrespective of what that structure was and what was the motive of the people behind the structure was is an act of vandalism that needs to be punished.

Liberhan’s report on the issue remains a dud. But it points out some important facts. Merely the list of people it mentions shows that it was a mass movement. The kind of political leverage that BJP derived from the issue indicates that the issue in fact had a support of large Hindu mass. However the politically correct media and pseudo secularists always claimed that this was a conspiracy of a few people. L K. Advani and Bajrang Dal and RSS and other few to polarize the nation based on religion and gain votes.

It is true that polarization did happen and people responsible for the same should have been punished. But then why shouldnt Hindus be given their plausible demand of building a temple there? The structure in fact though architecturally a mosque, it was being used as temple for all practical purposes right from 1949. Hindus flocked to Ayodhyaa for centuries for pilgrimage where as no muslim went to this mosque for any significant reason. While the place had some special sacred meaning for Hindus it had no special importance for muslims.

The roots of this destructions were actually in Rajiv Gandhi’s decision to open the locks of the temple. Clearly this move was in accordance to Congress’ law of parity. Gandhi had just changed the consitution to overthrow supreme courts correct judgement in favour of Shah Bano. He declared tha  locks of the site to be opened. The presence of locks or their absence had no implication in temporal sense. But it made muslims feel that Rajiv is favouring Hindus.

Over years Congress had bestowed the leadership of muslim community to fundamentalists such as Sayyed Shahbuddin. They knew how to take advantage of such situations. Every time government tried to make some concession to Hindu community they would shout foul and in return to keep them quite government will give them some ministry, a house in Goa or increase the Hajj subsidy.

So when the muslims led by some of the most fundamentalist among them, cried foul, the congress government could have very easily kept them quit by these methods. Which did not happen. Because every one wanted this issue to escalate. And rest is history.

As long as the issue was alive it gave birth to several good things. The Marxist historians wrote imaginary histories to support illegitimate Muslims claims such as “there was no temple in Ayodhyaa”. There was no destruction of any temple there. RSS VHP never had any intellectual base. They were caught unaware in this propaganda and they lacked support to refute this.

It was made to appear that BJP and co. have unearthed some imaginary issue. Sita Ram Goel came to the rescue and later Mr. Lal. These two historians of rare breed refuted all Marxists claims in such an away that I haven’t heard these people talking on the issue again. In fact Sita Ram Goel documented cases of 2000 temples that were destroyed by muslims. No one has yet refuted even a single instance from his book.

Whats the point in talking about things that happened few hundred years ago some would argue. Ignorance of history is what Indian are happy to live with. But in this particular case, Hindu claim on the land is old yet continuous. The muslim argument however is more of arrogance and notorious.

We as a nation  failed to build a system where we could legally do what is just and correct. Our secular institutions tried to be politically correct and search for parity even when sufficient evidence was brought before it. It was our failure and we are paying a price.

To end we will see what Sir. Naipaul had to say

(P): The people who climbed on top of these domes and broke them were not bearded people wearing saffron robes and with ash on their foreheads. They were young people clad in jeans and tee shirts.

(N): One needs to understand the passion that took them on top of the domes. The jeans and the tee shirts are superficial. The passion alone is real. You can?t dismiss it. You have to try to harness it.

Hitherto in India the thinking has come from the top. I spoke earlier about the state of the country: destitute, trampled upon, crushed. You then had the Bengali renaissance, the thinkers of the nineteenth century. But all this came from the top. What is happening now is different. The movement is now from below.

Part 2 : BJP and Ramjanmabhumi

Home | Experts’ Opinion | Sir V.S. Naipaul


About Sir V.S. Naipaul

The wanderer who writes of cultures in upheaval. Trinidad-born author V.S. Naipaul, 69, who was awarded the Nobel Literature Prize in 2001,writes eloquently about cultures in upheaval, describing at first hand the loneliness of the refugee. He has often been described as a man without a country despite having lived in Britain for nearly half a century. Author of more than two dozen books and already showered with literary prizes; his life and art have been a series of journeys as he has sought to find a niche in several worlds. The outspoken author, who famously said he is without rival, has increasingly courted controversy in latter years, recently attacking the work and reputations of distinguished authors.

Naipaul, who gained a knighthood to become Sir Vidia, has sharply criticised what he saw as backwardness and corruption in his native West Indies and elsewhere in the developing world from India to Africa. But in his books An Area of Darkness and India: A Wounded Civilisation Naipaul showed distaste for what he thought was intolerance, fanaticism and self-satisfaction there. In 1971, he became the first non-British author to receive Britain’s most valuable literary prize for fiction, the Booker Award, for his 11th novel In a Free State. V.S. Pritchett, once called him “the greatest living writer in the English language”. We bring to our readers a very valuable interview of Sir V S Naipaul on the Ayodhya issue.


The basic ethos of the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi movement is to restore the honour of the Hindu Samaj (society) and Hindu culture. It is not just an issue of bricks and mortar. The renowned Vidiadhar S Naipaul has very tellingly expressed this, when he said:
What is happening in India is a new historical awakening ?. Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on. But every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening.

Given the response received from the masses in India and other places in the world for the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi movement, Shri Rama is clearly at the heart of our civilization and a major unifying force. There is no section, no region, of the Hindu Samaj that does not exhibit a deep attachment to Shri Rama. This empathy is strongly exhibited not only in other lands where Hindus have settled, but also where the indigenous people accepted Hindu culture, as in the entire Southeast Asia.

To understand the true ethos of the entire Rama Janmabhoomi Movement, it would be pertinent to quote Shri Vidiadhar Naipaul, the great thinker and litterateur whose literary genius, ruthless objectivity and deep perspective of history has been acclaimed the world-over.He was interviewed by Dilip Padgaonkar published in the Times of India, on 18th July, 1993, under the caption “An area of Awakening”, and again by Rahul Singh published in Times of India on 25th January, 1998 under the caption “Hindus, Muslims have lived together without understanding each other?s faith”, and by Sadanand Menon published in The Hindu under the caption “The truth governs writing”. The portions of the three interviews relevant to this point are reproduced below:

“An area of awakening”

Interview by Dilip Padgaonkar
The Times of India,
18 July 1993.

Padgaonkar (P): The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent rise of Islamic nations in Central Asia, the Salman Rushdie affair, similar harassment by fundamentalists of liberal Muslim intellectuals in India: all these factors taken together persuaded some forces to argue that a divided Hindu society cannot counteract Islamic fundamentalism.

Naipaul (N): I don?t see it quite in that way. The things you mentioned are quite superficial. What is happening in India is a new, historical awakening. Gandhi used religion in a way as to marshal people for the independence cause People who entered the independence movement did it because they felt they would earn individual merit.

Today, it seems to me that Indians are becoming alive to their history. Romila Thapar?s book on Indian history is a Marxist attitude to history, which in substance says: there is a higher truth behind the invasions, feudalism and all that. The correct truth is the way the invaders looked at their actions. They were conquering, they were subjugating. And they were in a country where people never understood this.

Only now are the people beginning to understand that there has been a great vandalizing of India. Because of the nature of the conquest and the nature of Hindu society such understanding had eluded Indians before.What is happening in India is a mighty creative process. Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on, especially if these intellectuals happen to be in the United States. But every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening.

However, we are aware of one of the more cynical forms of liberalism: it admits that one fundamentalism is all right in the world. This is the fundamentalism they are really frightened of: Islamic fundamentalism. Its source is Arab money. It is not intellectually to be taken seriously etc. I don?t see the Hindu reaction purely in terms of one fundamentalism pitted against another. The reaction is a much larger response?. Mohammedan fundamentalism is essentially negative, a protection against a world it desperately wishes to join. It is a last ditch fight against the world.

But the sense of history that the Hindus are now developing is a new thing. Some Indians speak about a synthetic culture: this is what a defeated people always speak about. The synthesis may be culturally true. But to stress it could also be a form of response to intense persecution.

(P): How did you react to the Ayodhya incident?

(N): Not as badly, as the others did, I am afraid. The people who say that there was no temple there are missing the point. Babar, you must understand, had contempt for the country (that) he had conquered. And his building of that mosque was an act of contempt for the country. In Turkey, they turned the Church of Santa Sophia into a mosque. In Nicosia churches were converted into mosques too. The Spaniards spent many centuries re-conquering their land from Muslim invaders. So these things have happened before and elsewhere.

In Ayodhya the construction of a mosque on a spot regarded as sacred by the conquered population was meant as an insult. It was meant as an insult to an ancient idea, the idea of Rama, which was two or three thousand years old.

Vande Mataram and Islam

It is very annoying to see that everyone around you is more happier to live in darkness despite of knowing where the light is. Or it can be other way round as well that I am in darkness and all others are in the true light. But no one so far has managed to convince me.

An organization of Muslim clerics declared that “Vande Mataram” is unislamic. Now there were two reactions expected. One from the secularists and another from the so-called hindutva organizations. If one thinks that both these camps would fight over the issue, one will make a mistake. They will certainly fight each other but their basic understanding of the issue is inherently the same.

Should the state force a song on its citzens or not is purely a state affair and hence must be dealt with true secularism. It is certainly a right of people to study a religion and declare something “unislamic”, “unhindu” or “blasphemy”. But I dont see a need for the state to bother about what does a book say about things which are not at all religious.

But see how the secularists respond. They are shocked. They now instead try to prove that “Vande Mataram” is in coherence with Islam. How the Quran should be interpreted in order to make it look like something that permits Muslims to sing vande mataram. Using religious arguments to counter religion’s attack on secularism is the mistake that the have been doing for a long time.

Imagine tomorrow the same organization gives away a fatawah saying “frisking muslims is unislamic” will the government refer to Quran and argue with them that it is not the way to interpret Quran? Shouldnt it say “If it is unislamic, so be it.” ? Failure of our leaders to do so has costed us so much. Instead the secular camp has bent before the Communal demands of various religions from time and now.

If someone considers RSS and similar organizations to be the nemesis of Secular camp they will be making a gross mistake. The Sar-Sanghchalak says

I don’t think any religion is against desh bhakti. To say Bharat Mata ki Jai and Vande Mataram is not like a religious puja or idol worship.

Isnt this the same thing? Now I hear that Sangh has also offered to translate Vande Mataram in Urdu. The difference between the secular and RSS approach apparently has absolutely no difference. And both these approaches are essentially deviating from the secular principles over which we are supposed to function.

By using such arguments the leaders are actually legitimizing the “living by the book”. In a long run the public is only going to demand that the state policies be modeled on these books that are written thousand year old.



Khuda Ke Liye

I am allergic to those Hindi movies which claim to ‘give a message’ on communal harmony and secularism. May it be Shaurya or Little hope and Sugar, I dont really think these movies give any messege nor they are entertaining. I guess they only help the producer director to establish themselves as so called serious cinema makers.

Watching ‘Khuda Ke Liye’ on a peaceful weekend was a great cinematic experience. This movie has been adored all over the world and as per what I believe gives the perspective of Pakistani society on Islam. It is important to note that Pakistan never upholds secularism nor they are proud of any diversity among them, so dont expect the kind of dose we get in Indian cinema. However I feel that this movie is much more realistic than its Indian counterparts.

Movie starts with the story of two brothers. Both love music. Both are hardcore Muslims believing in principles of Islam  such as non-alchoholism. However one of the brother gets under the influence of a fanatic Mulla, who is also a major personality in Al Quyada. As the time goes my, this mulla convinces on of the brothers that music is against Islam. Other brother on other hand leaves for US to study in Chicago School of Music.

The music of this movie is phenomenal. Some things do hurt when he proudly says Taj Mahal was built by us and that ‘us’ is nothing but Muslims.

Mery is a young muslim girl in London who is in Love with Christian Dev.   Her father himself married to a Christian woman, is not happy with her decision and takes her to pakistan and forcibly gets her married to the brother who has come under the influence of mulla. He also happens to be her first cousin. Sad part is until the actual marriage is happening Mery is not aware that she is getting married, and when she realizes it, its useless opposing it.

She certainly deserves kudos for portraying that young girl so beatifully. But at the same time you also admire her courage in that situation of fight against all odds.

The other brother marries a US girl in chicago.

Things just seem to be settling down everywhere and the tragic incident of 9/11 occurs leaving everyone shocked. American attack Afganistan. US government stars racial profiling and they catch this Pakistani citizen and put him in prison which is no different from a concentration camp. He is beaten up to say that he is a terrorist. He is sexually abused. But one thing he keeps on saying is that ‘I love USA’.

American’s do not understand the cultural differences of America and Pakistani. They dont understand how he can read Arabic without understanding its meaning. The ‘Taavij’ on his hand seems to be having some urdu letters which mean ‘God give us strength to fight against Kafirs’. American official derive meaning as per their convenience and charge him as a terrorist.

Mery’s husband rapes her on order of  the Mulla. She gives birth to a Kid. Mulla thinks that she wont run away with kid. She manages to send a letter to Dev in London that she was forcibly married by her father in Pakistan and now lives on the border of Afaganistan.

British Embassy forces Pakistani government to return her. And that is when the movie’s reaches its dramatic climax. Mery instead of flying to Britain decides to bring her father and cousin to book. And a case stands in court of Pakistan.

I doubt if the court scene was meant to be fun. Because if it was not funny I must say that judicial system in Pakistan is very barberic.  Instead of discussing whether the person raping mery was guilty or not they rather discuss if it was to protect islam or not.

Court calls Naseruddin Shah to give his opinion against the fanatic muslims. Naseeruddin shah talks about importance of beard in Islam, whether Mery herself is muslim or not, Namaz etc etc. I think all that speech must be considered as prgressive thinking in Pakistan but here in India it still smells like fanatism as I dont understand its importance in judiciary.

The movie ends with both brothers returning to home. The one in US as a paralytic patient and other back to music. Mery decides to stay in pakistan and work for betterment of conditions there.