The left-liberal intellectual establishment of India is the epitome of hypocrisy. The people in this establishment take ‘high moral ground’ in front of the camera. They see themselves as ‘guardians of truth’ and claim to take ‘unbiased’ positions on issues, one based of ‘empirical evidences’. But when it comes to actually adhering to these principals, in personal life or office environment, they violate almost every rule of these principals.
On the Ram Mandir issue, the Supreme Court vindicated Allahabad High Court’s stance that the ‘disputed land’ belong to Ram Lalla (legal entity). In 2010, Allahabad High Court gave a similar ruling but in its final decision; the court divided the land between three parties. However, the apex court of India unanimously declared that the land belongs to Hindus.
The ‘eminent historians’, who denied existence of Ram Mandir on site and claimed that ASI’s findings about a non-Islamic structure beneath the mosque, is ‘contentious’, were proved wrong.
These historians and archeologists have taken very different positions on the issue, in court and in media. For example, Supriya Varma an archeologist and JNU professor, who was observer during the excavation on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board, in different interviews claimed that “there is no archeological evidence that there was a temple under the Babri Masjid.” In fact, in an interview with Huffington Post in 2018, she claimed that “Underneath the Babri Masjid, there are actually older mosques.”
"There is no archeological evidence that there was a temple under the #BabriMasjid Masjid," said Supriya Varma, one of the archeologists who challenged the ASI's 2003 findings of there being evidence of a temple under the mosque. https://t.co/gTR8mbWlfk
— HuffPost India (@HuffPostIndia) November 9, 2019
But, in a book, she wrote, “I think very categorically it is very difficult to say that some of the finds of ASI relate to Hindu religious structures because these finds could well have been part of palaces, Buddhist structure, Jain structure and Islamic structure.”
“It is wrong to say that use of ‘Yaksh’ or ‘Yakshi’ is only limited to Hindu Dharmashastra. In fact, it is also associated with Buddhist religion.”
Even in court, under oath, she testified:
“I cannot say whether the word ‘Yaksh’ or ‘Yakshi’ is referred or mentioned in any religious book of Buddhism.”
Meenakshi Jain, political scientist and historian, wrote a book titled Rama and Ayodhya and 2013 to expose the eminent historians and their contradicting position in media and in court. She read the 5,000 pages long judgment of Allahabad High Court, and found that these eminent historians deny the existence of Mandir in media and deny the knowledge about the subject in courts.
The following tweet notes the nine instances of 9 surreal testimonies from left historians on Ram Janmabhoomi in court under oath.
Now, from ^this judgement 9 surreal testimonies from Left Historians on RJB in court under oath that are surreal, scary and sad.
— Yellow पीतः (@PeeliHaldi) March 5, 2017
"I am giving statement on the basis of my opinion." pic.twitter.com/llTaXeuk86
— Yellow पीतः (@PeeliHaldi) March 5, 2017
"I fail to recollect when and for what purpose it (Jaziya) was levied." pic.twitter.com/GTomOvAGPy
— Yellow पीतः (@PeeliHaldi) March 5, 2017
Oh my favorite is this guy!
Do I laugh or do I cry? pic.twitter.com/xn34hpMM03— Yellow पीतः (@PeeliHaldi) March 5, 2017
I read magazines and not books for my knowledge. pic.twitter.com/YQGsLVAsu5
— Yellow पीतः (@PeeliHaldi) March 5, 2017
I have knowledge. i dont have knowledge. pic.twitter.com/oWCITJeod1
— Yellow पीतः (@PeeliHaldi) March 5, 2017
I think very categorically. Like for example. Like I dont remember. pic.twitter.com/nYvOCfE0Bo
— Yellow पीतः (@PeeliHaldi) March 5, 2017
Four eminent historians- R. S. Sharma, D.N. Jha, Suraj Bhan and Athar Ali, whom court observed ‘lack of requirement to qualify (them) as expert’, ‘reckless and irresponsible statements’, ‘lack of proper investigation’ and ‘failure to inspire confidence’ etc. from their court testimonies were amongst the loudest critique of Ram Mandir movement, and the mainstream media, based in Delhi, nourished and nurtured for decades by Congress party, reported their claims widely.
Ritika Sharma, writing in Indiafacts, busts the lies of left-liberal historians and highlights the impeccable work done historians and archeologists of repute.
Click on these links for more:
http://indiafacts.org/ayodhya-dispute-fighting-eminent-historians/
http://indiafacts.org/ayodhya-dispute-ii-timeline-events/
These articles are based on historian Meenakshi Jain’s books- Rama and Ayodhya, The Battle for Rama: Case of the Temple at Ayodhya in which she builds arguments in favour of Ram Mandir, using historical evidences and busts the lies of left-liberal establishment.
Yesterday, in an interview with The Wire, DN Jha said that “Ayodhya Dispute Is a Battle Between Faith and Rationality.” He claimed that “We examined all the textual and archaeological evidence and came to the conclusion that there was no Hindu temple beneath the mosque.”
For decades, the leftist media establishment collaborated with Congress, which has nurtured and nourished it since the days of state monopoly over media, and spread ruckus. The state monopoly over media ended in the last few decades but the subservience of leftist media to Congress remains the same.
The Delhi based ‘intellectuals’ collaborated with media establishment to propagate leftist ideology. Journalists like Rajdeep Sardesai, Brakha Dutt, Pronoy Roy, and Karan Thapar openly toed the leftist line on the socio-political issues and propagated their views. The apex court’s judgment, Allahabad High Court judgment, testimonies of these archeologists and historians in courts and hard work of pro-Ram Janmabhoomi writers like Meenakshi Jain has completely exposed the hypocrisy and double standards of these historians.
