Hindutvavadis have gorged on Ayodhya since ’47

On the day the judiciary put an end to the dilatory tactics of the executive in the Ayodhya title dispute , by ruling that the Allahabad High Court can go ahead and pronounce its judgment, Mukul Kesavan writes in The Telegraph, Calcutta, that the Babri masjid issue has travelled in the direction of the Hindutva-vadis since Independence.

And the smuggling in of the Ram idol into the masjid in 1949, the opening of the gates by the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1985, the demolition of the mosque in the presence of the presiding deities of the BJP, A.B. Vajpayee and L.K. Advani in 1992, the acquisition of the land by the Centre in 1993, all have had the shameless complicity of the State:

“In the context of the demolition, not only is an existing mosque first encroached upon, then razed, not only does Hindu worship continue on the site, but one of the consequences of this vandalism is also an apex court judgment that suggests that mosques, all mosques, are no longer protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution because they aren’t part of the basic furniture of Islam.

“It’s worth noting that this was a majority judgment from a five-judge bench; in the words of Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn, a constitutional scholar: ‘[T]he two dissenting judges, both of whom were Muslims, had an understanding of the obligations of Islamic practice that differed sharply from their three Hindu colleagues in the majority.’

“”So, instead of a majoritarian campaign of violence and destruction (which led to the mosque being razed and thousands of Muslims being attacked and killed in the wake of the demolition) being punished, Muslims found themselves a) minus one mosque, b) the victims of vicious, orchestrated violence and c) at the receiving end of a judgment that made their places of worship an optional extra, not sacred places protected by their constitutional right to religious practice.”

Read the full article: Closure in Ayodhya

Also read: The man who sowed the dragon seeds of hatred

L.K. Advani offers nothing creative, only resentment’

CHURUMURI POLL: Who will win Ayodhya title?

Does BJP have no decency left to defend its own?

In Ayodhya, Dasaratha‘s wives gorged on idli-dosa

CHURUMURI POLL: Lord Rama, man or myth?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

25 Responses to “Hindutvavadis have gorged on Ayodhya since ’47”

  1. JC Moola Says:

    The article is total rubbish in sharp contrast to the well prepared and dressed lies orchestrated by British and European Christians. At the most the matter is between People with faith native to India and Muslims with alien faith and grandiose of genocide, murder, rape, loot and pillage which far exceeds European Christians in all spheres except in Loot, Pillage.

  2. Deepak Says:


    Really u suck with that article!

    Guys look into the Ad which is being displayed in the page.

    How to Convert to Islam.

    That shows the actual face of Churmuri.

  3. Mysore Peshva Says:

    The vandals of December 6 never understood Hindutva. To me, they were never Hindus.

    Hindu dharma emerges from a foundation of Vedanta — a philosophy that appreciates multiple paths to any Truth. Ram, Krishna, Christ, Allah… it doesn’t matter what label you use to refer to Brahman as you try to relate with Him. Labels don’t matter any more than content.

    I don’t like labels, because labels kill nuance. But if we must use a label for the vandals who tore down the Babri mosque erected by invader Babar, it should be “Islamic.” Their deed was not Hindu, but Islamic. The vandals did exactly what Muslims have done for more than 1,200 years — conquer/occupy lands and then violently vandalize all pagan, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Hindu — indeed, any non-Islamic — monuments.

  4. Anonymous Guy Says:

    Mysore Peshva,

    Sounds like how certain sections in Pakistan argue that they are against the ‘deeds of Taliban’, while justifying what Islam really means.

    Anyway excellent -sophistry- err. justifications.

  5. twistleton Says:

    @AG -nice one :)

    Religion is so much more abused than used. Sad, but true.

  6. Mysore Peshva Says:


    I offered no justifications for anything.

    I only offered a comment on labeling the vandals as “Hindutvavadis” or “Hindus.”

    Please read my comment!

  7. Ankit Says:

    One of the reasons the Ayodhya movement took the proportions that it did is the attitude of India’s holocaust deniers, also known as the secularists. They want to put a lid on the fact that India went through hundreds of years of barbaric invasion where temples were razed and mosques were raised in their place.

    No reconciliation can take place in any matter until you squarely confront the truth. Until the truth about destruction of historical temple at Ayodhya is acknowledged, this dispute cannot be resolved.

  8. Madhava Says:

    Dear Mysore Peshva (with all affection for the excellent name),

    Remember, we live in a Country (a political and geographical) entity.

  9. Doddi Buddi Says:

    Mysore Peshva’s Vedanta is illuminating but here is a simple prole’s view of the dispute:

    One religion has no “sthala mahime” because its sacred grounds are only in KSA
    The other religion revers “sthala mahime”. Now, the demolition which has happened is an act of vandalism per se but what would the other side lose if they only relocate their place of worship to another spot? It is well documented and understood many temples were razed during their conquest and many mosques were built. So if that can be accepted with equanimity then the ‘erstwhile all-conquering side’ should endorse a proper Ram Temple and earn to behave graciously. Of course useful idiots like Mukul Kesavan continue to lament on the thuggery and a whole lot of imaginary grievances:)

  10. JC Moola Says:

    MySore Peshwa… Giving liberty (Allah/ Jesus blah blah) in name of Vedanta is different from suffering from hands of followers of Allah/ Jesus. Usually persons with no morals like Communists/ Secularist, advocate that non Allah/ non Jesus suffer from hands of Allah followers/ Jesus followers because that is what they are born for.

  11. Narayana Says:

    Good argument Doddi Buddi. Good to see you here after a long long time Sir.

    There are some facts Mukul Kesavan needs to consider.

    “First, a district magistrate connived in getting idols of Ram smuggled into the mosque in December 1949, thus inventing the ‘reality’ of Ram worship in a mosque”

    Mukul Kesavan.. please understand this reality was not invented in one fine morning in 1949 as you seem to believe.

    Here is the buildup of reality. Dear Mukul.. read this after you visit Calcutta Coffee House. Douse some coffee on your secular self and then read the following

    1. The recorded history shows that at least from 1735 the Hindus had consistently at tempted to recapture the Janmasthan and re-establish the Rama temple as the following chronology establishes.
    2. A document enclosed with a letter dated 12th August, 1855 from Wazid Ali Shah, the king of Oudh, to the British Resident Major James Outram, carrying the seal of the Qazi of Faizabad, in the year 1735 A.D., mentioned that a serious clash had taken place over the Masjid “built by the emperor of Delhi” (apparently a conflict of the kind that took place later in 1855) between Hindus and Muslims, during the time of Burhan-ul-Mulk Saadat Ali Khan, the first Nawab of Oudh (1707-1736) over the possession of this mosque (NAI, Foreign, Political Proceedings, 28th December, 1855, No.355, Enclosures No.5).
    3. The Maratha documents show that one of the main objectives of Maratha operations and policy in North India was the liberation of the sacred cities of Ayodhya, Kashi and Prayag. In the year 1751, Maratha armies led by Malhar Rao Holkar, at the invitation of Safdarjang, the second Nawab of Oudh, defeated the Pathan forces in Doab. Immediately after his victory Malhar Rao Holkar requested Safdarjang to hand over Ayodhya, Kashi and Prayag to the Peshwa (A.L.Srivastava: The First Two Nawabs of Oudh).
    4. Again, when, in 1756, the third Nawab Shujauddaula invited Maratha help against impending Afghan invasion, the Maratha agent at the Court of Oudh demanded the transfer of these three holy places including Ayodhya and the negotiations lingered on for more than a year on this one point. Ultimately, in July 1757, Shujauddaula agreed to transfer the holy cities of Ayodhya and Kashi to the Maratha leader Raghoba. But the transfer could not be implemented as Maratha armies got entangled in the conquest of the Punjab which ultimately led to the tragedy of Panipat (1761 A.D.).
    5. But Peshwa Balaji Bajirao’s eagerness to acquire Ayodhya is reflected in one of his’ letters dated 23rd February, 1759 to Dattaji Scindia, his General in the North, wherein the Peshwa reminds Scindia that “Mansur Ali’s son (i.e. Shujauddaula) had promised to Dada (i.e. Raghoba) to cede Benares and Ayodhya and instructs him to take hold to those places alongwith Prayag (Cf. J.N. Sarkar: Fall of the Moghul Empire, Vol. II, Calcutta 1934, pp. 231-233).
    6. Historians, Dr. A.L. Srivastava, Sir J.N. Sarkar, G.S. Sardesai and Dr. Hari Ram Gupta, who have studied this period of history very deeply, have concluded that “Had the Bhau (Sadashiv) emerged successful from Panipat, within a few years Kashi, Prayag and Ayodhya would have been emancipated” (Hari Ram Gupta: Marathas and Panipat, Chandigarh 1961, p.292).
    7. In 1767, an Austrian Jesuite traveller, Joseph Tieffenthaler, found that in spite of the Mughal kings’ efforts to prevent them, the Hindus had re-occupied the courtyard, raised the Rama Chabootra thereon, and were worshipping and celebrating Ramanavami there as well as under the domed structure (History and Geography of India (in French) by Joseph Tieffenthaler P.253-54).
    8. In 1854, a British scholar, Edward Thornton, recorded in his Gazetteer exactly the same situation as Tieffenthaler had found (Gazetteer of the territories under the Government of East India Company, pp-739-40).
    9. In 1855, there was a big armed encounter in which nearly 300 Muslims under Shah Ghulam Hussain took possession of the Babri mosque and tried to fix doors on it. On protest from Hindus, armed clashes started. Muslims attacked Hanumangarhi, but were driven back with considerable loss. Then the Hindus counter-attacked, stormed the Janmabhoomi and killed 70 Muslims. Shah Ghulam Hussain jumped over the wall and fled (Hadiqai-Shahada by Mirza Jan, 1856, pp. 4-7). The Gazetteer of Faizabad District shows that the Hindus were in possession of the Ramajanmabhoomi at the time of the fight in 1855. It says: “When the Muslims mounted an attack in 1855, they took possession of the Ramjanmabhoomi and attacked the Hanuman Garhi, but were repulsed. The king’s army (Nawab Wajid Ali Shah’s army) stood by. The Hindus retook the Ramjanmabhoomi and the structure there.”
    10. In 1856, the Muazzin of the Babri mosque admitted, in a petition before the British authorities, that the courtyard had been in possession of the Hindus for hundreds of years and that now they were interfering with the domed structure as well (Petition by Muhammed Asghar dated 30.11.1858 in Case No.884 to the British Government).
    11. In 1934, serious Hindu-Muslim armed encounter occurred in and around the Babri mosque, occasioned by a cow-slaughter incident. Many people were killed and the structure seriously damaged. The damaged structure was repaired by the British Government which recovered the cost of the repair by a punitive fine on the Hindus (Sri Ramajanmabhoomi Historical and Legal Perspective, by Justice Deokinandan Agarwala: Cited in Ramjanmabhoomi/Babri Masjid: Historical Documents, legal opinions and judgement by The Bar Council of India Trust, pp. 5-6).
    12. The above chronology establishes a vital truth, namely, that the Hindus have been relentlessly fighting to re-establish and keep their rights over the Janmasthan and that till 1855 they seem to have been in possession of it.

    So Mukul you are lying when you say this was invented in 1949

    I am reading Mukul’s Article further.. Wait for more responses.


    Here is another canard Mukul is flying.

    Thus a medieval mosque continuously in use till the mid-1930s was prised open for Hindu worship

    I do not know how Mukul is able to come to such conclusions.

    I want to bring to his notice following.

    On 25th May, 1885 Mahant Raghubardas appealed to the Faizabad District Judge that an order be given for the construction of Temple on the Ramajanmabhoomi. On 18th March, 1886 the District Judge, an Englishman, passed the following order:
    “I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the Masjid built by Emperor Babar stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west and south. It is clear of habitants. It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to agree with the grievances. All that can be done is to maintain the party in status quo. In such a case as the present one any innovation may cause more harm and derangement of order than any benefit”

    When District Judge in 1886 said that Mosque structure was not inhabited how come it can be called a place of worship.
    Mukul.. Are you lying again?


    Mutawali of Mosque wants mosque to be shifted. Sunnis who follow a violent fundamentalism wants the mosque on the conquered property. Mukul.. Get your facts right. By not allowing mosque there we will be strengthening the moderate muslims. Chachawadis do not want that to happen and that is the reason for all this conflict

  12. Narayana Says:

    Mutawali of Mosque wants mosque to be shifted. Sunnis who follow a violent fundamentalism wants the mosque on the conquered property. Mukul.. Get your facts right. By not allowing mosque there we will be strengthening the moderate muslims. Chachawadis do not want that to happen and that is the reason for all this conflict.

  13. Anonymous Guy Says:

    Mysore Peshva,

    Your last paragraph: ‘Deed not Hindu, but Islamic etc.’ Nice justification.

  14. Ankit Says:

    Narayana, that is quite a comprehensive rebuttal. If only the secular fundamentalists could care for facts :)

  15. Anonymous Guy Says:


    Nice chronology, backed by verifiable evidence.

    It is for the author of the piece to come up with some real proof to back his assertions.

  16. Deepak Says:


    IPls google about the Archaeologist Mr. BB Lal and his findings about the RamJanmabhoomi. There was a temple for sure.

    Please read the below lines.

    AUTHENTICATING Prof Lal, Shri KK Muhammad, Deputy Superintendent Archaeologist (Madras Circle) as appeared in the English daily, Indian Express on December 15, 1990: “I can reiterate this (ie. the existence of the Hindu Temple before it was displaced by the Babri Masjid) with greater authority – for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-77 under Prof. Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted ONLY ONE

  17. Furious_Telangana Says:

    This is unnecessary. Just vote bank drama.

    1) Imagine a case of a hindu king who went to mecca(saudi arabia) and destroyed it and built a hindu temple over it. Years later, saudi muslims demolish the temple.

    2) Next, The saudi govt erases all history of hindu invasion from it’s history textbooks and claims that there was no mosque on that land.

    3) Next, the saudi govt appoints some archaeologists who then claim that the mosque artefacts found in the temple were planted by “islamists”.

    4) Next, the saudi govt and media keeps screaming “islamist conspiracy” day and night to allow the courts to deliver a fabricated judgement.

    Similar thing is happening in india. The media itself acts as a “enabler” to vote bank politicians. Such a tragedy. At least the british raj made sure that justice and rule of law was maintained. The current india is all lies and it makes me want to shift to another country because the fabrication is too unbearable.

    I ask those people, What is your price? What have you bought into? How much will it cost to buy you out?

  18. Anonymous Guy Says:


    High Court judgement is out. Stop the emotional BS and read it.

  19. Narayana Says:

    End Piece of insult on Mukul Kesavan recorded here for posterity.

    From the judgment on Sunni Board v/s Gopal Singh Visharad.

    Issues No. 1(B)(b)
    1B(b).Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as
    alleged by the plaintiffs?
    Decided against the plaintiffs.

  20. twistleton Says:

    In the times of kings and sultans, a temple or a mosque used to be symbols of the emporer’s power. Religious places of worship were tangible proof of the empire’s might. Not yet in India were State and Religion separated. Religious heads handled important administrative reponsibilities. Secularism, like democracy was thrust upon India after independence; unfortunate because, these are philospohies that nations must grow into.

    Temples also were treasuries in which the wealth of the state would be stored. To any enemy conquerer these would make tempting targets.

    Warring armies would often destroy places of worship of the losing side. These included mosques as well as temples.

    The problem with this particular debate is that often times people choose historical incidents selectively. Or rather they present a chronology of events from a particular side.

    Now time often renders space insignificant. Would we really care about a quarrel between two sections from the Harappan civilization? No, we would not. I’m not undermining the seriousness of the issue, however before we get caught up in exaggerated sensibilities, we can atleast try to view a situation within suitable proportions.

    Being vindictive will only cause heartburn.

    The English obviously wanted eternal peace to follow in their wake.

  21. Mysore Peshva Says:

    I greatly appreciated all of the comments, especially Doddi Buddi’s and Narayana’s. Thanks, guys!

    My brilliant friend V, who like thousands of other Kannadigas is a fan of S.L. Bhyrappa, has responded to my comment via e-mail. I am taking the liberty of pasting V’s message below, in the interests of a larger discussion on this forum.

    /begin quotation

    I saw your comments on Churumuri. I concur with most of ur ideas but here is one more view:

    1. You start with “The vandals of December 6 never understood Hindutva. To me, they were never Hindus….” and go on to say that Vedanta or Advaita Vedanta alone is hinduism. How i wish hinduism were so easy to define :)
    May i recommend “Anandmath” by Bankimchandra? Are you aware of history of “Akhadas”/Madhusudana saraswati who had an army of hindu monks during the rule of Akbar? Incidentally all “militant hindutwa” revivalists samartha ramadas, Vidyaranya, Madhusudana Saraswati, Vivekananda etc. were all advaitists :)

    2. Some interesting FAQ’s at http://www.ayodhya.com/ayotemplet.jsp?sno=4&E4=1 There is one interesting by Arnold Toynbee as answer to ur question.

    3. I recommend reading SL Bhyrappa’s Avarana (Though i had read many of the books from VOI, which serve as source material, i re-read Aavarana 3-4 times. Bhyrappa’s practical mind, deep philosophical insights, style of the novel, simple kannada continue to impress me more and more).
    VOI Books: http://voiceofdharma.org/books.html
    “Hindu temples: What happened to them” is highly recommended.

    4. I had the opportunity to travel extensively in western india : to temples of jyotirlingas situated in MP, Maharashtra, Gujarat etc. When you see the temples there, you will fell sorry, disturbed. For example, in somanath alone there are 2 lingas being worshipped as Jyotirlinga. One in the temple constructed by Sardar patel (genuine?) and the other in near by temple (20×20 site?) built by Rani Ahalyabai Holkar. In the temple built by Holkar, there is one linga (a false one) to deceive the invaders and one huge one in the underground which is “real” one. How humiliating it would have been for hindus to worship in that way during those years ? [Again covered in Aavarana]

    I think people should travel to understand the spiritual history of india. For south indians, it will be a great learning as to why Ayodhya/Kashi/Mathura are so sensitive issues to north indians :)

    Having said all these, peace is what all desire for :)

    \end quotation

  22. Furious_Telangana Says:

    The judgement is useless or it can actually create more problems.

  23. Oceanfifty Says:

    What about the thousands and thousands of temples that were plundered by moslems? We have Hampi, Belur, Halebid in our back yard!!! Any crocodile tears for that ?? Or is anything and everything done by moslems acceptable to the modern historians and their chamchas like churumuri?? Come on guys !!! Get a life !!

  24. twistleton Says:

    Why don’t we all write a ‘Book of Historical Grievances’ and sit and cry about it everyday for ten minutes or more, if you like.

    We live in different times. Our world has changed. However, modernity of thought still eludes us.

  25. nikhilspoliticalblog Says:

    There are extremists on both sides. It is unfair to be one-sided and blame only hindus.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: