Siddharth Varadarajan, the speed reader!

Cometh the time, Cometh the man. Its Siddharth Varadarajan (Siddha Anartha) again. As a posterboy of Chindu, he never fails to deliver. These days he seems to be working overtime after having probably taken lessons in rapid reading. You can find his article here. Same link:
http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/01/stories/2010100163711400.htm

We request Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) to give us the address of the school from where he took the speed-reading classes so that we can digest the Ram Janam Bhoomi jugdement delivered by the Allahabad (prayAgam) High Court and get an "understanding" of it as he has. As we are lesser mortals (yet, i.e. not yet done the speed-reading class), we seek to understand Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) in his own words and attempt a humble analysis of the same:

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has made judicial history by deciding a long pending legal dispute over a piece of property in Ayodhya on the basis of an unverified and unsubstantiated reference to the “faith and belief of Hindus.”

Faith and belief of the Hindus need "verification and substantiation", while the faith and belief of those people who burn transport buses in Bangalore to vent their anger against some cartoons drawn in Denmark need no "verification and substantiation". Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) silence about (i) The Danish cartoon issue, (ii) The destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas (iii) The imposition of restrictions against films and film songs in Swat province by bigoted Taliban, (iv) The imposition of similar restrictions in Afghanistan by Taliban during their regime (v) The killing of women by stoning on frivolous charges of adultery in Iran (vi) The bigotry of the Saudi Arabia in not permitting anyone entering its territory from having any religious symbols apart from Islamic - has been deafening. But then, Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) is a battle hardened knave.

The irony is that in doing so, the court has inadvertently provided a shot in the arm for a political movement that cited the very same “faith” and “belief” to justify its open defiance of the law and the Indian Constitution.

The "irony" of the Shah Bano case where the judgement of the apex court was upturned in the "people's court" is something that we should all forget. In Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) fantasy world, all these are at best inconvenient truths, best forgotten.

The three learned judges of the Allahabad High Court may have rendered separate judgments on the title suit in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi case but Justices Sudhir Agarwal, S.U. Khan and Dharam Veer Sharma all seem to agree on one central point: that the Hindu plaintiffs in the case have a claim to the disputed site because “as per [the] faith and belief of the Hindus” the place under the central dome of the Babri Masjid where the idols of Ram Lalla were placed surreptitiously in 1949 is indeed the “birthplace” of Lord Ram.

First of all, if you call someone as "learned", the least you can do is to respect their judgement. But then, hypocrisy is Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) second nature. Hindus do not even have a right to a faith that a certain place is the "birthplace" of Lord Ram. They have to take permission from Siddha Anarthas of today. For identity-less people, it galls to see other people asserting their identity.

For every Hindu who believes the spot under the central dome of the Babri Masjid is the precise spot where Lord Ram was born there is another who believes something else.

The census-man and psephologist in Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) had to speak out. He had conducted a nationwide survey to arrive at this "fact". We lesser mortals shouldn't question this.

But leaving aside the question of who “the Hindus” referred to by the court really are and how their actual faith and belief was ascertained and measured, it is odd that a court of law should give such weight to theological considerations and constructs rather than legal reasoning and facts.

The question of place of birth of a certain historical or mythical character can be a "theological" one. But for Siddhartha (Siddha Anartha), anything concerned with God (Theos) should be shunned. But then why should he lecture Hindus as to what should be their faith?
Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) is not only a master of law, but also a master of rapid reading that he could digest the thousands of pages of judgement in 2-3 days to come to a conclusion that the judges haven't considered "legal reasoning" and "facts". (I cannot resist the temptation of a ROFL here :D)

Tulsidas wrote his Ramcharitmanas in 16th century Ayodhya but made no reference to the birthplace of Lord Rama that the court has now identified with such exacting precision five centuries later.

This sentence stands testimony to the irresponsibility, corruption, and malice of Siddharth (Siddha Anartha). The least any journalist could have done is "verification and substantiation" (See above for his lecture to the judges on "verification and substantiation") of his facts. For the benefit of Siddharth (Siddha Anartha), let us ask him to read one doha from the rAmacharitamAnasa (we are sure that he hasn't even read a word of it, for if he had, a crore sins of his would have been washed away and he wouldn't have written such heinous anti-hindu propaganda):
1. taha kari bhoga bisaala taata gae kachu kaala puni.
hoihahu avadha bhuaala taba main hoba tumhaara suta..
"Having enjoyed extensive enjoyments there you [Manu and Shatarupa] shall, after some time, be born as king of Ayodhya; then, odear[sic] one, I will be your son." (matter in square brackets mine.)
rAmacharitamAnasa, bAlakANDa, doha 151, can be found in rAmacharitamAnasa published by giita press gorakhpur, pg 171. The same can be downloaded here. You may copy paste the following link alternately:
http://www.gitapress.org/BOOKS/1318/1318_Sri%20Ramchritmanas_Roman.pdf

2. avadhapurii raghukulamani rAu. beda bidita tehi dasaratha naaU..
In the city of Ayodhya thre ruled a king who was a jewel of Raghu's race. he was called dasharatha, a name which is familiar in the vedas. (rAmacharita mAnasa, bAlakANDa, chaupai 4 after doha 187).

We can multiply instance after instance where tulasiidaasa (Tulsidas) clearly states the city of birth of rAma was Ayodhya. But then, tulasiidaasa was not watchful enough to give the exact street address of rAma's janmasthaana because he didn't foresee the likes of Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) asking for "verification and substantiation" for the place of birth of rAma. In the absence of the exact street address, we can make Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) life easier by suggesting that the whole of Ayodhya is the place of birth of rAma and no mosque be kindly constructed there. Will the Muslims or Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) accept construction of a rAma temple just beside their mosque at Mecca?

The “faith and belief” that the court speaks about today acquired salience only after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bharatiya Janata Party launched a political campaign in the 1980s to “liberate” the “janmasthan.”

This is a disingenuous claim of Siddharth (Siddha anartha). When tulasiidaasa (to whom Siddharth[Siddha Anartha] seeks to impute the omission of the place of birth of rAma) wrote his rAmacharitamAnasa, he was following the movement of Vishwa Hindu parishad!!! So also the likes of kamban of drAviDadesha, kR^ittivAsa of va.ngadesha, pampa of karnATaka, and multitudes of others!!! Please see this link for a partial listing of different versions of rAmAyaNa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versions_of_Ramayana
This was only till the advent of the messiah Siddharth (Siddha Anartha), who seeks to disabuse the Hindus of the mistaken notion planted into them by the heinous Vishwa Hindu Parishad!!!

Collectives in India have faith in all sorts of things but “faith” cannot become the arbiter of what is right and wrong in law. Nor can the righting of supposed historical wrongs become the basis for dispensing justice today.

"Faith" cannot become the arbiter of what is right and wrong in law? But Chinese government's opinions should become an arbiter. We understand it Siddharth (Siddha Anartha). We remember your articles crying hoarse about the falling through of the foolish Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan-China gas pipeline. Moreover, Hinduism (A recognised religion in the Constitution of India) is just a "collective" (something like a laughter club or an old men's club or a trade-union in a PSU). Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) condescension and contempt for Hinduism is clear from this. But then, what else can be expect to come from the Chindu's columnists?

One of the questions the court framed was “whether the building has been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same.” Pursuant to this question, it asked the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a dig at the site. This was done in 2003, during the time when the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government was in power at the Centre. Not surprisingly, the ASI concluded that there was a “massive Hindu religious structure” below, a finding that was disputed by many archaeologists and historians.

When ASI failed to toe Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) line, it is because the ASI survey was conducted during NDA rule. I think this is a serious charge against the ASI and the ASI may find it appropriate to file a defamation suit against Siddharth (Siddha Anartha). One is surprised that the "secular" Ulta Pulta Alliance (UPA) which has been at the helm since 2004 didn't influence the ASI to find something more "secular" under the janmasthaan. Tthe CPI(M) for which Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) and his newspaper (Chindu, or "The Hindu") has ample sympathy, were partners of the UPA till the Indo-US nuclear deal. They could have easily done the bidding of Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) and forced the ASI to find something "secular".

The territory of India — as of many countries with a settled civilisation as old as ours — is full of buildings that were constructed after pre-existing structures were demolished to make way for them. Buddhist shrines made way for Hindu temples. Temples have made way for mosques. Mosques have made way for temples. So even if a temple was demolished in the 16th century to make way for the Babri Masjid, what legal relevance can that have in the 21st century?

This is another malicious charge that Siddharth levels against Hindus "Buddhist shrines made way for HIndu temples". When the communist historians have been challenged time and again to come up with a shred of evidence to support this claim, they have drawn blank. The understanding that they want the people to gulp down unquestioningly is very clear: "Now, come on!!! Everyone has been destroying every other temple in history, what is the big deal in it? Accept this and move on with life". When overwhelming proof from Islamic chroniclers are presented to them, we get deafening silence. If Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) is so concerned about Buddhist shrines, why doesn't he start a movement for restoration of Buddhist temples? Why doesn't he start by writing a few kind words about the Buddhist regime of Tibet which has been forced to live in exile in India? Why doesn't he write a few kind words in support of the Buddhists who are facing demographic change in Tibet because of settlement of thousands of Han Chinese? But then, he isn't serious about this, he wants to score a rhetorical point with a "suppressio veri suggestio falsi".

We request Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) to kindly come up with a scholarly rebuttal to the book "Hindu Temples What happened to them". For his benefit, we give the link to the online version of the book in two volumes:
http://voi.org/books/htemples1/
http://voi.org/books/htemples2/
The above book gives evidence from Islamic chroniclers about thousands of Hindu temples which were destroyed by political Islam. For his part, Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) may also kindly produce for us evidence about "Buddhist shrines made way for HIndu temples". We hope he won't disappoint us. For Siddharth's (Siddha Anartha's) kind attention, we quote here the statement of a non-Hindu, non-VHP historian, an American historian, Will Durant:
"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."
We can wake up sleeping people, but not people who keep pretending to sleep.

Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) has probably learnt the art of pre-emptive attack that his Chinese mentors follow. Hence he comes up with another gem:

And if such demolition is to serve as the basis for settling property disputes today, where do we draw the line? On the walls of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi can be seen the remnants of a Hindu temple, perhaps even of the original Vishwanath mandir. Certainly many “Hindus” believe the mosque is built on land that is especially sacred to them. The denouement of the Babri case from agitation and demolition to possession might easily serve as a precedent for politicians looking to come to power on the basis of heightening religious tensions.

Yes, Siddharth (Siddha Anartha), you will hear soon from us (the awakened Hindus). We aren't asking for too much, we are asking for 3 temples (two more now) out of thousands destroyed by Islamic bigots (Not very much more bigoted than you. You are an intellectual iconoclast, they were and are physical iconoclasts. Both of you have a visceral hatred of Hindus and Hinduism.)

Even assuming the tainted ASI report is correct in its assessment that a Hindu temple lay below the ruins of the Babri Masjid, neither the ASI nor any other expert has any scientific basis for claiming the architects of the mosque were the ones who did the demolishing.

This is Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) at his poetic best. Ooooo... he is being too irresistible here. See, how even-handed he is (he is actually granting that the ASI report may be correct, albeit rhetorically)!!! The architects of the mosque didn't do the demolishing, they got labourers to do it for them. By this logic, they didn't build it either. The mosque wasn't built by the "architects". It was the wily Hindus who brought up a structure resembling a mosque so that they could beat the s***t out of the muslims centuries later. Another ROFL moment. So, Siddharth (Siddha Anartha) surely has a humour bone in the right place. Only that his humour is turning out to be more of a farce these days.