Koenraad Elst rebuts Guha's assertions on Ayodhya and others

Interesting article on how Koenraad Elst rebuts Guha's assertions on Ayodhya and others.
Guha's point being:

“At the height of the Ayodhya movement, the Sangh Parivar circulated, at vast expense, the writings of an obscure Belgian ex-priest which claimed that Hindus had been victimised for thousands of years by Muslims and Christians, and that destroying a mosque, building a temple in its place, and sacrificing thousands of (mostly innocent) lives along the way was the only way that this cumulative historical injustice could be avenged. This ex-priest had little training as a historian, and even less credibility. But unlike the other similarly untrained ideologues of the Hindu Right, his citizenship was not Indian, but Belgian. The hope was that the colour of his skin would trump the shallowness of his arguments.”

And Elst's response;

As for the colour of my skin, it is his own school that has been using its white connections for decades as an implicit argument of authority. It seems that white people on average are quite silly, for most of them have lapped up the version of Indian history propagated by India’s “eminent historians” whose eminence results from their toeing the hegemonic party-line rather than from a respect for the data in the primary sources. Anyone with normal intelligence regardless of skin colour can sort out their distortions by using proper historical method.
In the meantime, my position has been endorsed by the Allahabad High Court, the one reasonably impartisan institution that has held both argumentations against the light. After availing itself of the best archaeological expertise, it has ruled in favour of the old consensus, upheld until 1989 by all sources but denied since then by Guha’s circles, viz. that Ayodhya is indeed a case of Hindu victimization by Muslims through the imposition of a mosque on a Hindu sacred site in forcible replacement of a temple.

Its a very interesting dialogue to be followed. Do check it out and follow Koenraad's blog as well.

Baseless, irrational beliefs

The Aryan Invasion Theory has been discredited and Lemuria has been relegated as fictional, but the patriarch of Dravidian separatism continues to indulge in the charade. Karunanidhi romanticises Dravidian history while scoffing at Aryan civilisation. It paid rich political dividends in the past but the world has moved on since. But he clings on to his baseless, irrational beliefs on the mythical Aryan invasion and Dravidian subjugation.
The Hindu : Front Page : “Rama's birthplace traced, but not Raja Raja's memorial”

“But the Aryan civilisation that tried to upstage the Dravidian race is keen on only inculcating irrational beliefs in the people without any basis.”

Neena Vyas reports her own interpretations as news

In what must be the worst forms of journalistic reporting, Neena Vyas interprets BJP's statements with malice. What we read is not excerpts from the press release but an exclusive version of what she thinks is the intention behind those statements. How she came to those conclusions is not known but it reveals her sick mind.
Neena Vyas makes no attempt to hide behind a fig leaf while exposing her own secular credentials. This article should make her a top contender for the worst reporter of the year, with Siddharth Varadarajan running a close second.
The Hindu : Front Page : Post-verdict, the BJP's talk of ‘reconciliation'

It is becoming clearer by the day that when the Bharatiya Janata Party and the larger Sangh Parivar talk of “reconciliation” between Hindus and Muslims post-Ayodhya verdict, they simply mean that Muslims must voluntarily give up all claims to any portion of the disputed land on which the Babri Masjid stood till December 1992.
The spokesperson also suggested that ordinary Muslims wanted reconciliation (read want to surrender that right on the one-third disputed site) and that it was the “secularists” who wanted the conflict to continue.

Interesting analysis on post Ayodhya life

Hat tip to Sudhir for analyzing this article. Please read his expert opinion here.
Some sections from Sudhir's article here,

Sample this - "
However, most people added a caveat: This did not imply unreserved acceptance of the verdict. I reminded them of the Muslim promise that the community would honour the verdict, no matter how it went."

Why was that "reminder" needed, Vidya? Did they say they are not honouring the verdict? Did anyone say "You know what, we ain't care a hoot about the verdict, what follows is pure violence"? They just said they don't agree with it. Now, from when did that become a crime? They are well within their rights to disagree with the judgement, and yet decide to move on.

Of the many writers in cHindu, Vidya Subrahmaniam is a slightly different kind. She has the narrative of a story teller and the pace of a dhobi mule. Her opinions though stick to the age old cHindu stereotypes of young Muslims being peaceful and pain against the Indian state.
Guess old dogs cant be taught new tricks.

In law, a temple and a mosque cannot be considered on a par

T.R. Andhyarujina
is trying to incite the muslims by creating a sense of victimhood by repeatedly harping on the demolition. He is trying to frame the legal issue within the context of 1992 event and obviously by twisting facts.
The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : A verdict that legitimises the Masjid demolition

it will leave simmering resentment in the Muslim community, for it will see that as the court's condonation and legitimisation of a place of worship having been vandalised.

Subramanian Swamy exposes the fallacy of Andhyarujina's arguments.
The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : Fundamental issue in Ayodhya case

But in law, a temple and a mosque cannot be considered on a par as far as sacredness is concerned.
This is the position in Islamic law as well since in Saudi Arabia the authorities demolish mosques to lay roads. Even the mosque where Prophet Mohammed used to pray was demolished.

Muslims happy; secularists aghast

Muslims seem to have accepted the verdict as a way forward and this response from the Shia group deserves applause.
The Hindu : National : Shia group offers donation to Ram temple

Opposing any move to appeal against the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya dispute, a Shia youth organisation here announced a donation of Rs.15 lakh towards the construction of the much-debated Ram temple at Ayodhya.

“I feel the board should take an initiative to end the dispute for good,” Hussaini Tigers chief Shamil Shamsi asserted on Saturday, saying that Muslim leaders must stick to their word of abiding by the verdict.

However, our secular intellectuals seem to be aghast at the verdict. Given that their career growth hinges upon communal violence, any sort of hindu-muslim compromise would set their alarm bells ringing. So they have taken up the mantle of islamic rage boys and are spilling red ink on the pages of chindu. The same bunch of people who have called for abiding by the verdict are now questioning the courts.

The Hindu : Front Page : Ayodhya verdict yet another blow to secularism: Sahmat
The Hindu : Front Page : A political statement, says Arundhati Roy

This contrast has also been highlighted by our reader Xinhua Ram in an earlier comment:

Muslim Indians reacted with much more tolerance than the JNU types. Contrast these two:

Indan Muslims:
Am I happy about the judgement? Yes, very happy; not only I but my entire family. The relief following the verdict on the contentious Ayodhya issue was so great that my 28-year-old son gave his parents a lavish dinner...

JNU Types:
Social activist Shabnam Hashmi says this judgement makes her feel like “a second class citizen”, Irfan Habib has said this “compromise judgement” has come at the cost of “history and facts”

Neena Vyas's rancid reporting

Neena Vyas is evidently frothing at her mouth over the Ayodhya issue. She is letting out all the bile in her stomach through some acidic articles on BJP by freely mixing news with rancour.

In the below articles on Ayodhya, it is hard to distinguish where the news ends and her personal opinions begin. She takes it up as her personal agenda to discredit BJP's statements. So instead of reading BJP's press release, we end up reading Neena Vyas's personal opinion on BJP's statement. Contrast this with how Brinda Karat's views are reported.

The Hindu : Front Page : We now have answer for critics of Ram temple plank, says BJP

The Hindu : News / National : Advani sidelined on Ram temple issue
Hat tip to XR.

Romila Thapar questions ASI's professional expertise

Our eminent historian is quickly off the blocks. Romila Thapar questions the professional expertise of Archaeological Survey of India. On what basis? Heck, how dare you question the "eminent historian"!
It is immaterial that Romila Thapar became an "eminent historian" of early India without having any knowledge of Sanskrit. Her understanding of ancient India, its language, history and culture is based not on primary sources but interpretations and translations. Talk of professional expertise, pot, kettle, black...
The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : The verdict on Ayodhya: a historian's perspective

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 ...

N.Ram disappointed with verdict

It is not surprising that N.Ram gave more space to Khan's verdict and barely mentioned Sharma. Justice Sharma said that the masjid was built after razing down a temple. Inconvenient truth for N.Ram and so he buried it. But he cant seem to bury his disappointment at the verdict.
The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : Intriguing compromise could work

At one level, from the standpoint of political morality, the verdict
could be viewed as partially rewarding those who placed the idol
overnight under the central dome of the mosque and those who in 1992
razed it to the ground.

cHindu forced to eat crow on Ayodhya issue

In what is a landmark decision the Allahabad high court ruled that the Babri masjid was built upon the ruins of a temple.
cHindu with its fearless leader(jackass) LiC and his sickular minions are forced to eat crow as the court basically dismissed all arguments that cHindu and its sickular media cohorts were claiming all along.
So in a show of useless defiance, LiC decided to wail on a technicality that the court decided to split the land among 3 parties.

ruled that that the disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram and that the disputed building constructed by Mughal emperor Babar was built against the tenets of Islam and did not have the character of the mosque.

Ayodhya is religious, not political now

Events provide an opportunity for us to reflect upon the changing trends, analyse the impact of the change and, where applicable, suggest constructive criticism. Ayodhya was a mass movement in 1990s and it is no less an emotive issue today. But a lot has changed over the past two decades. Swapan Da captures this in his article.
Ayodhya is religious, not political now : India : Swapan Dasgupta : TOI Blogs

The irony is that this New India is more religiously and assertively Hindu than ever before.
In the 1990s, Ayodhya was a political issue; today its importance is religious.

Vidya Subramaniam, on the other hand, uses it to spread some filth
around and indulge in Hindu bashing. There were a few other articles by
her on Ayodhya over the week. But they all have the same theme. Don't
bother googling for it.
The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : When caution becomes an imperative

While Muslims have consistently favoured judicial adjudication of the title dispute, the difference this time is the strikingly moderate tone adopted by the Hindutva parivar. Forget ratcheting up passions or revving into an overdrive on agitational or celebratory programmes, the Bharatiya Janata Party and its ideological mentor have consciously eschewed provocative postures.