In the first part, I spoke about how John Marshall the colonial archaeologist deliberately suppressed archaeological evidence that his subordinates unearthed. This fraud ostensibly was perpetrated to further the cause of British imperialism.

In this part, I shall examine the portion that deals with the Ayodhya dispute.

In Rajaram’s words,

…. there are really two Ayodhya disputes–one ancient and historical, and the other recent and fabricated.

(Page 29)

And the reason this dispute arose in the first place is in a way, the consequence of John Marshall’s suppression and its subsequent perpetuation by the Leftist dominated history academia.

. seemingly unrelated topics like the Aryan invasion and the Ayodhya dispute are connected by this anti-national agenda that seeks to legitimize past imperialisms [.] Had there been no temple at the site, the Secular advocates of the … [AIBMAC] and their ‘consultants’ from JNU and AMU would not be resisting further exploration, nor demanding suppression of evidence.

(page 30)

You can only push somebody so far. The secularists’ only claim to authenticity was their positions of power, enormously disproportionate to their “scholarship.” When their refusal to accept overwhelming historical evidence reached a peak the inevitable occurred. As Rajaram says,

The real story . is not the Ayodhya demolition, which is peripheral to the conflict, but the behavior pattern of the Leftist(s) intellectuals and their allies calling themselves secularists. It was their version of history and interpretation of the events that made news.

(page 31)

Rajaram then quotes Koenraad Elst who has done pioneering work on the Ayodhya affair. Profiling the typical secularist, Elst states

The main villain of the affair is the class of English-educated intellectuals of upper caste Hindu background whose hatred of everything Hindu is much more intense than the comparable anti-Christian fervour of some ex-Christians in Europe.

(page 32)

Rajaram calls them cultural philistines whose “obsessive concern is self-preservation” to achieve which they’ll stoop to anything, and pursuing it has

…made them incapable of creating anything–they can only destroy. In this regard, they are true disciples of Lenin and Stalin. [.] How are we to account for this? — this viscreal hatred of the culture into which they were born, and of which they formed a privileged group? They owe everything to India. Unlike Indian scientists .. that are in demand throughout the world, the most that a Secularist can hope for is an occasional visiting poisition at a foreign university or a sundry award. The ferocity of their hatred cannot therefore be explained on rational grounds. To understand it we must recognize that Ayodhya for the Secularists represents not the demolition of a structure sacred to Muslims or a symbol of the humiliation of the Hindus, but the demolition of their own dreams and hopes as inheritors of the Imperial ideology and the advantages that went with it. Their sense as a privileged elite who felt entitled to monopolize everything and look down upon their fellow natives has been outraged. More fundamentally, their sense of security as its permanent beneficiaries has been shattered. Unable to create anything, they have set out to destroy as much as they can.

(pages 32-33)
(Emphasis mine)

I haven’t read a better analysis of the secular mindset yet. And the Secularist of Secularists, the progenitor is none other than Pandit Nehru. His enormous influence in wrecking the Hindu ethos in its land of birth is unbelievable. The book examines his role at some length.

.. Nehru … saw in this colonial educational . system India’s salvation. He was himself one of them - a product of the same educational and cultural indoctrination. [.] It was not just being English that mattered to Pandit Nehru; he craved recognition of this as fact especially from the British upper class.

Rajaram quotes from the Discovery of India to illustrate Nehru’s pathetic servility to the ruling class.

Over the top of the imperial structure sat the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, surrounded by all the pomp and ceremony befitting his high position.

(page 46)

And after a meeting with the Lord, he wrote to him,

May I say how much I appreciate your friendly courtesy to me? …. Whether we meet or, as you once said, look at each other over a gulf that has not been bridged, we shall do so, I earnestly trust, with no trace of unfriendliness, and realizing the difficulties which encompass us and which compel us to pursue different paths.

(page 47)

Further,

This letter made Ansar Hussain Khan remark in disgust: “This was Jawaharlal with a vengeance, a schoolgirl’s gushing over the ‘tryst’ with India’s master… he was hankering for acceptance, which was not there and would not come.”

(page 47)

Followed by Rajaram’s analysis

When every allowance is made for the conditions under which the letter was written, the sycophancy of the man–then nearly fifty years old, and the anointed leader of his party–is hard to stomach. Someone like Gandhi or Patel would never have grovelled like Pandit Nehru. They had roots in their own tradition.. that allowed them to retain their identity and a sense of balance. Nehru had lost his roots …. Yet it is Nehru who shaped the cultural and intellectual climate nurturing the Secularists who control the university in Delhi that is named after him.

(page 47)

In the sections devoted to Ayodhya–the First Dispute, the Second Dispute, Secular Opportunism, Political Dominance as Religion, and We Cannot Escape History–the book presents a summary of the bulk of evidence to support the existence of a temple at Ayodhya and the machinations of the Secularists in bringing the issue to a deadlock. Rajaram presents evidence that the Ram temple existed by unearthing Guru Nanak’s words, Man Singh’s account, and contemporary British records. It is not possible to cover all this in the space of a blog entry so I’ll content myself by quoting stuff I found worthy. For example, on the dangers of allowing the Secularists free rein, Rajaram writes

But our Secularists have still not learnt their lesson; they are continuing with their Hindu-baiting, even after the explosion of Ayodhya. Worse, they are encouring the Muslims to continue with their intransigence regardless of consequences. For the Secularists, it has become a matter of saving their faces after the fiasco… the Indian Muslims… should regard the Secularists … as their worst enemies… not one of them will be around to help them in a time of danger. They were nowhere in sight when the Babri Masjid was demolished. [.] When we examine the record, it becomes clear that the continued evasion and denial by Secularists … was largely responsible for provoking the Ayodhya demolition and its bloody aftermath. It had been building for more than forty years during which Pandit Nehru and his Congress party having first agreed to Partition continued in the name of ’secularism’ to appease the very forces that had caused the country to be divided.

(page 218)

And Rajaram sees a way out

On this score, India can learn a valuable lesson from Europe. The history of Christianity in Europe… is no less blood-soaked than that of Islam in India. But there are no ‘Crusade negationists’ … in Europe comparable to the Jihad negationists in India. This has allowed communal harmony to prevail in Europe after the power of the clergy was broken. This is the only course left in India also.

(page 219)

Those with some interest in understanding what the Ayodhya affair stands for will do well to read these lines. Babri Masjid stood as a mark of humiliation of Hinduism and equally, as a symbol of pride to the Muslim conquerors and to those today, who believe in its legitimacy.

It is this belief in the right of past conquests that makes the Babri Masjid important for such minds. It is for them a victory monument. They demand it as their right, deriving from conquests… Every living nation has national symbols and Ayodhya is one of India’s. A young American … recently asked me what harm was there in having Babur’s mosque at Rama-Janmabhumi. I asked her if Americans would let stand a mosque built by someone like Osama Bin Laden after demolishing Mount Vernon…. or the Statue of Liberty, which Americans see as national symbols. Similarly, the Westminster Abbey in London is more than a Church, for it is inseparably bound with English history and tradition. This is how people of India also look at Rama-Janmabhumi: it is a sacred spot for Hindus for historical, cultural and nationalistic reasons–and not just because it is a place of worship.

(page 237) (Emphasis mine)

Those arguing that “two wrongs do not make a right,” or “it is pointless to correct historical wrongs” may need to reconsider their stand. And Rajaram brilliantly concludes:

To summarize what is really at stake for the nation at Ayodhya, … we must ask a basic question: what gave Babur the right to destroy the temple… and build a mosque in its place? The answer is simple: Babur’s ideology gave him that right. …. The Babri Masjid was built at Ayodhya as a memorial to the success of that ideology. This does not mean that everyone–especially the victims–should accept it as legitimate and submit to it.

(page 256)

I shall devote the final part of this book review to the Dead Sea Scrolls affair.