I remarked I had great fun reading the recent Clash of Apologists. I decided it’d be selfish if I didn’t share the fun with you. So here goes.

Let’s examine words of the Leftist eminence typist who started itall.

Quoth Allan Fakir, in Dilip’s blog:

Yes, Babar must have come to Ayodhya, he must have stumbled on a ruined structure and asked what it was. He must have been told that it is the birthplace of Ram and Lakshman – ‘then it is pavitra bhoomi (sacred land). There should be ibaadat (worship) in such a place. Prayers and devotion. Raise a mosque here’. And thus a Babri Masjid must have come to be.
(source: Death Ends Fun; thank me for the traffic I’m sending your way, Dilip)

Dilip has outdone himself with this. He has simply used as evidence the words of a Sufi singer to counterbalance the full weight of proof put forth by professional historians and scholars to conclusively prove that a Ram temple did exist at that spot in Ayodhya. Like his innumerable other entries, Dilip relies on his readers’ ignorance and/or appeals to their emotion. Unfortunately, I’m a heartlessly knowledgeable bastard where this affair is concerned.

I’m sure the Sufi is a pious man singing soulful hymns to the Almighty and making statements, which in the hands of the likes of DDD, transmogrifies into deadly weapons. Isn’t it clearer than crystal that Dilip’s entire case rests on a few pitiful strings of “must-haves?“

Now, the Sufi’s words.

Let’s assume the Sufi’s words are true. That leads us to an interesting conclusion and go back, like him, in time.

Babar looks at a sacred “ruined structure,” listens to stories of its sanctity and overcome by piety, decides to build a place of worship. Strangely, he builds a Mosque. Why? Logically, and as was the practice in those days, kings restored/renovated/rebuilt the original structure; they didn’t replace them. So why did Babar build a Mosque, which is by no stretch of imagination–not even our Typist’s–a Hindu place of worship? Why, again?

Didn’t I just say that Dilip builds his case on a string of “must-haves.” Here’s the answer, if you insist: because that never happened. Babar simply demolished an existing temple and built a mosque over it.

And Dilip knows the fact. Which is why he asks us, preemptively:

In all humility and seriousness, here’s a suggestion for you. Would you ask yourself, dispassionately, if this explanation of a 500 year-old event is any less believable than the explanation that says a barbaric Babar tore down a temple? Is it more believable?

As I already said, I’m not merely heartless, I am also arrogant. Humility doesn’t work with me. So here’s a suggestion for you: what you’re talking about relates to history; history isn’t written based on beliefs. What makes me believe whether Babar was a barbarian who tore down a temple is the facts and evidence that support them. Here’s one, from Harsh Narain:

The great Guru’s Babar Vani contains the strongest ever condemnation of Babur’s vandalism. The text mentions… that, thanks to the vandal’s destruction mania, temples as strong as thunderbolt were set on fire. Than mukam jale bij mandar muchhi muchhi kuir rula ‘ia.“

He’s talking about Guru Nanak, by the way. And in Babar’s own words,

Those who were brought in alive… were ordered beheaded, after which a tower of skulls was erected…. Chanderi had been in the daru’l-harb… I took it by force within a ghari or two, massacred the infidels, and brought it into the bosom of Islam…

Hardly barbaric.

So Dilip, what would you rather have me believe? The words of a Sufi singer whose devout words fail to convey anything with certitude, or what Babar and his contemporaries have themselves said? As to the evidence whether a temple existed or no, I’ll leave the readers with this eminently-ponderable question:

The standard question is: is this evidence for the temple demolition scenario valid? Have they succeeded in proving the existence of the temple? By contrast, the opponents of the temple hypothesis are but very rarely asked to put their evidence on the table.

For the juicy details, as well as where this came from, head here. While you are at it, please read a sample of how evidence was tampered with. Evidence, which would make secularists, liberals, and typists highly uncomfortable.

The Ayodhya dispute also holds a mirror to our degeneration on almost all fronts. When Sardar Patel ordered the reconstruction of the Somanath temple, the mosque that stood on its site was simply moved further down the road.

I leave it as an exercise to tell me what this contrast means.

Now, we have the likes of Dilip, and we have other well-meaning people who speak about the futility of correcting historical wrongs, who want a hospital/orphanage/whatchamacallit built on the Ram temple site. The question is not righting historical wrongs. Islamic invasion has destroyed thousands of temples here and it is absurd to try to reclaim all of them; nor is anybody asking that. The point with Ayodhya is its sanctity: historical records tell us that Hindus used to still offer worship at that place, even after it became a Masjid. In his book, Profiles in Deception, N.S. Rajaram says:

Every living nation has national symbols and Ayodhya is one of India’s. A young American…. I asked her if Americans would let stand a mosque built by … Bin Laden after demolishing Mount Vernon (George Washington’s home), or the Statue of Liberty… the Westminster Abbey in London is more than a Church, for it is inseparably bound with English history and tradition. This is how the 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.

But our Typist makes heart-rending statements:

Someone (as always, you know who you are) writes to ask, history and explanations apart, what do you think should be done on that spot in Ayodhya?

Isn’t it amazing how skillfully deceptive this is? The casual usage of “history and explanations apart,” means you’re effectively dismissing the overwhelming evidence in favour of the temple. What this also means dear reader, is that our bleeding-heart Typist is simply denying Hindus their entire experience of worshipping Rama in his own birthplace.

Writes he:

For me, what fits best is a large hospital… And in fact, it must care first for the poor. … I am talking about a hospital that will be a model to the country. That’s the kind of enduring significance I mean.

Exactly. A hospital built on the sentiments of millions of hurt devotees. Really strange for a guy who fiercely roots for the poor finds it difficult to empathize with a different kind of emotion: worship. And for the record, even the “poorest of the poor” do worship Lord Rama.

On a more serious note, may I ask what gives Dilip and others like him, the moral authority to simply bulldoze sensitivities? What makes him decide for millions of devotees of Rama, that a hospital, than a temple is a greater service to the poorest of the poor? And if a hospital, why only the poorest of the poor? Now THIS is the problem with our bleeding hearts: they turn up uninvited, butt into conversations which they have no clue of, and stay on till they’re too drunk, long after the party is over.

And why does God bother this self-confessed agnostic, when he says:

What better tribute to fellow humans who have died in this endless dispute, to the ideals of every religion, to the gods themselves?

As for the other apologist, I’ve remarked earlier that he shouldn’t attempt posts, which he is not qualified to write. At best, his Dilip-correction-exercise is hilarious, and at worst, is absolute nonsense. Sample this:

I have always argued that the only solution is to demolish the ramshackle Hindu temple, by force if necessary, and hand over the site to Muslims-so they can reconstruct the Babri masjid. What Babar (allegedly) did cannot be corrected but what happened in 1992 certainly can be. Because we know it happened.

In Nilu’s lexicon, this would qualify as puke.

I hope you had fun.

Footnote: The difference between the two posts is one word: deception.