The JNU Historians and their Camp Followers

On September 30 the Allahabad High Court delivered its much awaited verdict on the Ramajanmabhoomi. The 3 member panel of judges (2 Hindu and 1 Muslim) judged that the site of the Babri Masjid was indeed the birthplace of Rama as the Hindu litigants claimed, but that since both the Hindus and the Muslims have been worshipping at this site for some time the land would be equally divided amongst the two Hindu litigants and the Muslim litigant (the Sunni Waqf Board).

The country responded peacefully, and there were no demonstrations or riots. The JNU historians and their followers , however, started to question the judgment and above all demanded  the release of the ASI (Archeological Survey of India) report of the excavations done over a period of time at the site and which concluded that there had been a Hindu temple over which Babur the Mughal emperor built a mosque in 1528. The JNU historians questioned the validity of this report on which the High Court had based its judgment on whether a Hindu temple had been destroyed (or built over) in 1528.

This is not an unfair request, although questioning the High Court judgment in
and of itself seems politically motivated. And some of the argumentation is silly to say
the least. One such is that animal bones have been found at many layers of the excavations and hence there could not have been a Hindu temple, let alone a Rama temple at the site.

Now, commonsense should tell us that animals, wild and domesticated ,wandered about
 all over the subcontinent. And with regard to the 1528 level there has been no
question even from the JNU historians that there was a Mughal encampment there in 1528 under the leadership of Mir Baki, the general of Babur’s army. Obviously, they
slaughtered animals for their daily food.

Neverthless, the JNU historians and their followers continue to divert attention from
the judicial pronouncement of the High Court. As Dr. S.Kalyanraman of the Sarasvati
Research Center has said :

“  It is clear that these historians have not read the judgment, nor have they read
    the following document which is part of the full text which runs to 8000 pages.
    They seem to be interested only in making points and not concerned about the
    integrity of the historical narrative. . . . .

    The ASI reports are evaluated from pages 43-65 of Annex IV . . . . .”

( ‘Eminent Donkeys’ in Haindava Keralam, 13/10/2010)

The conduct of the JNU historians is not puzzling when one considers their ideological
standpoint. They are Marxists by and large and are determined to pursue their one
sided interpretation of that world historical figure. In the Indian context it takes the
shape of hostility  towards  the indigenous religion of Hinduism and of support of
the Muslim minority.

Now, one cannot dismiss all of them as rogues, scoundrels, opportunists, careerists,
imbeciles and what not. A core group is  ideologically motivated. The others
are simply camp followers and continue to write irresponsible articles in leading newspapers such as The Hindu.

In the case of Romila Thapar there is a great deal of ambivalence. Professional ambition?
She has written about ancient India without any knowledge of Sanskrit.  In any
other part of the world if a scholar/historian writes about ancient Greec, he or she is
expected to know ancient Greek in order to qualify as a scholar/historian of the period.

And why, contrary to scholarly evidence, does she go out of her way to argue that the
Somnatha temple was destroyed by Mohammed Ghazni  in 1024 A.D. as normal for
an invader to do and had nothing to do with his being a Muslim ? Contemporaneous
Muslim writers hailed Ghazni’s act as that of a faithful Muslim who had destroyed the
infidels’ place of worship. And Ghazni himself accepted this accolade as true of his
aims and purposes. Muslim iconoclasm of the period has been well documented by
writers of the period and has been written about extensively by contemporary historians
who have no axe to grind (prior to 9/11).

One has to therefore to view the JNU response from a three fold perspective:

1.    The poverty of their ideology
2.     Their specific errors in talking about the HC verdict
3.     Their clutching at straws to defeat the Hindu cause, as they mistakenly  see it.
    
Nos. 2& 3 have been written about extensively by many Hindu(and non Hindu) scholars, writers, and journalists  and this will continue in the days to come. It will also be useful to
look at No.1, the poverty of their ideology.

That world historical thinker Karl Marx has not been successfully refuted in his economic
writings (the 6 volumes of Das Kapital and the shorter writings on political economy).
And the world  is deeply indebted to him for  his prodigious critique of capitalism.

However, his historical materialism, such as the periodisation of history (change of social formations in a certain sequence)  and the basic thesis that it is only the economy that determines everything else in society has been seriously critiqued and rightly so.

His views on religion are also not applicable except in a limited sense. His famous observation that religion is the opiate of the people has been quoted endlessly and has been refuted endlessly. In the context of Hinduism it is his ‘humanism’ that is not
applicable.

His humanism was derived from the Greek sophist Protagoras who said : MAN is the
measure of all things. Hence, although Marx castigated Britain for its exploitation of
of India, he went on to say that Britain with all its iniquities was a progressive force
in India where MAN who should be the master of Nature, falls on his knees before
Hanuman the monkey and Sabala the cow (British Rule in India).

Hanuman for the Hindus is the essence of devotion. His prayer currently is for the
return of his beloved Rama to Ayodhya and his righteous and just rule. The Marxists
do not understand this prayer, indeed they cannot, since they are hidebound by their
view of Hinduism. For the JNU historians Hinduism is their chief enemy because they
see it as an obstacle to their vision of a future egalitarian state. The experiments in
Marxism  in both Russia and China have failed. To date, there has been no communist
state in the world as the founder envisaged it.

Indian Marxists also have not learned the lesson of the betrayal of their fellow travelers
in the Iranian revolution and elsewhere.They are unable to readjust their tunnel
vision. And the JNU historians are ruddlerless and leaderless. They continue to repeat
the old platitudes and as mentioned above it is not even certain that their ‘scholarly’ work will stand close scrutiny.

Hanuman, Rama and Ayodhya all stand for the Vedic vision of the world, for dharmic
governance to be instituted. That vision signals the equality of all living beings and peace and prosperity for all living beings:

Om Shanti, Antaryamin shantihi, Prithvi shantihi, Vanaspatai shantihi, Sarvam shantihi. . .
Om Peace, peace to the inner self, peace to the earth, peace to the environment, peace to
the entire universe.

A society cut off from the universe and the entire world of living beings is the end result
of a mindless transposition of Marxian theory to the Hindu world. The JNU historians
and their camp followers have yet to understand this.

Meanwhile, there is no harm in their calling for the publication of the ASI Report. And
then they will clamour for something else, and when that does not prove their pet
theorising they will call for something else. And this will continue until they come
to their senses. In Vigilonline Radha Rajan has traced the chronology of their denial
of each fact that comes to light.

They are putting up a rearguard action to defend their Frontline !  But the JNU tide is clearly ebbing.

 Rama, Ayodhya and Hanumanji are here to stay. Over 5,000 years plus Bharat
has been moving towards Ayodhya. If the JNU historians and their camp followers are
genuinely interested in history and historical understanding and how this will contribute
to a just and well governed society, they will at the very least be honest in their writing
of Indian history. And that includes the acceptance of unpleasant truths about the various
Conquests, especially the destruction of Hindu temples.

They should also leave the Muslim community alone now and not try to instigate anti
Hindu sentiments. The syncretic Islam of India is a unique feature of the Indian subconti
nent. The aam admi (common man) Muslim is at ease in Bharat . The instigation of violent and diabolical men in the past have led to horrific violence, as e.g. the Direct
Action of 1946. The Muslim elite may be undergoing some identity crisis, but not the middle class Muslim.

Ayodhya is an historic turning point. Hanumanji’s silent prayer is being rewarded.

Jai Shri Ram !

(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university).

Responses