Supreme Court of India, in its verdict on Ram janmabhoomi title case, referred to the visit paid by Sikh Guru Nanak Devji in AD 1510-11. It said in the verdict, “The visit of Guru Nanak Devji in 1510-11 A.D and to have darshan of Janmabhoomi of Lord Ram do support the faith and beliefs of the Hindus,". This was a very significant observation by the apex court of India. It is significant not just in alluding to the ancient belief of Hindus but also to call out the hypocrisy of a section of Indian Historians regarding acceptance of a temple at the site.

It will be appropriate to talk about some expert comments of these historians at this stage, which are callous and laughable. Unfortunately, in Indian and world media these historians are regarded as the only torch bearers of the truth. The foremost names from this section of Historians are Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib.

Ms Thapar took to predictable channel to take out her frustration after high court (HC) in Allahabad accepted a very detailed report of ASI in 2010. The ASI report proved that there was a temple at this site before Babar demolished it to build a mosque. I refer to what Ms Thapar wrote in the article:

“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.”  

It is interesting to look at who these disputing “archaeologists and historians” are. These people, had deposed against temple in the HC.  The HC referred to them in its verdict while commenting on their shenanigans. This group had deposed (on behalf of Waqf Board who were claiming for a mosque) against the temple twice, once before ASI excavation and later after excavation. Before the ASI excavations, they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and, after the site had been dug up, they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa. When asked about historical details of their claims, all of them failed to give satisfactory answers to the court. The court, in it’s verdict went as far as calling these ‘experts’ as someone showing ‘ostrich like’ attitude towards facts. The HC judge also pointed out how the independent witnesses were all connected — one had a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness. For the uninitiated, this is a standard practice adopted by leftist intellectuals.

Mr Irfan Habib also is not far behind. After the Supreme Court verdict in 2019 which cleared path of re-building of Ram temple in Ayodhya, a group of ‘intellectuals’ filed a review petition in SC against the verdict. Irfan Habib was one of the those ‘intellectuals’. The petition said, “The faith of a community cannot override the faith of another community and practices of two faiths cannot and should not be compared, as the expressions of faith can also differ.” Mr Habib in an article (Outlook Dec 2018 edition) said that Ram Mandir was not a Hindu – Muslim dispute but a political one with BJP and RSS fanning it. Well Mr. Habib’s petition to SC sounded more like a community dispute than political one.

This section of historians did all they could, to ‘prove’ that there was no Temple before Mosque was built in Ram Mandir site in Ayodhya. After ASI report rubbished their theory, they tried different means like discrediting the Janmabhoomi movement itself. They denounced everything which was fact based, from ASI’s archeological findings to judgement of HC and SC.

You may ask, why to recapitulate it now? Well, as they say, truth has a strange way of coming out. And in case of Ram Janmabhoomi also, truth has come out.

Last week, during the ground levelling for temple construction, a 5 feet Shivling and some temple pillars are found.

Reactions from some quarters on this were predictable though. Sunni Waqf Board lawyer who fought for mosque in SC said it was political propaganda. He obviously missed that now Janmbhoomi Nyas, or temple committee doesn’t need any political propaganda as SC handed over the entire area to the committee and ruled in favour of construction of Ram temple. India’s main opposition party Congress’ leader Udit Raj went a step further saying the artefacts found during levelling belonged to a Buddhist temple which existed before mosque and not a Ram temple. Anyone can predict why such claims are made by Congress. Not happy with the SC’s unanimous court verdict, Congress wants to whip up caste frenzies by making such atrocious claims.

Such reactions not-withstanding, these artefacts have proved once more that ASI findings were authentic and beyond any doubts. Also, they don’t just prove that SC verdict was fact based and fair but these findings are a tight slap on those who played politics while masquerading as historians. These intellectually dishonest historians worked hard to disprove existence of any temple at the site. They need to understand that they cannot ‘create’ history for people’s consumption. They must do some real research and come out with facts and not with fictions (communist history). Indeed, they can atone for the sins committed during Ram Janmabhoomi by working towards uncovering the real truths about Mathura and Kashi temples.

Image Credits: The Organiser