The Myth of “1000 Years of Hindu Slavery”

One thousand years of slavery. Millennia of defeat and domination caused by a dogmatic adherence to the doctrine of ahimsa, preventing an effective resistance to foreign domination. This is what most Hindus are brought up to believe about their history.

These and other such theories are happily put forward as history of Hindus for the past 14 centuries and postulated by self proclaimed scholars from both within and without the Hindu fold. It was something I have heard from my youth and accepted without question.

However some thoughts rankled in my mind. If the Hindus were truly slaves for a thousand years plus, then how have we survived to this day with dignity and honour and with a spiritual tradition stretching back to the mists of time and beyond? Many other cultures, civilisations and spiritual traditions have been reduced to museum pieces, but the words of the Holy Vedas are recited in an identical fashion today as they were thousands of years ago when first revealed to the Rishis.

This is no mean achievement.How did Hindus survive and manage to maintain a civilisational identity stretching into the dawn of human history? How was Sanatana Dharma kept alive as a living presence in the world, and indeed regenerated over time if the Hindus were slaves for so long? This impelled me to look for the truth myself, and undertake a study of the history of the Hindu people.

The beginning of Hindus’ “thousand years of slavery” is supposed to have begun with the overrunning of India by Muslims of Arab and Turkish origin. It is popularly believed that Hindus put up a feeble defense and that the Islamic armies had a cake walk through India. If we examine at what actually happened, however, we see that Hindus put up a huge struggle, which was eventually victorious.

Following the death of their founder, Muhammad we see the Arab Khilafat expand swiftly over the Middle and Near East, pouring over the deserts of North Africa and crossing the waters to begin a six century occupation of Spain and beyond. The combined might of Christian Europe struggled again and again to reclaim the ‘holy lands’ to end in bitter failure with the rise of the Ottoman Empire, who ruled over a large part of Eastern Europe for centuries.

On the other side, the lands of Iran, home of the ancient and historical Persian civilisation fell to the yet undefeated Arab warriors and within a short period the indigenous culture becoming extinct or expelled, today being largely the confine of museums and relics. The Arab hordes then pushed into the Indian Subcontinent, land of the Hindus, overwhelming the small desert region of Sindh and then attempted to push and conquer the existing Hindu kingdoms. Here however their advance was stopped.

With the inspiration of Sant Gorakhnath the warrior clans of the Rajputs united under their legendary king Bappa Rawal and in a series of Battles known collectively as the Battle of Rajashtan inflicted a heavy defeat on the Arab invaders in 738 CE. Any further advances by the Arabs were repelled, impelling the formation of large organised Hindu states in the centre and west of India. Frustrated by their failures in India the Arabs turned northwards shortly after defeating the Chinese Empire in the Battle of Talas in 751 CE opening the gate for the Islamisation of Central Asia. India remained unaffected for another three hundred years. (the “thousand years of slavery theory” was beginning to shake)

The Islamisation of Central Asia began to grow apace and one by one the ancient Buddhist kingdoms began to totter and fall as tribe after tribe joined the ranks of the growing Muslim religion. The destruction of Buddhism and its centers in the region prompted an exodus towards India, and the conversion of the remaining clans to Islam. The Muslim armies were expanded, filled with the zeal and energy of new converts, who were sent spiraling towards the Middle East to fight the advancing Crusaders under the leadership of Saladin. Another wave of attacks poured towards India resulting in large scale damage and loot from the subcontinent under the leadership of Mahmud of Ghazni around 1000 CE.

Two further centuries passed as further advances were resisted until a breakthrough around 1200 CE allowed the invaders access to the North Indian plains. The remaining Buddhists were slaughtered or converted in an unprecedented orgy of violence and horror. The majority Buddhist regions of Afghanistan, Kashmir and West Punjab joined the crescent banner of Islam. However the conversion of Hindus was slower and the resistance was more fierce. Hindu warrior clans kept up a relentless resistance fighting from the deserts, the mountains and the forests. The heavy cavalry of the Muslim Turks which had proved fatal to the Crusaders of Western Europe were victorious on the plains of North India but this did not prevent an endless cycle of attack and counter attack by the Hindus.

It took nearly another hundred years under the leadership of the infamous Aladdin Khilji for the Muslims Empire firmly established itself in India. This mantle was inherited by the Tughlaqs only to lead to a revival from the Hindu population.

The religious traditions of India had been severely mauled by the endless bloodletting over the past two centuries. Many important institutions and temples were destroyed. Prosperity suffered, as it tends to in times of continuous war. This created a certain weakening of Hindu society. Religion became preserved in rituals which were less and less understood. Sanskrit learning was on the decline. Caste became more rigid.

However, a religious renewal took place in the form of the “Bhakti movement”. A simplified form of Hinduism particularly suitable to the times emerged. A new wave of spiritual teachers preaching that simple devotion and love of God and love of all people and creatures is the simplest root to salvation. A message of defiance and brotherhood from saints and rishis from all corners of India emerged. From Tukram and Namdev from the west of India, from Nanak in Punjab, from Chaitanya in the east and Kabir in the north plus many others, the message of dharma revived itself in the teeth of an implacable enemy.

The fearless postulating of the brotherhood of all mankind defied the savagery raging around them as the Turks endeavoured to convert the entire subcontinent to Islam and the Hindus fighting tooth and nail to resist. The Muslim empire seemed to rest on specified military encampments and cities surrounded by a sea of hostile Hindus usually left to their own devices. Hundred of Rajahs and Maharajahs dotted the nation living in virtual independence from the central authorities in which traditions of culture and religion were maintained unchanged through the centuries.

Other larger organised resistance emerged in the Vijaynagara Empire of South India around 1336 CE which consolidated Hindu resistance for over two centuries. In the north the revival of the Rajput kingdoms and the defiance of kings like those of Orissa under the Gajapati Kings, the hills of Punjab under Jasrath Khokhar and the rise of neo Hindu kingdoms in the north east of India along with the entire hill region signaled the revival of Hindu rule over vast tracts of India.

A steady period of Hindu growth then ensued until by the dawn of the 1500′s the southern region of India was dominated by the mighty king of the Vijaynagara Empire, Krishnadevarya and the north by the revival of the valiant Rajputs under the charismatic leadership of Rana Sanga (grandfather of the equally illustrious Rana Pratap).

The tides of history however turned again – with the influx of cannons and other artillery utilised by Babur the Mughal entered into the Indian subcontinent against which the wild charges of the Rajputs and Pathans had no answer. The reckless disregard of their own lives in the defence of dharma saw a series of battles in which the Hindu forces fought quite literally to the last man woman and child, most famously the siege of Chhitor in 1567. The utter refusal of the Hindus to surrender in the century old tussle with Islam for political control over the subcontinent was a lesson not lost by the new Emperor Akbar. He instead moved away from the tenets of Islam to a new faith of the Din i Ilahi. By following the age old traditions of religious toleration in India he endeared himself to the majority population and through a period of compromise and alliance brought a brief period of peace to the troubled land.

This tenuous alliance was shattered by his descendant Aurangzeb who in his zeal for the establishment of an Islamic state caused an upheaval which left the Mughal Empire fall beyond all hope of repair.

The renewal of the civilisational Hindu-Islam conflict saw the rise of a generation of Sants and holy men inspiring the people for the defence of dharma which saw the might of the Mughals humbled by Rajputs, Marathas, Jats, Satnamis, Ahoms,  Bundelas and others. In a cataclysmic wave of defiance the Mughal

Empire lay broken and on its ruins rose a number of Hindu states competing for space in the subcontinent.

The inspirational rise of the Maratha king Shivaji and his bold defiance of the Mughal empire in the noontide of its realm is an apt example.

Who did the British wrest control of India from?

When the British came on the Indian scene, it is thought or assumed by many people that he British took control of India from the Mughals. This is not true. In fact, by the time that the British emerged as a major force in India, the Muslim political power in the subcontinent had been virtually cast down.

The situation is best defined by a British author, H.G.Keene

 The idea, however, that the British have wrested the Empire from the Mohamadans is a mistake. The Mohamadans were beaten down — almost everywhere except in Bengal — before the British appeared upon the scene; Bengal they would not have been able to hold, and the name of the “Mahratta Ditch” of Calcutta shows how near even the British there were to extirpation by India’s new masters. Had the British not won the battles of Plassey and Buxar, the whole Empire would ere now have become the fighting ground of Sikhs, Rajputs, and Mahrattas and others. Except the Nizam of the Deccan there was not a vigorous Musalman ruler in India after the firman of Farokhsiar in 1716; the Nizam owed his power to the British after the battle of Kurdla in 1795), and it was chiefly British support that maintained the feeble shadow of the Moghul Empire, from the death of Alamgir II. to the retirement of Mr. Hastings. Not only Haidarabad but all the other existing Musalman principalities of modern India owe their existence, directly, or indirectly, to the British intervention.

The march of western civilisation ended the Hindu revival at a time when Hindus exercised control over almost the entire subcontinent. But it took Three wars with the Marathas, two wars with the Gurkhas, war with the Jaats, also smaller ranging wars with the Santhals, Sanyasis and many others .

Hindus unwillingness to surrender culminated in the huge uprising from the predominantly Hindu sepoys in 1857 which almost brought the British Indian Empire to a swift conclusion being the largest anti colonial uprising in history. The end result was 90 years of imperialist rule.

This was matched by a concerted disarming of the population by the British rulers, leaving only select regions free from the disarming which were perceived as loyal to the British under the flawed marital race theory. This theory propagated by the forerunners of the concepts of eugenics and Nazism believed the Indian races could not match the British combination of physical and mental facilities. Thus a large percentage of Hindu population, despite holding sway of almost all of the Indian subcontinent were delegated into the non martial section by the British. Other sections believed to be of sufficient physical abilities (but not mental development) were delegated by the Imperialists as ‘martial races’

This flawed theory was propagated as an absolute truth (still followed by some) and together with the disarming of the population led to the diminishing of the martial spirit amongst Hindus.

However the theories propagated by the British found challengers from the Hindus. Spurred by a revaluation of their history and the knowledge of western theories a new revival began to take fruit. From the universal preaching of Swami Vivekananda to the guns of the Anushilan Samiti the Hindus were at the forefront of a growing anti colonial challenge to the most powerful empire in the world. Finally finding control of the subcontinent untenable in the teeth of endless opposition the British Indian Empire collapsed in a wave of unprecedented bloodshed which has seen a slow and steady spread and reach of the Hindu world.

So again, I was stumped by this ‘thousand years of slavery’ theory. I was even more surprised to find this postulated by otherwise very earnest Hindus in the mistaken belief of their own history.

When examining our history I saw a spirit of defiance stretching over a thousand years in the face of implacable and merciless enemies, who put an end to many other cultures and civilisations. The same forces which had overcome virtually every indigenous civilisation in the world had thrown their entire might against India – and failed.

Attack after attack was defeated. Horrific massacres did not force the people to abandon their religion and identity. The destruction of holy places did not see dharma die but rise again and overcome their opponents with the power of truth. The banner of freedom was raised generation after generation despite the best attempts of some vested parties to blur the truths and sacrifices made again and again.

So 150 years of effective rule by the Muhamadans and 90 years of British rule was suddenly expanded into ‘one thousand years of slavery’ an utterly absurd contention is being bandied about like an absolute truth but has failed to hide the facts that remain unaltered in history. Ancient faiths like Buddhism and Zoroasterism were almost obliterated from the Middle East, Central Asia and India but the Hindus rose in defiance to emerge even stronger at the end of the blood soaked millennia.

Even well wishers of Hindus, lost in their Victorian outlook on India have propagated the same absurdities in total insult of the enduring Hindu spirit. The spirit is best exemplified by the renowned historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar when talking of the legendary Maratha king Shivaji:

 He [Shivaji] has proved that the Hindus can still produce not only clerks and soldiers but rulers of men. (…) Shivaji proved that the tree of Hinduism is not really dead – that it rose from the seemingly crushing load of centuries of attack and put forth new leaves and lifted its head to the skies.




Ayodhya: How the truth won over Secular and waqf deception

Secularists’ lies and unscathed Truth – In the winter of 2002-2003, the Court had secretly ordered a search of the site with a ground-penetrating radar by the company Tojo Vikas International Ltd., which had gained fame with its role in the construction of the Delhi underground railway. Canadian geophysicist Claude Robillard concluded from the scans that “there is some structure under the mosque” (, 19 March 2003). In early 2003, the Court ordered the ASI to start excavations and either confirm or disprove the provisional conclusions of the radar scan. Strictly speaking, the existence of the medieval temple had already been proven by a wealth of documentary and archaeological evidence. It was only because of the brutal denial of the evidence by a group of vocal academics and allied politicians that the Court considered it wiser to come up with a new and as yet unchallenged type of evidence. The archaeologists were permanently scrutinized by archaeologists and historians employed by the Muslim parties. Moreover, many of the excavators were Muslims, unlikely to be willing accomplices in a pro-Hindu manipulation. According to the Press Trust of India (11 June 2003): “There were 131 labourers including 29 Muslims engaged in the digging work today”. All this was done to ensure truth from being manipulated.

In the months when the digging took place, the newspapers reported new findings once in a while. Thus, “an ancient stone inscription in the Dev Nagari script and a foundation were discovered in the ongoing excavation in the acquired land in Ayodhya today”, while “stone pieces and a wall were found in other trenches” and “a human figure in terracotta, sand stone netting, decorated sand stone in three pieces were found in one trench” (The Hindu, 5 May 2003). Following this, a Babri Masjid supporter, Naved Yar Khan, approached the Supreme Court with a petition to prohibit all archaeological digging at the contentious site which was rejected (“SC rejects plea against excavation”, The Hindu, 10 June 2003). The secularists had always opposed archaeological fact-finding at the site, arguing that this would open a Pandora’s box of similar initiatives at the literally thousands of mosque sites where temples used to stand.

On June 11, after the ASI had been registering new findings for months, pseudo-secularist newspapers started spreading absolute lies that nothing had been found: “ASI finds no proof of structure below Babri Masjid: report”, claimed the Times of India. The occasion was the ASI’s filing of an interim report, yet none of these papers quoted the report, only “sources”. In interviews of Hindu or Muslim leaders, questions were opened with a reference that “nothing was found” underneath the Babri Masjid. However, RSS website came up with detailed findings of the ASI report. There, on 24 June 2003, Chetan Merani wrote: “The excavations so far give ample traces that there was a mammoth pre-existing structure beneath the three-domed Babri structure. (…) The bricks used in these perimeters predate the time of Babar. (…) More than 30 pillar bases have been found at equal spans. (…) Beautiful stone pieces bearing carved Hindu ornamentations like lotus, kaustubh jewel, alligator facade, etc., have been used in these walls. (…) An octagonal holy fireplace (yajna kund) has been found. (…) Terracotta idols of divine figurines, serpent, elephant, horse-rider, saints, etc., have been found. (…) The excavation gives out the picture of a vast compound housing a sole distinguished and greatly celebrated structure used for divine purposes.”
The pseudo-secularist effort had been very strenuous. By contrast, the VHP took a very lackadaisical attitude towards the excavations. It had never attached too much importance to the history debate, firstly because it was a false and contrived debate about a demolished temple which all honest observers knew to have existed; and secondly because the Hindu claim to the site rested less on past history than on the continuous and present fact that Hindus consider the disputed site as a sacred site today. The VHP knew perfectly well that the excavations were bringing up more confirmation by the day of the existence of the temple. And all this while, the Marxist hate campaign targetted the ASI, a scientific institution, as much as it targetted the VHP.

For those unfamiliar with modern Indian history: the Marxists were handed a near-monopoly on institutional power in India’s academic and educational sector by Indira Gandhi involved in an intra-Congress power struggle when she needed the help of the Left. Her confidants P.N. Haksar and Nurul Hasan packed the institutions with Marxists. When, during the Emergency dictatorship (1975-77), her Communist Party allies threatened to become too powerful, she removed them from key political positions but left the Marxists’ hold on the cultural sector intact. They at once set out to falsify history and propagate their own version through the official textbooks. After coming to power in 1998, the BJP-dominated government made a half-hearted attempt to bring transparency at least in the history textbooks. This led the Marxists to start a furious hate campaign against the so-called “saffronization” of history.

In spite of a very aggressive campaign of lies by a few spearheads of “secularism”, the broad outline of the true story was in the public domain for anyone with the curiosity to find out. Yet, the International media’s reporting on the interim report consisted exclusively in copying the most mendacious version. The Reuters despatch for 11 June 2003 was titled: “Dig finds no sign of temple at Indian holy site”, quoting not the actual report, but a ‘source’. Like a babe in the wood, the world press never thought of taking a critical look at the secularist version. The BBC News titled: “‘No sign’ of Ayodhya temple” (11 June 2003). Here again, no information from the horse’s mouth, only from “widespread reports across the Indian media”. Distorted or even totally false reporting on communally sensitive issues is a well-entrenched feature of Indian journalism. No reporter or columnist or editor ever gets fired or formally reprimanded or even just criticized by his peers for smearing Hindu nationalists. And foreign correspondents used to trusting their Indian secularist sources have likewise developed a habit of swallowing and relaying highly distorted news stories.

Satyamev Jayate – In the Ayodhya case, for two decades, the secularists had worked hard to keep the lid on the evidence and they didn’t want some puny radar scanner or muddy-handed archaeologist to bring the facts to light and thereby expose their mendaciousness. After all the wild claims made about their findings, the experts themselves had finally spoken. Their report confirmed that the disputed site contains the foundations of a large building complex. And this time too, the religious purpose of the building can be inferred from the numerous religious artefacts found in between the pillar-bases.

In a normal setting, the ASI findings should have finished once and for all the campaign of history denial by the Marxists and their Muslim camp followers. But the world of Indian secularism is a fantasy-land where hard facts don’t count for much. Like spoilt children, the secularists are used to having it all their own way, and when reality interferes, they close their eyes, shut off their ears and refuse to know. And they will lie and cheat in order to prevent others from knowing. The secularists claimed that the existence of the temple became part of Hindu rhetoric in the dialogue process begun in 1989 between the All India Babri Mosque Committee and the hard-line Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). In reality, the existence of the medieval temple was a matter of long-standing consensus. What became part of someone’s rhetoric towards 1989 was its denial, launched by the secularists and picked up by the Muslims.

The irresponsible and downright evil campaign of history denial by the secularist opinion-makers has prolonged the Ayodhya dispute by at least a decade. Denouncing all pragmatic deals, these secular fundamentalists insisted on having it their way for the full 100%, meaning the total humiliation of the Hindus. They exercised verbal terror against Rajiv Gandhi, Narasimha Rao and all politicians suspected of wanting to compromise with the Hindu movement, making them postpone the needed steps towards the solution. This way, they exacerbated the tensions in return for the pleasure of indulging their self-image as implacable secularists. A real secularist would have sought to minimize a religious conflict, but this lot insisted on magnifying it and turning it into a national crisis. For them, it was a holy war, a jihad, just as it was for their Islamist pupils and paymasters. So, the blood of all the people killed in Ayodhya-related riots from 1989 onwards is at least partly on their heads.

But now, the historical evidence has definitively been verified. After every single historical and archaeological investigation had confirmed the old consensus, the secularists have now been defeated in the final test. The deceit turns out to be their own. Their lies stand exposed and recorded for all to see. Their strategy to sabotage peace and justice in Ayodhya was based on history falsification. With all the blood on their hands, they have disgraced the fair name of secularism. Henceforth, India should be kind enough to ignore them except to hear the confession of their sins. Ideas have consequences, and so do lies. Before the “eminent historians” and other militant secularists are called up to purgatory, they would do well to clear their conscience by offering restitution to the scientists and Hindus they have smeared. And by begging forgiveness from the families of the Hindu and Muslim victims of riots triggered by a controversy that could have been old history already by 1989, had there not been the secularist obstruction.

On 30th September 2010, the three judge bench of Allahabad High Court delivered its landmark judgment. All the 3 judges agreed to the fact that there indeed was a “Hindu religious structure” below the disputed Babari mosque. Justice Aftab Alam did not concede that the temple was demolished to construct the mosque. He maintained that the mosque was constructed on the ruins of the temple. Justice Dharmveer Sharma and Justice Sudhir Agrawal ruled that the mosque was constructed after demolishing the temple and using its material. Justice Agrawal and Justicee Aftab Alam ruled for the division of the disputed site giving 2/3rd to the Hindus and still giving 1/3rd to Muslims, while Justice Sharma ruled that all land must go to Hindus. Justice Sharma retired the same day with a unique track record under his cap – none of his judgments, when challenged in the Supreme Court, were ever turned down, i.e. whatever Justice Sharma ruled, was always upheld by the Supreme Court. Interestingly enough, the concerned parties challenged the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in its hearing on May 9th, termed the decision of splitting the land into 3 parts given by Justice Agrawal and Justice Khan as ‘surprising’ and stayed it, making it amply clear that the land will only go to one party, seemingly resonating with Justice Sharma’s observations.

A patient India and Hindus across the world waits for the final verdict. Ram has ruled Indian and Hindu psyche since time immemorial, and the importance of Ayodhya can never be erased. For an Indian Muslim, they need to be told the fact that their brothers in Ayodhya themselves never went to offer a namaz at Babri mosque since 1934, a fact that a ‘secular’ media and wicked politicians deliberately hid from them, disturbing the peace. Like every nationalist peace loving Indian, IBTL too hopes for a quick and just settlement of the dispute and a feeling of comity prevail, through Ayodhya, across India, and India could truly become a Ramrajya of peace and development.

Disclaimer: The information presented in this series has been primarily taken from the documentary on Ram Janmbhoomi researched and scripted by Vivek Apte and the book “Ayodyha, The Finale: Science versus Secularism the Excavations Debate” by Dr. Koenraad Elst, an eminent Dutch Indologist. IBTL values Secularism but denounces its abuse as a tool to suppress truth and create tensions among countrymen. IBTL holds nationalism and foremost, Truth as most sacred and revered.

Source: IBTL

Ayodhya after partition – Secular Lies and Killings Of Karsewaks

Ramlala’s advent to brutal killing of Karsewaks : In 1949, after India had earned freedom from British rule and Muslims under Jinnah had carved out a separate Islamic state of Pakistan dividing the motherland, large gatherings of Ramayan recitation began in and around the site. On the mid-night of 22nd December 1949, Ram-lala is said to have ‘appeared’ as testified by the Muslim constable on duty that night. This lead to a handful of Hindus gather on the site at night only and install the idols of Ramlala. By the morning of 23rd December 1949, the news of Ram-lala having appeared had reached to every house and thousands of devotees had gathered singing the chaupais of Ram Janm as written the in Ramcharitmanas. Thus, the place was re-consecrated for Ram worship on that day. Since that day, Ram worship has continued without any break at that site.

The Somnath temple of Gujarat was rebuilt at the initiative of the then Home Minister Sardar Patel and by the donations of Hindus. This had prompted Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister to construct a full-fledged Mosque, which was severely damaged during 1934 riots and laid abandoned since then, at the site, but he was blocked by the iron man Sardar Patel. The immediate orders issued by the government to remove the idols from the site were refused to be implemented by the responsible officers of Central Province citing the intense Hindu sentiment and impossibility of implementing the order. It was then when a fresh case was lodged at the Indian Court for the title suit of the disputed site.

Between 1975 and 1980, Archaeological survey was conducted in and around Ayodhya under the guidance of the then Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India Mr. B B Lal. He tells that excavations were performed at 3 spots right around the Babri masjid. Two of them were at the west of the structure and one at the south of it. Our trenches were hardly 2 meters away from the outer wall of the mosque. .. Different levels of depth corresponding to different era of time were to found, the early medieval level, the Gupta level, the Kushan level, the Shung level and further down to 3rd century BC. In the lowest levels in the trench, a material going back to 700 BC was found. The materials recovered from Ayodhya were similar to those recovered from other sites mentioned in the Ramayan, e.g. Shringverpur, Chitrakoot etc. where excavations were performed as well. 14 places were excavated at Ayodhya to ensure not missing the lowest level and similar kind of evidence was found. Below the outer wall of the mosque, a series of pillars’ bases were found. They are oriented along North South and East-West direction. In the mosque, the pillars are also oriented along the same directions. The pillars carry Hindu mortels which are found on the pillars in temples. Stylistically the pillars are datable to a period around 100 AD. There is enough circumstantial evidence to connect the pillars and the bases found in the excavation. A further work in this direction would potentially lead to getting more evidence from underneath the mosque to show the connection between the pillar bases and the pillars, so had said the Director of ASI in an interview in 80s. This factual finding has a startling similarity with the 84 pillars as described about the janmsthaan temple.

The then director of ASI, Mr. B B Lal also cited the example of Kuwat-ul-Islam (meaning the Strength of Islam) mosque of Delhi where the pillars are still standing as it was built by demolishing 27 temples. He says that it was not unusual for the muslim invaders to establish their strength. The presence of Arabic pottery at the layer corresponding to the layer of destruction of the temple. All this circumstantial evidence was documented and submitted by ASI to the government of India and Mr. Lal, in his interview had expressed inability to comment on why no action was taken on his report even 2 years after submitting it.

Eminent Art Historian S P Gupta had said that further excavation right under the structure can only be done only when the mosque is removed from that site. Only then all 84 pillars which are mentioned in the scriptures could be recovered.

On 7th October 1984, a massive gathering of people took place in Ayodhya. A pledge was taken to rebuild the temple at the same site. That was the launching of the movement on the scale of no other since the struggle for Independence. Then came the historical event of 1st February 1986. On that day, the locks put on the gate of the structure way back in 1949, were removed on the orders of the District Judge of Faizabad. The judge accepted the plea that Hindus had an unrestricted access to the site for past 36 years and pooja had been performed since then, and no one had offered namaz there since 50 years.

The next event is of 19th November 1989. On that day, the foundation laying ceremony, the Shilanyaas, of the Ram janmbhoomi mandir was laid. The year 1990 was a year of swift development. The whole issue was engulfed in a spree of litigation and political manipulation. In the mists of all this development, it was declared that on 30th of October, 1990, Karsewa would take place at Ayodhya. Lakhs of people started gathering in and around Ayodhya. The then Uttar Pradesh government under Mulayam Singh Yadav took unprecedented security arrangements to prevent Hindus from reaching Ayodhya, reminding of the orders issued by Babur 460 years back. Nevertheless, lakhs of Hindus still succeeded to gather at Ayodhya and Karsewa commenced as planned and as declared. On 2nd November 1990, humiliated and scared of losing his political ground in his niche area of minority appeasement politics, Mulayam Singh Yadav ordered firing on Sadhus and Karsewaks. A firing without any initial warning resulted in the death of around hundred Karsewaks. The Uttar Pradesh government, however, issued an official death count of six. The residents of Ayodhya became witness to police atrocities against innocent Ram-devotees as their dead bodies were tied with sand-bags and thrown in the Saryu river. The day must have reminded Ayodhya of the time of Aurangzeb.

Secularists’ lies and demolition of the abandoned structure : Meanwhile, the brigade of JNU Professors, champions of leftist Marxist ideology and notorious for their anti-Hindu viewpoints, had started a slander campaign. Until 1989 there had been no dispute about it: “Ram’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple”, according to the 1989 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry “Ayodhya”. But in 1989, all the existing evidence was brushed aside in a statement, The Political Abuse of History, by 25 so-called “eminent historians” from JNU. They denounced the history of Islamic iconoclasm in Ayodhya as a myth but didn’t offer any new found data to overthrow the consensus. Yet, the sympathy of the Indian and international media for their purported motive of “upholding secularism” assured the immediate adoption worldwide of the new party-line: the demolished Rama temple had merely been a malicious invention of the ugly Hindu nationalists. Under the prevailing power equation, they expected to get away with a plain denial of history.

In December 1990, the government of Chandra Shekhar invited the two lobby groups involved, the Vishva Hindu Parishad and the Babri Masjid Action Committee, to discuss the historical truth of the matter. Misled by the media into believing that the Hindu claims were pure fantasy, the BMAC office-bearers arrived ill-prepared. They were speechless when the VHP team presented dozens of documents supporting its case. When more temple remains were found in 1992, a cry went up among the Marxist academics that the sculptures had been stolen from museums and planted at the site. During the scholars’ debate in 1990-91, the VHP-mandated team had discovered 4 documents on which references to the “birthplace temple” had been altered or removed (and those were only the ones where the foul play was discovered; who knows how many times the tampering succeeded?). Here the secularists had their great chance to expose those who had planted false evidence, yet, the minister in charge, Arjun Singh forewent the opportunity to have the sculptures investigated by international experts to certify the allegation of forgery. Once more, it was sheer bluff and the secularists didn’t want it subjected to scrutiny.

In October 1992, the central government of Narasimha Rao (Congress) tried to revive the scholars’ discussion. This time, the BMAC team quite reasonably protested that there was no point in talking unless the VHP called off its announced demonstration in Ayodhya scheduled for December 6. The VHP was adamant that Hindu society’s right to the site could not be made dependent on mundane factors such as judicial verdicts and academic disputes.

So, activism replaced argument on December 6, 1992. Once again Lakhs of devotees had gathered to perform Karwea. The official leadership represented in Ayodhya by L.K. Advani, had wanted to keep the affair purely ceremonial, singing some hymns to Ram as a sufficient act of confirming the Hindu claim to the site. But an elusive leadership within the crowd had other plans and once they broke ranks from the official ceremony to methodically pull down the mosque, much of the crowd joined in. Hindu movement officials tried to stop them, even when the police withdrew from the scene, but to no avail. Within hours, the disputed structure, which was once seen as the “symbol of slavery” had been pulled down.

The BJP state government resigned at once, but the central government refrained from physically intervening until the next morning, when the activists had cleared the debris and consecrated a little tent with the three statues as the provisional new Ram temple. Swayed by getting the advantage of consolidating minority votes, the then Congress government promised to rebuild the Babari ‘mosque’ and the term ‘Shaheed’ was prefixed to the disputed structure. This stance of the government immediately led to wide-spread Hindu Muslim riots. The muslims of the country were not told that local Muslims of Ayodhya had abandoned that mosque more than half a century ago.

During the demolition, an inscription tentatively dated to AD 1140 on a pillar came to light. It detailed how it was part of a temple to “Vishnu, slayer of Bali and of the ten-headed one”. This evidence too was locked away and strictly ignored by the secularists until 2003, when People’s Democracy, the paper of the CPM alleged foul play. It alleged that the Lucknow State Museum mentioned in its catalogue a 20-line inscription dedicated to Vishnu, satisfying the description of the piece discovered during the demolition, and missing since the late 1980s. However, museum director Jitendra Kumar declared that the piece had never left the museum, even though it had not been on display, and he showed it at a press conference for all to see (Hindustan Times, 8 May 2003). In spite of many similarities, it differed from the Ayodhya find in shape, colour and text contents. So, the only allegation of fraud against the archaeologists or against the Hindu nationalists proved to be false.

To be continued in

Source: IBTL–secular-lies-and-killings-of-karsewaks

From Akbar to Indian Independence : Ayodhya – A Journey Through Time

Continued from From Ram to Babur : Ayodhya – a journey through time, Akbar succeeded Humayun and turned his kingdom into an empire. During his rule there are said to have been twenty outbreaks when Hindus fought relentlessly to regain the control of the janmsthaan site. Akbar granted permission to the Hindus in recognition of their rights to construct a platform right outside the mosque and perform pooja there. The platform today is known as the Ram chabootara. Akbar also introduced a silver coin by the name of Ramtaka with the images of Ram and Seeta on either side of it. One of the courtiers of Akbar presented Akbar with a Ramayan in a pictorial form. Abul Fazal, the author of Akbarnaama and Aayine-Akbari categorically associates Awadh with the residential place of Ram and one of the holiest places of the antiquity.

Meanwhile, during Jahangeer’s rule, Wiliam Finch visited Ayodhya somewhere between 1608 and 1611. Wiliam Finch was a traveller who has confirmed the existence of the ruins of Ramkot, in his report which has been quoted and reproduced by Wiliam Foster in his book “Early Travels in India”. After 1658, Aurangzeb’s lieutenant Jaanbaaz Khan attacked Ayodhya but was defeated. Guru Govind Singh’s Akaalis fought against his army near Ayodhya at Rudali and Sadatganj. In 1664, Aurangzeb himself went to Ayodhya and killed ten thousand Hindus, and demolished the Ram Chabootara. But even thereafter, the Ram Navmi celebrations continued. There were fights between Nawaab Salamat Khan and Raja Gurdutt Singh of Amethi and Rajkumar Singh of Pimpra. Saadik Ali also had to face five attempts made by Hindus to recapture the janmsthaan site.

In 1751, the second nawaab of Awadh Safdarjung invited Malhar Rao Holkar, the eminent courtier of the Marathas to fight against the pathans. Malhar Rao Holkar put a condition that in return Safdarjung would hand over the three holy cities of Ayodhya, Kaashi and Prayaag to the Hindus. Again in 1756, Shujauddaula asked for Maratha help when the Afghans invaded Delhi. The maratha agent in his court demanded the transfer of the three holy citiies. Shujauddaula agreed to it. Unfortunately, the marathas lost the bloodiest war at Panipat and the fate of Ayodhya remained in the dark, for another century.

Numerous muslim and European writers during the century confirm that a mosque had been built by Meer Baanki at Babur’s orders after demolishing the temple at Ramkot. They also confirm the tradition of Ram worship at the janmsthaan site. They also confirm the existence of the practice of celebrating Ram Navami with great gathering of people from all over India. Let us have a look at some of these books and their authors.

‘The History and Geography of India’ by Joseph Typhenthaller, 1785;
‘Safiayi chahal nasai bahadur shahi’ by the daughter of Bahadur Shah, 17th/18th century;
‘Report by Mont Kamarie Martin’, a British surveyor, 1838;
‘The East India Company Gazateer by Edward Fountain’, 1854;
‘Hadiokaayi Shahadat’ by Mirza Jaan, 1856;

In this relatively peaceful period, there were repeated attempts to recapture the janmsthaan. Five such attempts were made by Baba Uddhav Das, Baba Ramcharan Das during Nasiruddin Haidar and Wazid Ali Shah’s rule. In 1857, one Amir Ali declared a Jihad and attacked the site of Hanuman Garhi with a 170 men. However, they were defeated and the jihad wiped out. Then came the Indian war of Independence of 1857 when the Muslims collaborated with Hindus to re-establish the Moughal king Bahadur Shah Jafar as the emperor of India and fought against British Imperialists. This time, another Amer Ali, a maulawi and the leader of the rebels of Awadh convinced the native muslims and decided to handover the Janmsthaan site to Hindus. However, the British imperialists using their tactics arrested Amer Ali and Baba Ramcharan Das and hanged both of them by a Tamarind tree which still stands in Ayodhya as a mute witness to the event.

In the Encyclopedia of India by the then Surjeant General, Edward Balphar, it is mentioned that there were three mosques on the site of the temples. These were the janmsthaan, the Swarg Dwaar and the Treta ka Thakur. We have seen earlier some books and authors. Apart from these, there are other sources of reference which are also worth looking at. Let’s have a look at them. These are

‘Fasana-e-Ibrat’ by Mirja Rajam Ali Beg, 1867;
‘Tareek-e-Awadh’ by Sheikh Mohammad Ali Hajrat, 1869;
‘A Historical Sketch of Faizabad’ by P Khanagi, 1870;
‘The Gazetteer of the Province of Agra and Oudh’, 1877;
‘Ziai Aktat’ by Hazi Mohammad Hasan, 1880;
The Faizabad Settlement Report, 1880;
‘The Imperial Gazetteer of Faizabad’, 1881; and
‘Gumashte-haalaat-e-Ayodhya’ by Maulawi Abdul Kareem;

The Court verdict of 1886 by Colonel, F E H Meher in Mohammad Asgar’s petition in which he states after a visit to the site, “It is most unfortunate that a masjid was built on a land especially held sacred by Hindus, but as that event occurred about 356 years ago, that is in 1530, it is not possible to remedy to grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the party in status quo.”

In 1934, Hindu Muslim clashes broke out in Ayodhya at the issue of a cow being slaughtered at Ayodhya. The structure too was severely damaged. After the clashes, the Muslims of Ayodhya abandoned the mosque and discontinued offering Namaz in it forever.

to be continued … ” Ramlala’s advent to brutal killing of Karsewaks ”

Source: IBTL—a-journey-through-time



From Ram to Babur : Ayodhya – A Journey Through Time

Continued from Ayodhya – the ‘Unconquerable’ : Ayodhya – a journey through time… So the tradition of Ram worship continued. The various literary and scriptural sources seem to have culminated in the Ayodhya Mahatmaya composed somewhere in the 12th or 13th Century AD. The Ayodhya Mahatmaya describes the various holy spots and extols the pilgrimage to the city of Ayodhya as the best means of salvation.

The Ayodhya Matahmaya profusely eulogizes the Janmbhoomi shrine and gives its exact location. It is said that the man who has visited the janmsthaan will not be born again, even if he doesn’t practices asceticism or go on pilgrimages. Lakhs of Hindus kept going to Ayodhya passionately and devoutly believing in whatever was stated in the Ayodhya Mahatmaya.

Then in 1526, an invader from across the border invaded India. He hailed from the province of Fargana in Central Asia. His name, Zahiruddin Mohammad Babur. On 16th of March 1527, Babur defeated Rana Sanga and conquered Delhi. That was the beginning of the Moughal era in India. Soon thereafter, Babur’s lieutenant on Babur’s express orders marched towards Ayodhya. The texts of Babur’s order to Meer Banki have been printed in the 6th July 1924 issue of the Modern Review published from Delhi. It reads, “Shahenshah-e-Hind Malikul jahaan badshah Babur ke hukm wa Hajrat Jalaal Shah ke hukm ke bamoozim Ayodhya mein Ramjanmbhoomi ko mismaar karke uski jagah par usi ke malbe wa masaale se masjid taameer karne ki ijazat de di gayi hai. Bajariye is hukmnaame ke tumko bakaul ittilaa se agaah kiya jaata hai ki Hindustan ke kisi soobe se koi Hindu Ayodhya na jaane paawe, jis shaks par ye suba ho ki wo wahaan jaana chahta hai use fauran giraftaar karke daakhil-e-zinda kar diya jaave. Hukm ka sakhti se taameel ho farz samajh kar”

(By the commandment of the emperor of India, King Babur, it is hereby ordered to demolish the temple at the Ram janmbhoomi and use the material recovered after demolition to construct a mosque at that site. You’re also informed and warned to ensure that no Hindu should be able to reach Ayodhya, and any Hindu suspected of willing to go to Ayodhya should be arrested and persecuted. The command must be obeyed like a duty.)

By 1528, One Lakh Seventy Three Thousand (1,73,000) people had sacrificed their lives defending the janmsthaan site. They fought bravely and held Meer Banki at bay but ultimately they lost. The presiding priest of the temple, took away the idol of Ram-lala and ended his life by taking Jal-samaadhi at river Saryu with the idol. Meer Baanki set about to carry out Babur’s orders and he demolished the temple by a canon.

When Meer Baanki’s men weer constructing the msoque it is said that the day’s work used to get undone every night. Babur himself writes about this in his autobiography, “Tujuk-Babari”.

“Ayodhya ke Ram janmbhoomi mandir ko mismaar karke jo masjid taameer ki ja rahi hai uski deewarein shaam ko aap se aap gir jaati hain. Is par maine khud jaa ke saari baatein apni ankohn se dekh kar chand hindu aauliyaon fakeeron ko bula kar ye masala un ke saamnbe rakha.. is par un logon ne kayi dinon tak gaur karne ke baad masjid mein chand tarmeemein karne ki raay di .. jinmein paanch khaas baatein thi .. yaani masjid ka naam Seeta Paak ya rasoi rakha jaaye, parikrama rahne di jaaye, sadar gumbad ke darwaaje mein lakdi laga di jaaye, meenarein gina di jaaye, aur hinduon bhajan paath karne diya jaawe. Unki raay maine maan li, tab masjid taiyaar ho saki.”

(The mosque that is being constructed after demolishing the Ram Janmbhoomi temple was not completing. At night, its walls used to collapse on their own. I myself visited the site and saw the phenomenon. Then I consulted few Hindu sages who suggested me to make certain modifications in the mosque, viz. naming it Seeta Pak or the kitchen of Seeta, to leave the Parikrama as it was, to make use of wood in the gate of the Sadar Gumbad, to not have Meenars, and to allow Hindus to continue with their bhajans. I acquiesced to their suggestions and then only the mosque could come into existence).

An interesting point here is that Meenar (towers) are an important ingredient of the mosques, while a Parikrama is never there in mosques. Both these design exceptions and the clause of Hindus being permitted to perform Bhajan had virtually reduced the structure to a temple minus idol ever since it was constructed. The name of the structure, that was inscribed on it, Seeta Pak-sthaan (Kitchen of Seeta) spoke volumes about what was later propagandized as the ‘Babari Mosque’.

Babur’s otherwise meticulous diary does not have any record for the period 12th of April 1528 to 18th September 1528. The pages are said to have been lost in the storm of 17th May 1529 or during Humayuan stay in the desert in 1540. On 3rd June 1528, Devideen Pandey from Sanethu and Mahabat Singh attacked Meer Baanki’s men. Devideen Pandey alone is said to have killed 600 men in five days. Meer Baanki survived however and killed Devideen. On the day of Eid in 1529, Rana Rannvijay tried to liberate the Janmsthaan site from the clutches of Meer Baanki but in vain. Babur died in 1530. His son Humayun succeeded the throne. During his regime from 1530 to 1556, Rani Jairajkumari and Swami Maheshwaranand made ten attempts to regain the janmsthaan site. The control of the janmsthaan site kept on intermittently passing from the hands of one side to that of the other.

Continued at : From Akbar to Indian Independence : Ayodhya – a journey through time.

Source: IBTL—a-journey-through-time




Unconquerable Ayodhya, the kingdom of Kosal

Ayodhya – literally means ‘Unconquerable’. The mention of Ayodhya as the capital of the emperors of the Soorya Dynasty (Soorya Vansh) is found in ancient Sanskrit scriptures including the Ramayan. Ayodhya is known to have been founded by Manu, and the dynasty of Raghu, Aja, Dashrath ruled here. Ram, the iconic hero of Ramayan was born at this place, as per scriptures.

The description of Ayodhya in Ramayan is beautifully tendered into verse by Mr. Griffiths, who was the Principal of the Banaras College in the late 19th century. He writes, “Her ample streets were nobly planned and streams of water flowed to keep the fragrant blossoms fresh, that strewed her royal road. There many a princely palace stood in line on level ground. Her temple and triumphal arc and rampart banner crowned. There golden turrets rose on high above the waving green of mango groves and blooming trees and flowery knots between. On battlement and gilded spire, the pennon streamed in state, and warders with the ready bow kept watch at every gate.”

The kingdom of Kosal was ruled by King Dashrath who is believed to be 56th descendents from Manu. His 3 wives Kaushalya, Sumitra and Kaikeyi lived intheir respective palaces. Shri Ram was born at the Kaushalya’s temple, which is now termed as the Ram-janmbhoomi.

In the Brahmaand Puraan, Ayodhya is described as holiest of the 6 holy cities. Maharshi Vyaas refers to the story of Ram in the Vanopakhyaan of Mahabharat. Thus the city of Ayodhya and Shri Ram have been held in veneration by the residents of this land for centuries. Almost 200 years after Alexandar, during Mauryan rule, when Buddhism was flourishing, came the Greek King Minander. He embraced Buddhism and pretended to be a monk. He invaded Ayodhya and destroyed the temple on the Janmsthaan site. Soon he was defeated and killed in the battle by Raja Dhyumatsen of the Shrung Vansh, and Ayodhya was liberated.

The janmsthaan temple was reconstructed by King Vikramaditya. History knows of 6 different Vikramadityas. Historians have different opinions of which of them constructed the temple. Some say it was Vikramaditya of Ujjain who defeated the Shakas in 56 BC and after whom the Vikram Samvat is named. Others attribute the re-construction to Skandgupt who also called himself Vikramaditya and built the temple in late 5th Century AD. However, it is generally accepted as P Carnegie mentions in his Historical Sketch of Faizabad that Vikramaditya’s main clue in tracing the ancient city where the river Saryu and the shrine still known as Nageshwar Nath, which is dedicated to Lord Shiva. It is also generally accepted that Vikramaditya constructed about 360 temples in and around Ayodhya. The tradition of veneration to Shri Ram has continued in the Hindu society in one form or another. The earliest known inscription to testify this fact is the Nasik cave inscription during the Satvahan dynasty. The celebrated Sanskrit dramatician Bhaas identifies Shri Ram with his Archanavataar.

Evolution of the tradition of worship of Shri Ram as an incarnation of Vishnu is evident in the early Rama-shrine inscriptions. The 4th century inscriptions at Ramtek (Madhya Pradesh), the 423 AD inscription at Kandhar (Afghanistan), the Chalukya inscriptions in 533 AD at Badami, the Mamallapuram inscriptions in the 8th century AD, Amba Maata temple near Jodhpur in 11th century AD, Ram temple at Mukundpur (Rewa, MP) in 1145 AD, Hansi inscriptions in 1168 AD, Rajiv Lochan Temple at Rajim in Raipur (Chhatisgarh) are some of them.

In 12th century, at least 5 temples existed in Ayodhya. They were, Guptahari at Gopratar-ghaat, Chadrahari at Swarga dwaar Ghaat, Vishnu hari at Chkrateerth Ghaat, Dharmahari at Swarga-dwaar Ghaat, and Vishnu temple, on what is known as the Janmbhoomi site.

Mehmood Gaznabi looted and destroyed the temple of Somnath and went back. His nephew Salar Masood advanced in the direction of Ayodhya. On 14th June 1033, Masood reached Behraich, 40 km from Ayodhya. The people united under the leadership of Raja Sohail Dev. Sohail Dev’s army attacked Masood, defeated his army and killed Masoon himself. Abdul Rahman Chishti writes in the biography of Masood, titled, “Meerat-e-Masoodi”.

“.. maut ka saamana hai, firaaq soori nazdeek hai, hinduon ne jamaav kiya hai, inka lashkar beintahaa hai, sudoor nepal se pahaadon ke neeche ghaghara tak fauz mukhalik ka padaav hai. Masood ki maut ke baad ajmer se Muzaffar Khan turant aaya par wah bhi maar diya gaya .. Arab Iraan ke har ghar ka chirag bujha hai ..”

(It is trial with death, but the destination is near. Hindus have deployed armies in huge number from faraway Nepal’s mountains to the basin of Ghaghra river, there armies stand. After the death of Masood, Muzaffar Khan came from Ajmer but he too was killed. Every house of Arab and Iran has lost a son in this battle.)

Source: IBTL

Muslim Wheel of Domestic Violence

Using Isolation

  • husband says that as the “qawwamun” (manager) of his wife, he has the God-given right to control her every movement, who she sees and talks to, what she thinks, what she reads
  • wives are made to get permission to use the telephone, go grocery shopping, visit parents
  • even if marriage contract gives her full mobility, husband ignores it
  • Minimizing, Denying, Blaming
  • directing children to lie about/trivializing the abuse
  • denying the abuse by calling it “discipline”
  • saying the wife caused the abuse
  • tells wife that divulging episodes of abuse equals violation of her Islamic responsibility to respect her husband’s privacy and God will condemn her for it

Using Children

  • children told they are being beaten to prevent becoming too “American”
  • father threatens to get custody from Islamic court, send children overseas, marry them off young or kidnap them
  • children’s trauma symptoms used as excuse to batter wife
  • father encourages children to insult, disrespect mother
  • husband says he has to abuse mother to stop child abuse

Using Male Privilege

  • husband’s dominance and inflexibility extolled as Qu’ranically mandated requiring obedience in all matters
  • wife’s opinions, aspirations, plans considered as “Western” and un-Islamic
  • children verbally/physically abused as “right” of Muslim father
  • wife encouraged to fear husband
  • repeats bogus Hadith [religious text] about women bowing to men

Using Economic Abuse

  • refusing to allow wife to get education or training
  • refusing to let her get a job
  • demanding she quit a job
  • taking her entire paycheck while Islam allows her to keep it all
  • hiding family income
  • Using Coercion and Threats
  • threatening to marry another wife
  • threatening “God-ordained” wife beating (Qu’ran 4:34)
  • threatening to leave her without money
  • threatening to spread the word that she is an adulteress
  • making her drop charges to preserve extended family’s reputation

Using Intimidation

  • grossly dirtying her kitchen several times a day
  • having the local Imam [clergyman] tell the wife that the abuse is her fault
  • customs are disguised as religion
  • hiding/destroying important documents
  • taking all her jewelry and selling it
  • apologizing to others for her disobedience
  • collecting, displaying weapons
  • stalking

Using Emotional Abuse

  • belittling/calling wife unfit Muslim mother
  • making fun of her inadequate Islamic knowledge
  • calling her names/calling her crazy
  • making her believe she is incapable of directing her own life
  • telling abused women they must be quiet, docile, obedient to uphold family honor
  • lying to her extended family in letters
  • saying her lovemaking is inferior to Americans