Acharya Kishore Kunal Quotes

Even then, Prof. Habib makes this fanciful observation which is totally unsupported by any direct or indirect historical evidence. One must salute the superb sophistry.

It is an irony that though there are indigenous literary sources, foreign travellers’ accounts, a detailed inscription and archaeological excavation reports, all supporting the existence of a temple at the birthplace of Lord Rāma at Ayodhyā, yet established historians have been misleading the nation by spreading unsubstantiated propaganda incessantly that there is not an iota of evidence to prove the claim that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Rāma and a temple existed thereon.

Mir Rajjab Ali further complained that whenever the Moazzin called Azaan, the Respondent Nihang blew conch... Nevertheless, when the Hindus were asked to do it outside the shrine, they started creating trouble like blowing the conch at the same time when there was Azaan.

Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori, He was the younger brother of Muhammad Ghori. He invaded Ayodhyā with a large army and destroyed the famous Jain Adinath temple... Bartuh might have been a governor of Gahadavāla king at Ayodhyā who defended Ayodhyā valiantly and this is the reason that the Turkish invaders succeeded in demolishing only one temple (Adinātha) at Ayodhyā.

The very fact that Sardar Nihang Singh forcibly occupied the Janma-sthāna mosque on 15th December, 1858 A.D. and wrote राम,राम on its walls shows that the Sikhs had been associated with the Janma-sthāna shrine for long.

It appears that this worship in the Baburi mosque started in 1720 A.D. when Girdhar Bahadur was the all-powerful Governor of Oudh at Ayodhyā. Thus, the worship of the Hindus in the disputed shrine started 13 years after the death of Aurangzeb and sixty years after the demolition of the temple and the construction of the mosque and both the puja and Namaz continued until the proclamation of the British rule in August 1858. The take-over of the shrine by the Sikhs from the Punjab in November 1858 was the expression of the prevailing Hindu resentment.

The way some established historians have tried to justify unabashedly iconoclastic acts of Mahmud of Ghazni and Aurangzeb is a big blot on writing correct and unbiased history and all right-thinking persons must congratulate Justice Agarwal for making a factual and bold statement.

Therefore, all the three temples Janma-sthāna, Svargadvāra and Treta Ka Thakur were demolished by the same group of iconoclasts.

The report to the nation is a beautifully written document with a lot of distorted and misleading statements.

Svargadvāra temple is called Rāma-darbar by many Muslim writers and it is reported that it was demolished by Fedai Khan, the Governor of Aurangzeb.

In this booklet Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s judgment on historical matters has been subjected to such an unsubstantiated and misleading criticism that I had to write a new chapter “Aligarh Historians’ Contumelious Criticism of the Ayodhyâ Verdict is devoid of substance.” It is agonizing to see that the established historians have stooped very low in unjustifiably attacking the verdict of a well-read and reputed Judge.

In view of the communal riots between the Hindus and the Muslims in 1855 the British Government took an arbitrary decision and deprived the Hindus of the worship in the disputed shrine and made an arrangement for the worship outside the mosque. It generated widespread resentment and a Nihang Sikh with 25 followers from the same sect from Punjab came to Ayodhyā and forcibly occupied the mosque. They did puja and homa inside it and placed an idol therein. Thereafter, they prayed to Guru Govind Singh and pitched a nishan outside the shrine. They wrote राम राम throughout the mosque with coal.

In this book I have coined two words ‘established’ and ‘enthusiastic’. By ‘established’ historians I mean self-proclaimed secular, progressive or left historians who have established an academic empire and try to stifle any voice of dissent or truth. At times, they obfuscate matters. Similarly, I have called the historians of the opposite group as ‘enthusiastic historians’ in place of nationalist or conservative historians. In this camp the standard of historians’ writing history except that of a few of them is far from satisfactory because they lack the skill of sifting the grain from husk. This is the reason that they, too, have failed to do justice to the history of Ayodhyā, and hence the difference on Ayodhyā between the two groups of historians is very thin. The first group asserts that the victorious Babur built the mosque on a barren plot, whereas the other group claims that Babur erected the mosque after demolishing a temple. Thus, both groups claim that it was a creation of Babur or his Governor Mir Baqi!

However, the most surprising and shocking part is that modern historians of all shades have quoted and confirmed this without any scrutiny. Thus, History has been overtaken by myths and fiction.

Now, after such a detailed discussion it is clear that there is a world of unimpeachable evidences which testify to the fact that there existed a definite birth-site of Rāma. It was located in the disputed shrine which was constructed after demoli-shing a temple of Rāma. Despite all these testimonies, if any historian clings to his old stand that there is no evidence showing the existence of any birthplace of Rāma at the disputed site, then one is reminded of the famous line of Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”