Tipu Sultan, in the early part of his reign i.e., 1783, is thus also seen as an arbiter between warring sects and also someone who permitted the proc… - Vikram Sampath

Hence, even more than five decades after his death, Savarkar intrudes contemporary political debates like a few characters of our recent past have. Conferment of the country’s highest civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna, still becomes the topic of intense contention, necessitating its inclusion even in the election manifestos of political parties. From being called a cowardly stooge who wrote groveling apologies, a casteist and Islamophobic bigot who allegedly pioneered the two-nation theory, a British-collaborator who drew pension from the government to personal slurs of a megalomaniac who penned his own biography in a pseudonym and someone who justified rapes—the basket of toxic allegations is mind bogglingly wide-ranging. The demonization is so absolutist in nature that there hardly seems to be any trace of positive virtue that his opponents can find in him.

The edifice of national unity and social cohesion cannot stand on the shaky and false foundations of whitewashed history.

After initially denying that there was even a temple at the site, contesting that it was not even Aurangzeb who got this temple demolished, and even denying the legitimacy of the Masir-i-Alamgiri, the plaintiff side tried other tactics to deflect the issue. In the process, they ended up exposing the demolition of so many temples by Aurangzeb that it contradicted their original claims, and also those of Faruki in his hagiographical account that Aurangzeb was a very tolerant and inclusive ruler. For instance, the plaintiffs argued that there was another temple on the banks of the Ganga called Madhodaska Dharahara, which too was demolished by Aurangzeb in his time and a mosque with high minarets constructed over it. The Muslim side argued that it is possible that it was this temple that might have been the one spoken about in Masir-i-Alamgiri.