Author: Chandan Mitra
Publication: India Today
Date: October 27, 2003
Introduction: The polemical historian
demolishes the leftist arguments against the ASI report on Ayodhya and
calls for scientific temper
Although his academic credentials
are quite impressive, Belgian historian Koenraad Elst is known to his Indian
readers largely as a polemicist. In his 58-page booklet, Ayodhya: The Finale,
he doesn't disappoint those who have come to expect hearty, punch-packed
secularist-bashing from his pugnacious pen. The volume has two essays that
he wrote after the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) brought out the
report on the excavation at the disputed site in Ayodhya.
Some years ago, Elst caused quite
a stir with his robust defence of the Ram mandir movement, bringing his
scholarship to bear upon the perverted logic of India's secular fundamentalists,
mercilessly exposing their duplicity in the process. To him and countless
others, the entire gamut of secularist positions on Ayodhya is truly baffling.
Is there any doubt that there existed a temple dedicated to Ram at his
birthplace? Can anybody seriously question that a mosque was built after
demolishing such a structure after the Muslim conquest of north India to
proclaim the military superiority of Islam over the kafirs of Hindustan?
In this compilation, Elst sets out
to pulverise the hypocrisy of secular- fundamentalist scholars and their
fellow travellers in the English- language media. He powerfully arranges
the constant shifts in their stance on the Ayodhya excavation. Initially
elated by unsubstantiated reports that the ASI had found no evidence of
a temple at the site of the Babri Masjid, they, however, turned turtle
when the final report to the contrary was submitted. And they have since
launched a systematic effort to discredit the organisation itself. Elst's
narration of the secularists' duplicity makes for hilarious reading, although
it is certain to infuriate the targets of his scorn.
Elst dexterously rips apart the
Goebbelsian campaign of disinformation and synchronised consensus-building
by a section of the media in cahoots with motley "pseudo-historians" of
the Marxist persuasion. In the process, Elst spares none, calling a leading
"independent" historian an "employee" of the Babri Masjid Action Committee,
and dubs the venerated Chennai-headquartered newspaper The Hindu as Marxist-controlled,
and its sister publication Frontline as a "communist" journal. He has equally
strong words on the bias of other Indian publications as well, and takes
some eminently humorous potshots even at the BBC's carefully worded reportage
on the ASI findings. He describes this as an apocryphal case of headlining
"Man Shot At: One Bullet Harmless" for a report that says a man was shot
twice; one bullet grazed his arm while the other punctured his heart and
he died! Elst uses this fable to examine the way the media reluctantly
conceded that the ASI did find clear evidence of a huge structure under
the once-upon-a-time masjid.
The historian, however, does not
spare the protagonists of the temple for failing to gain adequate mileage
from the ASI report. He calls them an ill-prepared and emotional lot that
could not effectively argue the case for the Ram mandir both before and
after the archaeological evidence was produced. Calling for a scientific
temper, the polemical historian expresses bewilderment at the coalition
of Muslim obscurantists and secular fundamentalists that dominates public
debate in India.
Admittedly, the volume is a quickie
and rigour should not be expected from its contents. Sadly, though, Elst's
views must be so unpalatable to the Left-dominated world of Indian publishing
that he had to rely on a house that can't even spell "versus" right. Twice-on
the cover and in the frontispiece-the subtitle "Science versus Secularism"
is misspelt "verses". Since Elst hasn't written an ode to Lord Ram, I presume
it is a spelling mistake and one that will slip through a computer spell-check.
