The Ayodhya Verdict

November 09, 2019 was a momentous date in the history of modern India. An end to the decades and centuries old Ayodhya dispute has likely happened. The Supreme Court of India has, by a unanimous verdict of 5-0, pronounced that the disputed site of 2.77 acres be given for the building of a Ram temple while at the same time allotting a land of 5 acres somewhere else for the construction of a mosque.

In all respects this was a very fine judgement by the Supreme Court. However, there are mischief mongers who are busy spreading falsehoods about this judgement for their own vested interests. Let me here share a few videos which give us a very clear picture of why the SC judgement is neither biased nor is it giving precedence to faith over evidence.



Please also watch these two long presentations as they explain the available evidence at length.

The Case For Ram Mandir at Ayodhya

What Do The Ram Janmabhoomi Excavations Tell Us?

To put it briefly :-

Ayodhya is one of the seven holy cities of ancient India and for Hindus or Sanatan Dharmis. Its holy precisely because it is associated with the birth and life of Lord Ram, one of the most revered figures of Hinduism.

Now what exactly is the significance of Ayodhya for Muslims ?

Particularly with regard to the Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid site, it is clear and the SC judgement also points out that the Babri Masjid was not built on a vacant land but was built over a large pre-existing non-Islamic structure. Archaeologists and scholars have pointed out that this structure was most likely a Vishnu temple built by a feudatory of the Gahadavala King Govindchandra, the most powerful king of North India in his time and the grandfather of none other than Jayachand of Prithviraj/Samyukta fame.

While the SC has acknowledged the existence of this temple structure since the 12th century, it points out that between the 12th century and the early 16th century when the Babri Mosque was built on the site, we do not have records documenting what was happening at the site. The SC also states that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) could not prove that this earlier temple was destroyed to build the mosque i.e. perhaps the temple was already destroyed & lying in ruins. However, proving it conclusively is a tough ask.

Nevertheless, it has already been proven without a shadow of doubt that the remains of the pre-existing temple, including its pillars were used in the construction of the mosque.

Lastly, there are numerous eye-witness and other accounts in English, Persian, Arabic & Urdu from the 16th, 17th & 18th centuries which clearly prove that the particular site was holy for the Hindus and that the mosque was built by destroying the mandir or temple, and the site is often referred to in the accounts as the Ram Janamsthan.

Hindus were able to show that they were worshipping at the site for several centuries and people used to flock the site particularly on Ram Navami, the date of Lord Ram’s birth. They were also able to show the outer courtyard was always under the control of Hindus while there was often disputes between Hindus and Muslims for the inner courtyard of the mosque.

One may ask, what is the evidence that Lord Ram was born at this very site. And infact we don’t have any. But it can be shown that for several centuries it has been a Hindu belief that this very site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and that there is no other site at Ayodhya or elsewhere for which such a belief exists or has existed.

When one looks at this evidence in totality it is clear that the claim of Hindus on the site as an important place of worship for several centuries is supported by much more substantial evidence than anything the Muslim side could muster.

Therefore, the Verdict was a foregone conclusion. The Supreme Court has merely gone by the balance of evidence and has not buckled under the pressure of majoritarianism nor has the rights of the Muslim minority been suppressed by it, as alleged by some unscrupulous lot who perpetually want to keep the communal cauldron burning.


57 thoughts on “The Ayodhya Verdict”

  1. I’m very confused by this. Why is the mosque being torn down for a temple? Is it:

    A) The Mosque was allegedly built by destroying a Hindu Temple 500 years ago.

    B) The site is allegedly more important to Hindus than Muslims.

    Both reasons are ridiculous and why India is being condemned internationally, but B is legitimately insane, and this is the first I’ve heard it being a legit reason for the Court verdict.

    1. Both A and B are very sane reasons.

      Believing that the mosque was not built atop a destroyed temple is akin to believing that steppe pastoralists never came to India. The overwhelming evidence is clearly that Babur destroyed a temple to build this mosque. This was normal practice for turco-mongols – there are many sites where you can still see the temples used to construct the mosques – qutb complex in New Delhi, gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi where the back side of the mosque is still seen from the destroyed temple. You can easily find pictures on the internet even though the government of India has made it illegal to take photos. Not to mention this practice in other parts of the Islamic world – there used to be a mosque on the Parthenon during ottoman rule which the Greeks removed afterwards.

      I never agreed with destroying the Babri masjid, and I think we Hindus lost something on that day. It was the start of the Abraham-ification of our religion. Actual places structures and texts started to matter when they never did before which is not my way of practicing the religion.

      But I think it’s a bit rich to suggest that it’s insane for Hindus to get this site as they’ve staked a claim for hundreds of years despite brutal Mughal rule because it’s Ram’s birthplace. This mosque means nothing to muslims from a religious perspective – it’s not mentioned in the Quran, not significant to broader Islam – it’s actually just a marker of conquest over Hindus.

      If Islam wants to be seen as equal to other religions and wants to be accorded respect and not be seen as violent and backwards, muslims need to be more honest about the blatant brutality early propagators of the faith enacted on conquered civilizations. I’m not saying it’s just Islam – lots of blood on everyone’s hand. But you can’t eat a shit sandwich and say your breath don’t stink. If we can talk about the historical brutality Hinduism caused upon Dalits and make amends, then we can certainly talk about the historical brutalities Islam caused Hinduism and make amends.

      1. Oh boy the sob stories. “Muslims destroyed our temples, we are so oppressed”. Hindus destroyed Hindu temples for centuries. Hindus destroyed Buddhist and Jain temples for centuries. Hindus used those destroyed temples to build new temples as a marker of their conquest.

        Are we going to destroy all these Hindu temples that were built in the above manner (they likely dramatically outnumber Mosques built on Hindu temples). Of course not.

        Stop the crocodile tears for “muh temples”, they aren’t fooling anyone. Its not about temples, its about religious bigotry. I come from a Muslim background, I’m well aware of what it looks like.

  2. Was the right decision. The shame is that we couldn’t have come to an agreement decades ago.

  3. “Therefore, the Verdict was a foregone conclusion.”

    I wouldnt be too sure, courts have more often than not, erred in the side of caution , and public mood.

    Had the verdict come around mid 90s *the high days of secularism , it would n’t have been out of realm of possibility of a pro-Masjid judgement. Thats the reason in 2010 the High court judgement gave 1/3rd land to Masjid. It was just after a crushing win for the Congress and the BJP was on the back foot.

    It also depends on the type of judges. Judges who are irreligious or need not be THAT attached to Ram (folks outside of N-India) , could have given a different verdict. Shouldn’t forget that in mid 80s, the re-allowing of Hindu worship , was done by a high court judge of UP, who was himself pretty religious and (in a interview) said he got divine intervention before the judgement.

  4. Parallels to the Modi win in India

    Gotabaya Rajapakse on target to win, carried by the majority community vote.

    Early results were from Jaffna and Tamil areas. Gota got less than 10%. Much less than Mahinda Rajapakse in 2015 (20%).

    Prez elections is not about winning districs. Its about winning the most people. But what people who forget is that Tamil areas are a small population.

    Most Tamil areas have reported. Most Sinhala areas (and large population) are yet to report and Gota is ahead already

    Postal votes (in Sinhala areas) indicate Gota 60% and above. Sajith around 30%.

    1. What’s with the island of green in sea of red in the center? Is it Premadasa home area or something?

      1. Saurav,

        Hill country, Indian/Estate Tamil majority areas.

        Yes, the country is divided along ethnic (Tamil) and ethno religious (Muslim) lines.

  5. The fundamental fact is that there was an actually existing mosque at that location. That mosque was first desecrated in the 1940s by having idols placed in it in the middle of the night and then destroyed by a mob in 1992. The Supreme Court acknowledged that both these actions were crimes and yet rewarded the land to the criminals. This only further incentivizes the destruction of mosques.
    Secular states are bound to protect the religious institutions of the minority community. India failed to do this. The beliefs of the majority have trumped the rights of the minority.
    As for the five acres of land allotted to Muslims, the issue was not about land to build a mosque but the fact that justice demanded that what was destroyed by a mob was rebuilt. This is why several Muslim leaders have refused this grant of alternate land.

    1. Kabir, we are well aware of your views. If you are not even remotely willing to hear the other side out, what’s the point in repeating them for the 50th time?

      1. On an article defending bigoted and majoritarian verdicts, someone has to point out the fact that the destruction of minority places of worship is absolutely unacceptable in a secular state–no matter what the religious beliefs of the majority.
        If you don’t want defenses of secularism, perhaps don’t defend bigotry?

        1. Arfa Khanum Sherwani in “The Wire” explains the point of view of Indian Muslims. I guess the author of this article will label her a “mischief monger” since she isn’t celebrating the “fine judgement”:

          “What can be worse for a democracy when its largest minority group does not hope for justice but fearfully settles for a verdict that they know is no less than injustice to them? It was the Muslims who suffered the razing of their place of worship; they were also the victims of the violence which followed. The community sought redressal and placed its faith in the institutions for justice.

          From patiently waiting for the criminals who demolished the Babri Masjid to be punished to the expectation that the title suit outcome would put an end to the Hindutva agenda of converting mosques into temples , the majority of the Muslims of India accepted the supremacy of the law. But today, they have retuned empty handed from the Supreme Court.

          From the government to opposition, from civil society, the media and the courts, Muslims of India today find themselves standing alone in the fight for their existence with no hope for equality or dignified citizenry.

          And that scared and vulnerable young girl who had to flee her home because of the actions of violent majoritarian goons 27 years ago has the right to say she feels disappointed and betrayed by what the highest court of the country has done.”

  6. Jaideep,

    There’s no question in my mind about the fact that there was a temple before the mosque came up, nor the fact that many temples were demolished all over the country and mosques built over them.

    The question though is what kind of a country you want India to be? One that is guided by law and constitution or one that is guided by religious belief? Where the judges are supposed to be interpreting law and constitutional provisions or where judges are to be perennial arbiters between religious “communities”? Note that law in our country (as in many others) is supposed to be constantly building, precedent upon precedent. So the claim that this is a one-time decision seem weird to me. How is that possible unless we have completely given up on our judiciary and instead decided that only the executive matters?

    I don’t have strong feelings on the temple-mosque issue itself. I’m not religious, so temples themselves don’t matter much to me, but I think there are many different ways to avenge past humiliations, if indeed that must be a political goal. The fact that Hindus survived those centuries of invasions and that we still have a country with ties to our ancient civilization is a matter of pride to me (and one where Muslims can’t lord it over Hindus, if you are inclined to think in those terms.) We can build temples wherever we want without fear! I really wish the court had deferred to the status quo and allowed the parties to come to an out-of-court settlement. What’s instead happened has, I suspect, caused irreparable damage to our institutions.

    1. The need is not to avenge but there certainly is a need for acknowledgement of past atrocities. Even few left wing circles are coming around to the idea of acknowledgement because reconciliation only starts with acknowledgement. Muslims must acknowledge & must condemn the past Muslim rulers instead they keep shifting the blame to ancient kings & kingdoms and even glorify Muslim rulers in Madarsa education & this is the major bone of contention.

      Or debate how Mughals made India rich & so on……..

      Judgement was necessary because it allows the discussion to move forward & lastly why Hindus demanding acknowledgement of them being misrepresented globally by both Muslims & Christians in all fields, historical atrocities the endured etc. is always painted or presented as their desire for avenge instead of acknowledgement of the past atrocities ? The difference meted out can only be explained from Abrahamic worldview hence they {Christians & to some extent Muslims} acknowledge the Anti-semitism but Anti-Hinduism nah that’s about revenge & not about coming to terms with past.

    2. Numinous, you and others would have been satisfied with the status quo because your sense of dignity isn’t tied to the humiliation of another group. OTOH, a great number of people need a demonstration of power to prove that the social order is worth upholding. We mistakenly think most people love their own religion.

      1. // We mistakenly think most people love their own religion. //

        Actually people love their beliefs because it helps them make sense of a nilhilistic world & it is common to all beliefs ideological, political, religious or otherwise.

        Furthermore people know that collective arguments helps make the case stronger hence all believers argue using same points.

        While powerless people can demand & show some power by acting as collective unit. We inherited it {to act as a collective} as a survival mechanism & thus we remain stuck to our beliefs.

        The need to demonstrate power has became stronger as communities which instead of compromising kept pushing the boundaries of ‘tolerance’ & thus made it kosher to make claims on basis of religious identities instead of national ones. Aas one earlier Brownpundits article put it ‘Is Islam the rock on which the liberal order broke ?’

        1. Deep, I’m just less credulous about the sincerity of some people’s faith. Most pious folk are indifferent to these identity struggles. The most ardent hindu nationalists and pak nationalist ideologues I know are either non-observant, or are newly so. I take their advocacy on behalf of the broader faith community with a grain of salt. Hindu-Muslim conflict in India is not a theological conflict, but an ethnic one. This is very different to the Hindu-Christian and Hindu-Marxist tension in certain regions, which straddles ethnic groups and families, and hence is more philosophical in character. Every Hindu ethnicity has its own unique relationship to “the muslim question”, which is why it would be less disingenuous if spokespersons qualified their statements.

          1. // Every Hindu ethnicity has its own unique relationship to “the muslim question”, which is why it would be less disingenuous if spokespersons qualified their statements. //

            Sadly there is no answer to this problem because people with power will always appropriate identities, ideologies or anything else which is a source of tension in society for personal benefits.

            Even revolutions are linked to leaders because of the need of legitimacy & thus it is easy to see the hypocrisy here where Organized religions although regionally diverse can claim the ownership of every community which uses their label but Hindus can’t since their leaders must prove their qualifications {although i myself oppose most Hindutva people but i must point out the most overlooked parts about ‘Hindu’ politics}.

          2. //Organized religions although regionally diverse can claim the ownership of every community which uses their label but Hindus can’t since their leaders must prove their qualifications//

            Agreed. There are regional pontiffs of sects and what not, particularly in south where the maTha system is strong, however their political strength only rarely rivals that of party leaders.
            When (not if) Yogi Adityanath becomes PM, wonder how this will change, if there will be an effort to invest power outside of electoral control.

    3. “The fact that Hindus survived those centuries of invasions and that we still have a country with ties to our ancient civilization is a matter of pride to me”

      I think we need not take too much pride in that, considering that lot of how the chips fell were happenstance and all. In a different country and different environment , Iran for example, the same set of variables would have led to muslim majority India, and with it the loss of “ancient civilization”

      Its not as if Hindus were actively resisting proselytizion or anything , apart from few select ethnicity like Marathas and sikhs etc, most communities in India were not even resisting.

  7. The liked following article the most with regards to how community interactions have moved forward since India’s independence {esp with regards to major disagreements & there are interesting hints how majority is shaping in reaction to minority politics} –

    I am neither in support or opposition of judgement as it personally does not matter to me but it is essential to put things in clear context and such article & discussion add to it.

  8. Indthings,

    Before spouting BS, can show evidence to prove that Hindus destroyed Hindu, Buddhist and Jain temples for centuries and used those ruins in constructing newer temples ?

    Don’t just throw off vague and thoroughly unsubstantiated arguments. That is the hallmark of the Indian Leftist Liberals.

    1. “An important evidence of the persecution of Buddhists in Kashmir, however, dates from the reign of the king Kshemagupta, who destroyed the Buddhist monastery Jayendravihara at Shrinagara and used the materials from it in constructing a temple called

      “The Vaishnava poet-saint Tirumankai stole a large gold image of the Buddha from a stupa at Nagapattinam and had it melted down for re-use in the temple which he was commissioned by the god Vishnu himself to build.”

      “Thus the conversion of the earliest known Jain cave temple in Tirunelveli district into a Shaiva shrine in the seventh century, and the depiction of scenes of violence on the walls of the Kailashnath temple of Kanchipuram and on the mandapam of the Golden Lily tank of the Minakshi temple at Madura, bear testimony to the persecution suffered by Jains in Tamil Nadu.”

      “The hagiographies of its leader Basava furnish evidence of the slaughter of Jains, and of the appropriation of their temples at many places by his followers like Devara Dasimayya and Ekantada Ramayya who are said to have destroyed 700 and 800 basadis respectively.”

      Brahmanical Intolerance in Early India, Jha.

      There’s a user I follow who linked more of this info, though the thread was deleted on Reddit. I’ll ask him if he has more sources, or maybe even if he’ll post here. I was already aware of the heavy persecution of Buddhists by Hindus, but the Jain stuff surprised me.

  9. Kabir,

    This Verdict has come in a civil suit filed to determine the ownership of the site.

    There is a criminal case going on in a separate court against those who are alleged to have conspired to demolish the mosque.

    Please don’t conflate the two.

    The dispute over the Babri Masjid/ Ram Janmabhoomi site between the Hindus and Muslims is quite old and infact the 1st recorded riot between the two communities for this site took place in 1853.

    The mosque that stood was built not on vacant land as many early Muslim litigants had claimed. It was clearly built on a pre-existing non-Islamic structure and even the pillars of that pre-existing structure were used for the building of the mosque.

    We have a 12th century inscription known as the Vishnu Hari inscription which possibly was made when the pre-existing structure was built which says that a grand Vishnu temple was erected by a feudatory of King Govindchandra.

    Even after the mosque was built, we have records from early 17th century by foreign travellers which mention Hindus congregating at the site but no mention of any Muslim activity, implying thereby that the mosque may not have been used by Muslims during that era.

    A large no of Persian, Arabic and Urdu records mostly written by Muslims in the 18th & 19th century also mention this site as Ram Janamsthan site and that the mosque had been built by demolishing a Hindu temple.

    What is your opinion on all these evidences ?

    Liberals like Arfa Khanum are clearly not disclosing these facts which are the cornerstone of this SC judgement. They are busy highlighting the mosque demolition (which is being looked into in a separate case) and playing up the emotional rhetoric to convince the Muslims that you have been wronged even when most Indian Muslims have welcomed this judgement.

    One has to ask therefore – what is the motive of these liberals ? If they were honest why are they selectively quoting from the judgement and ignoring the hard facts ?

    This is a fine judgement because it ensured that the Muslims also got a place to build the mosque along with the Hindus who got the site to build a Ram temple.

    For the Hindus, the site is of great importance and therefore building a temple elsewhere made no sense while for Muslims the site did not matter, what mattered was the mosque and therefore the court decided that a land should be allotted so that a new mosque can be built.

    Anything that favours Hindus over Muslims is not by default an injustice.

    1. The SC has ordered that a Ram temple be built at the site. This is only possible because the Babri Masjid was demolished by a mob. The court itself acknowledged that a crime was committed. This judgement in effect rewards the criminals. What’s to stop VHP from destroying some more mosques? 20 years later the courts will just order a temple to be built there. If you can’t see how this judgement is the death knell of secularism, it’s because you can’t get past your Hindu majoritarian worldview.

      The evidence that a temple existed etc is totally irrelevant. What matters is that when India was created in August 1947, a mosque was standing there. India established itself as a secular state. Therefore, the state was obligated to protect minority institutions. This obviously didn’t happen.

      Ms. Shinwari is an Indian Muslim and she is describing the pain her community feels at knowing that even the SC will not give them justice in a Hindu majoritarian state. That you don’t feel the pain of the minority community says a lot about your politics.

  10. Numinous,

    You are completely misreading the whole issue.

    Whether we like it or not a large percentage of Indians – whether Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs – are governed in their daily lives by their religious beliefs. And as a democratic country, we are duty bound to allow them the freedom to live their lives as per these beliefs.

    This particular case is based on a very old dispute and simply could not be ignored as otherwise there would have spread a great amount of disaffection in the general public. The Hindu side was able to show clear evidences of their continuous worship at the site and importance of the site for them along with the ASI report of earlier existing possible Hindu temple. So the verdict went in their favor.

    For you Ram may not matter but for a lot of Hindus it does, including the believed place of his birth. How can one ride roughshod over it ?

    This has not much to do with revenge but just ask yourself – if the mosque just stood there inspite of you knowing that it was believed to be the site of Lord Ram’s birth how would that make an ordinary Hindu feel ? Is it so easy to just shrug your shoulders and walk away ?

  11. While we are at it, leader of urdu speaking muslims in Pak is singing “sare jahan se achcha hindostan hamara” and seeking asylum in India.

    Let’s face it. Indian muslims are treated like doormat in arab countries. rich muslim countries like malayasia or turkey might flippantly issue one statement or two in their support, but will never offer any concrete help. and they are still not considered first class citizens in pak.

    So india is the only country they have got. and there is a saying in hindi – you don’t hold animosity towards a crocodile while living in water. three quarter of india is hindu, and yet muslims insist on holding animosity towards them.

    this is why i support ayodhya verdict on practical grounds. assume that supreme court had allocated the land to muslims, was there a chance in hell that muslims could have rebuilt the mosque on the same spot? what would have followed was decades of more strife and litigation and street riots.

    but seems like no lessons have been learnt. i am reading that muslims bodies are getting ready to file a review petition again the verdict. so expect 10 more years of court room drama, and then the verdict will go in hindus favor any way.

    1. “You don’t hold animosity towards a crocodile while living in water”– It seems that you don’t understand the concept of a secular democratic state where all citizens are treated equally. What you are really saying is that you support a Hindu majoritarian state.

      A crime was committed against the minority community. That is the bottom line

      1. “It seems that you don’t understand the concept of a secular democratic state where all citizens are treated equally. ”

        Kabir, you need to make an effort to think from the other side too.

        when we were kids growing up in 80s, sometimes we would argue with our elders (the teachers, the parents etc), that when muslims broke up the country and got 1/4 of the land to build their pakistan, why did they remain back in India? our elders will solemnly teach us that it is wrong to think this way because india is secular country and muslims are as much Indians as hindus. Only now that when we have grown up we have realized how baseless their argument was.

        do you know of any historical precedent where a community broke away from the parent country insisting that they were a separate nation, and yet chose to stay on in the parent country in large numbers (in crores!). if muslims are a separate nation, doesn’t it mean that indian muslims are essentially foreign nationals living visa-free in india for 70 years!

        and the fun doesn’t stop here. not only they insist on living visa-free in the foreign country, they will hold it to its secular ideals while their promised land goes on to become a proud “islamic republic”. and of course they see nothing wrong in squatting on the holiest land of the majority community in the foreign land.

        so yes, it all goes back to partition. you just can’t avoid the p-word in any hindu muslim dispute in the subcontinent. a lot would have been different had india remained united. but once the country was partitioned in the name of religion, it was a fait accompli that majoritarianism will prevail in both india and pak. chickens coming home to roost, if i may say. the bus for pluralism and multiculturalism has long left.

        1. This is a cute lie Hindus tell themselves to justify their bigotry against Muslims. “If only it wasn’t for partition…”

          Muslims created Pakistan exactly because of Hindu bigotry, Hindu bigotry was not a response to partition.

          In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the founders of Hindu Nationalism were already stating that India is for Hindus only, and that ideally Muslims should be ethnically cleansed from India, but if not they should live in humiliation under Hindus without even basic rights.

          Jinnah was truly a great man, wise enough to see the secularism of Nehru would give way to the fascism of Sarvarkar, and took steps to safe guard Muslims via the creation of Pakistan.

          1. Yeah but Jinnah failed in doing that. What he actually did was significantly weaken the political power Muslims would have on the subcontinent by partitioning the Muslim population into 3 blocs. Bangladesh not by his intent, but that’s what happened anyways.

            Partition ensured Hindus would be in charge of the largest land area. Jinnah was a moron. If there was no partition, secularism could have thrived more overall and we would have already had a Muslim prime minister. There would have been riots and there would have been disputes but atleast we would have all been in it together and muslims wouldn’t have been cut into 3 helpless blocs. Frankly it probably would have prevented Pakistan from going fully pro-america puppet jihad as well.

            Anyways whatever its all spilled milk. Best of luck to all.

          2. Sorry the editing period is over, but I wanted to retract the statement above where I say Jinnah was a moron. After a few minutes, now I realize how impolite that might sound to a Pakistani.

          3. Yes, Jinnah was a great man. See how well he served the cause of Muslims – both those in Pakistan and those left behind in India.

        2. Your elders were right to criticize your way of thinking. You were essentially advocating ethnic cleansing which is absolutely disgusting and not acceptable in the 21st century.
          Indian Muslims are descended from those who chose not to migrate to Pakistan precisely because they didn’t believe in religious separatism and trusted that Nehru’s secularism would protect them. You cannot punish them for the actions of their co-religionists.
          It is ironic that while living in a secular democratic state (the US?) you seem to not understand the fundamental fact about secularism. A secular state doesn’t discriminate between citizens on the basis of their religion but rather is a state of all its citizens. This is what India aspired to.
          If India were a Hindu Rashtra, no one would be surprised if the destruction of mosques was legitimized. But this is unforgivable in a secular state.

          1. Oh give it a rest, Indian Muslims stayed for logistical reasons. Nothing more or less noble than that.

            How exactly do you think Nehru would have propagated his high-minded ideals to a bunch of premodern, illiterate peasants?

          2. Many Indian Muslims supported the Congress Party and did not believe in the Muslim League’s vision for Pakistan. They trusted Nehru when he promised that India would be a state of all its citizens.

            We already know that you don’t support secularism despite being born and brought up in a secular and democratic country. One of those people who is happy to have the protections that minorities have in the US but wants a Hindu Rashtra in the homeland. Happy to enjoy liberalism where you are living but have no problem with fascism in the homeland.

            India’s Muslims are Indians and must be treated as equals to the majority population. Blaming them for their co-religionists actions is completely unacceptable. Sad that such a simple principle escapes you.

          3. Is there some middle way here , HM is right that Indian muslims did stay back for practical reasons, and not necessarily for some high minded secular reasons and all.

            But having said that they are (and should be treated) as equal citizens, just like Bengalis who were left behind in W-Pakistan be treated as equal citizens.

        3. Scorpion Eater, isn’t it a bit far fetched to claim that anyone but a tiny minority of muslims consented not just to partition, but to relinquish their rights to their respective homelands? The regular readers of this blog, if anyone, should know the very deep, unambiguous, ancestral roots of muslims in india. The idea of holding contemporary people accountable for the results of constituent assembly elections in the 1940’s (when the concept of pakistan was arguably vague), which did not even have universal franchise, is extreme.
          By similar logic, did those other regions of india that did not vote for the INC not consent to be part of the republic of India?

          1. “By similar logic, did those other regions of india that did not vote for the INC not consent to be part of the republic of India? ”

            Well TBH that;s how partition was really decided, so…

    2. The hilarious thing is that by their intransigence, the Kabirs of the world are playing a bootleggers-and-baptists game with Hindu hardliners, empowering and validating the latter.

      1. The only reason this judgement has come about is because of these “hardliners” you seem to speak of with malice.

        It is intellectually dishonest of you to support the SC judgement while painting supporters of the masjid demolition as the bad guys.

        1. No, you misunderstand. I am broadly sympathetic to the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement, though admittedly it occurred before I was born. I would have preferred that events unfold in a more orderly way, but if the other side doesn’t want to play ball, then you gotta do what you gotta do.

          1. I guess my point still stands.

            The emergence of this movement is more “positive” than is given credit for. The idea that the Kabirs “empowering and validating the latter” I feel, takes away centrality from the reality that such a movement had reasons to grow other than the resentment against these elites.

  12. Indthings, I have read more Pakistani authors and columnists than you would ever read in your lifetime. Here is an excerpt from the writing of Shaista Ikramullah, who was the first female minister in Jinnah’s cabitnet. It is an account of her meeting with Jinnah immediately after arrving in Karachi to join the Pak government. She was a native of Delhi.

    “Sadly, I was unable to be in Karachi on that great birthday, August 14, 1947. I arrived in Pakistan in mid-September and met the Quaid, now its governor general, a few days later. He was under terrible strain. Partition had led to wholesale slaughter, and Pakistan, its economy completely disrupted, was also saddled with millions of Moslem refugees from India.

    The Quaid asked me how I felt. “I miss the skyline of Delhi,” I replied. He was silent for a moment. “I understand,” he said, “but would you have kept the stones and monuments and lost the spirit?”

    So the great and foresighted leader as he was, Jinnah had already seen the futility of clinging to stones and monuments. He opted for the spirit of Islam, which I hope is alive and kicking in Pakistan. So no point in crying over stones and monuments – your own Quaid’s advice.

    1. Babri Masjid was destroyed in India–a secular state. This was a crime against Indian Muslims. Why are you deflecting to Jinnah and Pakistan?

      1. Pakistan got dragged into the debate because of the discussion on hindu majoritarianism. I never disputed that hindu majoritarianism exists in india. the difference in opinion is, where is it coming from?

        we can call it chicken and egg problem. is hindu majoritarianism cause or the effect of partition?

        or may be it is a self fulfilling prophecy. jinnah thought hinud majoritarianism will prevail in india, so he broke up the country, and so hindu majoritarianism took root in (remainder of) india.

        either way, hindu majoritarianism is here to stay and we all need to adjust our expectations accordingly.

        1. Guys guys guys…no point worrying about what might have happened. An unpartitioned India could have resulted in a variety of possible futures. Some good for one side, some good for another, and some bad for everybody. But that’s not the timeline we got.


          Hindu consolidation was going to happen as a natural consequence of urbanization and the breaking of traditional political networks.

          But what I think some people miss is that the current shape of Hindu nationalism owes a lot to anti-elite animus, which is why it has a rather…proletarian way of expressing itself. This uncouth rhetoric only pisses off its enemies more, and both sides feed off each other.

          Had the Indian elites presented themselves differently, Hindu consolidation would likewise have looked different, I think.

        2. Pakistan is an Islamic republic. India is a secular state. Secular states must be held to higher standards than religiously-based ones.
          It is ironic that the only people who really believe in the two nation theory are paknationalists and hindutvadis. Those who believed in the idea of India as a state of all its citizens are being proven wrong. The actions of the Modi regime particularly the legitimization of mosque destruction are proving Quaid-e- Azam right. The destruction of India’s secularism is a tragedy for liberal Pakistanis who looked at India as an example of a state in our neighborhood which was able to transcend religious majoritarianism.

  13. I’m impressed and heartened by there being no major riots, looting, loss of life, etc. after this verdict.

    1. Perhaps the Muslim community is so terrified and resigned to the fact that they are second class citizens and can never receive justice from a hindutva state?

  14. The verdict came on SATURDAY, the day of the ascetic god of strength Hanuman/Maruit and on 9th November or 911. This is just a hunch but the people who created the BJP may be getting tired of it because of their focus on the business world and global glitterati politics, issues which in their opinion are essentially irrelevant, given the size of the country and its traditions. I smell rats here . Hope I am wrong.

  15. “Swamy asks Centre (sic) to acquire land for Kashi, Mathura”

    “Varanasi, Dec 2 (IANS) Senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanium Swamy has asked the Centre (sic) to acquire land for “renovation” of the Kashi Vishwanath temple and the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura.

    Two days ago, Swamy wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking an amendment to the Places of Worship Act, 1991 which provides for maintaining the “religious character” of holy structures as it existed on August 15, 1947.”

Comments are closed.

Brown Pundits