Arvind Singh 🇮🇳

नक़ूश ख़ामोश हुआ सुनकर निदा-ए-तक़बीर ज़लज़ला आ ही गया रिश्त-ए-जुन्नर पर - अल्लामा इक़बाल

It was Morarji Desai who asked a visiting delegation of Muslims that if they wanted a good-neighbourly relation with Hindus they should hand over the three sacred sites to Hindus.

ABV sat quietly through the deliberation and Jaswant Singh stormed out of the conclave and reportedly left the Palampur town to show his disapproval. ABV had also reservations about Advani’s Ram Rath Yatra.

The footage of the demolition wasn’t shown on TV on 6 December 2992. The news of demolition first broadcast on radio. The only thing shown live that day on TV was Narasimha Rao’s broadcast to the nation in Doordarshan where he confirmed two things. The demolition of the disputed structure and the dismissal of the Kalyan Singh govt. The Newstrack team captured the footage’s of karsevaks’ in action. But it deferred it and subsequently released it in a VHS format. It would be worthwhile to know whether she saw it on the day itself. If yes, how did she get hold of the video. Or she is just making it up for Muslims sympathies.

Everyone who comes claiming to change politics clings to perpetuate the ‘secular’ agenda. Divide Hindus along the caste lines and attempt to create a cohesive Muslim vote bank. Again this theory has failed many times. The question is P Kishore thinks he will be the exception because he knows a thing or two about poll data and could brew a heady mix of secular cocktail to teach the Aney Road. But one thing he doesn’t get. Dumb voter is always smarter than manipulated data.

Marxist historians don’t ever get shy telling us about the ‘real’ motive behind the Islamic iconoclasm. That Muslim kings and generals destroyed the temples for greed and not for the religious mandates. Fair enough. Ask them how much Aurangzeb took away gold from the Kashi Vishveshwar or the Katra Keshavdev temple of Krishna Janmabhoomi of Tetra ke Thakur in Ayodhya. If he destroyed them for gold or silver - is there a record of the pillage? I am all 👂

The man who turned BJP’s fortune around is no other than LK Advani. Vajpayee’s BJP between 1980 and 1985 was an oxymoronic mix of ideologues. Gandhism, socialism and nationalism - a concoction which no one liked. The party slumped to 2 seats in 1984. The party asked one of its VP’s to look into the deterioration. The Kedarnath Sahni committee discovered that the party owing to its adherence to nebulous ideas of Gandhian socialism gave no confidence to its core voters. The defeat in the elections made Vajpayee to resign. Advani took it over. Yet the party would take three years to embrace the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. But when it did it, it was Advani who formulated the Hindu angst and hurt in the political vocabulary, showed how the Nehruvian secularism devastated Hindu psyche and suggested way out. He drafted the party’s famous Palampur resolution which catapulted a party so far left in the margins of Indian politics to the centre stage. His downward movement started when he trusted other’s sense more than his. He is completing a century. The man lived through turbulent years and yet remained clean and sober.

For ages Hindus complain the erasures of their faith in the popular culture. Now when someone doing it, every Hindu with a smartphone has become a censor board. Some of them wanted this sort of music, some wanted that actor and not this actor. The litany is endless. So next time the actor playing the character of Ram should make his credentials public: loyal husband, no legacy issues in terms of love life, teetotaller, vegetarian, non-smoking, honest, no party animal. And he should get character certificate from ultra Hindus parading on SM.

Brilliant work. Retd SC judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul must explain himself.

Where @OpIndia_com cites evidence from my book to debunk Habib’s non-historical, non-archaeological arguments. Let’s repeat: Irfan Habib is not an archaeologist. According to Prof. N.C. Ghosh who was a dean of social sciences of Vishwabharti university and veteran archaeologist, Habib has very little knowledge of archaeology. Page 510 of my book.

Thanks a lot.

Irfan Habib wrote an article in HT before the excavation started. He argued that the ASI should not go deeper than 2 metres because the dispute pertains to medieval India and any depth more than that would yield material culture of the ancient India and a brick of the Kushan period could be used as a evidence of a Hindu structure. The Muslim side took the cue and pleaded with the HC to prescribe a 2-metre depth limit to the ASI. The court asked the ASI to reply. The agency argued that limiting the depth would be against the principles of archaeology. It would be an incomplete and meaningless exercise. A couple of months before, Habib had admitted of a structure beneath the earth but called it ‘a residential quarter for marginalised sections.’ All his roguery has been unmasked in my book India’s Rogue Historians. Here is the link. amzn.in/d/073fAHRv

The People’s Podcast ask me some interesting questions on the Ram temple litigation and the role of Marxist historians. Do watch RAM MANDIR पर झूठ किसने फैलाया? leftist इतिहासकारों का पूरा सच! ft. Arvi... youtu.be/V8S7lLtORtg?si=7q_b…

Review of my book India’s Rogue Historians in @LoksattaLive The reviewer accuses that I have bunched all anti-Ram temple historians into a single group as Marxist historians. He reviews the book not to ‘review’ but to criticise. Good try, I needed it after some praise. 😊

Welcome back 👍🏾