The matter of a Ram temple at Ayodhya may be in court, but a BJP MP from Ghosi in UP
has said the deity should be allotted a house under the Prime Minister’s housing scheme. He also said, there was no need to wait for an SC order but that a temple could be built “the same way the Babri structure was demolished”. Ghosi MP Hari Narayan Rajbhar on
Wednesday said he would write to the district magistrate demanding a house for Lord Ram under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. “I went to Ayodhya and saw Ramlala under a tent. He would have felt cold in winter and got drenched during monsoon. I will write to the Ayodhya DM tomorrow to arrange a house for Ramlala under PMAY,” he said. He later told TOI :
“Lord Ram should be given a house under a government scheme.”(Times News Network 27 Dec. 2018– MP seeks house for Ram under PM plan)
1. The suggestion mooted by Sri Hari Narayan Rajbhar is no joke. In these fallen days
and fallen times the Lord of the Universe (Raghavendra Sarkar) has to stoop so low
before the Bharat Sarkar for a roof over His Head as expressed by Sri Hari Narayan
Rajbhar, the MP of Ghosi in U.P.
The insult, neglect and ingratitude expressed by the modern class of so called Hindus
cherishing and professing a secular if not a slavish mindset during the post independence period and the role played by the successive Congress or UPA Governments, under the pretext of secularism and democracy has been
nothing short of anti-Hinduism and demonocracy.
The Hindu faith and their object of worship, their cherished ideal and the abode of Divine Supreme, remains dishonoured and continues to be ruthlessly trampled and deliberately dis- respected. Any sane or sober attempt to restore dignity and honour has been ruthlessly overcome by shrewd political overtures and judicial maneuvers to invite further delay, disrespect and distraction from achieving a dignified and plausible solution.
It is grossly unfortunate that the sacrifice and bloodshed of thousands of Hindu Saints, Savants and Sadhvis over hundreds of tumultuous years has even failed to arouse the feelings of insult and trepidation among the Hindu youth, men and women across the country from Kanya Kumari (Tamil Nadu) to Ksheer Bhawani (Kashmir) due
to the pernicious influence of distorted Indian history that our children and youth are exposed to, in schools and colleges and in connivance with predominantly knave politicians, press and media.
2. Pages from history:
It is widely known that Emperor Vikramaditya got the temple at Sri Ram Janmasthan constructed more than a century before Christ. Babar asked Mir Banki to demolish the temple in 1528. Earlier there were several attempts of intrusion in the land of
Bharat by the fanatic Moslem invaders since early eighth century. However, they failed to reach the heart of India or even Uttar Pradesh which were very strongly entrenched in the Shastric principles of Varna vyavastha.
In 1862-63, Alexander Cunningham, the founder of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), conducted a survey of Ayodhya. Cunnigham identified Ayodhya with Sha-chi mentioned in Fa-Hien’s writings, Visakha mentioned in Xuanzang’s writings and Saketa mentioned in Hindu-Buddhist legends.
Referring to legends, he wrote that the old city of Ayodhya must have been deserted
after the death of Brihadbala ”in the great war” (indicating the Mahabharata war) around 1426 BCE. When King Vikramâditya of Ujjain visited the city around first century CE, he constructed new temples at the spots mentioned in Ramayana. Cunningham believed that by the time Xuanzang visited the city in 7th century,
Vikramaditya’s temples had “already disappeared”; In 1889-91, an ASI team led by Alois Anton Führer conducted another survey of Ayodhya. (Brihadbala was the descendent of Lord Sri Ramchandra.)
He found “a low irregular mass of rubbish heaps”, from which material had been used for building the neighbouring Muslim city of Faizabad. The only ancient structures found by him were three earthen mounds to the south of the city: Maniparbat, Kuberparbat and Sugribparbat. Cunningham identified these mounds with the sites of the monasteries described in Xuanzang’s writings. Like Cunningham, Führer also mentioned the legend of the Ramayana-era city being destroyed after death of Brihadbala, and
its rebuilding by Vikramaditya.
Based on local folk narratives, Führer wrote that Ayodhya had three Hindu temples at the time of Muslim conquest:
Janmasthanam (where Rama was born), Svargadvaram (where Rama was cremated) and Treta-ke-Thakur (where Rama performed a sacrifice).
According to Führer, Mir Khan built the Babri mosque at the place of Janmasthanam temple in 930 AH (1528 CE). He stated that many columns of the old temple had been utilized by the Muslims for the construction of Babri mosque: these pillars were of black stone, called kasauti by the natives. Führer also wrote that Aurangzeb had built now-ruined mosques at the sites of Svargadvaram and Treta-ke-Thakur temples. A fragmentary inscription of Jayachandra of Kannauj, dated to 1241 Samvat (1185 CE), and a record of a Vishnu temple’s construction were recovered from Aurangazeb’s Treta-ke-
Thakur mosque, and kept in Faizabad museum.
3. Archaeological studies in the 1960s and 1970s:
The team of archaeologists of the ASI, led by former Director-General ASI (1968–
1972), B.B. Lal in 1975–76, worked on a project titled “Archaeology of Ramayana Sites”, which excavated five Ramayana- related sites of Ayodhya, Bharadwaj Ashram, Nandigram, Chitrakoot and Shringaverapura. At Ayodhya, the team found rows of pillar-bases which must have belonged to a larger building than the Babri Mosque. In 2003 statement to the Allahabad High Court, Lal stated that– he submitted a seven-page preliminary report to the Archaeological Survey of India, mentioning the discovery of “pillar bases”, immediately south of the Babri mosque structure in Ayodhya. Subsequently, all technical facilities were withdrawn, and despite repeated requests, the project wasn’t revived for another 10– 12 years, despite his repeated request. Thus the final report was never submitted, the preliminary report was only published in 1989, and in Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) volume on historicity of Ramayana and Mahabharat. Subsequently, in his 2008 book, Rama: His Historicity Mandir and Setu, he wrote, “Attached to the piers of the Babri Masjid, there were twelve stone pillars, which carried not only typical Hindu motifs and mouldings, but also figures of Hindu deities. It was self- evident that these pillars were not an integral part of the Masjid, but were foreign to it.”
Accordingly, archaeological findings of burnt bases of pillars made of brick, a few
metres from the mosque, indicated that a large temple stood in alignment with the Babri
Mosque since the 11th century. In a trench at a distance of four metres south of the mosque, parallel rows of pillar-foundations made of brick-bats and stones were found.
July 1992: TheASI report: In July 1992, eight eminent archaeologists (among them
former ASI directors, Dr. Y.D. Sharma and Dr. K.M. Srivastava) went to the Ramkot hill
to evaluate and examine the findings. These findings included religious sculptures and a
statue of Vishnu. They said that the inner boundary of the disputed structure rests, at
least on one side, on an earlier existing structure, which “may have belonged to an
earlier temple”. (Indian Express, 4 July 1992.) The objects examined by them also included terracotta Hindu images of the Kushan period (100-300 AD) and carved buff sandstone objects that showed images of Vaishnav deities and of Shiva-Parvati. They concluded that these fragments belonged to a temple of the Nagara style (900-1200 AD)
2003 : The ASI report: The ASI, who examined the site, issued a report of the findings
of the period between 22 May and 6 June 2003. This report stated: Among the structures listed in the report are several brick walls ‘in east-west orientation’, several ‘in north-south orientation’, ‘decorated coloured floor’, several ‘pillar bases’, and a ‘1.64-metre high decorated black stone pillar (broken) with yaksha figurines on four corners’ as well as “Sanskrit inscription of holy verses on stone”.
Earlier reports by the ASI, based on earlier findings, also mention among other things a
staircase and two black basalt columns ‘bearing fine decorative carvings with two
crosslegged figures in bas-relief on a bloomed lotus with a peacock whose feathers
are raised upwards’.
The excavations gave ample traces that there was a mammoth pre-existing structure beneath the three-domed Babri structure.Ancient perimeters from East to West and North to South have been found beneath the Babri structure. The bricks used in these perimeters predate the time of Babur. Beautiful stone pieces bearing carved Hindu ornamentations like lotus, Kaustubh jewel, alligator facade, etc., were used in these walls. These decorated architectural pieces were anchored with precision at varied places in the walls. Atiny portion of a stone slab is sticking out at a place below 20 feet in one of the pits. The rest of the slab lies covered in the wall. The projecting portion bears a five-letter Devanagari inscription that turns out to be a Hindu name. The items found below 20 feet should be at least 1,500 years old. According to archaeologists about a foot of loam layer gathers on topsoil every hundred years. Primary clay was not found even up to a depth of 30 feet.
It provides a clue to the existence of some structure at that place over the last 2,500
years More than 30 pillar bases have been found at equal spans. The pillar-bases are in
two rows and the rows are parallel. The pillarbase rows are in North-South direction. A wall is superimposed upon another wall. At least three layers of the floor are visible. An
octagonal holy fireplace (Yagna Kund) was found. These facts prove the enormity of the
pre-existing structure. Surkhii has been used as a construction material in our country for over 2,000 years and, in the constructions at the Janma Bhumi,Surkhii has been extensively used. Molded bricks of round and other shapes and sizes were neither in vogue during the Middle Ages nor are they in use today. It was in vogue only 2,000 years ago.Many ornate pieces of touchstone (Kasauti stone) pillars have been found in the excavation. Terracotta religious figures, serpent, elephant, horse-rider, saints, etc., have been found. Even to this day, terracotta figures are used in worship during Diwali celebrations, then put by temple sanctums for invoking divine blessings.
Nothing has been found to prove the existence of residential habitation there. The excavation suggests a picture of a vast compound housing a sole distinguished and
greatly celebrated structure used for divine purposes and not that of a colony or Mohalla
consisting of small houses. It was an uncommon and highly celebrated place and not a place of habitation for the common people. Hindu pilgrims have visited that place for thousands of years. Even today there are temples around that place and the items found in the excavations point to the existence of a holy structure of North Indian architectural style at that place.
4. The Moslem invaders came to India first in 712 AD.
‘Imâd ad-Dîn Muhammad ibn Qâsim ath-Thaqafî; (c.695 –715) was an Umayyad general who conquered and controlled the Sindh till Multan along the Indus River for a short period of 4 years for the Umayyad Caliphate.
Umayyad governor Al-Hajjaj IbnYusufAlThaqafi, Muhammad bin Qasim’s paternal
uncle, was instrumental in teaching Muhammad bin Qasim about warfare and governance.
Muhammad bin Qasim married his cousin Zubaidah,Al-Hajjaj’s daughter, shortly before
going to Sindh. In Sindh, his army killed a famous personality Abdullah Shah Ghazi in Karachi.
Due to his close relationship withAl-Hajjaj, Bin Qasim was executed at the age of 20 after
the accession of Caliph Sulayman ibnAbd alMalik.
Further Caliphate campaigns in India Failed: The conquest of Sindh, in modern-day
Pakistan, although costly, was major gain for the Umayyad Caliphate. However, further
gains were halted by Hindu kingdoms during the Caliphate campaigns in India.
The Arabs tried to invade India but they were defeated by the north Indian king Nagabhata of the Gurjara Pratihara Dynasty and by the south Indian Emperor
Vikramaditya II of the Chalukya dynasty in the early 8th century. After the failure of furtherexpeditions on Kathiawar, the Arab chroniclers admit that the Caliph Mahdi “gave up the project of conquering any part of India.”
The Islamic Savagery : Where resistance was strong, prolonged and intensive, often
resulting in considerable Arab casualties, Muhammad bin Qasim’s response was
dramatic, inflicting 6,000 deaths at Rawar, between 6,000 and 26,000 at Brahmanabad,
4,000 at Iskalandah and 6,000 at Multan. Conversely, in areas taken by sulh, such as
Armabil, Nirun, andAror, resistance was light and few casualties occurred. Sulh appeared to be Muhammad bin Qasim’s preferred mode of conquest, the method used for more than 60% of the towns and tribes recorded.
Muhammad bin Qasim’s success has been partly ascribed to Dahir being an unpopular
Hindu king ruling over a Buddhist majority who saw Chach of Alor and his kin as
usurpers of the Rai Dynasty. This isvattributed to having resulted in support being provided by Buddhists and inclusion of rebel soldiers serving as valuable infantry in his cavalry-heavy force from the Jat and Meds. The treachery by Buddhists paved the way for the conquest by Muhammad bin Quasim.
5. Yamîn-ud-Dawla Abul-Qâcim Mahmûd ibn Sebüktegîn (Persian), more commonly known as Mahmud of Ghazni (2 November 971–30 April 1030), also known as Mahmûd-i Zâbulî, was the most prominent ruler of the Ghaznavid Empire. He conquered the eastern Iranian lands, modern Afghanistan, and the northwestern Indian subcontinent (modern Pakistan) from 997 AD to his death in 1030AD. Mahmud turned the former provincial city of Ghaza into the wealthy capital of an extensive empire that covered most of today’s Afghanistan, eastern Iran, and Pakistan, by looting the riches and wealth from the then Indian subcontinent. His religion was Sunni Islam and Mahmud’s expeditions against India were not motivated by religion but by love of plunder say some historians. He was the first ruler to hold the title Sultan (“authority”). During his rule, he
invaded and plundered parts of the Indian subcontinent (east of the Indus River)
Mahmud took over his father’s kingdom in 998 after defeating and capturing Ismail at
the Battle of Ghazni. In the year 1009 he unsuccessfully attacked Kashmir. Mahmud attacked Somnath in 1025, and its ruler Bhima I fled. The next year, he captured Somnath and marched to Kachch against Bhima I. That same year Mahmud also attacked
the Jat people of Jud.
Since Mahmud never kept a permanent presence in the northwestern subcontinent, he
engaged in a policy of destroying Hindu temples and monuments to crush any move
by the Hindus to attack the Empire; Nagarkot, Thanesar, Mathura, Kannauj, Kalinjar (1023) and Somnath all submitted or were raided.(What an excellent and shameless argument indeed by modern historians to shield his rabid intolerance and the fanaticism of Islam).
In 1025 Mahmud raided Gujarat, plundering the Somnath temple and breaking its jyotirlinga. He took away a booty of 2 million dinars. Historians estimate the damage to the temple to have been minimal because there are records of pilgrimages to the temple in 1038 that make no mention of any damage. [This was obviously due to the strong faith of Hindus and not a reflection on the benevolence of the hardened sinner.]
The last four years of Mahmud’s life were spent contending with the influx of Oghuz and Seljuk Turks from CentralAsia and the Buyid dynasty. Later, they repeatedly raided and traded territory with his successors across Khorasan and Balkh and even sacked Ghazni in 1037. In 1040, at the Battle of Dandanaqan, they decisively defeated Mahmud’s son, Masud I,resulting in Mas’ud abandoning most of his western territories to the Seljuks Turks.
Following Mahmud’s recognition by the Abbasid caliphate in 999, he pledged a jihad and a raid on India every year. In 1005 Mahmud conducted a series of campaigns during which the Ismailis of Multan were massacred. Sultan Mahmud died on 30 th April 1030.
The gap between the invasion by Mohd.Bin Quasim in 712 AD and by Sultan Mahmood is more than 300 years. The Moslem forces conquered many countries within a period of only 100 years after the advent of Prophet Mohammad, but it took them more than 300 years to conquer some part of India for the enormous strength Hindus were equipped by virtue of their lofty culture based on the principle of Varna Dharma and Sadachar. The moslem victory led by Mohd. Bin Quasim during the rule of Hindu King Dahir was only
possible due to the treachery of Buddhists. The false propaganda of pseudo- Hindus
that the down fall of India was caused due to existence of caste system or Varna
vyavastha is a part of deliberate false propaganda and untruth.
6. Mu’izz ad-Din Muhammad Ghori, born Shihab ad-Din (1149 – March 15, 1206), also known as Muhammad of Ghor, was Sultan of the Ghurid Empire along with his brother Ghiyath ad-Din Muhammad from 1173 to 1202 and as the sole ruler from 1202 to
1206. His religion was Hanafi Sunni Islam Minhaj-i-Siraj.
Mu’izz ad-Din was credited with laying the foundation of Muslim rule in the Indian
subcontinent, which lasted for several centuries. He reigned over a territory spanning over parts of modern-day Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, north India, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.
Mu’izz ad-Din took the city of Ghazni in 1173 to avenge the death of his ancestor Muhammad ibn Suri at the hands of Mahmud of Ghazni and used it as a launching-pad for expansion into northern India.
After having helped his brother in expanding the western frontiers of the Ghurid Empire, he began to focus on India. … He turned south, and led his army from Multan to Uch and then across the desert towards the Chaulukya capital of Anhilwara (modern day Patan in Gujarat) in 1178. On the way, Muizz suffered a defeat at the Battle of Kayadara, during his first campaign against an Indian ruler. Gujarat was ruled by the young Chaulukya ruler Mularaja II; the Chaulukya forces included the armies of their eudatories such as the Naddula Chahamana ruler Kelhanadeva, the Jalor Chahamana ruler Kirtipala, and the Arbuda Paramara ruler Dharavarsha. Mu’izz’s army had suffered greatly during the march across the desert, and the Chaulukyas. to the north-east ofAnhilwara). The invading army suffered heavy casualties during the battle, and also in the retreat back across the desert to Multan.However, Mu’izz was able to take Peshawar and Sialkot.
In 1191, Mu’izz proceeded towards Indian sub-continent through the Khyber Pass in
modern-day Pakistan and was successful in reaching Punjab. Mu’izz captured a
fortress, Bathinda in present-day Punjab state on the northwestern frontier of Prithvîrâj
Chauhân’s kingdom.After appointing a Qazi Zia-ud-Din as governor of the fortress, he
received the news that Prithviraj’s army, led by his vassal prince Govind Tai were on their way to besiege the fortress. The two armies eventually met near the town of Tarain, 14 miles from Thanesar in present-day Haryana. The battle was marked by the initial attack of mounted Mamluk archers to which Prithviraj responded by counter-attacking
from three sides and thus dominating the battle. Mu’izz mortally wounded Govind Tai
in personal combat and in the process was himself wounded, whereupon his army
retreated and Prithvîrâj’s army was deemed victorious.
Second Battle of Tarain with Prithviraj Chauhan: On his return to Ghazni, Mu’izz made preparations to avenge the defeat. According to Firishta, the Rajput army consisted of 3,000 elephants, 300,000 cavalry and infantry (most likely a gross exaggeration). Minhaj-i-Siraj, stated Mu’izz brought 120,000 fully armored men to the battle in 1192. Prithviraj had called his banners but hoped to buy time as his banners (other Rajputs under
him or his allies) had not arrived. Before the next day, Mu’izz attacked the Rajput army
before dawn. Rajputs had a tradition of fighting from sunrise to sunset.Although they were able to quickly form formations, they suffered losses due to surprise attack before sunrise. The Rajput army was eventually defeated and Prithviraj was taken prisoner and subsequently executed.
The ghastly outrageous and heinous misdeeds of Ghori needs some elucidation.At
one instance Prithviraj saw Ghori fleeing from the battle field but he did not attack the running enemy. On the final (16th according to few sources) attack, Ghori defeated Prithviraj. Did Ghori pardon Prithviraj? No! He raped the King’s wife Sanyukta in front him several times and took him prisoner to Bhor where he tortured him to death. Ghori plundered Delhi, slaughtered to death soldiers and civilians, took women as sex-slaves, destroyed temples, and the list of atrocities is endless. Had Prithviraj killed Ghori,
history would have been different.
[The fact that Ghori was pardoned by Prithwiraj Chauhan is cleverly concealed by the Islamic historians, and such abidance to the rules of Dharma yuddha by Hindu standards against obnoxious villain and sinners proved counter productive.]
In 1206, Mu’izz, having settled the affairs in India, left all the affairs in India in hands of his slave Qutbu l-DinAibak. On his way back to Ghazni, his caravan rested at Dhamiak
near Sohawa (which is near the city of Jhelum in the Punjab province of modern-day
Pakistan). He was assassinated on March 15, 1206 while offering his evening prayers.
Who killed him is not known. It might have been by Hindu Khokhars or Ismailis.
The battle that was waged by the three aforesaid Moslem rulers and subsequent
anti-Hindu forces over hundreds of years has not died as yet, and the nefarious
tactics and nasty politics till this date continue to hover over the heads of Hindus, their temples, saints and lofty culture including Dharma that was founded by God himself. The chivalrous Hindus were initially way laid by Buddhist through their distorted vision of Ahimsa. Later the pseudo-secular Gandi-Nehru gang raised the bogey of Khilafat Movement to ignite Muslims fanaticism and they usurped everything that Hindus hold nearand dear, sacred and glorious. They invaded Hindu Dharmic rules, laws of temple, social behaviour and values of chastity, and brahmacharya etc. that are so dear to any
sane mortal on earth.
To Be Continued