Among sensible commentators on the whole Ram Janmabhoomi / Babri masjid issue, I find Dr Koenraad Elst to be one of the most articulate, level headed and persuasive. I am not disappointed to hear his views on the matter in an interview that was posted recently on the Indian Nationalist Post YouTube channel. Below I embed part 4 of the 6 part series, and a couple of quotes.
Dr Elst definitely has a sense of the absurd. You’ll see what I mean right at the beginning of the video clip below.
[See the first of six parts here.]
His arguments are not difficult at all to follow. Anyone with a modest degree of common sense can appreciate them. But I am afraid that that puts them out of the intellectual reach of mullahs and secularists. I imagine that people like Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt and their ilk are incapable of understanding Dr Elst.
Here are transcripts of two short segments from this part:
[The people of the Babri Masjid Action Committee] simply didn’t understand anything about historical scholarship. They were these theologians living in their own world of religion. . . The secularists historians had told them that ‘see these Hindus – it was all mythology – they have no evidence – you don’t have to be afraid of them’ . . .
I can understand that the BMAC mullahs will have difficulty appreciating the importance of evidence. They are to be pitied for the limited comprehension of the world, seeing as they are programmed to believe in the triumphalism and the inerrancy of Islam. But what excuse do the secularists have for refusing to see reason? What motivates them to provoke even more vile hatred of the “infidel” Hindus among the already hateful gang of mullahs?
Listen to Elst around the 7 minute mark:
Why [are moderate Muslim] voices not taken into account by these secularist busybodies who insist that any settlement, any verdict should be as anti-Hindu, as humiliating for the Hindu side as possible when in fact there are Muslims around who are willing to come to a reasonable settlement? So it is important to see that the secularists always prefer the Muslim hardliners.
I sometimes think that perhaps these secularists have a particularly nefarious agenda, a conspiracy. They actually want to make the lives of Muslims in India miserable. By constantly pushing a story of Muslim victimhood, they are ensuring continued friction between Muslims and non-Muslims. This provokes Muslim extremists to erupt into murderous rage such as burning innocent passengers on a train. Then the retaliation happens in the form of riots in which both Muslims and Hindus are killed but generally in the end more Muslims than Hindus die because the numbers are against them. The secularists are really the enemies of society at large, not just of Muslims and Hindus.
In a just world, the secularists should be the ones to die for their sins. But they get to stir the hornets nest from the comfort of their TV studios and newspaper offices, and then watch the carnage with smug satisfaction.
The French philosopher Diderot (1713 – 1784) had written in his despair that “man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” India, I am afraid, will continue to be ravaged by communal conflict until the last secularist politician is strangled with the entrails of the last TV and press secularist.