Romila Thapar on the Ram Mandir

Romilla Thapar writes-

This is with reference to Arun Anand’s article, “Why the Left Isn’t Right” (IE, March 13). The dispute over Ram Janmabhoomi cannot be reduced merely to what has been described as Left historians having a flawed understanding of the Babri case. In support of this statement, a short pamphlet on ‘The Political Abuse of History’ has been referred to in the above article. The pamphlet was raising the question important to historians, of historicity having to be based on proven reliable evidence.

There is no such evidence for pre-historic events. Religions actually have, as they claim, origins in pre-history. There is no evidence that Adam or Abraham ever existed. Nor is there any evidence for their geographic location. This does not impugn the historicity of religions which have a prehistoric component.

It is an abuse of historiographical method to single out a particular faith and assert that it has less historical authenticity because its roots are prehistoric. By contrast, to say all Religious faiths are in the same boat, in this respect, is perfectly proper and legal. Indian Courts have established that no believer can take offence at the statement of an atheist. It is only when one particular sect is singled out for contumely that an offence arises or an abuse of history occurs.

This was the mistake Dr. Thapar made. She and her colleagues gave offence to Hindus who venerate Lord Ram. As an atheist, she was welcome to point out that all religions contain mythological elements. But what she was doing was singling out Hinduism. Since Dr. Thapar became close to Sonia Gandhi, acting as her adviser, many Hindus who previously supported the Congress Party turned to the BJP which has become the new default National party.

Rahul Gandhi has learned his lesson and now identifies as a sacred thread wearing Brahman. Dr. Thapar however continues to write in the following strain-

This is yet to be found for the events of the Ramakatha. What mythology, fantasy, poetry or faith make of a believed biography, is of considerable interest for an intellectual analysis or a study of what surrounds history. However, taking it as the literal biography of an existing person is problematic for an historian.

Dr. Thapar is being disingenous. She knows that no proven reliable evidence can be found for any prehistoric or legendary personage whatsoever. But, it is equally true that there is seldom any means to corroborate hagiographies of venerable personages whose historicity is proven. Thus no scandal or problematic arises in this connection for a seasoned scholar. Only a child would think differently.

The modern scholars quoted in the article as having stated that the story goes back to the fifth century BC, is not disputed. But this does not prove the historicity of the persons involved in the narrative or the story or the events. 

Nor does it cast doubt on their having existed. Historical method can say little about the pre-historic.

The story is described as a katha, and the term used in English refers to it as an epic. This may explain why the biography of Rama and others differs substantially and conceptually in three of the earliest versions of the story. These are the Vaishnava Valmiki Ramayana, the Buddhist Dasaratha Jataka and the Jaina Paumachariyam.

Accounts of Muhammad differ substantially. There were Christian versions which depicted him as 'Mahound'. Accounts of Buddha differ substantially. He  was known to Christianity as St. Barlaam. So what? It is obvious that different sects will have different accounts.

The three Ramas of these three texts are three different persons with three different messages.

& the Satanic Verses gives a different account of the Sahiban than conventional Islamic narratives. So what?

Such differences increase with the adoption of the story in variant cultures in India, and even further afield: For example, in the many distinctively diverse versions that come from South-East Asia. It is precisely this element of difference that is most significant and needs to be analysed in terms of the authenticity of any narrative.

This is utterly foolish. Only the account closest to the source matters. A German film depicting the last days of Adolf Hitler is likely to be more authentic than a Turkish or Hindi movie which might also feature flying dinosaurs.

This is quite a contrast to the essential uniformity in the biographies of the founders of a religion, such as the Buddha and Christ and some others.

There is no such uniformity. Even the synoptic Gospels contradict each other. The Muslim account of Christ features the virgin birth but there is no death on the Cross. The Gnostic Jesus has some rather sinister aspects. Modern accounts, like that of Robert Graves or Kazantzakis differ more substantially.

Furthermore, none of these texts provide us with a detailed topography of the events as they happened and were identified with locations in Ayodhya.

The book of Genesis gives no detailed topography of the Garden of Eden. Islamic tradition identifies Arafat as the place Adam and Eve found each other after their expulsion from Paradise. No detailed topography is given for this. Had Arabia been conquered and Islam been persecuted for many centuries, there might be similar uncertainty- as far as the surviving textual record is concerned- regarding the historicity of events mentioned in the Holy Quran.

It is also possible that Indians have always been shite at History coz it is a useless subject. In this case, cretins like Thapar & Co are merely cretinously commenting on the cretinousness of their own ancestors.

Religion, however, is something Indians have always taken seriously. Thus extant religious traditions in this context offer better guidance than cretinous historians can.

Thapar acknowledges that we do have surviving texts from 500 years ago which answer to our purpose. It is also common knowledge that Muslim invaders destroyed many Libraries and Temples and Monasteries where texts may have been stored.  Yet she makes the following observation-

This comes about many centuries later in the mid-second millennium AD, when the Ayodhya-mahatmya was composed, and various locations in Ayodhya were associated with a believed biography.

This by itself is enough to show that the place was a Hindu place of worship with a deity who, by Indian law, has legal personality and thus can sue to have a Temple reconstructed at his place of birth. This is the solution which the Allahabad High Court found. One third of the disputed land has been given to the Deity, one third to a Hindu sect which had lodged a claim, and one third goes to the Muslims. The  Supreme Court has appointed 3 mediators to try to find an amicable solution in an expeditious fashion.

Thapar fails to understand how and why Indian Law made this outcome possible. She is as ignorant of India's present as she is of its past. Why? Because she is foolish. Why say the following?-

Mention of such places from the 18th century follow from this and continue, often to this day. 

This proves there is a continuing tradition which identifies a specific deity who has sufficient legal standing for the High Court to command the re-construction of the Temple at his birth-place.

Thapar, with typical fatuity, continues-

Visitors to India would have mentioned the worship of Rama wherever they came across it.

The first English visitor to report on the worship of Lord Ram at Ayodhya did so in 1614- before the mosque was built. Is Thapar utterly senile? Why draw attention to this fact?

The object of worship is a matter of faith and none would deny this faith where it exists.

Faith has nothing to do with historicity. Why then, did Thapar & Co stick their nose into this affair?

But this does not mean that historians should accept faith as evidence of the historicity of the Ramakatha. Faith and evidence of historicity are entirely distinct.

It also means they should keep silent about pre-historic events about which they have no means to acquire information.

As for mediators in the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, the definition of a mediator should be clear. The term mediator is used for a person who initially takes a middle position in a dispute (the median), and attempts to reconcile the views of those disputing the claims.

This is sheer nonsense. One of the three mediators, a senior lawyer, runs the largest Mediation Chambers in India. Another is a former Chief Justice. The first rule of Mediation is not to take any position at all- certainly not the median position because that would encourage the parties in conflict to take the most extreme position possible.

Therefore the person so selected to mediate in a dispute, should not be associated, and especially not publicly, with an opinion committed to any one side. Is this true of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar?

A Judge may recuse himself- as happened recently when the Supreme Court considered this case- for this reason. A mediator has no need to if he is acceptable to all parties. This is true of Sri Sri. It is not true of Thapar & Co. They have been disintermediated from mainstream Indian politics. The 'soft Hindutva' they descried has gained salience even within the Anglophone intelligentsia thanks to their own stupidity and dogmatism.