Upon carefully examining it, the reader will discover that the dispute is not so much about the right of possession to the ancient site known as Ramajanmabhumi as it is over the version of history that is sought to be imposed on the people of India.
It is a serious contraction of the scope and meaning of the Ayodhya episode of December 6, 1992 to treat it as a dispute over a piece of land, and brick and mortar; the dispute really is part of a struggle being waged by an ancient people to recover their own history from the clutches of imperial interests.
This is what I have tried to highlight in the present document. It is therefore a serious error to treat the demolition of the Babri Masjid as a mere retribution for the temple destructions by Islamic vandals going back a thousand years.
That would place the Islamic vandals and the kar sevaks on the same moral plane which can see as a historic error for what the kar sevaks were trying to recover was not merely the disputed structure built over their sacred site, but the true history of their land.
Looking at it in the context of de-colonization of the Hindu mind, V.S. Naipaul is right in seeing the demolition as a symbol of rising historical awareness on the part of the Hindus. Hindus have recognized that the Babri Masjid was never intended as a place of worship; it was a symbol pure and simple of the victory of Islamic imperialism over the Hindu Civilization.
This is what I have tried to highlight in this volume. At the same time, the historical facts about the existence or non-existence of previous temples at the site, and the record of their destruction are very much part of this struggle.
This too I have tried to bring to light by presenting the relevant information from literary,
Islamic view of history
The Islamic view holds that the history of any place begins with its Muslim takeover, and nothing that took place before the takeover is of any account. According this version, the demolition of the Babri Masjid is a crime, but the destruction of previous temples at the site (or anywhere else) is of no account.
It is this version of history that has been imposed on countries conquered by Islam countries like Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan. It is this version that Islamic warriors sought to impose on India also for several centuries but failed. (But this is the version taught at Islamic institutions in India, like the madrasahs and even the Aligarh Muslim University.)
The Indian Muslim leaders and their allies calling themselves. Secularists are fighting to see this version prevail, while the Hindus are fighting to preserve their own history and tradition. Ayodhya is a symbol of this struggle for history.
we cansee the present work as a small effort aimed at highlighting the following: (1) the true facts of history relating to Ayodhya; (2) the struggle for the recovery of their history that lies behind the temple-mosque dispute; and (3) understanding the consequences of hasty actions by reacting to transient passions and political compulsions, while failing to take note of the course of history.
The key fact to note is that the events of December 6, 1992 do not stand alone; they are part of the history of the struggle being waged between exclusivism and pluralism going back a thousand years. The stakes in this for the people of India are enormous. We ignore it only at our peril.