Hindus From India

"Fedai Khan, who was Aurangzeb’s foster brother and favourite on account of Fedai’s unflinching support to him in the war against Dara and his worthy son Sulaiman Shukoh, was made Governor of Ayodhyā in August 1658 and it was Fedai Khan who demolished all the three temples at Ayodhyā, viz. Svargadvārī, Tretā Kā Thākura and Rāma-janma-bhūmi temples and built mosques at all the three places. Svargadvari temple’s demolition by Aurangzeb has been mentioned by Joseph Tieffenthaler, C. Mentelle, Mirza Jan and many subsequent Muslim authors. The demolition of Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple by Aurangzeb has been mentioned by Tieffenthaler (1670 A.D.), Mentelle (1800 A.D.) and J.R. M’culloch (1842 A.D.). The perception that Aurangzeb demolished Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple was prevalent during the visit of Buchanan also."

"Here it is important to note that Svargadvar and Treta Ka Thakur temples were built during the regime of the Gadhawal Kings in the 11th and 12th centuries. An inscription of King Jayachandra of this dynasty relating to the Treta Ka Thakur temple was found and mentioned by Anton Fuhrer in his report. It is accepted by almost all scholars including Hans Bakker that these two temples were demolished by Aurangzeb’s order. Now the riddle remains why would the Muslim marauders who demolished Janma-sthāna temple at Ayodhyā in 1528 A.D. leave these two temples unmolested, when they were standing just at a very short distance from it? The simple answer is that all the three temples were demolished by the same set of iconoclasts and they were none other than the marauders of Aurangzeb."

"Now, after such a detailed discussion it is clear that there is a world of unimpeachable evidences which testify to the fact that there existed a definite birth-site of Rāma. It was located in the disputed shrine which was constructed after demoli-shing a temple of Rāma. Despite all these testimonies, if any historian clings to his old stand that there is no evidence showing the existence of any birthplace of Rāma at the disputed site, then one is reminded of the famous line of Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”"

"In 1855-56 Mirza Jan wrote a book ‘Hadiqa-i-shuda’ wherein he claimed thus.. The mosque of Ram Darbar was built by Fedai Khan. It has been damaged by the infidels who have torn the two minarets and the wall. During the days of Amjad Ali Shah, orders had been issued for its reconstruction. But with his sudden death, he took this wish along with him, while the Qila Masjid was given to the Mahant of the Qila as muafi. The mosque has been converted into a house. The possession of mosques under the Hindus is well-known... Svargadvāra temple is called the Rāma-darbar by the Urdu writers of the second half of the 19th century. Thus, from this testimony of Mirza Jan it is known that Fedai Khan, the Governor of Awadh had demolished the Svargadvar temple and constructed a mosque thereon. ... It appears that he demolished all the three temples at Ayodhyā in 1660 A.D. Since the Svargadvar temple was the most magnificent, it is specifically named and other temples are clubbed together. It has been argued earlier that had the Janma-sthāna temple been demolished in 1528, there was no reason to keep the Svargadvar temple unmolested then because it stood at a short distance from the Janma-sthana temple. So all the three temples were demolished by the marauding militia men of Fedai Khan in 1660 A.D."

"It is an irony that though there are indigenous literary sources, foreign travellers’ accounts, a detailed inscription and archaeological excavation reports, all supporting the existence of a temple at the birthplace of Lord Rāma at Ayodhyā, yet established historians have been misleading the nation by spreading unsubstantiated propaganda incessantly that there is not an iota of evidence to prove the claim that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Rāma and a temple existed thereon."

"Java’s capital at ‘Jogya karta’ for centuries has been named after Ayodhyā. ‘(A)Jogya’ is named after Ajodhya and karta means city. The main river in Java is called Serayu, which is apparently named after the Indian Sarayū on the bank of which Ayodhyā is situated. A cave in its proximity is called Kiskanda of the Rāmāyana. Similarly, a town Situbenda after the Setubandha is located in the extreme east of the principality."

"A confusing situation has been created by many modern historians who are not well versed in the Sanskrit language or who have a pre-determined agenda to follow. They have written long articles that the Ayodhyā mentioned in some Buddhist texts was situated on the bank of Gangā and not Sarayū and therefore different from the present-day Ayodhyā... But this has happened either due to the lack of the knowledge of the Sanskrit/Pāli language or on account of a deliberate attempt to confound the issue."

"For the first time in the history of the Ayodhyā controversy the present author is producing a clinching evidence which conclusively proves that there was a temple at the birthplace of Lord Rāma and there was an idol inside it. Devotees used to visit it for having a glimpse of the idol and for the annihilation of their poverty. It is described in the 12th chapter called दरिद्र-भञ्जनदुर्ल्लभो Adhyaya of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya of the Rudra-yāmala scripture"

"It is now learnt that Ram Narayan had a photograph [in 1875] which showed a mosque at Rāma’s birthplace built by Aurangzeb. Thus, the association of Aurangzeb’s name with the construction of the mosque at the site of Rāma-Janma-bhūmi has a long tradition."

"The tragedy with the I.C.H.R. was that it was hijacked by four historians who claimed themselves to be ‘an independent forum of historians’ and took upon themselves the task of passing judgment on all the three branches of the evidence."

"The question then arises as to who demolished the temple, if any, and built the mosque. All the three major Hindu shrines at Ayodhyā, viz. Svargadvāra, Tretā Kā Thākura and Janma-sthána temples were intact during the entire Sultanate period and the major part of the Mughal rule. But they could not survive after the accession of Aurangzeb to the Delhi throne in 1658 A.D.There are many evidences to prove that the Svargadvāra temple was demolished by Aurangzeb when Fedai Khan was Governor there. Fedai Khan was the Governor of Oudh twice; first in 1658-1662 A.D. and thereafter in 1669-1670 A.D. (...) the temples at Ayodhyā were razed to ground during the first stint of Fedai Khan. The demolition of the temple and construction of the mosque on the Janma-sthána site during the reign of Aurangzeb was known to the general public till 1813-14 A.D. when Buchanan made the survey and was misled by a claimed inscription which was not properly examined by him."

"In this book I have coined two words ‘established’ and ‘enthusiastic’. By ‘established’ historians I mean self-proclaimed secular, progressive or left historians who have established an academic empire and try to stifle any voice of dissent or truth. At times, they obfuscate matters. Similarly, I have called the historians of the opposite group as ‘enthusiastic historians’ in place of nationalist or conservative historians. In this camp the standard of historians’ writing history except that of a few of them is far from satisfactory because they lack the skill of sifting the grain from husk. This is the reason that they, too, have failed to do justice to the history of Ayodhyā, and hence the difference on Ayodhyā between the two groups of historians is very thin. The first group asserts that the victorious Babur built the mosque on a barren plot, whereas the other group claims that Babur erected the mosque after demolishing a temple. Thus, both groups claim that it was a creation of Babur or his Governor Mir Baqi!"

"Similarly, for the last two decades I have been mutely witnessing the excruciating death of the real history of Ayodhyā on account of false and misleading interpretation of historical facts. Earlier I kept silent primarily because in the early nineties I was officially associated with the negotiations on Ayodhyā between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Since I did my duty diligently and punctiliously in the official capacity I remained aloof from the historical debate. But in the last leg of the legal proceedings before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, I thought that as our national motto is सत्यमेव जयते, truth alone triumphs, I must intervene in the Ayodhyā dispute... (Preface)"

"Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori, He was the younger brother of Muhammad Ghori. He invaded Ayodhyā with a large army and destroyed the famous Jain Adinath temple... Bartuh might have been a governor of Gahadavāla king at Ayodhyā who defended Ayodhyā valiantly and this is the reason that the Turkish invaders succeeded in demolishing only one temple (Adinātha) at Ayodhyā."

"Svargadvāra temple is called Rāma-darbar by many Muslim writers and it is reported that it was demolished by Fedai Khan, the Governor of Aurangzeb."

"In this booklet Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s judgment on historical matters has been subjected to such an unsubstantiated and misleading criticism that I had to write a new chapter “Aligarh Historians’ Contumelious Criticism of the Ayodhyâ Verdict is devoid of substance.” It is agonizing to see that the established historians have stooped very low in unjustifiably attacking the verdict of a well-read and reputed Judge."

"In this connection I may say that there should not be any doubt to anyone regarding archaeological facts (remains and antiquities) unearthed by Prof. A.K. Narain and Prof. B.B. Lal or about the nature of the structure of Babri Masjid,which though a mosque built in 1528-29 as per the inscribed record, shows internally the reuse of earlier carved structural members including the pillars of pre-13th century AD (dating around circa 11th century AD or so).(M.C. Joshi, Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, ,quoted in Preface)"

"Thus, there is ample evidence in the Rudrayāmala, Skanda-purāna, Satyopākhyāna and Avadha-vilāsa to conclude that the birth-site of Rāma has been regarded as a sacred spot for more than a thousand years."

"It would thus appear that the four historians who wrote the ‘report to the nation’ were really experts nominated by All India Babri Masjid Action Committee and were not independent. But they always pretended to be impartial professional historians. In fact, in their ‘report to the nation’ they criticized the claims of V.H.P. only and made no comments on the documents submitted by A.I.B.M.A.C. Had they really been truly impartial historians, they would have commented on the evidence submitted by both parties and presented their report to the nation or M.H.A. without any bias or prejudice."

"The background of my meeting with Prof. B.B. Lal is very interesting. Long back when I was Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna in 1983-84, I had an occasion to travel along with Dr. Kumar Suresh Singh, an I.A.S. officer who edited the monumental work ‘People of India’ published by ‘Anthropological Survey of India’. In the course of talk he told me that Prof. B.B. Lal had once told him that in the course of excavation at Ayodhyā he (Prof. Lal) had found the remains of a temple beneath the Baburi Mosque. When he informed the authorities concerned including Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, it was decided after due deliberation that the excavation should be abandoned, lest it should create a serious contentious issue. Thereafter the excavation was stopped. Our talk ended there. In 1990 when I was appointed Officer on Special Duty on Ayodhyā during the premiership of Shri Vishwanath Pratap Singh, I called on Prof. Lal and asked him about the excavation and its abandonment in consequence of finding a temple’s remains. He confirmed it and showed me many slides to prove how the remains of a temple were found at the site. He told me that since the 14 Kasauti pillars existed in situ, they were parts of a temple which existed earlier at the site. (Preface)"

"In view of the communal riots between the Hindus and the Muslims in 1855 the British Government took an arbitrary decision and deprived the Hindus of the worship in the disputed shrine and made an arrangement for the worship outside the mosque. It generated widespread resentment and a Nihang Sikh with 25 followers from the same sect from Punjab came to Ayodhyā and forcibly occupied the mosque. They did puja and homa inside it and placed an idol therein. Thereafter, they prayed to Guru Govind Singh and pitched a nishan outside the shrine. They wrote राम राम throughout the mosque with coal."

"P. Carnegy has written that Ayodhyā is to the Hindus what Mecca is to the Mahomedon and Jerusalem to the Jews. R.T. Griffith, the celebrated translator of Vālmīki Rāmayana, was of the opinion that ‘Ajudhyā is the Jerusalem or Mecca of the Hindus’."

"However, the most surprising and shocking part is that modern historians of all shades have quoted and confirmed this without any scrutiny. Thus, History has been overtaken by myths and fiction."

"According to a long-standing tradition prevalent in Korea a Princess of Ayodhyā, Suriratna by name, was married to a Korean King Kim Suro, the monarch of Kingdom Gaya (also known as Garak) located in the Korean country. As per the tradition, in July, 48 A.D. the Princess from the ancient sacred city of Ayodhyā embarked on her journey in a boat which anchored at a small harbour on the Korean peninsula. Her royal sojourn was in consequence to her father’s dream that she would get her husband in a small harbour in Korea. Upon her arrival, she was married to King Kim Suro who was the first King of the Korean Kingdom. ... Queen Sūriratna (Heo) is said to have given birth to 10 children who became founders of many dynasties. The powerful dynasty of the Gimhae Kim clan was started by her offspring and today six million Koreans with surnames Kim and Huh from Gimhae, and Lee from Incheon, trace their ancestry to this royal couple."

"Charaka composed a Samhita (or encyclopedia) of medicine, which is still used in India, and gave to his followers an almost Hippocratic conception of their calling: “Not for self, not for the fulfilment of any earthly desire of gain, but solely for the good of suffering humanity should you treat your patients, and so excell all.” Only less illustrious than these are Vagbhata (625 A.D.), who prepared a medical compendium in prose and verse, and Bhava Misra (1550 A.D.), whose voluminous work on anatomy, physiology and medicine mentioned, a hundred years before Harvey, the circulation of the blood..."

"The atomistic theory of matter appears in well established and elaborated form in various systems of Hindu philosophy... The oldest of these systems... appears to be that of the Vaiseshika, attributed to Kanada... Whether or no the... theory antedated Democritus... is... uncertain. Professor Garbe's opinion is that beyond a doubt the Indian theory is a long time after the theory of Leucippus and Democritus. L. Mabilleau, on the other hand, considers the Vaiseshika system as several centuries earlier than Democritus. ...This theory recognizes nine distinct entities constituting the universe. These are earth, water, fire, air (or wind), ether (akasa), time, space, soul, and "manas." ...Time, space, and soul are not material, though existent. The "manas" is the medium through which impressions of sense are conveyed to the soul. The first four, therefore, correspond to the four elements of Empedocles; the fifth, ether, can be compared with little similarity to the ether of Aristotle. The first four elements are composed of atoms which are eternal, never created nor destroyed. Each of these four elements exists as atoms and also as aggregates of atoms. As atoms, they are imperishable. The elements which we see or feel are aggregates of atoms and as such are subject to change, but the atoms, which are invisible, do not change. ...Akasa, or ether, is assumed not to consist of atoms, but is infinite in extent, continuous and eternal. It cannot be apprehended by the senses, but is the carrier of sound. It is also described... as all-pervasive, occupying the same space that is occupied by the various forms of matter, and therefore devoid of the property of impenetrability, characterizing the atoms of other elements."

"Two systems of Hindu thought propound physical theories suggestively similar to those of Greece. Kanada, founder of the Vaisheshika philosophy, held that the world was composed of atoms as many in kind as the various elements. The Jains more nearly approximated to Democritus by teaching that all atoms were of the same kind, producing different effects by diverse modes of combination. Kanada believed light and heat to be varieties of the same substance; Udayana taught that all heat comes from the sun; and Vachaspati, like Newton, interpreted light as composed of minute particles emitted by substances and striking the eye."

"The way some established historians have tried to justify unabashedly iconoclastic acts of Mahmud of Ghazni and Aurangzeb is a big blot on writing correct and unbiased history and all right-thinking persons must congratulate Justice Agarwal for making a factual and bold statement."

"As Gautama is the Aristotle of India, so Kanada is its Democritus. His name, which means the “atom-eater,” suggests that he may be a legendary construct of the historical imagination. The date at which the Vaisheshika system was formulated has not been fixed with excessive accuracy: we are told that it was not before 300 B.C., and not after 800 A.D. Its name came from vishesha, meaning particularity: the world, in Kanada’s theory, is full of a number of things, but they are all, in some form, mere combinations of atoms; the forms change, but the atoms remain indestructible. Thoroughly Democritean, Kanada announces that nothing exists but “atoms and the void,” and that the atoms move not according to the will of an intelligent deity, but through an impersonal force or law — Adrishta, “the invisible.” Since there is no conservative like the child of a radical, the later exponents of Vaisheshika, unable to see how a blind force could give order and unity to the cosmos, placed a world of minute souls alongside the world of atoms, and supervised both worlds with an intelligent God.66 So old is the “pre-established harmony” of Leibnitz."

"Thus, it is gathered from a contemporary source that no sooner had Aurangzeb ascended the throne than he started harassing the Hindus by imposing taxes and demolishing temples. It is corroborated by his iconoclastic activities in 1661 and 1662 A.D. In 1661 the famous temple of Kuch Bihar was razed to ground and in its place a mosque was built. In 1661-62 Abdul Nabi, faujdar of Mathura, destroyed a Hindu temple and constructed a mosque on its site. Therefore, there should be no surprize that Fedai Khan demolished the three temples at Ayodhyā in 1660 A.D."

"Therefore, all the three temples Janma-sthāna, Svargadvāra and Treta Ka Thakur were demolished by the same group of iconoclasts."

"The demolition of temples was taking place since the beginning of Aurangzeb’s reign, nay, from his Viceroy’s days, when he had demolished the Somanâtha and Chintâmani temples in Gujarat. In 1661 when the King of Kuch Bihar was defeated by Mir Jumla, Aurangzeb’s Governor of Bengal, the principal temple of the capital of Kuch Bihar was demolished and a mosque was built thereon. The name of the capital was changed to Alamgir-nagar. In 1661-62 A.D. Abdun Nabi Khan, Aurangzeb’s Faujdar at Mathura, built a Jama Masjid in the heart of the city on the site of a mandir which was different from the famous Keshav Rai’s temple. It seems that after the execution of Dara Shukoh on 30th August, 1659 there was a jubilation in the conservative Muslim camp because he was executed for apostasy by the victorious Emperor Aurangzeb. Once Aurangzeb was in the saddle, his foster brother Fedai Khan, who was the Governor of Ayodhyâ, demolished all temples there at the Emperor’s command and built mosques at those places as marks of the triumph of the ‘true faith’ over the infidelity."

"Thus, on 28th February, 1659 when according to Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar Emperor Aurangzeb issued the firman of the religious tolerance through the office of his son Muhammad Sultan, the Emperor was in Rajasthan and the Prince was in Eastern India! How the twain met to consider sympathetically the condition of the Hindus of Benaras and issue a Firman from the imperial seat is beyond comprehension!"

"In physics, the thinker Kanada, explained light and heat as different aspects of the same element, thus anticipating Clarke Maxwell's Electro-magnetic Theory, which unified different forms of radiant energy. Sankaracharya, in his Advaita thought expanded the concept of unity of matter and energy. Vacaspati recognized light as composed of minute particles emitted by substances, anticipating Newton’s Corpuscular Theory of Light and the later discovery of the Photon. In Botany, Sankara Mishra and Kanada have discussed the circulation of sap in the Plant and the Santiparva of Mahabharata has clearly stated that the plants develop on the strength of nutrients made through interaction of sunlight and materials obtained from the air and ground. Bhaskarcharya's concept of Differential Calculus preceded Newton by many centuries. His study of time identified Truti: The 3400th part of a second as the unit of time."

"To be at the height of their calling, men of Science have to reject the very possibility of Materialistic doctrines having aught to do with the Atomic Theory; and we find that Lange, Butlerof, Du Bois Reymond—the last probably unconsciously—and several others, have proved it. And this is, furthermore, demonstrated by the fact, that Kanâda in India, and Leucippus and Democritus in Greece, and after them Epicurus—the earliest Atomists in Europe—while propagating their doctrine of definite proportions, believed in Gods or supersensuous Entities, at the same time. Their ideas upon Matter thus differed from those now prevalent... the Atomic Theory kills Materialism."

"The conduct of the Western Media was even more atrocious. The Wall Street Journal fabricated quotes in order to blame Hindu groups for the murder of Ankit Sharma. They have tried to paint the communal riots as an ‘anti-Muslim pogrom’. In their hatred for Donald Trump, they targeted the Prime Minister so that the US President could be criticized for refusing to interfere with the internal matters of India."

"In an actual interpretation the sources speak. It is not going to be something concocted, a framework already decided, not something like that. It is their thing they are practicing, they want to see their image in everybody, a man sees his own image in others. Because these people can not think of history writing without an ideological framework, they think that all others are doing the same thing. ... There is no saffron history. It is in their minds. It is their imagination. I would call it traditionalist. I would call it history true to the sources. For example R.C. Majumdar was not convinced that the sepoy mutiny the 1857 revolt was a national revolt and he came out boldly--they call him saffron historian. They labeled him. R.C. Majumdar, in many places has his own approach....But these people think that they are the only intellectuals."

"Secondly they have developed a sense of superiority complex about their intellectualism. And want to dub all others as anti- intellectual. Thirdly, although they profess themselves to be very open- minded, very large-hearted, very liberal, but they practice untouchability in the field of intellectualism and even in politics. So they are the most narrow- minded bigoted fanatics who are not prepared to think with an open mind into the past or the trends which are emerging out of the march of civilization and the march of science. That is the problem. And now they have developed invested interest in their hegemony in academic institutions and if that hegemony is dented anywhere they start howling saffronization, saffronization, saffronization. If any writing goes against their pet theories you are saffronized and you’re not a historian. You cease to be an historian, you are a historian as long as you are with them… They do not allow any difference of opinion even in their own camp. These historians are not prepared to understand the limitations of Marxist approach--they are just fighting a political battle. ...."

"In contrast to all this, Devendraswarup, (1993), touches on very different Christian appropriations of the work of the philologists and the discourse of Aryanism: "It seems that missionary scholars in India had already perceived the potential of the science of comparative philology in uprooting the hold of the Brahmins" (32). ...Other missionaries found it preferable to target the non-Aryan identity of segments of the Indian populace rather than play up the Aryan commonalty. ... Devendraswarup finds the scholarly work of missionary intellectuals such as the Reverend John James Muir and the Reverend John Stevenson readily presenting the Brahmanas as foreigners who had foisted their Vedic language and texts onto the aboriginals of India. The idea in this case was to create a sense of alienation from Brahmanical religion among the lower castes, thereby preparing them for exposure and conversion to Christianity. Thus Wilson, in a letter to his parents, noted that "the Aryan tribes in conquering India, urged by the Brahmanas, made war against the Turanian demon worship. . . . It is among the Turanian races, . . . which have no organized priest-hood and bewitching literature, that the converts to Christianity are most numerous" (quoted in Devendraswarup 1993, 35)."

"In the last few days, you would have noticed that we were the target of a coordinated attack from the usual suspects as well as from some unusual corners... I am not saying that they can’t make mistakes, and when our well-wishers like you would point them out, they will make amends. But this time, their only mistake was that they were standing on the wrong side of the ideological divide. But that stand is non-negotiable. That’s what is the soul, the identity of India. That’s not going to change."

"The Indian Media has indulged in propaganda regarding the violence in Delhi as well. First, they often spread misinformation about the provisions of the CAA itself. Then, they ran an atrocious defense for Tahir Hussain. And furthermore, they also tried to propagandize into existence a “students’ movement” against the CAA, a phenomenon that did not exist on the ground."

"We have worked with relentless focus to show how a certain section of the mainstream media distorts facts and maligns those who dare to question them. OpIndia too was mocked and maligned – and that process has not stopped, nor it will stop ever, we are sure – we were treated as outcasts, branded ‘trolls’ (we don’t complain), personal lives of people associated with the website were targeted, but we persisted. While we made these powerful enemies, what kept us going was the fact that we made many friends too. We could create a community that stood by us and continues to support us to this day."

"Amnesty International has been extremely vocal in its opposition towards the CAA and the NRC."

"Thus, quite clearly, Amnesty was engaging in crass fear-mongering and demonizing the law and order establishment as they attempted to rein in the chaos that had unleashed and bring the perpetrators to justice. Thus, it is important for us to understand the possible factors that might have prompted Amnesty India to engage in such propaganda and for that, it is necessary to look into their background... The rank and file of Amnesty India appears to be overflowing with people with mala fide intentions."

"Retired Justice Madan B Lokur, who recently spoke out against the CAA has links to an NGO as well. ...Justice Lokur’s association with the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) may provide some clue into the reasons behind his flip flop on the matter of detention centers and his comments on the CAA. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the CHRI... As per its website, “CHRI’s work is split into two core themes: Access to Information and Access to Justice, which includes Prison Reform, Police Reform, and advocacy on media rights and the South Asia Media Defenders Network (SAMDEN). ...The ideological inclinations of Salil Tripathi, Siddharth Varadarajan of The Wire, and the New York Times are well known. These are compulsive contrarians who have a problem with anything and everything that the Modi government does. There are more troubling aspects to the CHRI than meets the eye. For instance, the CHRI had received Rs. 2,29,500 on the 20th of September, 2019 from the United States’ Department of State for the purpose of “Advocacy and Outreach Programme for Detainees in the North Eastern States of India”. The CHRI has also received huge amounts of money from the Oak Foundation, a shady globalist organization. ...The Oak Foundation is particularly shady... The CHRI also receives crores of funds from dubious sources that appear hell-bent on undermining the sovereignty of India."

"If I disapproved of the ban on The Satanic Verses, if I disapproved of Dinanath Batra (whom I called “Ban Man” in my article in The Washington Post), if I disapproved of how Taslima Nasreen was hounded and attacked in Hyderabad by Asaduddin Owaisi’s AIMIM, then I can’t suddenly do a volte face and chest-thump today. When you ban a book, it acquires a kind of cult status because the market fuels curiosity. That is what happened with other banned books. In fact, there are books chronicling banned books by different regimes in history...All I am saying is that forcing Bloomsbury India to withdraw the book is counter-productive – both politically and in the pure sense of how market forces work... Where do you draw the line? Today, many are relieved that this book will not find a publisher in Bloomsbury. But what will you do if Swarajya or OpIndia launches a publishing house of its own in the future?"

"Prashant Bhushan has been at the forefront of these violent protests, part of the coterie of high-profile activists that he is. There were legal teams working to help protesters avoid the consequences for their actions, some of them were headed by advocate Prashant Bhushan himself. The 'advocate' also spread numerous canards against the CAA and NRC during the run-up to February, calling it an attempt to snatch away citizenship from the "poor, Dalits and Muslims"."

"The PFI has a history of its members being associated with violence. Only in November 2019, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had re-arrested the out-on-bail accused and a member of PFI, KA Najeeb, in connection with a professor’s palm chopping case in Kerala. Najeeb was booked under relevant sections of the IPC, Explosive Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for “conspiring and facilitating the lethal attack on Professor TJ Joseph at Thodupuzha, Ernakulam district in Kerala on July 4, 2010.” PFI member Asim Sharif is also suspected of involvement in the killing of RSS activist Rudresh. Rudresh, the RSS worker, was hacked to death in the Shivajinagar area of Bengaluru in October 2016. Five men including Asim Sharif were arrested in the case and a National Investigation Agency court had framed charges against them. Asim Sharif was reportedly the district president of Bengaluru PFI..."

"Prashant Bhushan has also declared that CAA and the NRC was the “first concrete step” to establish a Hindu Rashtra in India. An article [396] he co-authored in January said, “Though agitation in the country has been sparked off by the passing of the communal and discriminatory CAA, a far more serious malaise lies behind the NRIC and the NPR. This exercise has however, finally lit the spark of a massive people’s movement against this inhuman and communal regime. The government is trying to suppress the protests by brutal police action in BJP ruled states.”.. During this period, he also had a run-in with the Judiciary. At a press conference in January [397] , he called Uttar Pradesh Police the “largest organised gang of communal criminals in the country.” At the same press conference, he said, “Ironically, the High Court and Supreme Court kept mum over the anarchy in the state. Such a situation was not even seen during the Emergency period.""

"Sharjeel Imam’s plan for the future becomes evident during this part of the speech which is towards the end of it. He lays out an elaborate plan to make the state bow down to the Muslim community. He makes it clear that it is not a fight between the Congress party or the BJP but one between the Muslim community and the Indian State... He concludes his speech by saying that ‘We have the strength to bring Hindustan to a halt’."