User:Shreevatsa/Sandbox/ElstBooks

Ayodhya, the Finale - Science versus Secularism the Excavations Debate is a book by self-described 'Hindu revivalist' Koenraad Elst published in 2003 by Voice of India.

This book is Elst's latest book on the Ayodhya debate, and is an intervention in favour of the controversial report by the Archaeological Survey of India on the history of Ram Janmabhoomi. He writes that he is surprised that there is a controversy at all, when the matter "could be decided by Scientists". The book compares the Ayodhya debate to Galileo, whose scientific findings were also opposed by many people. He writes that "when dogmatic ideologues are giving scientists the kind of treatment which the experts of the Archaeological Survey of Indian have been receiving from the “eminent historians”, and assorted Babri Masjid lobbyists, it is time to stand up and be counted. I for one want to be counted among those who defend the freedom of research and the scientific method..."

Other books about the debate by Elst include Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society and Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple.

Reception of his books on Ayodhya
Elst has written several books on the Ayodhya debate. His first was Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid, a Case Study in Hindu-Muslim conflict, while the book of the present article was his third.

This book contains papers published in journals or presented in academic conferences.

Elst's book Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid, a Case Study in Hindu-Muslim conflict (1990) was the first book published by a non-Indian on the Ayodhya debate. His opinion is that "until 1989, there was a complete consensus in all sources (Hindu, Muslim and European) which spoke out on the matter, viz. that the Babri Masjid had been built in forcible replacement of a Hindu temple." He claimed that politically motivated academics have, through their grip on the media, manufactured doubts concerning this coherent and well-attested tradition. Elst alleges that the anti-Temple group in the Ayodhya conflict have committed serious breaches of academic deontology and says that the "overruling of historical evidence with a high-handed use of academic and media power" in the Ayodhya controversy was the immediate reason to involve himself in the debate.

K. Elst sent Goel a manuscript of his first book Ram Janmabhoomi Vs. Babri Masjid: A Case Study in Hindu Muslim Conflict. Goel was impressed with Elst's script: "I could not stop after I started reading it. I took it to Ram Swarup the same evening. He read it during the night and rang me up next morning. Koenraad Elst's book, he said, should be published immediately." In August 1990, L. K. Advani released Koenraad Elst's book about the Ayodhya conflict at a public function presided over by Girilal Jain.

Synopsis
In this book, Koenraad Elst argues that the theory of an Aryan invasion of India has not been proven by prevalent standards and that all relevant facts can just as well be explained with alternative models. In the last chapter of the book, Elst writes, "One thing which keeps on astonishing me in the present debate is the complete lack of doubt in both camps. Personally, I don’t think that either theory, of Aryan invasion and of Aryan indigenousness, can claim to have been “proven” by prevalent standards of proof; even though one of the contenders is getting closer. Indeed, while I have enjoyed pointing out the flaws in the AIT statements of the politicized Indian academic establishment and its American amplifiers, I cannot rule out the possibility that the theory which they are defending may still have its merits."

Unlike many proponents of the Out-of-India theory, Elst maintains the validity of the comparative-linguistics approach, which sets him apart from other proponents like Georg Feuerstein in his book In Search of the Cradle of Civilization.

The book and his views on the Aryan invasion debate were discussed by Harvard professor Michael Witzel and other professores, including George Cardona, Edwin Bryant, Hans Hock.

Witzel also argued: "Elst disingeneously insists on calling any migration or even a “trickling in” an “invasion.” However, immigration/trickling in and acculturation obviously are entirely different from a (military) invasion, or from overpowering and/or eradicating the local population."

The Ayodhya debate
Elst believes that "in keeping with the internationally accepted standards of methodology and inference in scientific history-writing, we may conclude ... that the Babri Masjid was built in replacement of a Hindu temple where Ram worship used to take place. In fact, this conclusion is merely a restatement of what was a matter of consensus until a few years ago."

But Elst does not believe in a forcible take-over of ancient temples. According to him, the Hindus should ask for a gesture of good will:


 * The Hindu leaders should say to the Muslim leaders : Look, we want these places back. For many centuries they have been our sacred places, and we have suffered the mosques built there only under duress. We do not believe in the forcible take-over of places of worship, we are not Babars and Aurangzebs. But we want from you a gesture of goodwill, a sign that you turn this infamous persecution page of history. We will not take any kind of revenge if you do not feel ready for this gesture, but we will expressly wait until you are ready.

In one chapter, the book describes the press reporting on the debate. Elst alleges that the media was controlled by the anti-Temple side, and that "the foreign press has not added any extra facts or perspective to the reporting on Ayodhya. It has mostly copied the bias of the Indian press."

Reception of his books on Ayodhya
Elst has written several books on the Ayodhya debate. His first was Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid, a Case Study in Hindu-Muslim conflict, while the book of the present article was his second.

Elst's book Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid, a Case Study in Hindu-Muslim conflict (1990) was the first book published by a non-Indian on the Ayodhya debate. His opinion is that "until 1989, there was a complete consensus in all sources (Hindu, Muslim and European) which spoke out on the matter, viz. that the Babri Masjid had been built in forcible replacement of a Hindu temple." He claimed that politically motivated academics have, through their grip on the media, manufactured doubts concerning this coherent and well-attested tradition. Elst alleges that the anti-Temple group in the Ayodhya conflict have committed serious breaches of academic deontology and says that the "overruling of historical evidence with a high-handed use of academic and media power" in the Ayodhya controversy was the immediate reason to involve himself in the debate.

K. Elst sent Goel a manuscript of his first book Ram Janmabhoomi Vs. Babri Masjid: A Case Study in Hindu Muslim Conflict. Goel was impressed with Elst's script: "I could not stop after I started reading it. I took it to Ram Swarup the same evening. He read it during the night and rang me up next morning. Koenraad Elst's book, he said, should be published immediately." In August 1990, L. K. Advani released Koenraad Elst's book about the Ayodhya conflict at a public function presided over by Girilal Jain.

The book was reviewed by professor Ramesh Rao.

Indologist Gerald James Larson called the book a good treatment of the Neo Hindu interpretation of the evidence.

Negationism in general
In the first part of the book, Elst also discusses Negationism and Holocaust denial in Europe and Russia. He writes that Holocaust deniers in Europe often keep all evidence out of view or deny the existence of such evidence. Elst also remarks that Negationism of the Holocaust is not accepted in the West, and negationists are often prosecuted in some countries.

Koenraad Elst compares the negationists in India with the negationists in Europe: "'The number of victims of this persecution surpasses that of the Nazi crimes. ... The Islamic reports on the massacres of Hindus, destruction of Hindu temples, the abduction of Hindu women and forced conversions, invariably express great glee and pride. ... In my study of the Ayodhya controversy, I noticed that the frequent attempts to conceal or deny inconvenient evidence were an integral part of a larger effort to rewrite India's history and to whitewash Islam. It struck me that this effort to deny the unpleasant facts of Islam's destructive role in Indian history is similar to the attempts by some European writers to deny the Nazi holocaust. European negationists applaud Hitler's reign and deny its horrors. Indian negationists eulogize Islamic rule and deny its millionfold murders and the catastrophe it wrought in Indian cultural, political and religious life.'"

Negationism in India
Elst claims that historians of the Aligarh school (e.g. Irfan Habib) or Indian Marxists (e.g. Romila Thapar) have resorted to history-rewriting: "Therefore, in 1982 the National Council of Educational Research and Training issued a directive for the rewriting of schoolbooks. Among other things, it stipulated that: "Characterization of the medieval period as a time of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is forbidden." Under Marxist pressure, negationism has become India's official policy."

Elst also writes about some Western authors like T.G. Percival Spear, co-author (with Romila Thapar)

Elst also writes about the banning of books. The book Understanding Islam through Hadis by Ram Swarup was banned in India, and the book The Calcutta Quran Petition by Sita Ram Goel was challenged on these grounds.

Elst dedicated the book to Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, for his success as a Copt from the mostly-Muslim Egypt.

Criticism
The book was criticized by Amber Habib, who said: "To summarise, it is clear that Elst's case against Prof. Habib rests mainly on a wholesale fabrication of his views and arguments - these are distorted till they become less feasible, and then attacked using rather questionable "facts"." Elst wrote a response to this critique in the tenth chapter of his book Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple.

The famous author Bat Ye'or writes in her book "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide": The contemporary historical negationism in India, with the collusion of Hindu politicians, is discussed in detail by Koenraad Elst in his book on this subject.  CJS Wallia (University of Berkeley) writes: Like Konraad Elst’s Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, Francois Gautier’s Rewriting Indian History contributes to the growing literature of dissent against the “standard” textbooks of India’s history.

The book was well received among some writers and journalists, Francois Gautier elaborated on it and called it a very interesting book in his 1996 book on Indian history. Gautier summarizes Elsts arguments in a chapter in said book. He points out that Elst argues in the book that "It is not the Muslims who are guilty but Islam".