The campaign around the Ram Temple, i.e. demolition of the Babri mosque, paid rich electoral dividends to the BJP and also to its parent RSS. Kashi and Mathura are in the line. A new front has now been opened with Somnath Swabhiman Parv (Somnath Self Pride Festival).

Speaking on the occasion in full religious regalia, our non-biological Prime Minister stated two things, both direct and subtle. One that, as the Somnath Temple stood as the symbol of the glory of India, the Muslim kings attacked it repeatedly, but it kept coming back in its greater glory. Mahmud of Ghazni demolished it in 1026 and plundered it 17 times. The second point he made was directed against the Congress party, particularly Jawaharlal Nehru, the present PM's go-to pet hate persona, for opposing its rebuilding.

It is doubtful that any place of worship can serve as a symbol of any nation. The most essential part of religion, as the father of the nation, Gandhi, taught us, is its moral values. As for Mahmud of Ghazni, he did plunder it. His Court historians highlighted that he did it for religious purposes, as idol worship is not permitted in Islam. Persian sources Al-Utabi and Al-Baruni call Somath a treasure house.

Mahmud might have many motives behind this raid on Somnath. The primary was wealth; it was among the richest temples of India. As per Romila Thapar (History of Early India, Penguin), it had a wealth equivalent to 20,000 golden dinars (coins). No definitive sources indicate that he plundered it 17 times; this is a popular myth. The wealth he plundered was loaded on many elephants and taken to Ghazni.

Mahmud's army included many Hindu Generals, such as Tilak, Sondhi, Harzan, and Hind, according to Tarikhe Bayaki. Mahmud's successor, Mas'ud, sent his army under the leadership of Tilak, one of the generals of his army, to central Asia to plunder wealth from a mosque.

Ghazni appointed one of the local Hindu kings as his governor after leaving Somnath. He also issued coins bearing Sanskrit inscriptions. Moreover, King Anandpal of Thaneshwar helped him by sending elephants, soldiers, and other resources.

The destruction of temples in ancient and medieval India was not primarily a religious phenomenon. Richard Eaton, in his research on temple destructions in pre–Mughal India, tells us that in a fight between two Hindu kings, the victorious Hindu King would demolish the "kuldevata" (clan god) idol of the defeated king and install his own "kuldevata" there.

In the fight between Khilji and Abdul Fath Dawood of Multan, a masjid was destroyed. Associating religion with kings began with the British, who introduced communal historiography in India to pursue the policy of 'divide and rule,' starting with James Mill's book on the History of India, to Elliot and Dawson's multivolume, "History of India as told by her Historians." Religion was made the central marker of a king's rule.

Mr Modi's politics is opening a new divisive front and trying to tie in Nehru into the narrative as well. He is implying that Nehru opposed the rebuilding of Somnath. That's a lie. The matter came up while Gandhi was alive, and he categorically stated that state funds should not be used to build the temple. This is what the Supreme Court opined a few years ago when the Ram Temple was being planned. Gandhi, Nehru and Patel were unanimous on this. During the prayer meeting on November 28, 1947, he stated that the Junagadh Government cannot provide any state funds for the construction of the temple.

Gandhi asked Sardar Patel whether any funds were being provided for the construction of the Somnath temple. Patel replied that, as long as he was alive, such a thing would not happen, and that public donations for rebuilding would be collected. Accordingly, a trust was formed with Sardar Patel as Chairman and KM Munshi and Gadgil as trustees, which completed the temple's construction.

The false propaganda does not stop here. Then comes the temple's inauguration. Dr Rajendra Prasad was invited to inaugurate the temple and asked Nehru about it. In a letter to Nehru on March 2, 1951, Rajendra Prasad said he wanted to go to inaugurate the temple in his personal capacity. Nehru said that if he wanted to go, he would have no objection. Nehru said the same to C Rajagopalachari on March 11, 1951 (according to Piyush Babele).

Piyush Babele clarifies the whole truth based on evidence. He also takes a dig at the present PM, asking why the then President Ramnath Kovind and Draupadi Murmu were not invited to events related to the Ram Temple. Clearly, these two Presidents were not invited to the Ram Temple foundation and inauguration, as one was a Dalit and the other an Adivasi!

In a supplementary on history, Ajit Doval, who holds the high post of National Security Advisor, gave very retrograde advice at the inauguration of a youth festival in Delhi. According to him, since our temples were plundered, and our villages were ransacked, it is time now to take revenge for this!

The question is whether revenge is a part of the modern legal system. It is stuff from medieval times. For every crime, the guilty should be punished, and the innocent should be protected. So, for the alleged crimes he is referring to, who should be the object of revenge? For temple destruction by Muslim and Hindu kings, who should we take revenge on?

There are atrocities of history which he did not mention. Buddha Viharas were destroyed, Jain temples were smashed, and atrocities against Dalits and women were the norm. There was the tradition of Sati (burning women alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands). Who should take revenge for all this?

History is not a tool for dividing society or perpetuating the injustices of the past. It is there to show us what wrongs have happened in the past, which should not happen again. We need to march towards a just society where all live with dignity and respect. A society where all of us enjoy equal citizenship rights.