Like Guru, I don’t quite understand what Ramachandra Guha is on about when he writes, in the NYT, of how he “came to understand (though not support) why so many Indians had favored building a Ram temple in Ayodhya.” He writes:
Once a center of Islamic civilization, later the center of a white man’s Raj, after 1947 Delhi had become a city of the Hindu and Sikh victims of partition. These Punjabi migrants had lost homes and businesses in that bloody summer of 1947. Starting from scratch, they had come to dominate Delhi’s commerce and social life. Yet they remained insecure; who knew when catastrophe might come again? And so they hoarded diamonds and maintained Swiss bank accounts.
They also cheated their tenants. In six years in Delhi, my wife and I had four landlords, all refugees from the Pakistani part of Punjab. All four hooked their appliances to our electricity meter, and all kept our deposits when we left.
Why does Guha generalise that all Punjabi migrants were a bunch of cheats? Why does he forget that the Ram temple project also received support from quarters that were unaffected by Partition? And finally, what does it mean to “understand (though not support)”?
The rest of the piece is also rather strange, especially some stuff about a dream…