What’s the real truth of Ayodhya?

The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi row may be partially resolved or more likely temporarily settled, however the finer details of the lit... well, litigation have well remained a secret. And like most secrets the details are easily available on various websites. I have, dear reader, painstakingly gone through a cross-section of these

websites and after my normal thorough investigation of approximately three minutes, I can put forth the arguments and counter arguments of both, the Wafq Board as well as the Hindu Mahasabha. Before I produce these details let me assure you that I, Cyrus Broacha, son of Farrokh Sorab Broacha, am neither a member of the Waqf Board nor the Hindu Mahasabha. In fact, until this morning I didn’t even know how to spell Wafq. In fact, I still don’t. I use a simple technique where I alternate between Wafq and then Waqf. As far as the Hindu Mahasabha is concerned, I am still trying to figure out if it is one word, i.e. the Hindumahasabha, or two words, i.e. Hindu Mahasabha, or three words, i.e. Hindu Maha Sabha. Here I use a simple enough technique, i.e. I alternate between — Hindumahasabha one word, Hindu Mahasabha, two words, and Hindu Maha Sabha, three words.
The main counsel for the Wafq board brought the matter to a foot saying that he was there first. This caused a lot of confusion and a time loss of one hour, whilst the court cleared up that he was (actually) talking about first in court and not first at the disputed site in Ayodhya.
The Hindumahasabha, one word, then opened their account saying they had proof that back in 1526-27, Babur’s general Mir something or the other broke down a temple to build a masjid. Apparently they had photographs of this event actually taking place, albeit black and white ones. They claimed that the young photographer who was present on that day in 1526 could be brought to the court to submit unbiased proof and substantiate their claims. The young photographer’s name was Lal Krishna Advani. Today that young photographer was less interested in photographing earth-shattering events, and felt far more comfortable covering present fashion trends. Although with a little influence, and a considerable fee, he could be coaxed into covering birthday parties, weddings, inaugurations and felicitations.
The Waqf counsel broke into a laugh on hearing this. Three laughs to be precise. Each of the three laughs took him 47 seconds to complete. To this the Hindu Mahasabha (two words) asked him why he was laughing. The man from the Waqf Board said that his laughter was caused by the Hindu Maha Sabha’s (three words) counsel’s creativity. He added, everybody knew who the real owner of the land was, and that the real owner had leased out the land to Babur, who finding it devoid of pretty boys, pretty girls and melons, wanted nothing to do with it and gave it to Mir something or the other. The real owner still possessed the document substantiating this transaction between the real owner’s second cousin’s step-sister and Mir something or the other. Moreover, this was a familiar modus operandi of the real owner, to put his distant relative’s friends as the executers of the contract. So that, in fact, is exactly the case with the Babri Masjid controversy. Things couldn’t be traced back to the real owner.
At this the Hindumahasabha’s (one word) counsel and his team broke into the Lambada and then, encouraged by the crowd’s response, proceeded to perform the traditional Lezim dance, all the while demanding to know the real owner’s name.
The Waqf Board vakil hit back, as only he could, with the Tango, performed for the first time without either a companion or any accompanying music, and then delivered the coup the grace simultaneously by dropping the real owner’s name. With bated breath he said the words, Shri Sharad Pawar.
At this the Hindu Mahasabha (two words) went a little ballistic and started teasing the opposition. They did this by asking them to answer one question: “If you know so much, tell us then is the Hindu Maha Sabha one word?” Refusing to answer, the Wafq Board’s counsel returned fire with fire.
“If you know so much, spell Waqf?”
Ladies and gentlemen, let’s leave it here. Two compelling arguments, two champions on either side, in the shape (I use the word loosely) of L.K. Advani or Sharad Pawar. And where these two are involved, one truth stands out loud and clear, i.e. if these two are involved we’ll never really know the truth!