First you focus on a question or a thesis: in this case, Singh's thesis is that Ram/Rama is based on a real character and not just a fictional character. Or so he claims. The reality is that more than half of this article is just a long diatribe of western treatment of Indian science, religion and mythology. However true these latter arguments may be, how is it relevant at all to Singh's thesis?
Ironically, Singh has adopted a rhetorical technique supported by the very anti-Ramu Sethu politicians he rejects. Instead of proving Ram's existence through direct evidence, Singh begins to discredit every writer who has anything potentially bad to say on Indian religion. This is called mud-slinging in politics. It is how politician regularly debate in Indian politics by highlighting his opponent's faults and not his own strengths. This article isn't even fit to be debated.
