HVK Archives: Communal vote-bank; and a response
Communal vote-bank; and a response - Organiser (Readers Forum)
Syed Shahabuddin
()
8 September 1996
Title : Communal vote-bank
Author : Syed Shahabuddin
Publication : Organiser (Readers Forum)
Date : September 8, 1996
Please refer to Shri R.C Batura's article "Gowda's
Operation Vote-Bank" in Organiser, 14-7-96. The article
states that Muslim leaders and organisations are opposed
to the transfer to the consolidated case relating to
title to the Babri Masjid site, now being heard by the
Special Bench of Allahabad High Court, to the Supreme
Court because of "historical and archaeological evidence
in favour of the VHP-BJP stand that a temple existed at
the site before the Babri Masjid was constructed". This
is a misleading statement in various ways.
The fact is that the question whether a Ram temple
existed in 1528 on the site is one of the issues
identified by the Special Bench of the Allahabad High
Court for adjudication.
Secondly, the issue is not whether a temple stood on the
site before the Babri Masjid was built but that it stood
in 1528 and was demolished in order to construct the
Babri Masjid in its place.
Thirdly the pertinent question is that the temple which
stood in 1528 was not just another temple but this
temple, dedicated to Rain, marked the exact site of his
birth.
Our stand is that no temple, ordinary or commemoratively
dedicated to Ram. stood on the site in 1528, when the
Babri Masjid was constructed.
So far no credible, historical or archaeological evidence
has been adduced by the VHP-BJP in support of their
stand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response
R.C. Batura replies :
Syed Shahabuddin is both right and
wrong in objecting to the reference to the archaeological
and historical evidence being in favour of Hindus in the
story "Gowda's Operation Vote-Bank". He is right in
arguing that the matter is yet to be decided by the
court. But he is wrong in disputing that archaeological
and historical evidence is against the Muslim claim. It
is because of the adamant attitude of the Muslim
leadership that the matter has remained unresolved for
over 450 years and has been a subject of litigation for
over a century.
There was archaeological evidence in support of the site
being a Ram temple even before the demolition of the
Babri structure on December 6, 1992. The discovery (from
the debris of the structure on that date) of the original
Samskrit inscription belonging to the reign of Govind
Chandra of the Gahdaval dynasty (which ruled Ayodhya-
Varanasi area during 1114-1154) describing the
construction of the magnificent stone temple at Ayodhya
in Saket Mandal and dedicated to Vishnu Hari who humbled
the pride of King Bali and destroyed the ten-faced
Ravana, clinches the Hindu claim of a commemorative
temple having been constructed at the site. If, however,
even this is not sufficient to convince the Syed, who on
earth can convince him? The discovery of the inscription
leaves no doubt that the 14 black pillars placed by the
art historians as belonging to 11-12th century were part
of the Rama temple.
The aforesaid inscription and other evidence discovered
from the site on December 6, 1992, is now lying up in
official custody in Ayodhya. But, the Muslim leadership
is loath to see the truth and it is futile to try to
convince a person who is aware of the truth but refuses
to accept it as such.
Incidentally, the story was not a discussion on Ayodhya.
It was on the communal vote-bank the Syed's former party
colleague was trying to hook up using the Ayodhya issue.
Back
Top
|