Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Temple destruction (Letter)

Temple destruction (Letter)

Author: Kallol Bhattacherjee
Publication: Frontline
Date: April 13, 2001

The two-part article by Richard M. Eaton (December 22, 2000 and January 5, 2001) gave the impression that temple desecrations in medieval India were not directed to convert the Indian population to Islam but were chosen acts whereby the triumphant Muslim rulers tried to engrave their saga of victory by building a house to their god after demolishing the one belonging to the vanquished Hindu ruler. These modificatory efforts were aimed at expressing gratitude to god for granting them victory in the war a gainst the infidels. The author further says that Hindu places of worship had very little spiritual legitimacy in the eyes of the population and were largely temporal in essence and that therefore their destruction should not be taken as an example to be emulated in these times.

Contrary to this, it can be suggested that places of worship or even religion as such had rarely been out of the ambit of the state. And this holds true for nearly all the religions, including the Semitic ones - Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Religion is one among the vital instruments of hegemony and control which comes at little expense and pays great dividend to the dilatory goals of the state. This is particularly relevant for disputed places of worship around the world, be it King Solomon's temp le in Jerusalem or the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

Nearly all grand places of worship bore the outlines of the dominant ideology of the day, which drew a great number of followers, both to the King and his concept of God. It was the same stale game of gaining legitimacy through the backdoor and with litt le help from the Almighty.

Though historically accurate, the analysis provided a shaky ground for saving the disputed Muslim places of worship from right-wing Hindu fundamentalists. The author failed to give a solid critique of religious fundamentalism and nearly re-stated the ba sis, which is often referred to justify the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992. Eaton's argument is a twin-edged sword that can be used both by the proponents and opponents of religious fundamentalism.

In view of the Taliban's destruction of the invaluable artifacts of Afghanistan's Buddhist past, itself an effort to legitimise its rule among Islamic fundamentalists worldwide, what is more necessary is to condemn all acts of religious intolerance, pa st or present, in no uncertain terms and pledge against a recurrence of such unwanted acts of violence. Our society can ill-afford such an extravagant display of religious chauvinism, given its inflammable nature and vast numbers, which ensures in times of conflict and unrest great loss of human life and property.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements