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.