Author: Unmesh
Publication: Hindu Unity
Date: November 12, 2002
URL: http://pub6.ezboard.com/fhinduunityhinduismhottopics.showMessage?topicID=11233.topic
Indians have always been notorious
for their poor sense of history. This is not to say they have a poor memory,
quite the contrary; the oldest known texts (the Vedas) have been carefully
preserved in India through remarkable oral traditions, as have some of
the longest works of man (the Mahabharata and the Ramayana); yet when it
comes to the day-to-day recording and reporting of events and happenings,
there is often no clear and organized system of written documentation.
This shortcoming was recognized very early by both the foreign invaders
of the country (Islam and the Colonial rulers) and exploited to the full,
especially by the British. What is surprising though is that even after
the 50 odd years of Independence, not much has changed, especially with
regard to the centralized education system. I got a taste of this quite
early on, in 8th grade history class, my teacher nonchalantly declared
that India was discovered in the 15th Century by Vasco De Gama, a Portugese
Jesuit. I clearly remember the utter absurdity I felt seeing this lady
from the south of India, part of an ancient heritage, say this without
the faintest hint of sarcasm or humor in her voice. Obviously, I challenged
her and asked her what she meant, more obviously still, she had never really
thought about it, but was just regurgitating material out of the course-book.
The course book was assigned by the central (the equivalent of Federal
in this country) government to teach Indian history across the country.
India became independent from British rule in 1947, this incident happened
in the mid 1980's.
I state this relatively harmless
distortion of history as an example of a much more widespread problem that
exists in India, where such distortions are routinely used to deliberately
brainwash a large segment of its population; resulting in a class unable
to identify and deal with a very real set of problems from the past - problems
that cannot be laid to rest unless there are discussions based on a full
disclosure of the past. Specifically, I speak of the Ram Janambhoomi/Babri
Masjid issue which has recently had some very unfortunate repercussions
in India. From these violent responses, it becomes immediately clear that
this is not an ordinary issue, but a powerful and symbolic one, deeply
intertwined in the historical psyche of the people. One of the reasons
that this rage often boils over is because even the easily verified historicity
of the Ayodhya site has been distorted, denied or deemed too sensitive
to be openly discussed. This of course raises important questions regarding
the redressing of historical wounds. How is to be done? How far back in
time does one go? And so on.
These questions are important and
can be addressed when the time comes. But even to arrive at these questions
both sides have to be aware of the history of the site, and the larger
history of the Islamic invasion of India, both have to acknowledge that
the Islamic invasion of India was one of the bloodiest in human history
and also one of the most widespread and sustained deliberate destruction
of a peoples architecture. This is not the history that is taught in history
books, not even allowed to be openly discussed by the media (both international
and domestic), but it is history as a vast majority of Indians know, through
their oral traditions and the architectural evidence around them. Ironically,
this deception and suppression of historical facts only adds fuel to the
controversy, breeding mistrust, confusion and communalism; exactly what
the policy is aimed at preventing. As writer and thinker Sita Ram Goel
has pointed out, Astrategies based on self- deception lie defeated at the
very start@ (Goel, ii).
Reading about the recent events
in India I was struck by how ill informed the reporting on this subject
was, not only by the international agencies but even the Indian sources
were often quite misleading; both deliberately and out of ignorance. Again,
this is part of the problem, the disenfranchised classes created through
the leftover colonial system of education, are the English speaking Aintellectuals@
that the international media gets its reporting through. The have definite
communist leanings and are therefore anti-Hindu on principle. The masses
don't have such a well organized international voice that can defend them
from this relentless anti-propaganda. For this brief paper I wish to be
that voice and to present evidence that there really was a temple in Ayodhya
much before the Babri Mosque, that this temple was broken and some of its
parts used to build the Babri mosque or Mazjid, and that far from being
an isolated case, Babri Masjid was part of a deliberate policy of iconoclasm
and religious precaution shared by all the Islamic invaders and rulers.
The first source of evidence on
temple breaking is archeological. Following are the findings of the Archeological
Survey of India, published after excavations undertaken between 1975 and
1980 by B. B. Lal, former Director General of the ASI. The Babri Mosque
has 14 pillars of a black stone popularly known as >ksauti= which are part
of the structure, and support many crucial parts of the dome; therefore
they were most likely placed there during the original construction of
the mosque. These pillars depict mutilated gods and goddesses and use motifs
that are not only clearly Hindu (since Islam does not condone portrayal
of icons) but also allow their style to be identified; stylistically the
pillars have been dated to the 11th century. The black stone or kasauti,
prized since ancient times for temple building due to its excellent grain
and ability to be carved, is only found many hundred kilometers away while
the brick and chuna or limestone used for the rest of the mosque are of
local origin and are unadorned. In the words of the report:
The pillars are carved at the base
with a sacred water-pitcher,called purnaghata or kalash. It has overhanging
creepers with rich foliage, arranged in a highly stylised form. From this,
in one example, a devkanya is seen emerging and standing on a lotus flower.
In another example, at the place of the devkanya, there is a picture of
hamsa with elaborate tail. From this Kalash, sometimes a decorative lotus
rises up on one of the octagonal facets of a pillar a female figure, standing
in tribhanga mudra, is still visible, although it is found heavily mutilated
by the iconoclasts (Lal)
Apart from these pillars, several
>parts= that would have belonged to a Vaishnav or Vishnu temple (Rama is
an avataar of Vishnu) like doorjambs of a similar stone and style, carved
heads etc. were also found by the team in and around the site. The other
damning piece of archeological evidence was found when a series of excavation
trenches were dug around the site and the layers of habitation in the ancient
mound studied. This produced evidence that the site has been continuously
inhabited since at least the 7th century B.C. and that around the 11th
century layer, a set of rectangular bases were laid out that seemed to
be constructed to accept pillars. The directional alignment of these bases
is the same as the pillars in the Babri mosque (Lal). The destruction of
the 'mosque' in 1992 brought to light many more pieces of Hindu sculpture
and architectural elements that are found in temples, even some inscriptions
were found. The stone inscriptions are in 11-12th century Sanskrit and
speak of the act of commissioning the temple and describe how grand a temple
it was. (Lal)
Apart from this evidence specific
to Ayodhya, I have attached some pictures of sites I have personally visited
and documented which are clearly the accumulation of temple pillars and
carved stones into the form of a mosque or other Islamic architecture.
These structures are quite widespread in Rajasthan and other parts of northern
India - I have visited more than a dozen such sites. The usual practice
in this case was to reuse as much as possible of the existing temple or
temples not only to expedite the mosque construction but also to symbolically
reinforce the truth of the new religion - by etching its >victory= over
the older religion by using the same physical material and reshaping it.
In the words of Amir Khusro:
The sultan dispatched Ulugh Khan
to M'abar and Gujrat for the destruction of the idol- temple of Somnat.
He destroyed all the idols and temples of Somnath. and in that stronghold
of idolatory the summons to namaz was pronounced so lound, that they heard
it in Egypt and Iran (Goel, 65)
The mode of construction used by
Indian temple architecture actually made this process of conversion simpler
because the temples were made of large stone pieces, in a kit-of-parts
like manner; simple post and beam construction relying on finely carved
joints instead of mortar for strength. For the iconoclasts then, it was
simply a matter of taking these >parts= and reconfiguring them for the
needs of a mosque. These needs were quite different in that a mosque had
to cover large public spaces -for the gathering of prayer - quite unlike
a temple which is a more private experience. The stone pillars of the temple,
or very often temples, were adapted for mosque purposes by re-carving the
gods and goddesses, which were not allowed in a mosque, into geometrical
figures and patterns. Often, the job was done in such haste that clear
remains of Hindu Gods and Goddesses still remain. Sometimes they would
just break the noses of the figures because Hindus often do not like to
worship a broken idol.
Figure1 and 2 are photographs I
took of the Adhai din ka Jhopra or the two-and-a-half- day-cottage, so
called because the three temples on the site were converted into a mosque
over two and a half days. Legend has it that after the second battle of
Tarain (1192 AD) in which Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori defeated and killed
Prithviraj Chauhan, the victor passed through Ajmer. He was so awed by
the three temples that he wanted them destroyed and replaced instantly.
He asked Qutubuddin Aibak, his slave general, to have the needful done
in 60 hours' time so that he could offer prayers in the new masjid on his
way back! Figures 3 and 4 are of the qutab minar complex in Delhi, apart
form the towering minar or tower, the 13th century complex has a jami masjid
built from the ruins of 27 Hindu temples. The pillars seen here and in
figures 1 and 2 can be compared to these from Hindu temples of a similar
vintage in Figures 5 and 6; the lineage is quite easily seen.
The second source of evidence for
Ram Janmasthan is documentary. Safiha i Chahal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, written
by the daughter of Bahadur Shah Alamgir during the late 17th century/early
18th century and translated from Persian by Mirza Jan in his book Hadiqa
i Shahda:
"... the mosques built on the basis
of the king's orders (ba farman i Badshahi) have not been exempted from
the offering of the namaz and the reading of the Khutba [therein]. The
places of worship of the Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh,
etc., in which the Hindus (kufar) have great faith the place of the birthplace
of Kanhaiya, the place of Rasoi Sita, the place of Hanuman, who, according
to the Hindus, was seated by Ram Chandra over there after the conquest
of Lanka were all demolished for the strength of Islam, and at all these
places mosques have been constructed. These mosques have not been exempted
from juma and jamiat (Friday prayers). Rather it is obligatory that no
idol worship should be performed over there and the sound of the conch
shell should not reach the ear of the Muslims ..." (VHP)
Another interesting document is
a petition filed by Muhammad Asghar in 1858 with the British:
Muhammad Asghar, caretaker of the
Babri Masjid, filed a representation dated 30.11.1858 to the British Government.
In this complaint against the Bairagis of Janmasthan, he alleged that the
Hindus had occupied the mosque, constructed an earthen mound therein, hoisted
a flag on a high pole, installed a deity, started puja, and wrote the name
of Rama all over the walls and so on. (Deoki)
The caretaker also observes that
in the in the courtyard within the walled boundaries of the mosque, there
had been Janmasthan (place of birth) lying desolate, where the Hindus had
been worshiping for hundreds of years. This confirms the fact that even
though the site of Janmasthan had been covered by the Babri Masjid, the
Hindus had been worshiping in the open space for hundreds of years, i.e.
even during the Moghul and the Nawabi periods, and that they had maintained
their claim on the entire Janmasthan area. These are just some of the Muslim
writers and historians that mention Ayodhya as the birthplace of Rama and
the building of a mosque on the temple site, there are many others, for
a complete list refer to 'Hindu Temples: What happened to them' volumes
I and II.
As in the case of the archeological
evidence there is considerable Islamic writing available as well, singing
great praises of idol breaking and taking great pride in the >sons of Islam=
that did this. To quote just a few:
Fazal bin al-Mulawwih sang:
Had you seen Muhammad and his troops,
The day the idols were smashed
when he entered,
You would have seen God's light
become manifest,
In darkness covering the face of
idolatry. (VHP)
Maulana Minhãj us Sirãj,
the thirteenth century historian, sums up the theology of Islam regarding
idols and temples when he comes to Mahmud of Ghazni in his Tabqãt
I Nãsiri. AWhen Sultan Mahmud ascended the throne of sovereignty
his illustrious deeds became manifest unto all mankind within the pale
of Islam when he converted so many thousands of idol temples into Masjids
and captured many of the cities of Hindustan ... He led an army to Naharwala
of Gujarat, brought away Manat, the idol from Somnath, and had broken into
four parts, one of which was cast before the center of the great Masjid
at Ghaznin, the second before the gateway of the Sultan's palace, and the
third and fourth sent to Makkah and Madinah respectively.@ (VHP)
Again there are many such writings
available and I have quoted only a few.
The evidence is quite strong, in
fact it would take the dulled reason of a fanatical mind to try and deny
it. One of the most common rejections of this evidence, even by some reputable
historians is that this kind of plunder was part of the taking over of
territory and was politically and economically motivated; therefore, not
done on religious grounds, but instead, to show the dominance of the new
ruler over the previous one by replacing the symbolic architecture of one
by the other. But this argument does not hold water, because it would mean
that if the fight was between two Islamic states the winner would replace
the mosque of the loser with a new one. There are no accounts of this happening,
in fact, the common practice in this case was that the winner would go
and pay his respects at the leading mosques of the losing state (Elst).
There was clearly a differential treatment for >kafirs= than for other
dar-ul-islam or land of Islam. There is also the more recent example, the
destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, which were the largest
statues of their kind. The spirit that this was done in, is not an aberration
from true Islam but has rather been the true spirit of Islam for much of
the movements life, evidenced by the fact that the Arabic word for idols
is buht a bastardization of Budh or Buddha; the land of Afghanistan and
all the lands between Afghanistan and India were in fact full of Buddhist
monasteries, Buddhist and Hindu temples and universities and Zoroastrian
fire temples, yet today few of these remain, the idols or >buht=s= removed
through Islamic cleansing.
In fact, there are still regular
temple and church destructions in the Muslim states of Bangladesh and Pakistan,
where minority Hindu and Christian populations precariously survive. In
recent years this has become particularly epidemic in Bangladesh, where
the increasingly militant nature of Islam has resulted in the killing and
abuse of many minorities. This is really ironic because, the Muslim voice
and the so called >secular= voice in India (actually one of the last stands
of the communists who have formed a dubious alliance with the Muslims in
being strongly anti-Hindu) is commonly shouting >foul= when things are
going against the Muslims in India, saying the rights of the minorities
are being abused. Yet, in Islamic states minorities either flee or are
abused and essentially have no rights at all and no voice which can even
speak of the wrongs that are done to them. This can be clearly seen through
the fact that at the time of partition the Hindu population of Pakistan
was about 10 percent of the total, it now stands at less than 1.5 percent;
on the other hand, in India the percentage of Muslims since independence
has actually increased from 11 percent of the total to 14 percent - Bangladesh
presents a similar story of Hindu and Christian population decline.
The other most common argument presented
against the Rama Janambhumi movement is this; history is full of instances
of one group of people being very violent to another, therefore earlier
deeds of a people cannot be judged by >modern= standards since we have
started treating each other much better now. This is a naive misconception.
The so called >modern= standards are but a myth, the last hundred years,
and even the last few decades are as filled with as violent a humanity
as any other (if not much more so). Furthermore, Indians have been judging
Islam from standards of how they themselves have historically treated others.
There has been a long tradition of tolerance in India and all the religions
based in India have perpetuated thorough non-violent means. Many parallel
traditions and ways of life have been allowed to co-exist here, in a kind
of dynamic state, where they have shaped each other and created a much
larger and richer complexity. The Hindu empires have long provided state
money for not only the construction of Hindu temples but also Buddhist
monasteries and stupas or Jain temples and monasteries, they have accepted
communities fleeing from persecution elsewhere, like the Persian community
or Parsi=s of India or the few thousand Jews who found sanctuary here for
many centuries; many of whom have recently returned to Israel. Due to its
central belief that there are many, equally valid paths to Truth or perhaps
many Truths as well, Hinduism is inherently secular, and India has been
>secular= for much of its history. The religions that have coexisted with
Hinduism for many centuries like the Jains and Buddhists did not loose
their identity but gained more depth and complexity through a dynamic association
with each other. Till the arrival of Islam, all three had quite a strong
following in India. So, there is a real possibility that if there is a
true dialogue within India between the Muslims and Hindus, they could co-exist.
Like all the sub-groups that exist in India, the Muslims would be absorbed
into a larger whole; while still having their own identity. But at present,
there is too much outside influence, the oil-rich middle-east has been
pumping money into Indian Madarsas for many years now, training a generation
full of hate, and convincing a people to fight their own, calling it a
>freedom= struggle. They still preach the 'one nation of Islam' idea, an
idea that calls for the believer to always place the brotherhood of religion
above patriotism for the nation; under such a belief there can be no peace
for Muslims in a non-Islamic country, till they gain political control
and establish Islamic power.
In my mind, the greatest tragedy
of the past five hundred years has been the irreparable loss of cultural
diversity that has resulted because of aggressive, 'one and only book one
and only God' religions forcing their way into nations and alienating people
from their own land. One of the few places where this ancient diversity
still survives is in India, and it has a good possibility of continuing
to survive here precisely because of the nature of Hinduism. But for this
to happen, Hindus have to come out of their dormant state and become more
self-aware and assertive; constantly watchful of forces that are trying
to establish 'one' truth. The first signs of this 'revival' are quite visible
and the Ayodhya movement is part of it, though I personally think that
some of the energy being spent in Ayodhya might be much better served by
other larger issues - starting with a look at the misleading textbooks
still being used to teach in Indian schools and at the system of education
itself, but the power of architecture as a symbol is very strong and since
this revival has come from the masses and not the so called intelligencia,
the first demands of Hindu revivalism has been the return of the three
largest temples that were destroyed; temples that were once the very center
of the life and learning around them, and which since ancient times have
been revered and mentioned repeatedly in the oral and written traditions.
I don=t think this is a particularly
unreasonable demand. As a recent precedent, the Germans have apologized
for what Nazi Germany did to many other peoples especially the Jews; even
though the generation apologizing was not directly involved in the persecution
at all, it was their ancestors. Even the mighty Catholic Church has recently
said some apologetic words for nearly wiping out the native cultures of
the entire continent of South America (though it continues to send missionaries
there!), so why should the Hindus not demand the same of the Muslims? Asking
for the return of a very important temple over which a mosque was built,
one that cannot serve as a place for Namaz or prayer because of the presence
of idols or statues in its premises; one that has, in fact, not functioned
as a mosque for many decades and has in this time actually been functioning
instead as a temple (because Hindus would continue to come here to worship
Rama) is quite an understandable demand (Shourie). The site also has especial
significance for the Hindus, whereas for the Muslims the mosque is not
standing on particularly holy ground. The fact that the Muslims, at least
the ones in power, refuse to return the site, even as a gesture of goodwill,
(when something is stolen the best way to mend the situation is to return
the stolen goods) just goes to show that the spirit of Islam that caused
the destruction is not quite gone and come to terms with its own history
- through a process of self-reflection, introspection and growth. I say
this in a non-communal way, I think that this misuse of history is as damaging
for the thinking Muslims in India (and elsewhere). This is exactly why
the issue is so important and why the Indians who have been under constant
pressure to give up the struggle should not do so; that would not be in
anyone's ultimate good.
Bibliography
Goel, Sita Ram. Hindu Temples: What
happened to them - Part II
Voice of India, New Delhi, May
1991
Shourie, Arun. Ayodhya: The Muslim
argument examined
Manthan, October-December 1992.
Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The
evidence for the Ram Janambhumi mandir
Presented to Government of India,
New Delhi, December 23rd 1990.
Nandan, Deoki. Shri Ram Janma Bhumi:
A historical and legal perspective
www.hvk.org
B.B. Lal. Facts of History cannot
be altered
The Hindu, New Delhi, July 1st
1998.
Elst, Koenraad. Ayodhya & After
Voice of India, New Delhi, 1993.