Author: Balbir K Punj
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: February 14, 2003
The VHP has given the Government
its February 22 deadline for handing over the contentious Ram Janmabhoomi
site. Otherwise, it threatened to launch a campaign to take over other
such sites where temples had been destroyed or converted into mosques.
If the VHP were a little more patient, it would realise that the Indian
establishment has woken from its slumber and seen the gross injustice meted
out to tens of millions of Ram bhakts in the country in the Ram Janmabhoomi
dispute. A key person in the form of HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi has
been appointed for the first time to coordinate between the Government
and different Hindutva bodies.
The same probity, unfortunately,
could not be said about the 'secularists', particularly the Congress, which
had toyed with the issue all along. Ms Sonia Gandhi, wavering indecisively
between 'soft Hindutva' and rapprochement with the minorities, has criticised
the Government's decision to approach the Supreme Court for the transfer
of the 67-acre undisputed land.
The floor area of the demolished
Babri structure was around 0.33 acres, which along with its precincts made
up a disputed complex of 2.77 acres. The Congress Government under PV Narasimha
Rao had acquired 67 acres of the surrounding land in 1993, primarily from
the VHP and the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas to spite the Hindus. The five-member
bench of the Supreme Court in 1994 pronounced that the Government must
return this excess land to its lawful owner barring the bare minimum. Since
the land concerning the title dispute was islanded amidst properties owned
by Hindus, this bare minimum was thought necessary to facilitate the winning
party to be able to enjoy the land if it were to win the title dispute.
This implied that, after keeping a suitable portion in Government acquisition,
the rest should be returned to the VHP and the Nyas.
Nothing was done to execute this
part of the Supreme Court judgement all these years. When the VHP reiterated
its demand for the return of the undisputed land by February 2002, the
'secular' temperature suddenly rose, forcing the Government to take unprecedented
security measures to stop even token religious activity on the undisputed
land. One wishes the establishment had shown even half the zeal to stop
infiltration across the border that has been taking place all these years.
On March 13, 2002, while hearing a PIL filed by the Delhi-based Mohd Aslam
alias Bhure, a smaller bench pronounced that no part of this 67 acres should
be returned till the title dispute was resolved.
The current case filed by Mahant
Ram Chandra Das is pending in the court since 1949. However, the history
of the legal attempts to recover Ram Janmabhoomi goes even further back
in time. In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das filed a petition in the Faizabad
District Court. Though this was turned down by the British judge, his observations
lent a 'legal validity' to two points: First, that the mosque was established
by the order of King Babur; and second, the land had a strong reverential
association with the Hindus.
Admittedly, a legal solution to
the Ayodhya dispute is only second best to one by mutual agreement. But
both seem to elude us constantly. The disputed piece of land is sacrosanct
to Hindus, and nitya-seva (daily worship) of Ram Lala is being held in
a makeshift temple as allowed by the apex court. This land never had any
special reverential associations for Muslims. The structure that stood
there, named after a Turko-Uzbek aggressor, was defunct as a mosque. Besides
being of little architectural significance, no prayers were offered there
after 1936. By contrast, worship of Lord Ram, was being offered inside
the now demolished structure since 1949.
In Hindu tradition, a temple is
considered the dwelling place of the Lord. But in Islam, a mosque-like
a Jewish synagogue-could be shifted, and there are several examples in
this regard in the Islamic world.
The historical perspective apart,
to what can we trace the psychological roots of the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute?
In concise terms, we can trace it to the disowning of a pre-Islamic past
by those converted to Islam. To most Indian Muslims, Ram, the national
icon, is of subsidiary importance, if at all, to Babur who was a Turk-Uzbek
aggressor. The Islamic view of Indian history is thus not one of the uninterrupted
continuation of tradition, but of a continuing fight with an un-Islamic
civilisation, which could not be fully dented unlike in countries ranging
from Iran to Morocco. The political fallout of this negative mindset resulted
in Partition in 1947.
Babasaheb Ambedkar in his book,
Thoughts on Pakistan (1940), and a literary stalwart like Sir VS Naipaul
in his Beyond Belief (1998), have critically diagnosed this malady. Ironically,
more of it came to light during the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas when Lady Nadira
asked Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani if Indian Muslims also needed to
carry the Ram-Sita image in their hearts like Hanuman. Ram being pre-Islamic
is a divided legacy: He is a national icon to Hindus, but merely a communal
figure to Muslims.
Instead of being bridged, such a
divisive mindset among Muslims has been stimulated by the 'secularists'
both in pre-and post-Independence India. When MA Jinnah used to be a textbook
secularist in the 1920s, the Gandhian Congress disregarded his warnings
on allying with the communal Khilafatists with astonishing zeal. In the
1940s, when Jinnah had turned separatist, the Congress tried to appease
him in every way. This 'secularist' mindset survived Partition. The creation
of the Muslim-majority Mallapuram district in Kerala, the Shah Bano case,
encouraging infiltration in Assam for votebank politics and withholding
full diplomatic ties with Israel were some of its most glaring examples.
'Secularists' frustrated the enlightened section of the Muslim community
by colluding with its regressive elements.
In view of the organisation's threat,
fears might resurface in the public mind that the VHP has little respect
for the law. Some might see it as a turnaround from the VHP pledge last
March to abide by the court's decision. However, the VHP has repeatedly
said that courtrooms are no proper platform to decide the matters of faith.
What moral right does the Congress have to talk of the law's sanctity?
Its annals are full of upturned court verdicts via constitutional amendments
with retrospective effect. Bank nationalisation, abolition of privy purses,
the Rai Bareilli elections, Shah Bano-these are some instances that expose
the Congress's doublespeak.
In the post-Independence era, the
Congress and other 'secular' parties took advantage of Muslim vulnerabilities
and exploited them for political ends. Without addressing society's secular
concerns such as modern education, sanitation, health, reproductive habits
and women's liberation, it only focused on things like the status of Urdu,
madrasas and Haj subsidy in the name of protecting minority rights. The
other productive minorities of the country, however, were neglected.
Hindus are being asked to prove
whether a temple stood on the site before Babur's General Mir Baqi erected
a mosque there. When the Babri structure got demolished on December 6,
1992, over 265 pieces of artifacts with unmistakable Hindu characteristics-which
had been embedded inside its thick walls-were recovered. The gem of the
proof was a stone-slab of around 5' x 2.25'. This clinching evidence in
Sanskrit records the construction of a magnificent gold topped temple of
Vishnu Hari (Lord Ram who destroyed the evil Dashanana or Ravana) by King
Naya Chandra and Ayush Chandra during Emperor Govind Chandra Gahadwal's
reign (AD 1114-1154).
Those who criticise the Centre's
moving the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case neither are friends of Muslims
nor have any stake in maintaining communal harmony. They want wounds to
fester and Muslims to feel insecure, so as to retain them as a votebank.
May Allah save the Muslims from such friends.
