Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Goel leaves behind unsung research

Goel leaves behind unsung research

Author: Prafull Goradia
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: January 12, 2004

Sita Ram Goel, who passed away on December 3, had made path-breaking research whose importance has remained largely unsung. Alexander Cunningham, the founder director of the Archaeological Survey of India, and a few of his colleagues, had discovered several temples that had been desecrated and turned into mosques. But, as officers of the ASI, their mission was archaeology in general and not specific to the places of worship. No one took up the specific task until Goel embarked upon it and catalogued thousands of converted and recycled temples.

The subject is often dismissed as obscurantist. Condemned as recalling historical wrongs merely as an excuse for seeking revenge. The old places of worship, it is alleged, have no progressive value and therefore best forgotten. The parallel often quoted is of similar happenings In Europe. It is argued that hundreds of churches were converted to mosques and, in turn, a large number of masjids were changed into chapels, cathedrals, et al.

An outstanding example quoted is that of the Hagia Sophia cathedral in Istanbul, which is now a mosque. Another prominent instance mentioned is that at Seville in Spain, where the Almohed Masjid was remodelled into a cathedral bell tower. The comparison, however, is unfair because unlike Christians, the Hindus have no tradition of converting members of other religions nor has it been the Hindu practice to desecrate masjids or churches and turn them into temples. In other words, in Europe, what amounts to reciprocal aggression, in India it has been one-sided oppression.

For some two decades, most of the print media blacked out what Mr Sita Ram Goel wrote, presumably on the pretext that what he wrote might create communal ill feeling. Although what he researched and wrote was based on evidence and facts. He had no political pretensions; he was a scholar in search of truth. What amounted to the media boycott was, therefore, quite uncanny.

One explanation for this prejudice could be that it was the post-Independence policy of the ASI as well as self-styled secular leaders to conceal rather than reveal discovery. There were two glaring examples. The first one was at the Rudramahalaya complex at Siddhpur, Gujarat, in the 1970s. How artefacts like the Nandi bull, etc., having been excavated, were buried back. This was reported at length in the fourth annual report of the National Minorities Commission. The second instance was in 1991 at Vidisha, near Bhopal, when due to heavy rainfall a wall collapsed and exposed a large number of idols under the apron of the Bijamandal masjid. Soon thereafter, the District Magistrate as well as the local ASI officer were transferred.

The series of central laws passed since independence reflect the policy of conceal rather than reveal, put back rather than bring out. The culmination came in 1991 when The Place of Worship (Special Provisions) Act was passed by Parliament. It declared that the character of any place of worship that existed on August 15, 1947, could not be changed. The only exception was the Ram Janmabhoomi; all the other temples turned mosques had to stay put for all time, according to this law.

To sum up, the media has silenced rather than articulated. The Education and later the HRD Ministry followed the policy of maintaining the unfortunate status quo. Ironically, even those who believe in the cause of discovery, have been more quiet than active. It is not merely a religious or an inter-community controversy. The issue also involves the more secular ethics. Is it not basically immoral to retain in one's possession property known to be plundered?

The converted or the recycled masjids - that require no further proof of their forcible dispossession by the conquerors - should surely be returned to the people to whom they belong. It is agreed the present generation of Muslims have nothing to do with this plunder. They are not responsible but surely their sense of decency would lead them to give back the loot and plunder of their forefathers to their rightful owners? Unfortunately, instead, they insist on treating them as property disputes which only the courts of law can adjudicate. And, in their opinion, the courts do not have much option since the Muslim community has enjoyed adverse possession for several centuries.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements