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.
