HISTORY AND POLITICS OF RAM JANMABHOOMI

[Guest guest]

>"Ashok Chowgule" >"Ashok Chowgule" >>HISTORY AND

POLITICS OF RAM JANMABHOOMI >Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:46:27 +0530 > >By Ashok

Chowgule >President, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Maharashtra, India

>"Josephy Tiffenthaler, the Austrian Jesuit priest, who stayed in Awadh in

1766-71 reported that the temple marking the birth of Lord Ram was destroyed

and a mosque built using its pillars."

> >============================== > >HISTORY AND POLITICS OF RAM JANMABHOOMI > >

> > The Ram Janmabhoomi issue has revolutionised the politics of the >country. A

fragmented Hindu samaj has been united to an extent unheard >of in recent times.

While many intellectuals have reacted to the >phenomenon in a negative manner,

some like Shri V.S. Naipaul and the >late Shri Girilal Jain have seen the depth

to which it has permeated in >the samaj. The former observed that "what is

happening in India is a >new historical awakening....... Indian intellectuals,

who want to be >secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is

going on. >But every other Indian knows that a large response in emerging even

if >at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening." > > If there

has to be an enduring solution to the Ram Janmabhoomi issue, >the history of the

case must be clearly stated. Only if it can be >established, beyond a reasonable

doubt, that in 1528 A.D. a temple was >destroyed with the express objective of

constructing the mosque, a new >temple should be constructed. Otherwise,

permitting such an event to >come to pass will lead to opening a Pandora's box.

For any sane >society, it is necessary to ensure that unreasonable demands by

any >sections should not be acceded to. > > In December 1990, the

Chandrashekhar government had asked the VHP and >the All India Babri Masjid

Action Committee (AIBMAC) to give proof to >justify their respective cases.

This was done, and each side was >expected to give a rejoinder in early January

1991. The government >minutes of the time say, "The VHP submitted the rejoinder

in which it >tried to refute claims of the AIBMAC point wise. The AIBMAC did

not >react to the evidences put forward by the VHP. Instead it submitted

>photo-copies of more evidences in support of its claims. Since the >AIBMAC did

not give comments on the evidences put forward by the VHP, it >is not possible

for the government to decide the areas of agreement and >disagreement." > > The

proof that the VHP has given is based on the archeological >investigations,

historical records and literary sources. These include >pre-British sources as

well as writings of Muslim authors. The >archeological evidence was part of the

Ramayan project which was >undertaken by the Archeological Survey of India

between 1975 to early >1980's. > > Even though the AIBMAC did not give the

rejoinder, VHP decided to have >a meeting of experts on January 24 and 25,

1991, as part of the exercise >initiated by the Chandrashekhar government.

During the first meeting, >the AIBMAC experts said that they have not studied

the evidence given by >VHP nor did they visit the site. For the second meeting

they chose not >to come. The behavior of the AIBMAC experts, four people

considered to >be respected academicians, is indeed strange since the VHP

evidence was >submitted about a month before hand. In addition, these experts

have >been writing for quite a long time that the mosque was built on a vacant

>site, that is, no temple was destroyed in 1528 A.D. > > If the historical case

is established, the natural question to be asked >is if it is necessary to build

a temple. After all, Ram Rajya will not >be automatically achieved by mere

construction of a temple. Ram Rajya >has many more components to it, which

needs to be put in place by >additional efforts. The question can be answered

only by looking at the >whole question of the practice of secularism and the

politics of vote >bank. In a secular society, a government only recognises an

individual, >but not his caste or creed. It should institute programmes which

will >help all the poor people. The politics of vote-bank makes all this

>unnecessary. And the politics of vote bank can only succeed in a >divided

Hindu samaj. > > For the VHP, the Ram temple was never a narrow religious

issue. It is >an aspect of a wider national reintegration. It was this vision

that >enabled it to bring together religious leaders of the larger canvass of

>Hinduism, consisting of Shaivites, Vishnuites, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, >etc.

If this is not done, the fissures in the Hindu samaj will once >again occur.

The loser will be not only Hinduism, but also India as we >know it today. > >

The historicity of the case is particularly important in the context of >Hindu

- Muslim relationship. Muslims should not feel that their >religious site,

irrespective of its importance to them, has been >unjustly taken away, for the

purpose of converting it to a place of >worship of another religion.

Considering the mood of the Muslims in >India, this is in fact what he feels.

He also feels that the Government >is succumbing to obscurantist pressure of

the Hindu Samaj. This does >not augur well for future relationship. > > Even

while the VHP made a sincere effort at a negotiated solution, it >was made

clear that the demand for the return of they holy sites is >restricted to

three. Along with the evidence, the VHP said, “We do not >even demand the

return of the thousands of places of worship that have >been forcibly replaced

with mosques.....We merely want three places >back, three age-old sacred

places. And we would prefer getting them >back from the Muslim community, to

getting them back by an official >decree..... Muslims should understand what

kind of message they are >sending by insisting on continuing the occupation of

our sacred places, >an occupation started by fanatics and mass-murders like

Babar and >Aurangzeb. We do not like to think of our Muslim compatriots as

heirs >and followers of such invaders and tyrants. It is up to them to make a

>gesture that will signify a formal break with this painful past.” > > In

contrast, the Muslims are being misled, and the psyche that has been >created of

them has been summarised by Shri Peter van der Veer, in his >book, Religious

Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India (Oxford >University Press, Delhi,

1996, pp 9-10) as follows: “For Muslims the >issue has also become

loaded. First of all, a mosque is sacred space. >It cannot simply be demolished

or removed. The very idea that a mosque >should make room for a temple, in which

images are worshipped, sounds >like an utter defeat of Islam and is therefore

highly repugnant to >Muslims. Second, there is the (hi)story according to which

Babar was >involved in the building of the mosque. This provides even more

reason >for at least some Muslims to demand its preservation, since their pride

>and self-esteem is bound up with the glorious past of the Mughal empire. >The

decline of that empire is often construed as the decline of the >Muslim

community itself. In the Muslim view, the "facts" of this >glorious past stand

squarely opposite to the "fictions" of Hindu >.mythology. Babar and his general

were historical figures and the mosque >obviously a real building, while Rama

and his birthplace are myths. The >great importance of the Shi'a nawabs for the

expansion of Ayodhya as a >Hindu centre is as much underplayed by Sunni Muslims

as by Hindus. The >idea that the period of the Mughal empire's decline was at

the same time >the golden era of the nawabs of Awadh is too much connected with

>Shi'a-Sunni strife to be considered in the construction of a Muslim >history. >

> “As far as the demolition of the temple is concerned, two different

>opinions are heard among Muslim leaders. The more radical version >denies that

there ever was a temple. In fact, it tries to deny the >whole history of Hindu

oppression by Muslims, calling it a Hindu >fiction. The other version accepts

the demolition of the temple as a >historical fact but argues that Muslims had

the duty to destroy places >where icons were worshipped in a country that was

under their >sovereignty. Once it was built, the mosque became a consecrated

place >for them, which everyone had to respect. In their argument, a secular

>state must protect the right of religious minorities and cannot reverse

>events that happened almost five hundred years ago on the basis of >majority

sentiments. For Muslims the mosque is a symbol of their >glorious past but also

of their threatened present.” > > It would be worthwhile to look at one or

two of the specific aspects of >the history of the site. Much is made of the

judiciary pronouncements >on the site. One firm judgement has been pronounced

in 1886. “It is >most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on

land specially >held sacred by the Hindus....” This is a clear decision

establishing >the Hindu case to the site. > > The judgement then proceeds to

say “....but as the event occurred 356 >years ago it is too late now to

remedy the grievance. All that can be >done is to maintain the status

quo.” This means that slaves do not have >a luxury of getting justice.

The reason why the grievance could not be >remedied, is because much of this

period of 356 years there was an >Islamic rule, against which Hindus were

continuously fighting. The >Poles were able to bring down the Eastern Orthodox

Cathedral only after >the got their freedom from the Russians. > > The

judgement also says, “In such a case as the present one any >innovation

could cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit.” >In

consideration of the sentiments expressed here, the VHP undertook the >exercise

of having a negotiated settlement. But they were frustrated in >these efforts,

by the very people who have labelled them revanchist, >fascists, etc. > > Two

structures of importance that existed were the Ram Chabootra and

>Sita-ki-Rasoi. The former was a small raised platform, with a canopy, >where

constant prayers for Lord Ram were being conducted. The Chabootra >was

constructed in the 16th century. Josephy Tiffenthaler, the Austrian >Jesuit

priest, who stayed in Awadh in 1766-71 reported that the temple >marking the

birth of Lord Ram was destroyed and a mosque built using its >pillars. > > The

Ram Janmabhoomi issue has been politicised precisely because the >history has

been kept in the background. This is not the time to look >at the issue from

the context of who would benefit from it politically. >If the truth is known,

irrespective of which political party benefits, >the nation will gain. If truth

is hidden, irrespective of which >political party benefits, the nation will

lose. > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com