Coming to terms with our history

[Guest guest]

Coming to terms with our past

By M.V. Kamath

Source: Free Press Journal

 

 

After all the hatred against the Vishwa Hindu Parishad has been

spewed, after all the breast-beating and self-denigration (at which

Hindus are so good) has been gone through, could it be that the time

has come to ask ourselves what the killings in Godhra and the

rioting in Ahmedabad have been all about? The answer is simple: the

people of India - especially the Hindus - have yet to come to terms

with their history.

Let this be first understood: no other country in the world has been

overrun so often and so ruthlessly and its native people treated so

shabbily by the conqueror as India and Indians have been. Not the

United States, not any country in the North and South American

continents, not the countries of Africa or even Europe, for that

matter not even Japan and China in Asia have had to experience the

horrors of invasion as India has had to experience in its long and

turbulent history.

 

India, in that sense is unique. So are Hindus, unique. So is their

religion, unique. Right from 1000 AD, India has been the subject of

a series of invasions that have left their mark on the psyche of the

people. In these last one thousand years Hindus have been kicked

around, their temples have been desecrated, their religion mocked as

has never happened to any other people in the world. The Hindus have

survived - but they have not forgotten the hurts and insults that

have been heaped upon them century after century.

 

And what are these insults? A few quotes from Islamic writers would

be in order. Thus Zia-ud-din Burani (14th century) wrote in Tarikh-i-

Firuzshahi: "The obligation to be the refuge of the faith cannot be

fulfilled until they (the Islamic rulers) have utterly destroyed

infidelity and unbelief, polytheism and idolatry...If they cannot

wholly extirpate polytheism and infidelity because of their large

number, it will not be less meritorious if, for the sake of

Islam...they use their efforts to insult and humiliate and to cause

grief and bring ridicule and shame upon the polytheistic and for the

glory of Islam and the honour of the true faith permit even a single

unbeliever and polytheist to live as a respectable person..."

 

Then there are the writings of Abd-al-Quddus Gangohi (1456-1537), a

well-known Sufi saint among which there is this gem: "Non-Muslims

should not wield the pen in offices and they should not be

commanders or tax-gatherers. In the sharia, the subordination of

Kafirs is enjoined. And, in accordance with it, they should be

humbled, subordinated..."

 

As Bimal Prasad, a noted historian has recorded, in the early years

of the 17th century, a much more famous Sufi sanit, Sheikh Ahmed

Sirhinid1564-1624 held similar views. In one of his letters to

Sheikh Farid Bukhari he wrote: "The honour of Islam lies in

insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours

the Muslims...They (kafirs should be kept at arms length like

dogs...If some worldly business cannot be performed without them, in

that case only a minimum of contact should be established with them

but without taking them into confidence..." In this context what the

distinguished historian R. C. Majumdar has written makes sense. He

wrote: "The worship of images which forms the most cherished element

in the religious beliefs of the Hindus was anathema in the eyes of

the Muslims; and the long tradition of ruthless destruction of

temples by them for nearly a thousand years formed a wide gulf

between the two..."

 

No matter how much our secularists may rant and rave, the fact

remains that a temple built to Shri Ram had been destroyed in

Ayodhya and a masjid built on its site using the very material of

the destroyed temple. Thus, the Babri structure had 14 pillars made

of Kasauti black stone with Hindu images. Also inside the Babri

compound was a piece of a doorjamb with images of 'Mukut-dhari

dwarpal' and 'devakanyas'. Among the archaeological findings seen in

the excavations have been noted a temple bell, several intricate and

detailed carvings, an image of Vishnu and several other Hindu

deities. The principal finding, however is a 2ft wide and 4.5 ft

long buff sandstone tablet bearing an inscription in Devanagari. The

fourth line of this shila lekh specifically described a temple of

Lord Vishnu '(Hari) as the janmabhoomi sthal". No greater evidence

is required to prove that the Babri structure was indeed built over

the site of a destroyed temple.

 

But here may the point be made that even if no temple had been

destroyed, a masjid had been erected in Ayodhya, a city sacred to

Hindus, to demonstrate an Islamic ruler's contempt for Hinduism and

to emphasise who was the ruler. During the entire reign of Mughals,

Hindus had to remain tight-lipped and suffer insults quietly and

with dignity. It was only after the Mughals were defeated and the

British took over that the first stirrings against the Babri

structure made themselves felt. At that point in time the British

had no desire to upset the Islamic applecart and the pleas of Hindus

went unattended. What happened after the British left is now history.

 

The least that Muslims could have done was to hand over the Babri

structure to Hindus when the latter started agitation to regain

their self-respect, That they refused to do; handing over so-called

masjids built over destroyed Hindu temples meant acknowledging that

a grievous wrong had been done to Hindus - and that, a certain

section of Muslims have been most reluctant to admit. And in their

arrogance they have had the support of the English media and leftist

intellectuals.

 

The usual argument is: do not anger the Muslims, do not recall past

insults, do not disturb the status quo, let the dead past bury the

dead etc. But to Hindus the hurt persists. It is important to

remember that when Christians came into their own in Spain, they

went on a spree of destroying every vestige of Islam in the entire

Ibrrian peninsula. Even the famous Imambara (alhanmbra) was not

spared though later it was repaired to remind Spaniards of their

servile past.

 

In India, Hindus are more tolerant. Or are afraid. Syed Shahabuddin,

convenor of the Babri Majsid Co-ordination Committee (BMCC) was

quoted in Sunday (March 20, 1983) as saying: "Hindus profess

secularism because they are cowards and are afraid of Muslim

countries". But another explanation can also be given.

The "secularists" - a gentle word to describe Hindu apologists -

want to show how different they are from Muslims especially in

Pakistan. But even more importantly, one suspects, they want the

Muslim vote at any cost. The Muslims, understandably, are taking

full advantage of both the explanations.

 

Had the Babri structure been graciously handed over to the Hindus as

early as in 1949 as one major effort at prayaschitta - atonement -

the history of Hindu-Muslim relations would have undergone a major

change. There would have been no need to demolish the Babri

structure. It could have been dismantled and its very bricks - even

stolen pillars from an earlier temple - could have been used to

build a bigger, grander masjid - elsewhere. In order to spite the

VHP and the BJP, oursecularHindus (and they belong to all non-BJP

parties) have been defending the Musilm stand, attributing all

manner of motives to the VHP. It is an extraordinary phenomenon.

 

In a sense it amounts to cutting one's nose to spite another's face.

The Babri masjid was a standing monument to everything that was

wrong in Hindu-Muslim relations. Its handing over to the VHP would

have brought eternal credit to Muslims. It would have wiped out a

thousand-year period of Islamic offensiveness and brought Hindus and

Muslims closer to gather. The secularists obviously do not want that

to happen.

 

As long as the 'dispute' remains unresolved, they can claim to be

the "true friends" of the Muslims and prosper with their votes. That

would explain the behaviour of the Samajwadi Party leaders and even

the leaders of the Telugu Desam and Trinamool Congress parties. What

they are anxious to evolve is not peace, but the continuance of

their vote-banks. And all this is done under the holy name

of 'secularism'.

 

It is important to remember here that under Congress leadership

there was no hesitation to change road names in Delhi or, for that

mater, in Mumbai. There was no hesitation either to have statues of

British rulers removed from public places and confined to museums.

If that is not "desecration" what is? The statue of Queen Victoria

in Mumbai's fort area had its nose cut. The statue of King Edward

VII on a horse, that once stood at Kala Ghoda also in the fort area

was removed. Wasn't that desecration of sorts? Road names have been

changed; to give but just one example: Hornby Road is now Dadabhai

Naoraoji Road.

 

These moves were made by Congress government or under their aegis.

Why should an unused majsid in Ayodhya be an exception? In any event

the Babri masjid had no right to exist in Ayodhya, in the first

place, just as no Muslim would ever tolerate a temple in Mecca. This

has nothing to do with secularism. No decent ruler would ever have

contemplated hurting Hindu sentiment. But neither Babar nor his

general can be described as 'decent'. They were what they were:

conquerors and they showed the typical conqueror's disdain for local

sentiments.

 

And when that is said, all is said.