In the first place, the Bamiyan Buddha statue was carved out long before Islam was conceived and the event ante-dated the Prophet (Peace be upon him) by centuries. Indeed, if history tells us anything, this statue and several others of its kind, were the pride of the people of Afghanistan and were held in high esteem. In the case of the Babri masjid, no Islamic, ruler had any business to build a masjid in what was considered a holy place of the Hindus, any more than any Hindu ruler (happily there never was any such) could have had to build a temple in Mecca or Medina. Irrespective of whether Babar or one of his generals had demolished an existing temple to Sri Ram in Ayodhya, it was plainly the height of fanaticism and utter contempt for Hinduism to establish a masjid in Ayodhya (or, for that matter, in Varanasi or Mathura).
The Babri masjid was raised to make a political point and score a dubious victory over Hindu sentiment that no present-day secularist can with any conscience contest. In the second place, the controversy over the Babri masjid is not of recent origin but pre-dates not just the Bajrang Dal or the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the RSS and. the BJP but even the Hindu Mahasabha by decades. The issue of the Babri masjid has been festering for over a century and the sad part of it, all is that the Muslim community never showed the grace to concede that a deep and needless hurt had been caused to Hindu sentiment, that needed to be assuaged. But that may be too general a statement. Asghar Ali Abbas, General Secretary (in August 1990) of the All India Shia Political Conference is on record as having told a news magazine that "we are in favour of restoring it (the Babri structure) to the Hindus because it belongs to them. We would be satisfied with a mosque built from the debris of the existing structure to which Hindus hive already given their consent'.
A president of the Indian Muslim Youth Congress was reported (May 10, 1990) as urging the government to hand the Babri structure to the Hindus by means of legislation, arguing that this would go a long way in bringing Hindus and Muslims together. And Iqbal Ahmed, a member of the BJP state executive in UP has been quoted as saying that 'Ram is our ancestor and construction of a Ram mandir is the moral responsibility as much of the Muslims as of Hindus."
It is not that all Muslims to a man was opposed to the setting up of a temple on what has always been conceded as Ram Janmabhoomi. Many Muslims could-and did-see history in its proper perspective. But consider what happened: under the prodding of the then government, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad held its first preliminary meeting with the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMC) on December 1, 1990, in the presence of Subodh Kant Sahay, then Minister for Home Affairs, Sharad Pawar, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat and Mulayam Singh Yadav, Chief Ministers respectively of Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. At the second meeting of the two parties held on December 4, 1990 it was agreed that (i) both sides should furnish evidence to the Minister of State for Home by December 22, 1990; (ii) that the Minister would make photocopies of the evidence available to the two sides by December 20; and (iii) the two parties would meet again on January 10, 1991 for reviewing the evidence. Meetings were held on January 10 and January 24.
It is important to remember that every document submitted by the AIBMAC was carefully scrutinised by the VHP experts and commented upon. A final meeting was to be held between the VHP and the AIBMAC experts on January 25, 1991 when the VHP experts turned up but the AIBMAC experts didn't. It was not the VHP which declined to negotiate but the AIBMAC prodded and supported behind the scene by the "secularists" whose sole aim was to denigrate Hindu opinion, and in the bargain the BJP as well.
The blood of the innocents is, on the hands of our secularists. Till 1991 there is no record of a single masjid being harmed-let alone demolished-by any Hindu party or ruler. The Babri masjid need not, repeat not, have been demolished. It could have been conveniently-and reverentially-dismantled, and rebuilt, brick by brick at Hindu cost. It would have established a milestone in Hindu-Muslim relations and the VHP would have been most willing to oblige. Even if it were not, the Hindu community surely would have risen to the occasion as a matter of honour and prestige to build another masjid to show its appreciation of grace shown.
That, unfortunately, was not to be. And the fault lies entirely at the door of our secularists. Did those who condemn the VHP ever take this into consideration? The VHP, whatever its other faults was willing to go an extra mile to respect Muslim sentiments if only the Muslim community showed equal grace. And let this be stated again and again; irrespective of whether there existed a Ram temple at the Janmabhoomi site, no masjid should ever have been set up in any Hindu religious city. That such a temple did exist, that there is enough physical evidence to prove it, only makes the viciousness of the secularist more apparent.
The Times of India is pathetically in the wrong when it insists that the Babri masjid is 'our heritage'. The Bamiyan statue of the Buddha was not imposed on Islam; the Babri masjid was - and there can be no two opinions about it-imposed on Hindus. Even then the VHP was willing for the dismantling-not destruction-of the Babri masjid and it could have been done both to the credit of Muslim and Hindu leadership if -only Muslims had shown a sense of grace which, it has been said, is the hallmark of Islam.
By refusing to be accommodative under the goading of the secularists, the AIBMAC brought disgrace on itself. Our secularists have much to answer for. The bamiyan statue cannot be rebuilt. But a masjid can and it is not late, every now, for the AIBMAC to renege on its pathetic and anti-national stance and win merit for itself and for the country by graciously allowing the Ram temple built on the site for which claims have been made with the proviso that a masjid is built on another site at the cost of the VHP.
That would not only be an act of statesmanship but a long-deferred act of final reconciliation, kept pending by the sheer viciousness of mindless secularism. Instead of applying the unguent of dubious moralism to their souls, our secularists should persuade the AIBMAC to take the less travelled road of grace and reconciliation.
That is true statesmanship. Trying
to score cheap points against the VHP and Hindu society at large may raise
The Times of India in its -self-estimation but is inimical to the future
of a united, happy India. The least that one expects of the media is to
be constructive, even when it is critical.