 |
||
|
||
|
||
What is Ayodhya all about? It is about a temple that was built in the city which reportedly was demolished by Babar's General, Noorkhan Baqui Tashkandi in 1528 A.D. giving grievous offence to Hindu sentiments, considering that the temple had been built on a site known to be birth place of Shri Raam.
Secularists have been asking for proof of the birth of Shri Raam at that particular site; presumably they want the equivalent of a Magistrate's Certificate. We should be happy that they have not asked for proof that Shri Raam indeed is an avatar of God. What one can provide are the views of some connected with the administration of Ayodhya like H.E. Neville, a British administrator who recorded in the District Gazetteer as follows: "In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ayodhya (Aud) and halted a week. He destroyed the ancient temple (marking the birth place of Rama) and on its site built a mosque still known as Babar's Mosque.... It has two inscriptions, one on the outside, one on the pulpit; both are in Persian; and bear the date 935 A.H." The Gazetteer was published a hundred years ago. That the site has been under dispute for more than four and a half centuries is a known fact. According to an unpublished research paper written by Girish Munshi "there is ample evidence in writings and records of Muslim scholars to prove the essential fact of temple destruction."
Named are Mirza Jan, Mohammad Asghar, Miza Rajab Ali Beg Surur, Sheikh Mohammad Azmet Ali Kakorwi Nami, Haji Mohammad Hussain, Maulvi Abdul Karim, Allama Muhammed Najamu Ghani and Munshi Maulvi Hashmi. Also named are many Europeans including William Finch, Joseph Tiefenthaler, Montgomery Martin, Edward Thornton and Hans Bakker.
As far back as 1885 a case had been filed in the Magistrate's court by Mahant Raghubans Das in Faizabad about the illegal occupation of Ram Janmabhoomi but the sub-judge had turned it down on the grounds that awarding permission to Hindus to construct a temple at the site could lay "foundation of riot and murder." Mahant Raghubans Das appealed (Appeal No. 27 of 1886).
In his judgement on 16th March 1886 the District Judge of Faizabad said: "I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all the parties. I found that the masjid built by the Emperor Babar stands outside the bounds of the fort of Ayodhya. It is quite unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on the land specially held sacred by the Hindus but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain for the parties status quo; in such a case as the present, one day innovation could cause harm and derangement of order, than benefit."
Let it be pointed out that the learned Judge did not dispute the fact that the Babri Masjid had been built on a former temple site. What the British Judge did not want was disturbance in Ayodhya, over an illegal act committed 356 years ago. It is important to state here that soon after India attained independence the Somnath Temple at Veraval which had been ransacked over a dozen times was rebuilt with the blessings of Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, even if the temple had lain unused for centuries. Justice had to be restored even after a thousand years. As for the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple, Girish Munshi writes that it was at the instigation of two fakirs that Babar ordered his general to attack it. The General was opposed by Raja Vijaysingh of Hansbar, Raja Sangramsingh of Makariah and Raja Mohbatsingh of Bhiti.
The British historian Cunningham was to write: "Hindus united to face the attack on their Ram Janmabhoomi Temple. There were 1,80,000 casualties among Hindus. The number of casualties amongst Muslims is not known. In the end Meer Baqui used his cannon to destroy the temple." It is not that the VHP is bothered about some unknown temple. Muslim rulers have destroyed some 30,000 of them.
A British traveller who journeyed from Surat to Delhi in the 18th century has recorded that throughout his journey he had never seen a single Hindu temple. That act of deliberate destruction and desecration has long been forgotten by Hindus. What has caused them agony is the destruction of a temple dedicated the Shri Rama.
Are they to be blamed? Apart from anything else Islamic law forbids building of a masjid over land illegally obtained. And the Babri Masjid was indeed built, as Hamilton reported, "with mortar mixed with blood and fat from Hindu corpses." What sort of a masjid is the All India Muslim Personal Law Board defending? The Hindu psyche has been deeply hurt.
Is that of no consequence to the Muslim community in India? The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has outrightly rejected the Kanchi Shankaracharya's proposal on resolving the Ayodhya dispute on the ground that they are "not consistent with the honour, dignity and self- respect of Muslims."
Does not the "honour, dignity and self-respect" of 700 million Hindus count with the AIMPLB? In the first place, whether a temple had been demolished on the Ramjanmabhoomi site or not, no Muslim ruler had any business to set up a temple in Ayodhya, let alone Banaras and Mathura. Would any Saudi ruler ever permit a temple to be constructed either at Mecca or Medina?
It is said that the Saudi Police would not even permit a Hindu to take with him an icon in his baggage. How would a Muslim have felt if, theoretically speaking, a Hindu ruler had conquered what is now Saudi Arabia and either destroyed the Kaaba or built a temple next to it or over its ruins? The very thought would bring out knives. Surely the same courtesy can be extended to India as well? The masjids were built in Ayodhya, Banaras and Mathura specifically to insult Hinduism and Hindus, a point, one hopes that the AIMPLB will take into consideration before talking about honour, dignity etc. Probably the VHP could have been persuaded to give up its claims to the temples (or masjids) in Banaras and Mathura but the discourtesy shown by the AIMPLB to the Shankaracharya of Kanchi has stiffened the VHP's stand. What has the AIMPLB gained by its stubbornness?
Couldn't it have been more graceful in conceding to the Shankaracharya's request? How long is the AIMPLB going to stick to its stand and to what end? We do not know the full text of the Shankaracharya's letter to the AIMPLB. Perhaps it was poorly worded and liable to misunderstanding. But what shiploads of goodwill would the Muslim community have won by being gracious enough to understand, appreciate and respect Hindu sentiments concerning Ramjanmabhoo-mi? The Babri masjid is of no particular value to the Muslim community of Ayodhya. No prayers have been offered there for decades. All that it stood for was Muslim izzat; it represented Islam's conquest of India and its putting down of Hinduism for over five centuries. Is that what the AIMPLB is proud of and is unable to give up? If that is so, it is a poor reflection on Islamic sensibilities and the Indian Muslim's sense of fellowship with Hindus. And it would justify the razing to the ground of the masjid which has stood for unbearable hatred.
Much has been made that in recent diggings, no evidence has been found of the existence of a temple under the masjid debris. But let this be known: in earlier diggings, between the walls of the Janmabhoomi and the Babri structure, over 265 artefacts and two stones inscribed slabs of the 12the century had been found.
Most important of all, one of the slabs contained inscription providing descriptive details about the temple of Sri Raama. Furthermore, found at the base of two pillars which were part of the structure are carvings of purnaghata or khumbha or kalash with overhanging creepers with rich foliage in highly stylised manner. On one of the octagonal sides of one pillar is a female figure in tribhang pose, still visible, though the pillar itself is highly mutilated. It would have been graceful had the AIMPLB conceded to the Shankaracharya's request. That, it has refused to do in high dudgeon. It is a pity. Apart from anything else, it would have signalled that the Muslim community is as interested and anxious to let the dead past bury its dead and that henceforth it would be happy to live in peace and amity with its fellow Hindu countrymen.
The AIMPLB has lost a golden opportunity. And thereby it has woken up the Hindu psyche with all its attendant hurts. The fact that so peaceful and loving a man as the Shankaracharya of Kanchi has been deliberately snubbed doesn't make it easy for anyone to forget the past. One only hopes that no other Shankaracharya or Hindu religious leader would permit himself to get embroiled in this controversy.
In 1946 by an overwhelming vote the Muslim community had voted for Pakistan and had not been forgiven for that sick act. True, it was not a matter of universal franchise, but Muslim sentiment was clearly in favour of Pakistan. That in this day and age, the AIMPLB should still take a confrontationist stand speaks much for Muslim thinking. Is there no liberal group among Muslims in the country? Are Hindus and Muslims condemned to fight for all times to come? Has grace fled from our lives?
In any other country (need we mention
names?) the government would have bulldozed the masjid on its own, and
put an end to discussion, cutting as it were, the Golden Knot. It is only
in India which is a democracy, that we argued endlessly, go to court and
wait for justice that over four centuries has been deferred, first by the
British, then by Nehru. Hindus are paying the price for respecting law
and not the truth. This is asking for trouble. One can only hope and pray
that in the end the AIMPLB will see reason for its own sake and for the
sake of the country.
|
||
|
||
|
||