HVK Archives: The importance of Ram Chabootra and Sita Ki Rasoi
The importance of Ram Chabootra and Sita Ki Rasoi - Hindutan Times
Posted By ashok (ashokvc@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in)
Sat, 22 Jun 96 11:46:44 PDT
IMPORTANCE OF
RAM CHABOOTRA
AND
SITA-KI-RASOI
INTRODUCTION
Within the main compound wall of the Babri struc-
ture, there are two important places of Hindu worship -
the Ram Chabootra and the Sita-ki-Rasoi. The first place
is a raised platform with a canopy, where kirtans are
sung and around which the pilgrims have been doing a pa-
rikrama. The second place is a small shrine, to indicate
the kitchen of Sita. Earlier the Hindus and Muslims used
to worship in the same larger open area. However, this
method always created tensions between the communities
-
the Hindus because of their attachment to the site, the
Muslims because of their attachment to the structure.
These two places are today separated from the Babri
structure by an inner wall, which was built by the Brit-
ish. The importance of these two structures has to be
explained in a logical manner. Too much emphasis is be-
ing given to the recorded evidence - although they are
important by themselves. However, in issues of such
type, practices and sentiments are also important, so as
to understand the issues beyond a superficial level.
IMPORTANCE OF SITE
The two places clearly indicates the importance of
the site for the Hindus. Both the places were built dur-
ing the time of Muslim rule, which had the religion Islam
as its foundation. The regime could not be considered to
be secular, in the sense that there was sanctioned free-
dom of practice of whatever religion a person wished for.
Under such circumstances, if the Hindus insisted on con-
structing Ram Chabootra and Sita-ki- Rasoi it would ex-
pose the people to great personal risks. Except in case
of Ram Janmabhoomi, Krishna Janmabhoomi and Kashi
Vishwa-
nath, at all the other 3000 odd temple sites converted
into mosques, there is no history of people returning for
prayers at the same site. The people were willing to
accept the risk in the case of the three sites, such is
the faith of the people on the importance of the sites.
Secondly, the Muslim rulers also accepted this
faith, otherwise they could have physically prevented the
Hindus from the sites. India was conquered by the Mus-
lims on the basis of an armed force. This force could be
(and was) used to maintain not only the territory, but
for propagation of Islam, given that there were so many
forced conversions. The rulers thought it was a small
price to pay to allow the worship, and be able to main-
tain their rule. India is the only control where Muslim
conquerors ruled for a long stretch of time which did not
become an Islamic state. Hence, the rulers had to have
some measure of goodwill of the people.
EFFORTS TO RECLAIM THE SITE
There are more than 77 recorded instances of strug-
gle by the Hindus to recover the Ram Janmabhoomi site.
The first one was in the defense of the site itself. The
Hindus realised that given the superior force at the com-
mand of the rulers, they would have to settle for the
second best alternative. Not being able to worship at
the Garbha Graha, since there was the Babri structure on
its place, the construction of the Ram Chabootra and the
Sita ki Rasoi at least offered some solace to the people,
with a hope that when the invaders were defeated, the
site could be conveniently recovered.
RAM TEMPLE
There are some who agree that a temple existed at
the site, but there cannot be any guarantee that it was
in honour of Lord Ram. They say that it could have been
another mahapurush, and not Lord Ram. The existence of
the two places establishes that the temple that was de-
stroyed was in honour of Lord Ram. Had there been anoth-
er temple, then there would have been places of worship
associated with those deities.
DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE
Another doubt that is expressed is that there is no
clear proof that the temple was destroyed. Under this
theory, the temple fell into disuse and was in a dilapi-
dated condition when Babar came to Ayodhya. That is,
although there was a temple, parts of which were used for
the Babri structure, it was not a functional one. The
people of this area would be offering their prayers in
other temples, many of which are Ram temples.
As established earlier, the site is very important
for the Hindus. It is difficult to accept that in such a
case, if, for any reason the temple was damaged, it would
not have been repaired. Furthermore, when Babar came to
Ayodhya it was a functional city, that is it was not a
deserted one. In such a case to believe that the temple
was not a functional one is stretching the imagination.
Secondly, the existence of the two places also es-
tablishes that the temple was functional, until its time
of destruction. Assuming it was not, there would not be
any great desire to build the Ram Chabootra and the Sita
ki Rasoi. The local people would be offering prayers to
Lord Ram at other places, and coming to a contentious
sites would not have been necessary. People do not take
an illogical decision, particularly when their lives
would otherwise be in danger.
CONCLUSION
The issue of the Ram Janmabhoomi has to be looked
from a logical point of view. The records at that time
are so scanty that one will not be able to offer scien-
tific proof of the type that would be available for re-
cent events. In any case, the historical, legal and
archeological data is very strong in favour of the hy-
potheses that a temple was destroyed to build the Babri
structure. Taken together, and applying logic, the evi-
dence is a clinching one.
21st October, 1992.
Back
Top
|
