HVK Archives: Reverse view
Reverse view - Mid-Day
M V Kamath
()
September 10, 1998
Title: Reverse view
Author: M V Kamath
Publication: Mid-Day
Date: September 10, 1998
Ever since the demolition of the Babri Masjid, I have often
wondered how the Islamic world would have reacted had. some
imaginary Hindu monarch invaded Saudi Arabia, conquered it and,
in an excess of religious zeal, built a mandir for Shiva in
Mecca. How long would that temple have been allowed to remain
intact? 14 hours? 24 years? 240 years?
Let us presume that for 400 years the Arabs would have remained
politically weak but finally came into their own some 500 years
later. At that point in time, having finally won back their
heritage, would they have left a single stone of that Shiva
mandir standing? I would like Muslims to give this scenario some.
thought - even a passing thought. And had that mythical Hindu
king in his zeal to spread Hinduism as the true religion of
mankind gone berserk, oppressed Saudi Muslims attempted to
reconvert the poorest among them and succeeded to some extent,
how would those Hindu converts have been beheld by their
remaining Muslim brethren?
Would I be considered a dangerous communalist for raising these
questions? Has sensitivity to feelings dried up in our hearts? I
can imagine the horror among Muslims even at the mere thought
that any Hindu can dare think of such a scenario. But the
reverse situation is considered wholly appropriate - and pardon
the use of the word which has been copyrighted by US President
Bill Clinton. It is considered quite right and proper for an
Islamic invader to come to India, conquer large parts of the
country, demolish Hindu temples, forcibly convert the poor and
the helpless and build a masjid in Ayodhya, considered a holy
city by the Hindus. The situation is considered 'normal' for
those times, with outraged Hindus having no reason centuries
later to take remedial measures into their own hands. After all,
they are secular, aren't they? They have lived with fellow
Muslims all these years, haven't they? How dare they demolish a
masjid that has historical association? The Hindus are not
supposed to have any feelings. They should accept history and be
quiet about it. Theirs not to question why. Theirs not to reason
why. Theirs but to take every slap in their face and say thank
you.
Unfortunately it has not worked that way. To me it is immaterial
whether the general of Babar had himself demolished an existing
temple on the site of which to build a mosque. A mosque should
not have been built in Ayodhya under any circumstances out of a
decent respect for the feelings of Hindus. That is what is known
as Raja neeti.
Syed Shahabuddin has recently made the point that archaeologists
never found remains of urban development in the area surrounding
the Babri Masjid. I guess what he was trying to convey is that
there never was any human habitation in and around the Babri
Masjid site to justify the theory that the site was Sri Ram's
janmasthan. What he fails to remember is that in ancient days
temples were built far away from human habitation so that going
to a temple was in the nature of a pilgrimage; it required
devotion and a sense of spiritual urgency.
Now, in this detailed report on the. riots in Mumbai in December
1992 and January 1993, Justice B N Srikrishna makes an
interesting point that calls for great study of the Hindu psyche.
He writes: "Police officers and men, particularly at the junior
level, appeared to have an in-built bias against the Muslims
which, was evident in their treatment of the suspected Muslims
and Muslim victims of the riots". Now that is a remarkably
sweeping statement to make, even for a judge. But let us presume
that it is accurate to the last letter.
The inevitable question then arises: but why are they so? Are
they all indoctrinated at special camps held by the Vishwa Hindu
Parishad (VHP) or the Shiv Sena? Can they possibly be
entertaining historic memories of ancient times, which, with the
best of motives, they cannot erase out of their psyche? Has
Justice Srikrishna given ii any thought? At one point in his long
report he refers to "the Babri Masjid, a dilapidated structure,
which perhaps was not even used as a mosque". Later on he says
that "the irresponsible act of the Hindutva parties in
celebrating and gloating over the demolition if Babri structure
was like twisting a knife in the wound and heightened the
anguished ire of the Muslim".
Fair enough. Mind the language: Justice Srikrishna refers to the
building as a structure, not a mosque. But the point is that
while it is presumed that Muslims have "anguish", Hindus are
expected to be sportsmanlike and have a good laugh at an insult
gratuitously offered to them by a historic figure. That is a
great tribute to Hindus but shows a sad lack of understanding of
the Hindu psyche. What is most shocking to me is Justice
Srikrishna's complete marginalisation of the secular Hindus who,
in many ways, have been supportive of the Syed Shahabuddins and
even encouraged him and those like him to cock a snook at Hindu
sentiments. Not one secular Hindu has so much as tried to explain
to the Muslims what Hindus could possibly be thinking and what
sensible concessions they could possibly make for peace in the
country.
To my mind the worst enemy of the Muslim is the so-called
'secular' Hindu who, in his anxiety to prove his secularism, will
go to any extent to defend Islamic fundamentalism and decry the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the VHP. And goodness knows they
are not always free of blame.
I would like Justice Srikrishna to ponder over this for a moment.
I don't think he is consciously anti-Hindu or pro-Muslim. I
understand that he is indeed a devout Hindu. His problem, if I am
permitted to say so, is that of the secular Hindu who bends
backward to defend whatever the minorities hold sacred to them at
the cost of his own co-religionists, to win the plaudits of his
fellow 'secular' Hindus. It is a charming trait, but one that
comes apart in times of turmoil. By all means damn the BJP or the
or the Shiv Sena. I hold no briefs for them. But can't our
secularist friends ask themselves why the entire junior police
force entertains strong anti-Muslim sentiments? To get the right
answers, we must ask the right questions. Even if-they prove
inconvenient to our cherished beliefs.
It may sound far-fetched to link the Mumbai riots with the
intellectual dishonesty of 'secular' Hindus, but I would strongly
recommend Justice Srikrishna, in the words of Hamlet, not to lay
that flattering unction to his soul that the Hindu has no right
to feel anguish at distant wrongs that continue to torture his
subconscious, and often turn him into an irrational - and inhuman
- being. We must find answers. Justice Srikrishna had failed to
do so, which is a pity. The pity of it, O Iago, O Iago, the pity
of it!
(M V Kamath, veteran political commentator, takes on all comers)
Back
Top
|
