HVK Archives: Costs of not speaking up on Ayodhya
Costs of not speaking up on Ayodhya - The Observer
Virendra Parekh
()
December 12, 1998
Title: Costs of not speaking up on Ayodhya
Author: Virendra Parekh
Publication: The Observer
Date: December 12, 1998
'Babri demolition anniversary passes off peacefully', 'Peace prevails
in. Ayodhya and Faizabad', 'Ayodhya peaceful', 'Black day passes off
without a skirmish', reported national dailies on December 7, with one
of them rounding it off with 'Demolition unfortunate: Advani'.
One hears an audible sigh of relief at the non-happening of anything
noteworthy. How magnanimous, how kind. of the Muslims to let the kaffirs
off the hook this time around, they seem to imply.
The question is: Why should the peaceful passing off of a day be a great
news? The approach of December 6 every year since 1992 is viewed with
trepidation. The air becomes thick with tension and apprehension. The
demolition of the Babri Masjid was undoubtedly a momentous event of
historic significance. But was it something so unique that its memory
should hold us in terror for ever?
The secularist media certainly played a major role in distorting the
event and blowing it out of all proportions. They declared it to be a
deed most foul, and created an impression as if the Hindus had done
something heinous which had no precedent or parallel in entire history.
The behaviour of the secularists was true to the type. Everything they
said and did was on expected lines. What is surprising, however, is the
timidity of the Hindu leadership in the face of this secularist
onslaught even at one of the rare moments of triumph. And it is their
inability and unwillingness to speak up clearly and forcefully, which
has kept the tension about the demolition simmering to this day.
One could, for instance, start by putting the matter in perspective. For
destroying one mosque, Hindus are sought to be browbeaten into shame in
perpetuity. Then what about the thousands of temples destroyed during
the Muslim rule in every part of the country? What about destruction of
temples in Pakistan, Bangladesh and, at home, in Kashmir after the
Independence? And mind you, these temples were not erected at the site
of and from the materials of demolished mosques.
The perspective could also be restored by looking up what happened in
other countries. Usurpation of symbols and edifices of older religions
by new, conquering religions has been a common practice. It is an
effective way for the new religion to proclaim its political power and
military prowess. It is also part of propaganda for conversion: Look our
true and superior god has vanquished your false and weak god.
For this reason, important holy places in the world have often changed
hands. Christianity and Islam have a long history of capturing other
peoples' places of worship. The place where Jesus Christ was crucified
was not known till fourth century AD. Then the mother of the Roman
emperor Constantine had a dream in which she divined the location of the
crucifixion. The place then had a Greek temple to Athena standing upon
it. It was promptly pulled down, symbolising the eclipse of the Greek
religion.
The precept and practice of Islam has been quite unambiguous in this
respect. Kaaba itself was a pagan place of worship with 360 idols before
it was taken over by the armies of Islam, The Dome on the Rock ands Al
Aqsa Mosque have been built on a sacred place of the Jews: The Temple
Mount. Cathedrals of Damascus in Syria and Cordova in Spain (both
cathedrals had themselves replaced pagan places of worship) are other
famous examples.
Islam has an elaborate theology of iconoclasm. "Herd them together",
said Allah, "those who commit transgression and those whom they worship,
and start them on the road to hell-fire." (Quran, 37.22-23). The Prophet
made iconoclasm a pious performance for all Muslims for all time to come
when he practised it himself on the very day he conquered Mecca.
"When the Prophet" writes Ibn Ishaq, his first biographer, "prayed noon
prayer on the day of the conquest, he ordered that all the idols which
were round the Kaaba should be collected and burnt with fire and broken
up". Pictures of Ali standing on the shoulders of the Prophet and
pulling down the idol of Hubal from the top of a Kaaba wall have been
published by Shias.
Muslim rulers and generals have faithfully followed the teachings of the
Prophet in this respect down the ages. Desecration of idols, destruction
of temples and their replacement with mosques, often constructed from
the debris of the temple has been a set Islamic pattern throughout
medieval Indian history.
Historians like Sita Ram Goel, Harsh Narain, K S Lal and G L Verma have
collected and presented several types of evidence for thousands upon
thousands of temple destructions wrought by Islam in India, and by
pinpointing the large and unambiguous scriptural basis for this Islamic
iconoclasm.
Restoration of one's sacred places has been just as common. History
shows, that the Jews, Muslims and Christians have all claimed back their
holy places which were lost to foreign invaders.
Temple Mount in East Jerusalem, Cordova mosque in Spain and quite a few
churches in erstwhile communist countries in Europe provide examples of
this.
Hindu leaders could have pointed out this theory and practice of semitic
religions. They could have said that in the light of this evidence and
this perspective, VHP's demand for just three sacred sites was
incredibly modest. Thus presented, the Hindu case would have been
readily appreciated and received wide support from outsiders.
A political party with a nationalist vision would link up this demand
with larger issues involved: Do Hindus constitute the national society?
Or are they merely one community among the many? Are Vedas, Upanishads
and epics national heritage or sectarian literature revered by a section
of a community? Should the Muslim rule in India be regarded as native or
foreign?
Instead, the Hindu leadership, especially the BJP, attempted to redefine
the Ayodhya issue m terms of territorial nationalism, away from its
religious basis. The choice, they said, was between the national hero
Rama and a foreign invader Babur. In fact, geographical nationalism had
nothing to do with the issue. Malik Kafur, a Hindu convert, destroyed
many temples even as Britishers left them in peace and even spent money
on their upkeep.
Some BJP supporters claimed that Islam itself condemned the destruction
of other people's places of worship and that Allah does not accept a
prayer offered in a mosque built on a disputed site. In other words,
they claimed Ram Jamnabhoomi back for Hindus in the name of Islam.
Naturally, Muslim leaders were not impressed by these arguments. They
knew Islam better. The so-called moderates like Rafiq Zakaria and Asgar
Ali Engineer tenaciously defended Muslims' right to cling to a Hindu
scared site.
The willful confusion and half-heartedness about the deeper issues
thrown up by the Ayodhya controversy prevented the BJP and other Hindu
leaders from presenting their case in a straightforward and convincing
manner. The only political outcome of the BJP's campaign on Ayodhya has
been the Places of Religious Worship Act 1991, which froze the status of
all religious places as it was before the Independence, denying the
Hindus any advantage of Independence in this vital matter.
A tragic consequence of the Hindu leadership's reluctance to speak up
was that. an issue of tremendous nationalist significance was reduced to
a mere property dispute, just as the secularists wanted.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee had declared on 17 December 1992: "We are very sad
at what happened in Ayodhya on the 6th December." And now, L K Advani,
who spearheaded BJP's Ayodhya campaign till he broke down in tears at
the site of the demolition, has said that the demolition was
unfortunate.
This needless defensiveness has emboldened and enabled the secularists
and Muslims to keep up the pressure by making the 6th December a day of
reminding the Hindus of their (non-existing) guilt.
Back
Top
|
