Author: Koenraad Elst
Publication: Outlook
Date: October 6, 2010
URL: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267377
A group of them raised the stakes and turned
a local communal deal into a clash of civilizations, a life-and-death matter
on which the survival of the greatest treasure in the universe depended, viz.
secularism.
In 1858, the Virgin Mary appeared to young
Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes, France. Before long, Lourdes became the most
important pilgrimage site for Roman Catholics and other Mary worshippers.
France prided itself on being a secular state, in some phases (esp. 1905-40)
even aggressively secular, yet it acknowledged and protected Lourdes as a
place of pilgrimage. Not many French officials actually believe in the apparition,
but that is not the point. The believers are human beings, fellow citizens,
and out of respect for them does the state respect and protect their pilgrimage.
For essentially the same reason, the mere
fact that the Rama Janmabhumi (Rama's birthplace) site in Ayodhya is well-established
as a sacred site for Hindu pilgrimage, is reason enough to protect its functioning
as a Hindu sacred site, complete with proper Hindu temple architecture. Ayodhya
doesn't have this status in any other religion, though ancient Buddhism accepted
Rama as an earlier incarnation of the Buddha. The site most certainly doesn't
have such a status in Islam, which imposed a mosque on it, the Babri Masjid
(ostensibly built in 1528, closed by court order after riots in 1935, surreptitiously
turned into a Hindu temple accessible only to a priest in 1949, opened for
unrestricted Hindu use in 1986, and demolished by Hindu militants in 1992).
So, the sensible and secular thing to do, even for those sceptical of every
religious belief involved, is to leave the site to the Hindus. The well-attested
fact that Hindus kept going there even when a mosque was standing, even under
Muslim rule, is helpful to know in order to gauge its religious importance;
but is not strictly of any importance in the present. For respecting its Hindu
character, it is sufficient that the site has this sacred status today.
Secular PM Rajiv Gandhi had understood this,
and from the court-ordered opening of the locks on the mosque-used-as-temple
in 1986, he was manoeuvring towards an arrangement leaving the contentious
site to the Hindus in exchange for some other goodies (starting with the Shah
Bano amendment and the Satanic Verses ban) for the Muslim leadership. Call
it Congress culture or horse-trading, but it would have been practical and
saved everyone a lot of trouble.
That is when a group of "eminent historians"
started raising the stakes and turning this local communal deal into a clash
of civilizations, a life-and-death matter on which the survival of the greatest
treasure in the universe depended, viz. secularism. Secure in (or drunk with)
their hegemonic position, they didn't limit themselves to denying to the Hindus
the right of rebuilding their demolished temple, say: "A medieval demolition
doesn't justify a counter-demolition today." Instead, they went so far
as to deny the well-established fact that the mosque had been built in forcible
replacement of a Rama temple.
Note, incidentally, that the temple demolition,
a very ordinary event in Islamic history, was not even the worst of it: as
a stab to the heart of Hindu sensibilities, the Babri mosque stood imposed
on a particularly sacred site. Just as for Hindus, the site itself was far
more important than the building on it, for Islamic iconoclasts the imposition
of a mosque on such an exceptional site was a greater victory over infidelism
than yet another forcible replacement of a heathen temple with a mosque. Though
the historians' and archaeologists' ensuing research into the Ayodhya temple
demolition has been most interesting, it was strictly speaking superfluous,
for the sacred status venerated by most Hindus and purposely violated by some
Muslims accrues to the site itself rather than to the architecture on it.
The implication for the present situation is that even if Muslims refuse to
believe that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a temple,
they nonetheless know of the site's unique status for Hindus even without
a temple. So, they should be able to understand that any Muslim claim to the
site, even by non-violent means such as litigation, amounts to an act of anti-Hindu
aggression. Muslims often complain of being stereotyped as fanatical and aggressive,
but here they have an excellent opportunity to earn everyone's goodwill by
abandoning their inappropriate claim to a site that is sacred to others but
not to themselves.
After the eminent historian's media offensive
against the historical evidence, the political class, though intimidated,
didn't give in altogether but subtly pursued its own idea of a reasonable
solution. In late 1990, Chandra Shekhar's minority government, supported and
largely teleguided by opposition leader Rajiv Gandhi, invited the Vishva Hindu
Parishad (VHP) and the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) to mandate some
selected scholars for a discussion of the historical evidence. The politicians
had clearly expected that the debate would bring out the evidence and silence
the deniers for good. And that is what happened, or at least the first half.
Decisive evidence was indeed presented, but it failed to discourage the deniers.
The VHP-employed team presented the already
known documentary and archaeological evidence and dug up quite a few new documents
confirming the temple demolition (including four that Muslim institutions
had tried to conceal or tamper with). The BMAC-employed team quit the discussions
but brought out a booklet later, trumpeted as the final deathblow of the temple
demolition "myth". In fact, it turned out to be limited to an attempt
at whittling down the evidential impact of a selected few of the pro-temple
documents and holding forth on generalities of politicized history without
proving how any of that could neutralize this particular evidence. It contained
not a single (even attempted) reference to a piece of actual evidence proving
an alternative scenario or positively refuting the established scenario. I
have given a full account earlier in my book Ayodhya, the Case against the
Temple (2002).
Unfortunately, no amount of evidence could
make the deniers mend their ways. Though defeated on contents, the "eminent
historians" became only more insistent in denying the evidence. They
especially excelled in blackening and slandering those few scholars who publicly
stood by the evidence, not even sparing the towering archaeologist BB Lal.
Overnight, what had been the consensus in Muslim, Hindu and European sources,
was turned into a "claim" by "Hindu extremists". Thus,
the eminent historians managed to intimate a Dutch scholar who had earlier
contributed even more elements to the already large pile of evidence for the
temple demolition into backtracking. Most spectacularly, they managed to get
the entire international media and the vast majority of India-related academics
who ever voiced an opinion on the matter, into toeing their line. These dimly-informed
India-watchers too started intoning the no-temple mantra and slandering the
dissidents, to their faces or behind their backs, as "liars", "BJP
prostitutes", and what not. In Western academe, dozens chose to toe this
party-line of disregarding the evidence and denying the obvious, viz. that
the Babri Masjid (along with the Kaaba in Mecca, the Mezquita in Cordoba,
the Ummayad mosque in Damascus, the Aya Sophia in Istambul, the Quwwatu'l-Islam
in Delhi, etc.) was one of the numerous ancient mosques built on, or with
materials from, purposely desecrated or demolished non-Muslim places of worship.
Until the Babri Masjid demolition by Hindu
activists on 6 December 1992, Congress PM Narasimha Rao was clearly pursuing
the same plan of a bloodless hand-over of the site to the Hindus in exchange
for some concessions to the Muslims. The Hindu activists who performed the
demolition were angry with the leaders of their own Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) for seemingly abandoning the Ayodhya campaign after winning the 1991
elections with it, but perhaps the leaders had genuinely been clever in adjusting
their Ayodhya strategy to their insiders' perception of a deal planned by
the PM. After the demolition, Rao milked it for its anti-BJP nuisance value
and gave out some pro-mosque signals; but a closer look at his actual policies
shows that he stayed on course. His Government requested the Supreme Court
to offer an opinion on the historical background of the Ayodhya dispute, knowing
fully well from the outcome of the scholars' debate that an informed opinion
could only favour the old consensus (now known as the "Hindu claim").
In normal circumstances, it is not a court's business to pronounce on matters
of history, but then whom else could you trust to give a fair opinion when
the professional historians were being so brazenly partisan?
The Supreme Court sent the matter on, or back,
to the Allahabad High Court, which, after sitting on the Ayodhya case since
1950, at long last got serious about finding out the true story. It ordered
a ground-penetrating radar search and the most thorough excavations. In this
effort, carried out in 2003, the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) employed
a large number of Muslims in order to preempt the predictable allegation of
acting as a Hindu nationalist front. The findings confirmed those of the excavations
in the 1950s, 1970s and 1992: a very large Hindu religious building stood
at the site before the Babri Masjid. The Allahabad High Court has now accepted
these findings by India's apex archaeological body. But not everyone is willing
to abide by the verdict.
In particular, the eminent historians are
up in arms. In a guest column in The Hindu (2 Oct. 2010: The verdict on Ayodhya,
a historian's opinion), Prof. Romila Thapar claims that the ASI findings had
been "disputed". Oh well, it is true that some of her school had
thought up the most hilariously contrived objections, which I held against
the light in my booklet Ayodhya, the Finale: Science vs. Secularism in the
Excavations Debate. Thus, it was said that the presence of pillar-bases doesn't
imply that pillars were built on it; you see, some people plant pillar bases
here and there once in a while, without any ulterior motive of putting them
to some good use. And it was alleged that the finding of some animal bones
in one layer precludes the existence of a temple (and somehow annuls the tangible
testimony of the vast foundation complex and the numerous religious artefacts);
and more such hare-brained reasoning. The picture emerging from all this clutching
at straws was clear enough: there is no such thing as a refutation of the
overwhelming ASI evidence, just as there was no refutation of the archaeological
and documentary evidence presented earlier.
Today, I feel sorry for the eminent historians.
They have identified very publicly with the denial of the Ayodhya evidence.
While politically expedient, and while going unchallenged in the academically
most consequential forums for twenty years, that position has now been officially
declared false. It suddenly dawns on them that they have tied their names
to an enterprise unlikely to earn them glory in the long run. We may now expect
frantic attempts to intimidate the Supreme Court into annulling the Allahabad
verdict, starting with the ongoing signature campaign against the learned
Judges' finding; and possibly it will succeed. But it is unlikely that future
generations, unburdened with the presently prevailing power equation that
made this history denial profitable, will play along and keep on disregarding
the massive body of historical evidence. With the Ayodhya verdict, the eminent
historians are catching a glimpse of what they will look like when they stand
before Allah's throne on Judgment Day.
- Koenraad Elst, a Belgian Indologist, is
the author, inter alia of Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple and Ayodhya,
The Finale
