12-04-2004, 12:56 AM
Ayodhya: The futility of talks
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Swaraj Prakash Gupta
It is universally agreed that the best solution for all disputes is through negotiations. Hence, all political, social and religious parties and groups as well as the government of India had tried to resolve the Ayodhya dispute by arranging dialogue between the Hindus and the Muslims.
Prime Ministers VP Singh, Chandrashekhar, PV Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee made attempts to bring the leaders of the two communities and intellectuals, including historians and archaeologists, to the negotiations table to discuss and hammer out a mutually agreed solution. The present government also favours this route. However, all efforts have so far not yielded results. Why? Since I have been an active member in some of the efforts at engagement tried over the past 15 years, my understanding of the problem is based on first hand experience.
<b>To begin with, there has been extraneous forces working covertly as well as overtly to derail the talks. Chief among them are the Marxists. But why do they do it? Because it is an article of faith with them, almost an ideological hiccup. It emerges from their view of history as a whole and Indian history in particular. According to them, every new stage in human history is progressively better. Hence, the history of ancient India, the "Hindu" or "pre-Islamic" period, had necessarily to be inferior than the history of India of the medieval era. </b>Karl Marx also held the same view.
This anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim stance of the communists and their political affiliates in India is reflected in all national issues involving the two communities and their respective religions and cultures. In the writings of Romila Thapar, RS Sharma and Satish Chandra, one often detects this attitude. A recent manifestation is the book on the Somnath Temple by Ms Thapar. Earlier, the textbooks written by these scholars for NCERT were full of this propaganda. Marxist historians RS Sharma, DN Jha, Suraj Bhan and Athar Ali who rushed to the aid of the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) to contest all the evidences - Hindu, Muslim and British - in favour of a temple existing at Ramajanmabhumi prior to the coming up of the so-call Babri Mosque in 1528-29, essentially carried this baggage. It was based on this very stance that the entire JNU group of historians issued a pamphlet against the existence of a 12th Century Hindu temple at the site of the mosque at Ayodhya.
<b>The second factor militating against the possibility of a negotiated settlement is the policy of the Congress, which, under the compulsion of vote-bank politics, wavered between strong avowed Hindu and unreasonably pro-Muslim attitudes. Rajiv Gandhi played the "Hindu card" in 1985 due to which the then Chief Minister of UP, Vir Bahadur Singh, got the locks of the Janmabhumi temple opened. In 1989, Rajiv saw to it that the then Chief Minister of UP, ND Tiwari, facilitated the foundation laying ceremony of the Singhdwar at Janmabhumi through Buta Singh, the then Home Minister.</b>
<b>It may also be recalled that Rajiv Gandhi kicked off his last election campaign from this very place.</b> But fearing the loss of Muslim votes after the great demolition, Narsimha Rao declared his intention to rebuild the mosque. Since then, practically every one in the Congress talked about it in the same language. The Samajwadi Party under Mulayam Singh Yadav went the extra mile by raising fiery rhetoric in favour of a new mosque.
The third force has been the burden of Indian history from 1885 to 1947. The most laudable effort of this phase was the unification of Hindus and the Muslims in the Independence struggle. However, time and again, this solidarity collapsed. It failed to bring about complete rapprochement between the two communities.
<b>This burden of history is called "secularism". </b>When any ideology becomes an obsession, it very often leads to internal contradictions and self-destruction. <b>It happened with Nehru in the case of reconstruction of the temple of Somnath by KM Munshi, Sardar Patel and Gadgil and its inauguration by the then President of India, Rajendra Prasad. From April 17 through April 28, 1951, Nehru wrote a number of letters to various persons, including his own Information Minister, RR Diwakar, the Jamsaheb of Saurashtra, KM Munshi, Dhebar Bhai and others opposing the construction and opening-ceremony of the temple as well as any state support to it on the ground that it will tarnish the "secular" image of India.</b> <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> But when Gadgil and others wanted to know why then was Nehru's own government fully patronising Buddhism at Sanchi and Sarnath and the Muslim dargahs, he had no answer.
<b>Lastly, the Muslims, like the Marxists, have their version of an international communist brotherhood - the concept of Umma. </b>This provokes them to stage protest marches against the US over Iraq, Afghanistan and every injustice on Muslims, actual or perceived, from Bosnia to Indonesia. In the aftermath of the Babri demolition, temples in Bangladesh, Pakistan and the UK were destroyed out of similar sentiment. But let us remember one thing: All this was against 'True Islam'. <b>On the November 13, 1997 Mohammad Abdullah Sabbeh, the Imam of the Qaba of Mecca, wrote: "If it is proved that there was a temple before the coming up of the mosque, the Muslims should leave their claim, and if it is proved that it was built not only on the vacant plot of land, then also the mosque cannot be built there with force, but only with consensus."</b>
That is precisely the reason that the lawyers appearing on behalf of the AIBMC repeatedly goad their witnesses during cross-examinations before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court into stating that the mosque was built on vacant land. However, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), in its excavations conducted in 2003 under the orders of High Court, has clearly established in a two- volume report that the mosque was not built on any vacant plot of land but directly on the walls of a massive temple of the north Indian style which was originally built on a series of pillars that were uprooted at some point of time. We know from a variety of sources, directly and also circumstantially, that it was the Army of Babar, under the command of one Mir Baqi, which had destroyed the temple and built a mosque directly on its remains. That is precisely the reason why the revenue records in the Faizabad collectorate always designated this <b>mosque as Masjid-e- Janamsthan, </b> <!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo-->: a usage which clearly establishes the same fact, that it is "the mosque located on Janamsthan".
The dispute is very simple. In the 12th Century a temple was built at Janmabhumi, the clinching evidence of which comes from a 20- line Sanskrit inscription written in the Nagari script found at the site on December 6, 1992. It says that a temple was constructed here by King Meghsuta during the emperorship of the Gahadval king, Govindchandra (1114-1145). There were also three Persian inscriptions in the mosque which said: <b>"Here was set-up a structure for angles to descend on (the mosque) by Mir Baqi, under the command of Shahanshah Babar (1528-29)."</b><!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo-->:
According to Law the ownership of the land always remains with the original owner. Here it was the deity, as the deity, in Law, is a person. A number of Muslims have been coming forward to build the mosque elsewhere and allow Hindus to construct the Rama temple at Janambhumi. Prof AR Khan of Shimla University pointed out in one of his papers that even if a mosque is built there it would be a new mosque since the original is now in ruins. Then why not give the place to the Hindus as a gesture of goodwill and amity? These are many other similar sane voices. If we listen to them, a negotiated solution is possible. But without a commitment for lasting goodwill, it will degenerate into a dialogue of the deaf.
Meanwhile, a decade has passed since the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court began hearing the consolidated case. Over time, deep vested interests have developed in favour of prolonging the case. It may be years before the Bench gives a final Judgement. But that will not be the end of the matter. There is bound to be appeals and more appeals. At the end of it all, somewhere in the distant future, many will wonder why the parties to the dispute did not opt for an out of court settlement. So why not begin now?
(The author is Chairman of the Indian Archaeological Society and has been with the Ramjanmabhumi movement from its inception ) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Swaraj Prakash Gupta
It is universally agreed that the best solution for all disputes is through negotiations. Hence, all political, social and religious parties and groups as well as the government of India had tried to resolve the Ayodhya dispute by arranging dialogue between the Hindus and the Muslims.
Prime Ministers VP Singh, Chandrashekhar, PV Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee made attempts to bring the leaders of the two communities and intellectuals, including historians and archaeologists, to the negotiations table to discuss and hammer out a mutually agreed solution. The present government also favours this route. However, all efforts have so far not yielded results. Why? Since I have been an active member in some of the efforts at engagement tried over the past 15 years, my understanding of the problem is based on first hand experience.
<b>To begin with, there has been extraneous forces working covertly as well as overtly to derail the talks. Chief among them are the Marxists. But why do they do it? Because it is an article of faith with them, almost an ideological hiccup. It emerges from their view of history as a whole and Indian history in particular. According to them, every new stage in human history is progressively better. Hence, the history of ancient India, the "Hindu" or "pre-Islamic" period, had necessarily to be inferior than the history of India of the medieval era. </b>Karl Marx also held the same view.
This anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim stance of the communists and their political affiliates in India is reflected in all national issues involving the two communities and their respective religions and cultures. In the writings of Romila Thapar, RS Sharma and Satish Chandra, one often detects this attitude. A recent manifestation is the book on the Somnath Temple by Ms Thapar. Earlier, the textbooks written by these scholars for NCERT were full of this propaganda. Marxist historians RS Sharma, DN Jha, Suraj Bhan and Athar Ali who rushed to the aid of the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) to contest all the evidences - Hindu, Muslim and British - in favour of a temple existing at Ramajanmabhumi prior to the coming up of the so-call Babri Mosque in 1528-29, essentially carried this baggage. It was based on this very stance that the entire JNU group of historians issued a pamphlet against the existence of a 12th Century Hindu temple at the site of the mosque at Ayodhya.
<b>The second factor militating against the possibility of a negotiated settlement is the policy of the Congress, which, under the compulsion of vote-bank politics, wavered between strong avowed Hindu and unreasonably pro-Muslim attitudes. Rajiv Gandhi played the "Hindu card" in 1985 due to which the then Chief Minister of UP, Vir Bahadur Singh, got the locks of the Janmabhumi temple opened. In 1989, Rajiv saw to it that the then Chief Minister of UP, ND Tiwari, facilitated the foundation laying ceremony of the Singhdwar at Janmabhumi through Buta Singh, the then Home Minister.</b>
<b>It may also be recalled that Rajiv Gandhi kicked off his last election campaign from this very place.</b> But fearing the loss of Muslim votes after the great demolition, Narsimha Rao declared his intention to rebuild the mosque. Since then, practically every one in the Congress talked about it in the same language. The Samajwadi Party under Mulayam Singh Yadav went the extra mile by raising fiery rhetoric in favour of a new mosque.
The third force has been the burden of Indian history from 1885 to 1947. The most laudable effort of this phase was the unification of Hindus and the Muslims in the Independence struggle. However, time and again, this solidarity collapsed. It failed to bring about complete rapprochement between the two communities.
<b>This burden of history is called "secularism". </b>When any ideology becomes an obsession, it very often leads to internal contradictions and self-destruction. <b>It happened with Nehru in the case of reconstruction of the temple of Somnath by KM Munshi, Sardar Patel and Gadgil and its inauguration by the then President of India, Rajendra Prasad. From April 17 through April 28, 1951, Nehru wrote a number of letters to various persons, including his own Information Minister, RR Diwakar, the Jamsaheb of Saurashtra, KM Munshi, Dhebar Bhai and others opposing the construction and opening-ceremony of the temple as well as any state support to it on the ground that it will tarnish the "secular" image of India.</b> <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> But when Gadgil and others wanted to know why then was Nehru's own government fully patronising Buddhism at Sanchi and Sarnath and the Muslim dargahs, he had no answer.
<b>Lastly, the Muslims, like the Marxists, have their version of an international communist brotherhood - the concept of Umma. </b>This provokes them to stage protest marches against the US over Iraq, Afghanistan and every injustice on Muslims, actual or perceived, from Bosnia to Indonesia. In the aftermath of the Babri demolition, temples in Bangladesh, Pakistan and the UK were destroyed out of similar sentiment. But let us remember one thing: All this was against 'True Islam'. <b>On the November 13, 1997 Mohammad Abdullah Sabbeh, the Imam of the Qaba of Mecca, wrote: "If it is proved that there was a temple before the coming up of the mosque, the Muslims should leave their claim, and if it is proved that it was built not only on the vacant plot of land, then also the mosque cannot be built there with force, but only with consensus."</b>
That is precisely the reason that the lawyers appearing on behalf of the AIBMC repeatedly goad their witnesses during cross-examinations before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court into stating that the mosque was built on vacant land. However, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), in its excavations conducted in 2003 under the orders of High Court, has clearly established in a two- volume report that the mosque was not built on any vacant plot of land but directly on the walls of a massive temple of the north Indian style which was originally built on a series of pillars that were uprooted at some point of time. We know from a variety of sources, directly and also circumstantially, that it was the Army of Babar, under the command of one Mir Baqi, which had destroyed the temple and built a mosque directly on its remains. That is precisely the reason why the revenue records in the Faizabad collectorate always designated this <b>mosque as Masjid-e- Janamsthan, </b> <!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo-->: a usage which clearly establishes the same fact, that it is "the mosque located on Janamsthan".
The dispute is very simple. In the 12th Century a temple was built at Janmabhumi, the clinching evidence of which comes from a 20- line Sanskrit inscription written in the Nagari script found at the site on December 6, 1992. It says that a temple was constructed here by King Meghsuta during the emperorship of the Gahadval king, Govindchandra (1114-1145). There were also three Persian inscriptions in the mosque which said: <b>"Here was set-up a structure for angles to descend on (the mosque) by Mir Baqi, under the command of Shahanshah Babar (1528-29)."</b><!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo-->:
According to Law the ownership of the land always remains with the original owner. Here it was the deity, as the deity, in Law, is a person. A number of Muslims have been coming forward to build the mosque elsewhere and allow Hindus to construct the Rama temple at Janambhumi. Prof AR Khan of Shimla University pointed out in one of his papers that even if a mosque is built there it would be a new mosque since the original is now in ruins. Then why not give the place to the Hindus as a gesture of goodwill and amity? These are many other similar sane voices. If we listen to them, a negotiated solution is possible. But without a commitment for lasting goodwill, it will degenerate into a dialogue of the deaf.
Meanwhile, a decade has passed since the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court began hearing the consolidated case. Over time, deep vested interests have developed in favour of prolonging the case. It may be years before the Bench gives a final Judgement. But that will not be the end of the matter. There is bound to be appeals and more appeals. At the end of it all, somewhere in the distant future, many will wonder why the parties to the dispute did not opt for an out of court settlement. So why not begin now?
(The author is Chairman of the Indian Archaeological Society and has been with the Ramjanmabhumi movement from its inception ) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->