Ayodhya

09-22-2004, 08:14 PM

Post-Babri rioting case: 71 acquitted
QUOTENew Delhi: A Delhi court has acquitted 71 members of the minority
community who were facing trial in connection with a case of rioting in East
Delhi following the demolition of the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya in
December 1992.

09-22-2004, 09:39 PM

Yaar, why are there now few cries on the Ram Temple??

09-22-2004, 09:42 PM

QUOTEYaar, why are there now few cries on the Ram Temple?? 
Who told you?

09-26-2004, 07:53 PM

Arrey bhai...haven't listened to Uma Bharti and co. speaking anything about Ram Temple for some time.

09-26-2004, 09:10 PM

QUOTE(David @ Sep 26 2004, 07:53 PM) Arrey bhai...haven't listened to Uma Bharti and co. speaking anything about Ram Temple for some time. 
<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /> And your point being .......

09-27-2004, 12:34 AM

She talked about taking "sanyas" from politics, then retracted.

09-27-2004, 04:35 AM

QUOTE(David @ Sep 27 2004, 12:34 AM) She talked about taking "sanyas" from politics, then retracted. 
And I trust you believe in Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny. <!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /> Could be her 'inner voice' <!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' />

Can you explain as to what are you trying say has anything to do with respect to Ayodhya.

10-11-2004, 04:00 AM

RJB Frequently asked questions

RJB article index

Evidence For The Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir URL

All HVK links..

12-04-2004, 12:36 AM

'Masjid demolition was an act of God'

QUOTEFormer Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh on Friday retracted his earlier statement that a conspiracy had been hatched by BJP president L K Advani and other senior party leaders to demolish the disputed Babri Masjid structure. Deposing before the Liberhan Commission probing the sequence of events leading to the demolition of the structure at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992, Mr Singh in his amended affidavit stated: "The demolition was an act of God and for what happened I have no regret, no repentance, no sorrow and no grief."

"Since Lord Ram symbolized the ethos of Indian nationalism, historians will write that devotees of the nation had demolished the symbol of slavery and disgrace, though this demolition was purely sudden and unplanned," he added. Singh, who supplied a detailed affidavit to the Commission, stated that on June 20, 2003, he had come across a newspaper report in which it was alleged that the Uttar Pradesh Government had failed to make arrangements for the protection of the disputed structure and deploy stationed Central forces.

This statement before the Commission by the Centre's counsel had angered Mr Singh, following which he told the media that there was a conspiracy between former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, BJP President LK Advani and senior party leader Dr Murli Manohar Joshi to demolish the disputed structure. "I have no knowledge, information or evidence to support the above allegation, since it was an incorrect statement made in furious reaction," Mr Singh clarified. He added that Mr Advani did not ask him to resign from his post on the day of the demolition as he had already done so at his own will.

Mr Singh, who faced questions from Commission head Justice MS Liberhan, stated he had no role, either direct or indirect, in the demolition of the disputed structure. At the same time, he made it amply clear that he had always been in favour of the construction of a Grand Ram Temple at the very place where the disputed structure stood. By erecting the Babri Masjid at the birthplace of Lord Ram, Babar had wanted to humiliate the Hindus. Since Lord Ram is the symbol of Indian ethos, culture and nationalism, the disputed structure was a symbol of slavery and disgrace to the entire Hindu nation, claimed Mr Singh.

But this never came in the way of maintaining law and order in the state and protecting the structure at all costs. As Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Mr Singh said, he had issued strict orders that short of firing all measures should be employed to secure the structure. From time to time, the instructions from the Centre to review the security arrangements were complied with. Though no specific information was received by the administration till the date of the incident, there was no laxity on the part of the state administration, he added.

But despite all the efforts, the structure could not be protected. What had happened on the day of the incident was purely sudden and unplanned, which could at best be termed a self-generated public resentment and outburst of the crushed feelings of the masses for centuries, he added.

12-04-2004, 12:56 AM

Ayodhya: The futility of talks

QUOTESwaraj 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.

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. 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.

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.

It may also be recalled that Rajiv Gandhi kicked off his last election campaign from this very place. 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.

This burden of history is called "secularism". When any ideology becomes an obsession, it very often leads to internal contradictions and self-destruction. 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. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /> 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.

Lastly, the Muslims, like the Marxists, have their version of an international communist brotherhood - the concept of Umma. 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'. 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."

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 mosque as Masjid-e- Janamsthan, <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' />: 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: "Here was set-up a structure for angles to descend on (the mosque) by Mir Baqi, under the command of Shahanshah Babar (1528-29)."<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' />:

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 )

12-04-2004, 01:03 AM

There was no temple

QUOTEZafaryab Jilani, Convenor, Babri Masjid Action Committee and member, All India Muslim Personal Law Board

I feel judgement by the court of law is the only solution for the Ayodhya dispute. All efforts for negotiations failed. Even a dialogue between the Shankaracharya, Jayendra Saraswati, and Chairman of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and subsequently Shankaracharya's letter could not cut any ice. In my opinion we are now inching close to the final judgement by the High Court. After this most likely the aggrieved party, whosoever it shall be, may take up before the Supreme Court.

However, the High Court Judgement will definitely go in a long way in weakening the peoples' movement by both Hindus or Muslims. Ultimately the people would like an early judgement. They have already waited for 54 years, they should be patient and wait for another year or two for the final court order. The impression, that the Ayodhya-related cases will never be decided must be removed from the minds of the people.

I am optimistic that the court will take a decision based on evidence and not emotion. We feel that our evidences- documentary as well as oral - are so strong and weighty that there appears to be no chance of our losing. Among the oral evidences we have presented, eight are from eminent historians and archaeologists, including seven non-Muslims. They include professors Shirin Ratnakar from JNU, Suraj Bhan and Suvira Jaiswal. Prayers were offered in the mosque up to December 1949. Muslim scholars and theologians have deposed that mosques remain mosques even if the buildings are demolished or idols placed inside it.

Historians, including Hindu religious scholars, deposed the fact that the place was never considered Ram's birthplace up to December 1949. There is no evidence at all pointing to the veracity of the Sangh Parivaar's claim. If indeed a mosque had been built by demolishing a standing temple, and that too a famous one as claimed, then surely it would have figured in some official or semi-official document.

From all that has come on record so far, we have historical as well as religious evidence to presume that the story of Ram's birthplace inside the masjid is likely to stand repelled and it maybe established that neither was a temple demolished to erect the Babri Masjid nor did Hindus believe before 1949 that Ram was born beneath the middle dome of the masjid. All this propaganda started only after the partition of the country and it was that very propaganda which led to idols being placed in the mosque on December 22-23, 1949. After the Judgement of the Court, most Hindus will start realising that the entire campaign over Ram Janmabhoomi was not based on reality and as such the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and allied forces will stand reduced and marginalised.



Is it just me or Jilani's hatred for idolators is showing through ?? <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' />:

12-04-2004, 02:29 AM

QUOTEIs it just me or Jilani's hatred for idolators is showing through ??
Now, it is free for all.

12-04-2004, 04:53 AM

Kalyan equates Lord Ram with Bharatiyata
QUOTEFormer Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh on Friday sought to equate Lord Ram with 'Bharatiyata' saying Ram was the symbol of Indian ethos and culture.

"Lord Ram is the symbol of Indian ethos, Indian culture, Indian nationalism and to be precise Indianness, that is, Bharatiyata," Singh said in his affidavit filed before the Liberhan Commission probing the events leading to the demolition of the disputed structure.

Maintaining that he was for the construction of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya, Singh, in his affidavit, which detailed the security measures taken by his government to protect the disputed structure, however, said its demolition on December 6, 1992 was an "act of god" and that he had "no repentance, no sorrow and no grief for that".

"Historians will write that devotees of Ram, devotees of nation had demolished the symbol of slavery and disgrace, though this demolition was not expected it was purely sudden and unplanned," the strongly worded affidavit said.

Singh said he felt "the act of demolition was the self generated public resentment and outburst of the crushed feelings of the masses for the centuries."

Stating that history supported the existence of a "grand temple" at the site prior to its destruction in 1528 by "invader Babar", Singh said "Babar's intention was not to construct a mosque for the purpose of Ibadat, but to degrade and humiliate the Indians, especially the Hindus and their coming generations."

12-04-2004, 02:47 PM

Open to negotiations

QUOTEMahmood A Madani, General Secretary, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind

I was a youth of 21 when the Babri Masjid was demolished. In the years preceding that unfortunate incident which has remained a blot on our post-Independence history, there was palpable excitement over the issue. Many people of my age-group were affected by the vicissitudes of those times. But today, 12 years after the Babri demolition by fanatical crowds in Ayodhya, much has changed. I don't see young people of today being swayed by rhetoric over a temple or a mosque. It is as if the nation has moved on. The youth of the 2000s is more concerned with burning issues like unemployment and corruption.

I think the Vishwa Hindu Parishad will be making a terrible mistake by trying to force a reopening of this wound on our national consciousness. It will not receive the support of most Hindus. Even the people who were swayed by their hate slogans a dozen years earlier will not respond to the VHP's new call. The secular ethos of the nation has been reaffirmed by the recent electoral mandate. This is now a cause only for a minuscule section of the population. The media will also be more objective than it was back then. Rabble rousing over dead and abstract issues will not people to take to the streets any more.

As a leader of the Muslim community, I am in favour of a negotiated settlement of all outstanding issues obstructing better inter-community understanding. Sadly, not much has happened in this regard. The years since 1992 have been wasted in making threatening postures by the VHP and elements in the BJP. This has convinced people that some people use the temple issue to keep their dukan in business. The BJP has recently raked up this issue after sleeping over it for six years. Out of power it has resumed making dangerous noises. But has it made even one substantial attempt at reconciliation and rapprochement? No.

The Shankaracharya of Kanchi, Sri Jayendra Saraswati, made an attempt to seek a negotiated settlement. I am not exactly sure as to what were the proposals on the table, but this much is sure: It was a half-hearted move. Moreover, even if there was some headway from that initiative, the lack of follow-up action negated whatever gains it made. This has been a recurring story. Over the past 12 years many individuals have conjured up solutions, but these have not been made within acceptable frameworks. It is now high time that a firm, actionable plan is devised, something like a structured dialogue process. And, it is not enough to just start off such a process under media glare. There must be follow-up. Scuttled talks is worse than no talks at all. The court case can continue taking its own pace. But the VHP must behave . It should not try to communalise the delay at this stage. If it has a solution other than forcing the pace, we are welcome to a discussion

**acharya** · 12-05-2004, 11:55 PM

Secular issue of larceny

Prafull Goradia

The demolition of the Babri edifice 12 years go was no tragedy. Most Hindus believe that Lord Ram was born there by virtue of which it is eminently sacred for the community. All faiths inspire deep sentiments. For example, the Muslims are so sensitive that they do not allow any non-Muslim to set foot either in Mecca or Medina. Admittedly, the Muslim of today was not responsible for the desecration. In this context, the interaction between the respective parents of my mother and father is worth recalling. When they first met, it was discovered that a moorti of Lord Buddha, which belonged to my father's family, had moved to my mother's years earlier. This grandfather had bought it from the chor bazar at Mumbai. Immediately, the moorti was restored to the rightful family.

It is in this spirit of decency that the desecrated temples should be returned to the Hindus. I am not referring to the thousands that have been listed by scholars. Most of these were the result of recycling the debris of the mandirs that were standing before their destruction. The same stones were reused to build the masjid's plinth upwards.

The scholars have identified mandirs with the help of epigraphs found on the mosques wherein the sultans or the nawabs took credit for doing service to Islam. In a number of cases, the court chroniclers have left behind descriptions of what happened and how the masjids were built. The converted, as distinct from the recycled, mandirs have not been distinguished by the scholars in their lists. The reason perhaps was that the listing was based on desk or library research.

The converted is the still standing temple which was originally built. It was not brought down. Merely the sanctum sanctorum was destroyed and all the faces, whether of avatars, humans or animals, were either disfigured or cut off. Until about the advent of the Lodis, Islamic architecture had not matured enough in India to build well designed masjids. The easy quick fix method adopted by the invaders was to convert a standing temple. An outstanding example of conversion is the Adhai dinja Jhopda about a furlong away from the dargah of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti at Ajmer.

It was identified and catalogued by Lt. Gen. Sir Alexander Cunningham, the founder director of the Archaeological Survey of India. According to the legend also discovered by him locally, soon after Mohammad Ghauri defeated and killed Prithiviraj Chauhan at the second battle of Tarain in 1192 AD, he travelled to Ajmer. He was so awed by the triple temple complex that he ordered their conversion into a masjid instantly. His wishes were fulfilled in a matter of only two and a half days. Which is why the masjid was called Adhai din ka Jhopda.

There are many other instances such as the Adina masjid on National Highway 34 between Raiganj in West Dinajpur district and Malda in West Bengal. It was converted by Sultan Sikandar Shah between 1366 and 1374 AD. Between Kannauj and Etawah, there are several such converted masjids. Jaunpur has at least four obvious such mosques led by the centrally located Atala Devi masjid. Their desecration took place in the first decade of the 15th century under the instructions of Sultan Ibrahim Naib Barbak. The Bhojshala and the Lat masjid as well as the Bijamandal at Vidisha in Madhya Pradesh are now well known examples. There are many more spread across most of India including Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

A conversion of mosques into churches is not uncommon in Europe. For example, the Almobed masjid in Seville, Spain, was transformed into a cathedral. The Great Mosque, which was the centre of Umayyad caliphate based at Cordoba was converted into a church soon after the expulsion of the Moorish invaders. In Sicily, the palace chapel at Palermo had earlier been desecrated by the Moorish invaders.

On reconquest of the island by the Normans in the IIth century, it was reconverted into a church. At Jerusalem, the al-Aqsa mosque is being used at present by the Jews as the wailing wall. A number of conversions took place in Greece on the morrow of the population exchange, in 1923 under the auspices of the League of Nations, whereby most Muslims were transferred out to Turkey.

But in India they stand as monuments of plunder. Nevertheless, we can let bygones be bygones provided the Muslims show the decency of returning what their forefathers had plundered. In this context, it could be treated as a secular issue of larceny and reparation. The crypto-communists have helped Muslims to perpetuate these monuments by passing the Places of Religious Worship Act 1991 which stays the status of all religious places as it was before Independence.

The Muslims, proud of their having been the rulers of India, need not hide behind the law passed at the initiative of then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao. This legislation legalises theft and plunder. With this example, can we expect a sincere enforcement of law and order?

12-10-2004, 10:51 PM

Letters from pioneer..

QUOTEHistorical wrongs
Maulana Qureshi, the Secretary of All India Muslim Personal Law Board, has reportedly said that the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya âwas the blackest incident in the history of the country.â He goes on to say that âit will not be forgotten till justice is done and the rule of law establishedâ. In response, Mr A Surya Prakash, in his article, âWounds on the Hindu psycheâ (December 7), has cited incidents that were even more horrendous than the demolition of the Ayodhya structure. He gives examples of the temples at Somnath, Mathura and Varanasi and how they were demolished. Has Maulana Qureshi or any other Muslim ever bothered to find out how the Hindus may have felt, or still feel, when their own places of worship were razed? Let me cite just one more example of âthe blackest incident in the history of the countryâ. The temple at Mathura that was demolished by Aurangzeb was not pulled down for the first time. A more âspectacularâ demolition was recorded by Utbi, an associate of Mahmud Ghaznavi, in his Tarikh-e-Yamini. He describes the siege of Mathura in the following words: âThe Sultan next directed his attacks against the sacred city of Mathura. There were magnificent temples all over the city and the largest of them stood in the centre of it. The Sultan was very much struck by its grandeur...He seized all the gold and silver idols and ordered his soldiers to burn all the temples to the ground. The idols in them were deliberately broken into pieces.â However, Nehru calls Mahmud an admirer of art and architecture. According to him, Mahmud âlike many others conquerors used and exploited the name of religion for his conquests.â However, Mr Surya Prakash has said how Mahmud turned down the offer of large sums of wealth to spare the Somnath temple. Evidently, Mahmud was not just interested in wealth. In contrast, Hindus offered to relocate the Babri masjid. They were not interested in demolition of the structure but the site it stood upon. Many contend that Muslims destroyed Hindu temples for their wealth. It may be true but how does one explain the systematic destruction of idols? This can be explained only in terms of the Islamic abhorrence of idol worshippers. While Islamic rule is full of instances of demolition of Hindu shrines, Muslims remember only Babri Masjidâs demolition. It is time the so-called secularists gave up their pro-Muslim rhetoric and faced the reality. As for Muslim community leaders, before sitting in judgement upon Hindus, they ought to read what has been documented by medieval Muslim historians.
Vinod Kumar
USA, via e-mail

12-18-2004, 02:56 AM

Letter to Sonia propelled Babri case: Muslim leader

12-21-2004, 03:59 AM

Uma 'repents'; cleans shoes of devotees

12-22-2004, 03:44 AM

QUOTEHabitually subservient

KR Phanda

The four articles on Ayodhya (Think Pad, December 4) presented four different facets of the Ayodhya problem but not one went into the root of the conflict. Mr Zafaryab Jilani, convenor of the Babri Masjid Action Committee, blandly asserted that "there was no temple", whereas Mr Mahmood A Madani, general secretary, Jamait Ulema-i-Hind, stated that Muslims are open to negotiations. Mr SP Gupta's article suggests that as a gesture of goodwill Muslims should give the place to Hindus while Ms Tavishi Srivastava's article characterised the whole issue as an annual ritual performed by political parties. The Pioneer also quoted Maulana Abdul Raheem Qureshi, Secretary of All India Muslim Personal Law Board, as saying, "The wound caused by the Babri Masjid's demolition is still festering."

At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that India is not the only country which has been subjected to Muslim invasion. Europe too was its victim. However, as soon as the latter regained control of their lands, they saw to it that all masjids and dargahs built by the Moors and Turks were reconverted into churches. During the British rule the importance of the exercise of sovereign power by the ruler was duly emphasised. The Privy Council in a case that related to Masjid Shahid Ganj at Lahore (Indian Appeals, Vol LX VII, May 2,1940) observed, "Who, then, immediately prior to the British annexation was the local sovereign of Lahore? What law was applicable in that state to the present case?....It is idle to call upon the courts to apply Mahommedan law to events taking place between 1762 and 1849 without first establishing that this law was at that time the law of the land recognised and enforced as such" (P261 ibid).

India is the only country in the world where Hindus humiliate their own community members. In no other country such acts of insult are tolerated. It is because of the failure of the Government to exercise its sovereign power that the issue has taken the shape of a property dispute. When cases of Hindu mandirs converted into masjids are referred to the courts for decision, it is assumed there is no distinction between Muslim invaders and Hindu victims of their aggression. Nowhere in the world the victors and the vanquished have been treated equally except in India. Had Europe followed a similar pattern of treating these places of worship as land disputes, Seville's Almohed mosque in Spain would have even today remained a mosque and not remodelled into a cathedral.

By not exercising its sovereign power, the Central Government has consistently abdicated its responsibility towards Hindus. Be it the Congress or the BJP-led NDA, both have played politics with Hindu sentiments. Ever since Muslim invaders set their feet on Indian soil, there have been communal conflicts. With the advent of British, Muslims were reduced to the status of raiayya like the Hindus during the Muslim rule. However, it goes to the credit of the British that in order to solve the Hindu-Muslim conflict for good, they agreed to the division of India on religious basis. Had Mahtama Gandhi and Nehru asked Indian Muslims to leave for their Dar-ul Islam, there would have been no such issue. Thus the Hindu leadership has been the worst enemy of Hindus. No wonder, Shaukat Ali, a beloved friend of Gandhi, declared in 1929, "Hindus have been habituated to slavery and they would remain slaves."

12-28-2004, 05:42 AM

From letters to pioneer..

QUOTEMisguided fervour
This refers to Mr N Jamal Ansariâs article, âAyodhya and afterâ (December 25). It reminded me of Baburnama that describes how the Mughal emperor Babar, when he faced frequent rebellions of his provincial governors in Afghanistan, resorted to excessively harsh measures to subdue them. If a man treated his own people thus, one can well imagine how severe he would have been towards the conquered âpagansâ. It is time Mr Ansari and his ilk were told that Babri Masjidâs destruction was not because âthe forces of Hindutva wanted to expand their political baseâ but due to the arrogance and the misguided religious fervour of the invading tribal Muslims. They razed temples because Islam is against idolatry and Allah does not forgive the sin of associating other gods with Him (An-Nisa,116, Al-Baqara, 2:165). That the temples were sacred to locals mattered little. In fact, even the knowledge that Ayodhya was the birth place of Ram made little impact on the marauders. Interestingly, Muslims are themselves fighting for the construction of a mosque in Nazareth, for which they do not have permission because it is the birthplace of Jesus. However, there is evidence that the Babri Masjid was built on a temple site. British Director General of âFyzabadâ ME Neville, in his report, had written, âIn 1528 AD Babar came to Ayodhya, destroyed the ancient temple (marking the birth-place of Ram) and on its site built a mosque still known as Babarâs mosque... It has two inscriptions, one on the outside, one on the pulpit; both are in Persian and bear the date 935 AH.â Another British historian Cunningham wrote, âHindus united to face the attack on their Ram Janmabhoomi templeâ. Incidentally, then Minister of State for Home MM Jacob stated in Lok Sabha on March 12, 1993, that 38 Hindu temples were vandalised in J&K between 1989 and 1991. These demolitions took place much before December 6 1992. What is more, after December 6, as many as 39 temples were destroyed in J&K. However, to people with blinkers, only the demolition of Babri Masjid and Gujarat riots are visible. They refuse to see how Kashmiri Pandits have been ethnically cleansed. I would also like to tell Mr Ansari that he need not worry about the fate of Hinduism or dowry deaths. Such concern is particularly galling after his own community challenged the Supreme Courtâs judgement in the Shah Bano case.
VRP Sarathy

Login




Remember me Lost Password?