12-22-2004, 03:44 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Habitually 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."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->