New Delhi
On Nov 9th, 2022, we celebrated three years of the famous verdict of the Supreme Court on the Ayodhya dispute.
The grand temple dedicated to God Ram is now a reality.
Amongst the 'sickular' think tank, it has been given away in more ways than
one that the Nov 9, 2019 verdict and some developments subsequently have the
principal facets of making of a Hindu Rashtra. This is not true.
Of course, the BJP has gained electorally first in 1991 and ultimately it captured power with absolute majority in 2014.
But mere 'temple movement' or Hindu polarisation or unity could not be seen as the only factors for electoral success of the saffron party.
Various other factors – especially use of 'secularism' (pseudo) as a fig leaf to deprive upper caste Hindus of their rightful rights – have also contributed in cementing the voters behind Narendra Modi and his party.
The restrained reactions from both Hindus who had to rejoice the November 9, 2019 verdict and the Muslims who could have their grievances only show that the country wants to move beyond the politics of religious polarisation.
Firstly, it must be admitted that both the BJP and the RSS and its various wings involved in the temple construction movement for years had rightly decided to downplay the win.
It has been stated a number of times that L K Advani himself had cautioned against ‘Congressisation’ of his party. We perhaps ought to reaffirm in as many words that if the BJP wishes to survive long – ‘it has to be more inclusive than exclusive’.
In fact this phrase was once told to some of us in Mumbai by veteran journalist M V Kamath in 2002.
The BJP has to prove to the citizens of India that between itself and the Congress, it is the 'better choice' and not merely a lesser evil as many people would like to push.
The Supreme Court had examined recorded material from many travelogues.
The accounts of Father Joseph Tieffenthaler, a priest and the observations of Robert Montgomery Martin, an Anglo-Irish author and civil servant, of the 18th and early 19th century proved helpful and vital for the judges to arrive at their decision.
As per the verdict, the travelogues indicated as under :
--- "...the existence of faith and belief of the Hindus that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram"
--- "Identifiable places of offering worship by the Hindus including Sita Rasoi, Swargadwar and the Bedi (cradle) symbolising the birth of Lord Ram in and around the disputed site"
--- "Prevalence of the practice of worship by pilgrims at the disputed site including by Parikrama and the presence of large congregations..."
** --- "The historical presence of worshippers and existence of worship at the disputed site even prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British and the construction of a brick-grill wall in 1857." (page 908)
The visit of Guru Nanak Devji to Ayodhya for Darshan at the Janambhoomi of Ram is an ‘event’ which depicts that the pilgrims were visiting the place even before 1528, when ‘invader’ Babar demolished the earlier temple and constructed the Babri Masjid.
Trying to strengthen this argument, academician P K Vasudeva wrote in ‘The Statesman’, “The visit of the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak Dev, in 1510-11 AD supports the faith and belief of Hindus that the site was the birthplace of the deity.”
The Supreme Court also says that at times even Sikhs got involved in the row.
Late Arun Jaitley had told Rajya Sabha during a debate that Sikhism is a historical religion and a reality
and not a mythical religion. Hence the authenticity of the visit to Ayodhya by Guru Nanak could not be
denied.
One Rajinder Singh appearing as a witness in Suit No.4 had submitted records of the visit of Guru Nanak Devji
at Ayodhya and Darshan of Ram Janma Bhumi.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal (of the Allahabad High Court in 2010) in his judgment had also referred to Page 64
various 'Janma Sakhies' which were referred to by the wetness.
Interestingly, the highest court of the land also held that the Muslims had failed to prove an exclusive right
in the inner courtyard where the mosque was located.
The five-member bench also ruled - and quite importantly - that “The existence of an Islamic structure at a place
considered sacrosanct by the Hindus did not stop them from continuing their worship at the disputed site and
within the precincts of the structure prior to the incidents of 1856-57”.
Now another key aspect of the Ayodhya development and in this context it would be relevant to refer to
what a Muslim scholar had said in 2010.
Indian Muslims would also do well to understand what London-based author, Irfan Hussain wrote for
Pakistani newspaper, ‘The Daily Times’ (2010).
Hussain had pointed out, “Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an
unmitigated disaster. Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants.
Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. .....
Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they
were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage".
Lastly it may be relevant to refer to the 1992 episode when on December 6th the Babri structure was brought down.
The Hindutva assertion is of course a reality today especially with the duo of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah
at the helm of affairs.
But the seed of that 'Hindu assertion' was kicked off by the Temple Movement and its protagonists –
the likes of L K Advani and Ashok Singhal. Some of their roles came in for sharp criticism. Even the illustrious
former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee came under attack.
Vajpayee, according to a video accessed by the media later revealed, had said on December 5, 1992
that – “Rokne ka to sawal hi nahin hai (There is no question of stopping us). Tomorrow we will not be
violating any court order if we perform kar seva)”
ends
Insets:
* Essentially the five-member bench judgment of the Supreme Court in their verdict goes back in time
to ‘undo’ the taking away from Hindus of a place they have ‘believed’ traditionally and worshipped
as the place of birth of God Ram.
* The Supreme Court order itself stated - The disputed land forms part of the village of Kot Rama Chandra or,
as it is otherwise called, Ramkot at Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh, of Tehsil Sadar in the District of
Faizabad.
* An old structure of a mosque existed at the site until 6 December 1992. The site has religious
significance for the devotees of Lord Ram, who believe that God Ram was born at the disputed site.
* The return of Ram Lalla to his 'home' is actually a correction of historical mistakes and thus it has
nothing to do with the cause of making India a Hindu Rashtra. Bharat Varsh is a Rashtra committed to
the ideologies of ancient Hindu teachings.
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment