The Babri Masjid dispute was never a clash between Hindus and Muslims. It was between Hindutva and Secularist visions of India. With the recent judgement, the movement which fostered hate and fear seems to have triumphed.
On a winter morning in 1992, a frenzied mob of young men assaulted and triumphantly razed the three domes of a medieval mosque. I wept then, as did large numbers of my countrymen and women. Eighteen years later, the three judges of the Special Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, hearing a 60-year-old title suit over this bitterly contested property, could have corrected these immense wrongs, and restored to Indian public life principles of justice, secular democracy and rationality. But they have failed us comprehensively.
Today once again I feel dismayed and betrayed. And again I am not alone.
The campaign demanding that a grand Ram Temple should be built on the site in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid stood is often understood to be a clash between Hindus and Muslims. There is indeed no such clash, and there never has been. It has always been a dispute between two alternate visions of India; between Hindutva and secularism; between a minority of persons unreconciled to the secular democratic idea of India, and the majority of Indians of every faith who believe in and live this idea.
The vision of India developed during the freedom struggle led by Mahatma Gandhi was of a free country which would be a safe, tolerant and egalitarian home to people of every major religion in the world. It would be respectful of people's right to their religious convictions, and to propagate their beliefs. But the State and all its institutions would not have any religion; instead the State would be fair and just to persons regardless of their religious beliefs. The majority of Indians, of all creeds, have remained faithful to this idea of India in the six decades of freedom. This is reflected in the ways they vote, and in the secular democratic Constitution that the people of India gave to themselves.
Interrogating the Constitution
But organisations and political parties which were opposed to this vision invented a powerful symbol with their campaign to build a temple at the site of the mosque in Ayodhya. This was a battle for the idea of India itself. It prised open again the question about the terms on which people of minority faiths would have to relate to cultural domination of the religious Hindu majority. It interrogated the guarantees of the Indian Constitution, which pledged equal rights and equal protection of all persons, regardless of their religious persuasion.
The disputed claim of Hindus to the land on which the mosque stood is based starkly on two acts — one of stealth and the other of naked aggression — and on the alleged ‘faith' of the majority. For 500 years, Muslim people had worshipped routinely in the Babri Mosque, built in 1528 by Mir Baqi, general of Mughal emperor Babar. Hindus worshipped at the Ram Chabootra in the open area adjacent to the mosque, in a spirit of mutual communal goodwill. In 1949, overnight, statues of the deity Ram were placed surreptitiously in the mosque under its central dome. A furious Nehru directed the District Magistrate Nayyar and Chief Minister G.B. Pant to have these removed, but they desisted. (Nayyar significantly later resigned from the ICS and became an MP of the Jan Sangh, predecessor to the BJP).
It was then that Hindus began to worship for the first time within the mosque, and Muslims stopped prayer because of court directions. Civil suits were filed, the gates locked, but Hindu worship continued (in contravention of court orders). In 1988, Hindutva organisations led by the RSS organised the largest mass campaign in post-Independence India. 200,000 bricks from around villages and towns country-wide were consecrated and transported, for building a grand temple exactly where the mosque stood. They claimed that the mosque stood at the precise site where Ram was born, and that Emperor Babar had destroyed a Ram Temple to build a mosque there. ‘National honour' required the demolition of the mosque, to correct this historical affront.
Poisoning relationships
I was serving in districts in Madhya Pradesh at that time, and witnessed first-hand the sudden and precipitous decline in communal relations that this movement accomplished, by capturing the popular Hindu imagination with hate for the ‘other', ‘foreign', ‘aggressing' community of Muslims, symbolised in the mosque. Each procession of bricks was charged with aggressive slogans of hate and the display of naked weapons. BJP leader L.K. Advani journeyed on a Rath Yatra across India. Fear and rioting followed in the trail of both the bricks and Advani's Yatra. For 15 years, India was transformed into a country divided by hate on religious grounds. The movement climaxed in the demolition of the mosque in 1992 by a rampaging mob, applauded by leaders of the BJP who were swept to power in state and central governments; and in gruesome communal blood-letting, including in Mumbai and Gujarat.
Eighteen years after the demolition, the Allahabad High Court has concluded that the mosque was indeed located at the site of Ram's birth, and that the mosque was built at the site of a temple which preceded it. Justice Agarwal ruled that the ‘area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus'. Justice Sharma was even more categorical that ‘the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram'.
It is utterly extraordinary that the Court passed judgement not on the basis of material fact and evidence, but on questionable belief of faith. What is more, even this ‘belief' is not held universally by all Hindus. In Ayodhya itself, there are hundreds of temples which claim to be the place where Ram was born. Tulsidas, author of Ramcharit Manas, was an adult at the time when the Babri Mosque was built, and he never mentioned that this was the site at which Ram was born. The ‘faith and belief' referred to by the Judges is not of Hindus but of Hindutva organisations that subscribe to an alternate political ideology of a theological Hindu India, that contravenes the Indian Constitution.
The Judges rely on questionable archaeological evidence collected when the BJP was in power in 2003, and contradicted by most independent historians, to conclude that the mosque was built at the site of a temple. But the issue of whether a temple existed in ancient times at the site was irrelevant while adjudicating a title suit according to modern law, and not medieval sentiment.
Sense of injustice
I am amazed by commentators who endorse the judgement as balanced and just. They recommend ‘moving on', failing to acknowledge that closure is impossible until justice is seen to be done. It is true that this case was not fixing criminal liability, but its rulings endorse ideologically all the major premises of the Ram Temple movement. On grounds of dubious history and ‘ faith', and adverse possession derived by deceit and aggression, the Judges awarded title of the land under the central dome of the demolished mosque to Hindus to construct a Ram temple. The war cry of the movement for the Ram Temple was ‘Mandir wahin banayenge' (‘We will build the temple at that very spot'.) With this judgement, a movement which challenged India's secular Constitution and took hundreds of lives, and fostered fear and hate, has triumphed.
I believe we have lost this battle, but will not — cannot — lose the war. I celebrate that young people who were not yet born, or were children when this movement was at its peak, today refuse to be mobilised in medieval hate campaigns. But it is not enough for them to be apolitical. There is too much at stake. They must ask again — and answer — the questions with which those who fought for our freedom grappled. Is this to be equally a nation for all? Or are some destined to become and remain children of a lesser god?
Keywords: Babri Masjid, Hindutva, Ayodhya dispute, secularism
I don't support or accept the fact that a shrine is demolished. I accept the verdict given by the panel of judges ( which had Muslim) .. and with ASI findings.. Instead of appreciating their work.. I don't know what would have made you happy.
"Correcting historical wrongs" is a very dangerous argument. So when do the Jains and Buddhists claim their temples and viharas back? We could start with the Kodungallur temple in Kerala, where even now we celebrate the invasion of the nunnery by a frenzied mob chanting obscene songs. Or the Buddhists could try to evict the Hindu priests squatting on the Bodh Gaya premises. This for the religious people. What about the dispossession and decimation of the Adivasis? The whites in America and Australia were kinder to them - they killed them off. We keep them alive to work in our brick kilns and brothels
It is a great irony that demolition of the structure unearthed all the hidden criminal history behind it.Without demolition the attrocities committed by the islamic rulers of the past would have recieved a decent burial at the hands of our secularists.So i do not believe that those who acted in the interest of exploring the truth must be seen in bad light by the law as desired by the writer.
Totally one sided comments by the author. Author does not want to believe ASI report, because it did not favour his belief. Author also writes that, if Tulsidas mentioned the birth place in his poems, will he accept that as evidence? I dont think so. The same author shall categorize the poem as a myth.
The judgement has provided a way to resolve the dispute. Lets accept and move on. There is no point in dragging this anymore.
Such type of article should not published.It may create again riot and communal violence in the Country.It is totally a biased one.Now peoples of India want peace
In the context of the comment posted by Deven: "There is written evidences of the looting and plunder the invading forces caused in India. Or the secularist even deny that? I bet they will."
Of course they deny that. On the one hand, they say that no reconciliation is possible without acknowledging the criminality of the demolition of the Babri Masjid and apology from the VHP etc. On the other hand, they are not willing to even acknowledge that many Muslim invaders as well as rulers destroyed several non-Muslim temples and indulged in religious persecution. They flatly deny it. Tell me how can there be a real and lasting reconciliation between the Hindu and Muslim communities without even acknowleding the realities of the past?
There is no need for an apology, just acknowledgement of such persecution, as today's Muslims are not responsible for the deeds of past Muslim rulers. How would the Dalits feel if caste Hindus insisted that the Dalits hadn't suffered at their hands for several thousand years? How easy it would be to move on then?
Dear Sir,
With deep respect to your credentials of being true nationalists, I would dare to differ from your point of view. I am putting forward my views.
1)Judgement nowhere supports the demolition drive anywhere in the verdict, so no question of injustice on this part(judgement was only on title suit).
2)It's true that no body can prove the exact birthplace of Lord Rama,but for believers Ayodhya is the birth place. Hence the reverence.
3)All the judges unanimously agreed that a Hindu structure was there, where the Babri masjid (built against Islamic law) was present.
This article is presenting the other side of the story from a completely different point of view. It is a good read amidst so many articles(including the one by Dr.Swami in The Hindu itself) which support only the Temple sentiment at their core in every possible way.
I believe "The Hindu" has an added responsibility to show to the world that it is not a newspaper by any Hindu or does not support hindu ideology, as its name suggest. What is the other reason for the barrage of news-articles and op-eds against the Allahabad ruling ? There is not a single piece to support the verdict even when some moderate muslims are hailing the verdict. Whom is the writer referring when he says that none other than the fundamentalist believe that a Ram temple existed at the place of the mosque? Ask anyone on the street and conduct a voting on this, I bet a mojority believe that the mosque was constructed at the place of a temple. There are evidences for it which the writer and all pseudo secularists are choosing to ignore. Than there is the belief of hundreds of years. How did the hindus suddenly started believing that the mosque was constructed over a temple? There are thousands of mosque in India and no where hindus make such a claim. The reason is that throughout the past 500 years the fact of a hindu temple at the place of babri masjid was being passed from generation to generation. The hindus were unable to do anything under the mughal rule. But they never forget what happened in ayodhya.
Any mosque at the place of the temple in ayodhya will be a victory of unjustice and the forces who destroyed thousands of temple during mughal rule. There is written evidences of the looting and plunder the invading forces caused in India. Or the secularist even deny that? I bet they will.
I think the judgement made by the hon.judges was absolutely unbiased and was more in favour of nation than any other political or social groups. Author of the article has expressed his point of view but certainly i dont agree with you sir.
Clearly, the HC verdict is so very controversial that one or more of the litigants will go to the Supreme Court for clarification. We may get the final verdict on this very difficult case after about a decade or so! Till then the status quo will remain.
Mr. Mandar cannot really blame a particular political party namely BJP without taking into account the reasons behind the demolition of the disputed structures.
This article is highly biased. Rather than discussing the facts and figures (including the judgment), the author is forcing the reader to think in the way that he wants us to.
There is little room for the reader to analyze anything at all; and everything is spoonfed.
Court Justice may have any tinge of biasness or not .Now what is important is the greatness and magnanimity of hindu extremist groups.
For a secular country to set a example in the world , this site must be converted into a hosptital or like institution. media can promote the same view instead of less signiciant and redundant analysis of the cout verdict with not end conclusion.
This judgement is not, by any means, an approval of the the demolition of the Babri mosque. That was a criminal act and the culprits (including the politically powerful ones) need to be punished severely.
However, the dispute about whether there was a Ram temple on the grounds where the Babri masjid was built in the 15th century is a technical one that needs to be addressed by competent archeologists. This is the reason why the counsel of ASI (the archeological society in India) needs to be listened to. The judgement is not about "faith" or whether a mythological character of Ram was born on the very site of the temple. It was about whether a large Hindu temple once stood on the grounds of the Babri masjid. There is significant evidence to support that argument.
Dear Mander
When the book Menen's Ramayana was banned, he said, "India is a difficult country to understand .. I fully understand why the book was banned. I am no reformer, only a writer.... I recognize certain things to which the poor people hang on. They are not merely superstitous. If the faith can give them a little courage why deny it?"
I am happy that whole India was at peace after the verdict. Justice should be delivered on the basis of short and long term peace. This peace under consideration could be of an individual, of a society, or of a nation. No one can draw a line between right and wrong, since seeking right and wrong are fraught with blunder. Seeking peace, on the other hand, is quite easy.
Ok, A mandir was made after a mosque was torn down. What was before that? A tribal shrine? Who will give them justice? Is justice depend on the time? If you are late then no justice for you?
HARSH MANDER,
Please don't get me wrong. I have a few questions for you:
1. Did you read the entire verdict yourself?
2. If you have any objections to certain parts of the verdict why don't you point those and give your point of view?
Substance of the author’s argument is that “whether a temple existed in ancient times at the site was irrelevant while adjudicating a title suit according to modern law” is not shared by all secular minded people living in India. The fact of the matter is that this was a very sensitive dispute between two communities about their right to use a piece of land based on their historical rights.
Muslims based their right on the legitimacy of the action of an invading army commander Mir Baqui, in 1528 in building a Mosque at that place. Whereas Hindus near the place based their right on the age-old belief that it is the birth place of Rama and a temple was either demolished or the Mosque was build on its ruins.
Now it is proved that the Mosque was build over an old temple-like structure. And the archaeological findings have proved it. Courts have delivered their verdict. Even now there are people who are obsessed with their secular credentials don’t want to be convinced. I would like to invite their attention to the opinion expressed by the Cambridge University, Head of the Department of Archaeology,, Mr Graeme W. Barker in Hindu newspaper on Oct. 5, that “As a historian I am not interested in that debate. But as a career historian I am convinced that there indeed was a temple at that site and most probably it was destroyed by Babar's commander. “
Totally one-sided comments by the author. People like him would never let go of the past; they would analyze every issue so surgically so that there would be no exit path. At least now, the High Court has come out with some workable solution, and it is welcomed, it seems, by most of the Indians. If there is still any doubt, let the aggrieved party/ies go to Supreme Court, and let us abide whatever the highest court of the land decide.
I am seeing numerous articles written all the time in The Hindu about the "biased" judgement of the Allahabad High Court. What is the proof of the judges being biased? That they delivered a verdict in the favour of the movement? It is totally illogical to connect the Ram Janambhoomi movement and the judicial verdict - How can they be correlated? Mr Harsh Mander seems to be mixing the two in order to force his liberal and so-called "secular" understanding upon people. And for the "independent" historians he mentions, their "independent" claims are themselves been challenged now in academic circles.
I cannot help but wonder why the ASI report is been trashed as "dubious" because it came up the evidence that there did exist a temple beneath the Mosque. Even more untenable is the accusation that the ASI was biased in conclusion because it was under NDA government that the excavation was done.
Europe was the only continent where all the heads of state, so called monarchies, were affiliated to Vatican / Pope ie the head of a religion and it was up to the period referred in history as European Renaissance. However every country had their own church, in turn headed by the respective monarchy of that country. That is why the number of Christian sub divisions are not simply two as known by general public as Catholic and Protestant, it is more than 125. Catholic, Marthoma, Seventh Day Adventist, Penticoast, Salvation Army, Jacobite, Methodist,...(Look at this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations). Each sect will not enter into other's church!
When the monarchies of Europe realized that their supremacy on their citizens was actually in the hands of Pope, it started with Anglicanism ie by Elizabethan Religious Settlement in Britain, by the Act of Supremacy of 1559, the British Parliament conferring supremacy of the monarchy on the Church of England. This is the main incident by which the concept of 'non-interference of religion in politics' ie the most popular SECULARISM emerged.In fact this word 'secularism' was coined much later in English language ie in 19th century!
Pathetic article. Quote "The disputed claim of Hindus to the land on which the mosque stood is based starkly on two acts — one of stealth and the other of naked aggression — and on the alleged ‘faith' of the majority" Unquote. Please read the judgement carefully and also take time to go through the ASI Report. For people like you it may be 'politically correct' to talk up Gujarat and its aftermath and also "weep" at Ayodhya. But as an indirect victim of the Coimbatore bomb blast, I ask you where were you activists then?
Really I am confused. What is the real meaning of secularism? In our country it has acquired a meaning of anti Hindu, and pro Muslim and Christian!! It is strange that, suddenly people changed their color!! Those who were urging to accept the judicial verdict, now expressing opposite view!! Please some one explain me the real meaning of secular.
Problem with people like Mandhar is that today so called Secular left liberalism has a become most fundamentalist religion. What is worse these continue to play broken records unable to see or analyse logically. Hindutva is communal, but Indianness is not.
Thanks for writing this.
There are a billion other more important problems India needs to solve. It is high time that journalists (at a bare minimum) resist the bait of divisive politics or try to induce an “aftermath” sought after by some vested political interests. Let there be peace and harmony and let’s focus on the economy in order to eliminate the scourge of poverty once and for all.
It is totally incorrect to say that independent historians dispute the archeological evidence and that the court relied on one point of view. Reading the judgment on the High Court's website, it is quite clear that the historians had their day in court, but did not stick to their views under examination (fear of perjury?). The judges then concluded that the independent historians were in reality motivated to testify only by their ideological bias.
This verdict has been a victory for all Hindu and Muslim patriots, who have welcomed it by peace and quiet. It has attempted to heal a deep wound in the Hindu psyche while also allowing Muslims their share as well. The Muslims of today's India are not responsible for what Babur and many Islamic Kings of the past did centuries ago, who did not know any better. However, that does not mean that the resultant wounded Indian civilization can be conveniently forgotten to conform to a desired secular narrative. The court has paid attention to this reality and laid the platform for true closure. Like Mecca or Jerusalem, the Ram Janbhoomi in Ayodhya is not just any piece of land.
On the other hand, it has been a clear defeat for mainstream English media in India that simply cannot bear this deafening silence from the people. After eagerly and repeatedly requesting everybody to abide by a verdict that they assumed would clearly favor one group strongly, the media is at a loss at the fair result by the Indian judiciary and the lack of carnage.
Its amazing that people still call the judges biased that they used the so-called discredited ASI reports. I'd suggest Mr Mander read the judgement carefully (as also the general public) and find out just how biased the so-called secular historians have been. Their various objections and their own stances as 'historians' have been ripped apart by the Judges.
You are wrong Mr. Mandar. India was a civilizational entity, with its own icons, its own ethos, its own spiritual traditions. Reclaiming the most sacred of these icons is not "Hindutva." It is simply an assertion of our civilisational entity.
This writer appears ignorant of Indian history.
Very good article!!
Please Email the Editor