On November 9 November 9, 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 ‘secular’ think tank, it has been given away in more ways than one that the November 9, 2019 verdict and some developments subsequently have the principal facets of making a Hindu Rashtra, which is not valid. Of course, the BJP gained electorally first in 1991, ultimately capturing power with the absolute majority in 2014. But there are other factors besides mere ‘temple movement’ or Hindu polarization or unity for the electoral success of the saffron party. Various other factors – especially the use of ‘secularism’ (pseudo) as a fig leaf to deprive upper caste Hindus of their rightful rights – have also contributed to cementing the voters behind Narendra Modi and his party. The restrained reactions from both Hindus, who had to rejoice in the November 9 November 2019 verdict and the Muslims, who could have their grievances, only show that the country wants to move beyond the politics of religious polarization. Firstly, it must be admitted that the BJP, 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 several times that L K Advani had cautioned against his party’s Congressisation’. Perhaps we should reaffirm in as many words as possible that if the BJP wishes to survive long – ‘it has to be more inclusive than exclusive. 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 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 centuries 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) symbolizing 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 before the annexation of Oudh. The British and the construction of a brick-grill wall in 1857.”
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, not a mythical belief. Hence could not deny the authenticity of the visit to Ayodhya by Guru Nanak. One Rajinder Singh appearing as a witness in Suit No.4, had submitted records of the visit of Guru Nanak Devji at Ayodhya and the Darshan of Ram Janma Bhumi. In his judgment, Justice Sudhir Agarwal (of the Allahabad High Court in 2010) had also referred to Page 64 various ‘Janma Sakhies’, which were referred to by the wetness. Interestingly, the land’s highest court 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 before the incidents of 1856-57”.Now another critical 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 the Pakistani newspaper, ‘The Daily Times (2010). Hussain 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, and their men killed or enslaved people. 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 short slaughter and pillage”. Lastly, it may be relevant to refer to the 1992 episode when December 6 December brought down the Babri structure. The Hindutva assertion is a reality today, especially with the duo of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah at the helm of affairs. But the Temple Movement and its protagonists – the likes of L K Advani and Ashok Singhal- kicked off the seed of that’ Hindu assertion’. 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)”.
Highlights:
* 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 mosque structure 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 in the disputed area.
* The return of Ram Lalla to his ‘home’ is 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.
Comments