It was after running from pillar to post and paying the Delhi Development Authority the stipulated amount that possession was taken of a plot at Sector 3 in Delhi's Rohini for the St. Basil Orthodox Church. But when the parishioners converged at the plot for the Bhoomipujan, they we-re shocked to find a group of saffronites, led by the local BJP MLA, sitting on a dharna to prevent the ceremony. Fortunately, then Chief Minister Madan Lal Khurana, who had personally gone through all the reievant records, took a bold stand and ordered their forcible eviction. A grateful church had Khurana as the chief guest when, eight months later, the small church was dedicated.
But in Jaipur,, the Mar Thoma Church members have a different experience. In 1994, they had obtained from the Housing Board a small plot adjacent to a cremation ground at Mansarovar on the outskirts of the city for a graveyard. Despite the title deed in their possession, they have not been able to develop the land because of opposition from the Sangh Parivar. Since Ashok Gehlot is not Khurana, the matter is still being "looked into" by the district magistrate even as the Marthomites have no place to bury their dead.
(It is) increasingly difficult ... for the minority communities "to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes," a freedom that the Constitution grants them. The local administration can frustrate such plans in umpteen ways. As if this is not enough, the Uttar Fradesh government has enacted a new law, which makes it mandatory to get permission from the district magistrate before any worship centre is set up. A similar law is said to have quietly existed for nearly four decades in Rajasthan. To bc fair to the Ram Prakash Gupta ministry, it is a secular law in that it does not discriminate against any religion.
But it is not the wording of the Bill but the motive behind it that raises suspicion. Lalji Tandon, a senior BJP leader and Cabinet minister of UP, has argued that the purpose is to gather information about land use and stop random growth of shrines. He cannot be found fault with on this score ...
On both sides of the Indo-Nepal border, there has been a mushroom growth of mosques and madrasas and he gives the exact figures. On the Indian side, the number of mosques increased from 74 to 146 over a period of 20 years and the madrasas from 61 to 121. On the Nepal side too, there has been a similar increase. But then the increase has to be seen against the fact that the border stretches nearly 800 kms, which means that ir 20 years, a new mosque has come up in every 10 km. Is that something so worrying that a new law has to be enacted? But conveniently, the government is silent on the figures of temples that have come up during the same period in the same area.
Instead, figures of the percentage-wise increase in the population of Hindus and Muslims in the border districts are given. For instance, the Hindu population in Maharajganj increased by 22.76 per cent in 1981-1991 whereas the Muslim population increased by 39.41 per cent. No doubt, it is an alarming increase! ... It is no wonder that when the Sangh Parivar talks about population growth, the figures are always given in percentages.
The government's assumption is that these mosques serve as sanctuaries for militants and as a base for ISI operations. "Anti-national activities, rackets in fake currency, smuggling of narcotics and white sugar, clandestine supply of illegal arms ... have all been reported from border areas." But how are these going to stop if the district magistrates are given additional powers under the new law? First, it is too farfetched to assume that these shrines are hideouts for anti-national elements. If the government is convinced that these are indeed hideouts, does anything prevent the police and the paramilitary forces from ferreting them out? So far, has it done anything in this regard? Instead, why not have some Muslim staff in the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analyses Wing so that they can ... provide better intelligence input? In any case, the unofficial ban on recruitment of Muslims in these organisations has not served any purpose except raising questions about their secular character.
According to the minister's own admission, the increase in the number of mosques on the Nepal side is intriguing because there has been no growth in the population of Muslims in that country as conversion is banned there. So what guarantee is there that new mosques will not come up along the border on the Nepal side as the UP law's jurisdiction does not extend to that country?
The power to grant permission for new shrines vests with the DM and the only authority to hear appeals is the Divisional Commissioner. In other words, the government does not trust the judiciary ...
It is puerile to believe that the UP law will curb the activities of the ISI. But what will happen is that the minorities will have a genuine problem in establishing places of worship. The majority community won't be affected because most of the temples come up in a laissez-faire manner and are seldom as per approved plans and layouts. In Delhi, there is a full-fledged temple in an office belonging to the electricity board. The UP Bill may come a cropper in tackling the ISI but it will be deadly for the law-abiding and the religiously-minded ...
(Source: The Indian Express, 19 January, 2000)
VHP Belief in Babari Masjid Site as Ram's Birthsite not Universal
Shahabuddin's Letter to The Pioneer, 21 Jan., 2000
In his letter "A Sacred Place" (20 January, 2000) S.D. Laghate mentions VHP's evidence in support of Hindu claim to the disputed spot but that is no response to my question whether all Hindus (or say, a substantial percentage) believe that Ram was born on that spot. Indeed almost every Hindu believes that Ayodhya is the city of Dasratha where Ram was born but no religious text pinpoints the site occupied by the Babari Masjid since 1528 as the precise birth-site. For long the site of the adjoining Ram Janamsthan Mandir was considered to be the birth-site. Also since the middle of the 19th Century some people regarded Ram Chabutra outside the Babari Masjid as the birth-site. Several other temples in Ayodhya claim the same honour.
As for usurpation of places of worship of other religions, may I be permitted to point out the occupation of many tribal, Jain and Buddhist shrines later by the Hindus and even the occupation of some Vaishnav temples by the Shaivas and vice-versa, in the course of their sectarian conflict.
Inder Malhotra on BJP's Double Game
Like Banquo's ghost, the Ayodhya issue that has suddenly erupted again, will not go away ... The potentially explosive issue cannot be kept under a heavy lid indefinitely. For two reasons. First, many within the saffron camp, besides the hard-core followers of the VHP and the Bajrang Dal, do not like the issue of constructing the Ram temple to be put on the back burner or sidelined. They had lapsed into silence only because of the shock of the abrupt fall of the previous Vajpayee Government and the consequent need to return to power with a safer majority, if necessary by winning more allies by diluting the BJP's 'real agenda'.
However, those brought up on a hefty diet of Hindutva cannot wait for ever for these emotive issues to be raised again. In the belief that the present Vajpayee Government is now firmly in the saddle, they do want to assert themselves. That the revival of the mandir campaign might tear apart the NDA ... is evidently beyond the grasp of men whose political education is less than rudimentary ... The second and more powerful reason ... is the sheer dynamics of politics in U.P., .. State where the mobilisation of Ram bhakts ... was the most massive and most intense. Furthermore, if Ayodhya is ... located here, so are the 'disputed' shrines in Varanasi and Mathura which, according to Mr. Gupta, need to be 'liberated' ..
Altogether, on the Ayodhya issue, the BJP is behaving like a man who wants to eat his cake and have it too. (Source: The Hindu, 15 December, 1999)
Temple Indiscretions - Editorial, The Hindustan Times, 31 Jan., 2000
In the unlikely event that history remembers Ram Prakash Gupta at all, it will be as the most forgetful chief minister in Indian history. Gupta has turned absentmindedness into an art form ... Worse still, from the BJP's point of view, he actually speaks his mind. While the rest of the party is still engaged in the traditional obfuscations over the Ayodhya issue, Gupta has no hesitation in declaring that the Sangh Parivar will build a temple in Ayodhya and that the UP government will make no attempt to halt the construction.
Predictably, Gupta's candour has embarrassed his party which is still trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, it declares that the temple is not on its agenda while on the other it keeps the party faithful within the fold by suggesting that Ayodhya is still very much a BJP issue.
Thus, when Gupta gives the game away, the BJP has reason to be concerned. Though it is tempting to view the whole issue as just another episode in the long-running comedy series that is the BJP government in UP, the fact is that Gupta's indiscreet statement raises serious issues. Gupta's views are not his alone, they are the Sangh Parivar's. When he says that the temple will be built, he speaks for all his colleagues. And when he makes the seemingly incredible remark that the Babari Masjid was demolished peacefully, he is actually only restating the conventional wisdom within the Parivar. The Vajpayee government likes to pretend that the Parivar's views are of no consequence and that it is bound only by the NDA agenda. This position is beginning to wear increasingly thin. The truth is that as far as the Parivar is concerned, it is Vajpayee and the NDA whose views are of little consequence ..
