BABRI MASJID
M.V. Kamath on Babari Masjid and the Hindu Psyche
Whether the government is wise to pursue the case is something to think over. This is not just a simple matter of Law and Order. It has roots deep in the Hindu psyche and it would be positively dangerous to play with it. This is a case in which Hindu hurts over the centuries have to be taken into account, as well as the fact that the so-called Babari Masjid itself had been built following the demolition of a temple on the same site. In the circumstances, the expected trial of Advani and others can only be described as ill-conceived and deeply to be regretted. It can do no good to anybody, least of all to the Muslim community.
The issue is not one of law and order. It is not even political, though some may see a political hand in it. It is profoundly psychological and involves hurts felt for centuries by Hindus. The so-called Babari Masjid stood for everything that the Hindus had hated for centuries. The Masjid should not have been built in Ayodhya in the first place, just as Muslims would consider it a sacrilege were a temple to be built in Mecca or Medina. Muslim insensitivity to this is appalling.
For weeks the VHP representatives met with those of the Babari Masjid Action Committee led by, among others, Syed Shahabuddin to arrive at some kind of settlement. Instead of fighting for a Masjid in disuse, if the Muslim leadership had the greatness and the compassion to concede to the Hindus their desire amounting to a right - to build a temple on the site, the Hindus, in turn, would have willingly and happily helped to re-locate the Masjid elsewhere at their own cost.
During the one thousand years of Muslim rule there are recorded instances of over 3,000 temples being demolished. The Babari Masjid need not have been demolished; it could have been re-located brick by sacred brick to another place.
An apology from the Islamic leadership to Hindus and Hinduism is eminently called for, only there is no religious head for the entire Muslim umma or diaspora as Roman Catholics have in the Pope, to speak authoritatively for them and on their behalf. One wishes there was a Caliph who could speak for his religious followers. There is no Caliph and Muslim leadership is scattered and will not speak for reconciliation. The Muslim leadership chose the path of confrontation and challenge. The persons to be sued are not Advani and Kalyan Singh but Shahabuddin, Owaisi and Company. Not to mention our pseudo-liberals and others of their ilk who aided and abetted Shahabuddin. And that sums up the attitude of Muslims at large. The Pope offered an apology in Paris, for the massacre of thousands of Protestants in France by French Catholics in the streets of Paris on St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24, 1572.
That would be 425 years ago. The Pope could well have argued that after all that is ancient history. Let bygones by bygone. That could happen, if only Muslim leadership shows some remorse, some understanding of the feelings of Hindus. The Muslim leadership is unwilling to live in peace with Hindus. Apology comes hard to it.
On September 5, this year during these talks in Beijing with Chinese Premier Li Peng said that the cabinet of former Japanese Premier Murayama had expressed its regret over Japan's invasion and colonial rule and the resultant losses and suffering. "This is the official stance of the Japanese government", said Hashimoto. Only a great people have the strength to apologise.
(Source: The Free Press Journal, 18 September, 1997)
Shahabuddin's Letter to The Free Press Journal, 27 September, 1997
Mr M.V. Kamath is indeed 'the odd man in. His article 'BJP and they Ayodhya Masjid' in your issue of 18.9.97 makes an interesting reading. For one thing he wants the Muslim leadership to be put on 'trial for the demolition of the Babari Masjid! Perhaps, the Muslim leaders were directing the Sangh Parivar and organising the Kar Sevaks and training them for the assault!
Mr Kamath refers to the Hindu feelings of hurt arising out of the centuries of Muslim rule and, therefore, justifies the balancing of accounts after 1947. The question, however, is that Independence was neither achieved by nor given exclusively to the Hindus but to all people of the country and independence cannot be used as an opportunity for the Hindus to balance the account of the centuries.
He states that the Babari Masjid should not have been built in Ayodhya in the first place and compares it to the shrines in Makkah or Madinah. He needs to be enlightened that after the 11th century, Ayodhya became a great centre of Sufism and Islamic learning and that is why there are hundreds of Masjids and Dargahs and Maqbaras, not to speak of acres of grave-yards, there.Since then, Ayodhya has never been an exclusively Hindu centre. Before the 11th century, by all accounts, it had been deserted into a pathetic hamlet, as testified by Fahien.
Then Mr Kamath speaks of the demolition of a temple for constructing the Babari Masjid on its site. The Sangh Parivar has not yet come up with any academically or legally acceptable evidence to support its thesis. But assuming for argument's sake that a temple commemorating the birth of Ram Chanderji stood on that site and was demolished, can an act of vandalism 500 years later justify or nullify the earlier act of vandalism.
Incidentally neither Fahian nor Huen Tsong records the existence of the Ram Janamasthan Mandir. The VHP has to prove first the construction of the mandir, when & by whom, and its existence in 1528, before it can accuse Babar of destroying it!
The All India Babari Masjid Action Committee indeed had several sittings with the VHP during the prime Ministership of Chandra Shekhar and Narasimha Rao. The two sides failed to achieve any settlement. Contrary to Mr Kamath's information, I was not involved in the discussions, because I had realised at the outset that the purpose was merely to publicise the VHP'case the talks failed because the VHP insisted on declaration on faith and, therefore, rejection of judicial process.
The crux of the matter is whether in the whole of Ayodhya, the authentic birth site of Ram Chanderji lies within the site of Babari Masjid, in the light of the fact that several places in Ayodhya claim the same honour including the Ram Chabutra which was just outside the Babari Masjid.
Shri Kamath then refers to the VHP's offer to shift the Babari Masjid 'brick by sacred brick'. Mr kamath needs to be informed that it is not the brick, mortar or stone which constitutes a masjid, but the site which has been permanently consecrated by its legitimate owner for the worship of Allah. Even if the Muslims had a Khalifa or Pope, he has no authority to give away what belongs to Allah.
Mr Kamath finally wants the Muslims of today to apologise for the misdeeds allegedly perpetrated during Muslim rule. One does not see why sins of the father should visit upon the sons so many generations opnet and why Muslims of free secular, India should be divested of a legitimate place of worship for whatever might have happened in the past.
He refers to the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in Paris in 1572. But the massacre was a fact, the demolition of a standing temple on the Babari Masjid is nothing but a myth and an after-thought, invented and propagated intensively since 1947 in order to incite the Hindu community against the Muslims.
Surprisingly, he compares Hindu-Muslim relations in India to the relations between Japan and the USA. Will Mr Kamath confirm that Hindus and Muslims in India constitute two independent sovereign nations?
VHP Case, 1992: President V.H. Dalmia's Letters to The Times of India
The VHP has no intention of taking on the mantle of being the sole interpreter of history. In December 1990 at the instance of the Chandra Shekhar government, it was agreed that the VHP and the AIBMAC would furnish evidence by December 22 and rejoinder by January 6, 1991. The government records say, "The VHP submitted the rejoinder in which it tried to refute claims of the AIBMAC point-wise. The AIBMAC did not react to the evidences put forward by the VHP. Instead, it submitted photocopies of more evidence in support of its claims. Since the AIBMAC did not give comments on the evidences put forward by the VHP, it is not possible for the government to decide the areas of agreement and disagreement."
Even then, the VHP agreed that the experts of both sides should meet and discuss the evidence. At the first meeting on January 24 the AIMBAC experts said that they had not studied the VHP evidence, and that they would need six weeks to do so. For the second meeting on January 25 the AIBMAC experts did not turn up.
Even after 18 months the rebuttal of the VHP evidence has not been presented. A platform for discussion was spurned by the AIBMAC, simply because the historical case for the Ram Janambhoomi is overwhelming.
Even today, people who call themselves historians aver that before the advent of the British, the present site was never considered to be the janamsthan. This does not explain the existence of the Ram chabootra, right outside the inner wall of the Babari Masjid, built during the time of Akbar. If the Hindus did not consider the site important, would they have made a request for such a contentious location during the of Moghuls? If the site was not important, would Akbar have given permission for the construction of the Ram chabootra?
The faith that Lord Rama took birth at the spot where the Garbha griha is planned exists for more than 2,000 years, as has been documented in the evidence that the VHP has submitted.
Until six years ago, the VHP had taken the issue on a low key, so that persuasion could be used. Only when it was felt that this approach was taken to be a sign of weakness, the Hindus were mobilised. The VHP gave time to three governments to find a solution. Instead, they played the politics of vote bank and failed to understand the history of the issue concerned.
Let there not be any monument of our subjugation in our land.
(Source: The Times of India, 22 .July, 1997)
