III - Sudarshan's Response to Shahabuddin's Letter, 22 September, 2000
This is in reference to your letter of August 11, 2000 in response to my letter of 7" August, 2000. I have been mostly away and thus the delay in replying to your letter. Kindly excuse me for the same. I would like to briefly reply to your letter, without any desire or intension of debate or discussion with you.
First of all let me say that I have been at a loss to understand your position vis-a-vis the Muslim community. Over the last two decades many self-proclaimed leaders have been speaking in different voices and claiming to be representatives of Muslims. The very fact that even in the context of Rama Janmabhoomi case there have been so many committees like "Save Babari Masjid Committee", "Babari Masjid Coordination Committee" and "Babari Masjid Action Committee" that one is at a loss to understand as to who is speaking for whom. As you are aware, the members of all the Committees are different people with different shades of opinions. You are further aware that the "Babari Masjid Action Committee" did not include your name to participate in Government of India initiated rounds of talks between Babari Masjid Action Committee and Vishwa Hindu Parishad held in 1990-91 and 1992. in view of this, may 1 suggest that it will be helpful if Muslim leaders, intelligentsia and laity could select a group of leaders who could enjoy the confidence of the Muslim community and talk on its behalf? As it is, it is difficult to decide as to whom to talk to and who enjoys the confidence of the Muslim community.
Considerable problems have been created by your constantly changing positions regarding the Janmabhoomi issue. At the initial stages you declared that in Islam the building of a mosque on the forcibly acquired land is strictly prohibited, what to say about the land acquired after the demolition of a temple (or a place of worship). You categorically stated that if it was proved that the mosque was built on the place where once stood a temple you would not only give the land to your Hindu brethren but you yourself would demolish the structure known as Babari Masjid. Taking your words seriously the scholars started citing evidences from many records which include Gazetteers, settlement reports, travellers accounts etc. Faced with such records proving the demolition, you started saving that those were "British documents" which were unreliable and fabricated. You demanded that evidences from other than British sources should be provided.
On your demand for evidence from "other than British sources" scholars provided you with sources from the Muslim period itself and that too mainly Muslim testimony. Faced with such evidences you once again did a volte-face and started demanding archaeological evidences of birth of Lord Rama on the exact spot where the masjid stood. This was done by you with total disregard and disrespect to the beliefs and sentiments of your Hindu brethren. You also did not show any respect to the faith of any other religion, but forwarded the same argument of "matter of faith" when it came to Islam - be it a.question about revelations, a questioning about Quran being inscribed on gold bricks and kept in heaven, or a question about winged horse descending from sky at Al Aqsa to take the Prophet to heaven.
It is this attitude of yours that lead to the catastrophe of 6" December 1992. but as it is said, all the dark clouds have silver linings, so also the events of 61h December 1992. the discovery. of a large number of architectural pieces of temple structures from the walls of the disputed structure showed that after the demolition of the temple its material was used for building the mosque in question Besides the architectural pieces, also came out a 20-line Sanskrit inscription, which belonged to the period of Govind Chandra Gahadwal, who ruled from AD 1114 to 1154.
The inscription mentions about the temple on Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya Nagari in Saket mandal. The inscription establishes the fact that there once stood a temple dedicated to Vishnu-Hari, the humbler of the pride of Bali and the slayer of the ten-headed Ravana. Does this leave anyone in doubt about the identity of Vishnu-Hari? Nothing can be more reliable, concrete and solid evidence on the matters you had been demanding proof of. The providential discovery of the architectural pieces and inscription from the debris of the disputed structure proves beyond doubt that the demolition of the temple and the construction of the mosque were simultaneous.
It is totally amazing that instead of accepting such incontrovertible evidence that you had been insisting. So far, you got back to your old game of changing your stand. You raised the question of authenticity of the archaeological inscription, a subject about which, I am afraid, you cannot claim to be a specialist. The large inscription has been fully deciphered by experts and there remains no doubt cither about the authenticity of the "inscription or the fact that there once stood a temple which was demolished to build the said mosque.
I have been trying to understand the various stands taken by you from time to time. Looking at the entire range of events, the only conclusion one can arrive at is that you were never interested in solving the problem. You treated the problem as a plank for some other ulterior purpose. Your real motive and total disinterest in solving the problem gets further confirmed from the letter you wrote to Mr. Anjum Qadar, President, All India Shia Conference. Your letter dated 04.07.1987 reads.
"Even if a shift is permissible under some school of fiqah there is no reason at all to opt for a shift. In fact one shift would open a Pandora's box. Please do not pursue this line. I remain absolutely and totally opposed to this idea of shift proposed by RSS which you appear inclined to accept. Please reconsider".
Do I need to write more about the sincerity of your efforts made towards finding a solution?
On my part I have always looked at Ram Janmabhoomi movement not as an attack on the pride and identity of the present and future generations of Indian Muslims; rather as a positive effort to induce them to disassociate themselves from the medieval mentality, religious intolerance, bigotry and vandalism and help promote National integration and harmony. While adhering devoutly to their Islamic form of worship, they, as sons of the soil, should also take pride in their pre-Islamic past and cultural heritage as was suggested by Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru in his convocation address in the Aligarh Muslim University on January 4, 1948, in which he had said.
"How do you feel about our past? Do you feel that you are also sharers in it and inheritors of it, and therefore, proud of something that belongs to you as much as to me? Or do you feel alien to it and pass it by without understanding it or feeling that strange thrill which comes from the realisation that we are trustees and inheritors of this vast treasure? ... You are a Muslim and I am a Hindu. We may adhere to different religious faiths or even to none; but that does not take away from us that cultural inheritance that is yours as well as mine".
If from whatever has been stated from above, I reach a conclusion that you seem to be using the issue for furthering your separatist agenda under the cover of modern political jargon, shall I lie off the mark?
IV - Shahabuddin's Reply, 3 October, 2000
I am surprised by the tone and contents of your letter of 22 September, 2000 in which instead of carrying your proposal of out-of-court settlement any further, you have questioned my legitimacy as your interlocutor. Indeed nothing has changed since you wrote to me in September. What has changed is your will for a harmonious resolution. I do not know why.
Let me place on record that the Muslim leadership and the Babari Masjid Movement have been committed to the judicial process and continue to be so and for that reason we have been requesting successive Governments to arrange day-to-day hearings of the title suit. It is you who had suggested an out-of-court settlement which led to our exchange.
Regarding the origin of the Babari Masjid Movement, let me enlighten you that the apex forum of the Muslim community, the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, had been instrumental in forming the Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee (BMMCC) I December, 1986. The BMMCC unfortunately split in October. 1988 on the question of withdrawal of Ayodhya March. Thus was born the All India Babari Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC). However, the two Committees have been working in close coordination with each other, particularly on the legal front.
It is the BMMCC which had refused the offer of the Government of India to participate in the talks with the VHIP. It had thus opted out because it anticipated that nothing will come out of these talks, and nothing did. After the Demolition, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has constituted the Babari Masjid Committee (BMC) for pursuing the legal cases as well as for conducting any negotiation with the Government of India. That BMC includes all the leading members of the BMMCC and the AIBMAC. For your information the President of the Board, now, is Qazi Mujahidul Islam Qasmi and the Convener of the BMC is Mr. Ebrahim Sulaiman Sait, former MP (who is also a member of the BMMCC). I am also a Member. So is Mr. S.S. Owaisi, President of the AIBMAC.
I do not see any contradiction in my view. I have taken a consistent public position since 1986. Let me sum it up. Your moral, as distinct from legal, case is based on 2 assumptions: First, a temple commemorating the birth-site of Shri Ram Chandraji stood in Ayodhya in 1528 and, second, this standing temple was demolished by Babar, or on his orders, to build a Masjid in its placc. Since you claim the site of a 500 year old Masjid, you have to produce legally conclusive evidence on both the points. To be acceptable such evidence should be documentary and as close to 1528 as possible. This is what I mean by contemporary evidence of the existence and demolition of the supposed Mandir. Any literary evidence of a later vintage, whether of Muslim, British or Hindu origin, is irrelevant. Any historical or archaeological evidence whose relevance or authenticity is challenged by eminent historians and archaeologists is obviously unacceptable. The Sangh School of historians and archaeologists has failed to satisfy the other historians and archaeologists on the 'evidence' they muster, even though you may deem it conclusive in your favour!
Eminent archaeologists have questioned the relevance of the so-called architectural elements and the authenticity of the rather too well-preserved inscription plate. Firstly, they do not add up to a magnificent temple. Secondly, the plate on which you rely appears to have been manufactured and planted on the site during the unlawful excavation in the disputed area and the subsequent demolition. In any case their evidentiary value is yet to be determined by the judicial authorities.
The existence of the Masjid on the site since 1528 is a fact as is its Demolition by the Hindutva-inspired hordes in 1992. On your side, the Hindu belief in the historicity and status of Shri Ram Chandraji as an Avtar is a matter of faith. Even if against all geological evidence you believe that Ayodhya is the Ayodhya of Dasrath, it is a question of faith. But whether a commemorative temple existed on the site to mark his birthsite and that whether it was demolished in 1528 are both questions of fact. As I stated above, the burden of proof is on the claimant who claims the Masjid site.
I ignore what you attribute to Muslims as articles of faith because they are not. The Muslims believe in one God, Mohammad as His last Prophet and the Holy Quran as His Last Book. Yes, Muslims believe in the fact of Meraj as it is mentioned in the Holy Quran.
My tetter to late Anjum Quader which you have quoted as to be read in context of the letter to which it is a reply. If J recall correctly, he had indicated that under some school of Muslim jurisprudence, a Masjid may be torn down and the building material, used to build a Masjid elsewhere, when the Muslim community deserts the place, or, a Masjid site may be used for a public purpose. Please try to understand that the School of Fiqh which 90% of the Muslim Indians accept is the Hanafi School and that School clearly lays down that a Masjid site, once consccrated cannot be bought. sold, gifted,or exchanged. Secondly, construction of a temple is a denominational, not a public purpose. Thirdly, a State, which is democratic and secular, simply cannot usurp the site of a place of worship of one religious group to hand it over to another to build its own place of worship!
It is not important how you look at the unlawful occupation and subsequent Demolition of the Masjid in the name of Ram. Many Ram Bhaktas do not look at it the same way. But I am convinced that national integration and harmony cannot be promoted by such acts of bigotry and violence. These will only reinforce mutual antipathy, widen the gap and raise the wall higher.
You have quoted Jawaharnal Nehru, as if he shared your views of Cultural Nationalism! He did not. He knew that Indian culture is a flowing river and many streams have contributed to it. There cannot be an arbitrary cut-off point in this mighty flow from the past to the present, to the future. We share a common past and we must learn to live with it. We must not disown any element of our cultural heritage and cooperate in building what has been called the composite culture.
Yes, you are a Hindu Indian and I am a Muslim Indian and both of us have an equal right to adhere to our faith. But you do not have the right, nor have I, to demolish a place of worship on the basis of unproven assumptions, in a blatant assertion of majoritarian ego.
I would not be mistaken to think that you have no real desire for any meaningful negotiation, for settling the Ayodhya dispute. You only pay lip service to the rule of law and to the need for communal harmony but you really wish to terrorise the Muslims into submission to your unlawful dictates:
Masjid Site Survives Demolition
Shahabuddin's Letter to Statesman, 29 Sept., 2000
While we appreciate your editorial "Temple is Coming" (27 September, 2000) and your timely warning to the Union Government to take note of the VHP's postures before it is too late, we would like to clarify that all national level Muslim organisations - All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, All India Milli Council, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind and All India Muslim Personal Law Board as well as the Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee and the All India Babari Masjid Action Committee have reaffirmed on numerous occasions that the Masjid site survives the demolition of the Masjid structure and that it is out of respect for the law of the land that they have not demanded or agitated for immediate restoration of the Masjid site or the reconstruction of the Masjid itself, that they are pursuing the title suit being heard by the Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court and that they shall accept the final judicial verdict.
However, if the VHP begins any construction on the disputed site and the Union and the State Governments watch the rape of law with the folded hands, the faith of the community in the Constitution shall receive a mortal blow and in that situation, the Muslim community will not remain a silent spectator.
Secondly, the issue before the Special Bench is not whether just a temple existed on the site at any time but whether a temple commemorating the birth-site of Ram Chandraji stood in 1528 and was demolished to build the Babari Masjid thereon. But the more important issue is whether the Muslim community was in possession of the Babari Masjid on 21-22 December, 1949 night, before the idols were unlawfully introduced theremin.
Shahabuddin Welcomes BJP Statement
Letter to Sunil Shastri, 12 October, 2000
I have read with appreciation your statement that the BJP shal! respect the decision of the Supreme Court on the Babari Masjid Question and that the announcement of a date for the construction of the proposed Mandir in Ayodhya on Babari Masjid site shall constitute contempt of court.
First, to point out an inaccuracy, the title suit is not being heard by the Supreme Court but by the Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court shall allocate land for the construction of the proposed temple in the light of the decision of the High Court on the question of title.
Second, the Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee requests your party, as the leader of the coalition at the Centre and in UP, ask those Governments stop the VHP from continuously indulging in denigration of the Supreme Court, defiance of the Rule, of Law and disrespect to the Constitution and from threatening to take the law in its own hands and inciting the masses.
The BJP, as a member of the Sangh Parivar, should also ask the RSS to put a brake on the VHP.
BJP Government and the Ram Mandir Editorial, The New Age
... Not only the preparation for ... construction ... are on but the VHP leadership is taking very strident and aggressive positions ... Recently newspapers have carried reports that heavy cranes have been transported to Ayodhya to start the construction work ...
VHIP leader Onkar Bhave recently announced "We will rake up the issue in such a big way that a situation is created where the government will be compelled to allow the construction of the temple in Ayodhya." Tagodia has claimed that once the conclave of sadhus and sants in January at Allahabad decide the schedule for construction, nothing would stop VHP from constructing the temple.
Government's response to all these aggressive statements is that it will intervene only if construction activities create any law and order problem. This is a deceitful statement ...
What happened in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992 was not just demolition of a five hundred year old mosque .. By mobocracy, the hoodlums of Sangh Parivar betrayed their utter contempt for the rule of law.
Once again they are adopting the same strategy, which may plunge the country into a communal holocaust. The threat is too grave and can be ignored at nation's peril ..
