HINDU CHAUVINISM

Vir Sanghvi on Ayodhya Revisited

In the early 1970s the temple and the mosque came to an understandable about which area belonged to whom. This arrangement endured till the mid-1980s when a riot broke out but a new compromise was reached and peace restored.

By then however, the dispute had acquired a new and more worrying dimension. The way the VHP saw it, the problem was not one of access or ownership. It was one of faith. The reason the Mathura temple and the surrounding area were important was because it was in this area that Lord Krishna was born.

Of course, there was no historical evidence or no convincing evidence at any rate to prove that this was the birthplace. But a large number of Indians believed it to be so. In matters of faith, historical evidence is not important: belief is enough.

If all of this sounds familiar, then you will not be surprised by the name that the VHP uses when it wants to refer to the disputed area. It calls it Krishnajanmasthan.

Few disputes can have divided India as completely and as unnecessarily as the fuss over Ramjanmabhoomi. The essential ingredients of the Mathura problem are the same as they were in Ayodhya. The VHP, a mosque, a temple, the claim to be the birthplace of a Hindu god and a complete disregard of historical accuracy in the name of faith. And the solution that is proposed is exactly the same: shift the mosque.

When it came to Ramjanmabhoomi, many of us took the line that even if Ram had not been born on that spot. even if a temple had not been destroyed to build the mosque, it was in the interests of the Muslim community to enter into negotiations and to consider some kind of compromise. We argued that the Babari Masjid was not worth fighting over and that by refusing to enter into some kind of arrangement, the Muslim leadership risked turning the mosque into a symbol of minority appeasement and the Hindu backlash.

At that time, many Muslims responded that it was not the Babari Masjid that mattered. Yes, all right, it was just another mosque while Hindus claimed that the spot marked the birthplace of a great god. But the moment Muslims said that they were willing to relocate the mosque, a sort of saffron domino effect would come into play and they would be forced to abandon one mosque after another on similar grounds.

They pointed out that the VHP had already identified Mathura and Kashi as suitable locations for Ayodhya- style agitations. Muslims could not, therefore, afford to give way on the Babari Masjid.

This argument was repeatedly put to the BJP leadership by the media. Without exception, the party's senior leaders L.K. Advani, A.B. Vajpayee, Murli Manohar Joshi, etc. reiterated that Mathura and Kashi were VHP issues. They were not on the BJP agenda and Muslims were mistaken about the domino effect. I was never terribly convinced by this assurance Hadn't Ayodhya been a VHP issue as well? That didn't stop the BJP from clambering onto the rath when there were votes to be garnered.

My doubts grew in the aftermath of the Ayodhya demolition. I still remember the scene in the Lok Sabha after L.K. Advani was arrested. BJP members stormed the well of the House and prevented the proceedings from taking place.

One of their slogans had a familiar ning to it. It was "Yeh to keval jhaani hai, Kashi Mathura baaki hai"

That's right. The old VHP issue was now a BJP slogan. And far from backing down after the Ayodhya debacle, the BJP was actually flaunting its willingness to create more trouble on the same kind of issue.

After Ayodiya, we know the pattern. The VHP raises the issues, the BJP distances itself from the demands and then when the time is right, makes the issues its own.

The VHP has now raised the Mathura issue again. And I wonder how the BJP will react. It has portrayed itself as a moderate party that has left the madness of the Ayodhya years behind and moved to the middle ground under the leadership of A.B. Vajpayee.

It is casy enough to test the BJP's new-found moderation. Under Advani, the formula was always the same; distance yourself from the VHP but never condemn its demands. If the party has really changed, then there is a simple enough test. It cannot take much for Atal Behari Vajpayee so moderate and reasonable in his public statements to see that what the VHP is asking for poses a threat to the stability of India. All he has to do is to condemn the VHP's objective.

He needs to say that it is quite intolerable for one community to keep demanding that another shift its places of worship and that the BJP guarantees to the Muslims that it will oppose any attempt to move or demolish the Mathura and Kashi mosques. Will he do it?

(Source: The Sunday, 29 September-5 October, 1996)

SP: Extract from Mulayam Singh Yadav's Speech in London

We are helping the Muslims because they are in a minority. Had the Muslims been in a majority, they would not have dared look in the direction of Ayodhya, what to talk of demolishing the mosque.

These communal forces are demanding Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi. But I am in favor of a confederation that would include Delhi, Dhaka and Lahore. These forces will not then be able to prevail against us.

The dispute in India is not between Hindus and Muslims; it is between the extremist Hindus and Saratani Hindu. The extremist Hindus are out to break the country.

Paromita Mukhopadhyay on Mathura as VHP's Next Target

The VHP is desperately trying to start a campaign no one seems to want to back. The BJP has consistently denied that it has any plans of reclaiming the Kashi & Mathura temples. And the RSS is maintaining a discreet silence over the VHP's plans to 'liberate' the two temples. Just a month ago, Vinay Katiyar, VHP activist, MP and member of the Ayodhya demolition squad, threatened to resign from the BJP if the issue of Kashi & Mathura were not taken up by the BJP. The Mathura temple and the Idgah share the same wall. A narrow tunnel on the side of the temple leads to what is called the garbha griha (sanctum sanctorum). The VHP claims that the birthplace of Krishna lies buried under the Idgah.

There is a sense of hurt among the VHP activists that the cause has been abandoned by the BJP. "It (the BJP)) only adopted the Ayodhya issue so long as it could get political mileage", said Acharya Giriraj Kishore, the General Secretary of the VHP. The bottom line? The VHP wants the mosque to be removed and the temple built on the spot. At the southern entrance stands a 12-feet high iron barricade. This is a recent addition and has been put up just before Janmasthami this year.

As there has to be a political motive behind everything. Kishore alleges the barricade was put up by the government to curry favor with the Muslims. However, this contradicts with what the president of the VHP, Ashok Singhal, had said on his visit to the site. "Let the barricades remain. We will be able to use the iron rods to demolish this mosque," he is reported to have said at a press conference. There is filth heaped up everywhere in the town, even outside the temple. The nullahs give out an unbearable stench. Those who are really poor have nowhere to stay the VHP has done nothing for these devotees. If the VHP really wants to prove its commitment to making Mathura a Krishna Janmasthan, shouldn't it clean up the town to make it a place befitting the birthplace of Krishna?

(Source: The Sunday, 6-12 October, 1996)

A Rebuff to M.F. Hussain

In protest against M.F. Hussain's portraying the Hindu Goddess Saraswati in the nude, a Madras-based Muslim artist on Monday publicly drew a naked Husain. "Artistic freedom should be tampered by artistic responsibility, especially in a country like India, where peace between religious communities is very fragile," said the 36-year-old protestor, Syed Ali Husaini alias Sheehan Husaini. "As a responsible citizen. I consider it my duty to reawaken in the great artist Husain, his sense of social responsibility. Ninty-five per cent of our people cannot distinguish between art and obscenity or between art and blasphemy".

"Hussain and his elitist supporters must realize that a small spark can set off a major communal conflagration. People roused to a frenzy would not think of Husain's work as mere art but as blasphemy, and attack Muslims.

"If Hussain really believes in art for art's sake, he should pose in the nude here publicly. Will he dare to portray Prophet Mohammad or even his own sister or mother in such a way?".

Hussain in the nude was bought in the instant auction by Rakesh Sarin, a Chennai-based film financier, for Rs. 60,000.

(Source: The Hindustan Times, 29 October, 1996)   

Mourns the death of Nehal Amanullah (and Mrs. Ishrati Amanullah),

in the Air Disaster of12 November, 1996

Technocrat, Social Activist,

President of the Muslim India Educational and

Cultural Trust, Patna

Offers Sincere Condolences to the

Bereaved Family and Prayers to Allah for

Eternal Peace to the Departed Soul.

Text of the Resolution

Adopted by the Board of Trustees

On 15 November, 1996

"The Board of Trustees of the Muslim India Educational and Cultural Trust (MIECT) expresses its deep sense of shock and sorrow at the sudden demise of Mr. Nehal Amanullah, the Chairman of the Trust, along with Mrs. Ishrati Amanullah, in the air crash in New Delhi on 12 November, 1996, while on their way to Saudi Arabia for Umra. The Board recalls his great qualities of head and heart, his dignified simplicity, his sociability and his contribution to the community life through his capacity to attract people of all class and creed. The Board recall, his services to the Trust and places on record its deep gratitude.

"The Board conveys its heartfelt sympathy to the bereaved family and prays to the Almighty for eternal peace to the departed souls and for spiritual strength to the members of their family and the wide circle of friends and relatives to bear the loss with fortitude.

"The Board also adopted a Resolution of Condolence and sympathy to the other Bereaved Families."