Symbol of an
awakened civilisation
by Ram Madhav
February 10, 2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/10guest.htm
The real India is waking up to a new, historical reality. This awakening
is a result of the unfolding of a mighty creative genius of millions of unknown
Indians whose names are not known and whose lives are nothing special to
remember otherwise. It is they who can metaphorically be descried as the 'Real
Bharat.' They are charting a new course for the future of our country. The
historic Ram Janambhoomi movement is but a symbol of that new awakening -- a
symbol that reminds the world that India, at last, is becoming alive to its
history.
It is not
just a movement for a temple. It manifests the innate yearning of a people for
self-respect and honour, an urge to unshackle themselves from the
humiliations history heaped on it. It happens to every country; in
fact it has happened several times in the history of several countries.
'As I
have been speaking, some vivid visual memories have been flashing up in the
mind's eye. One of these is the picture of the principal square in the Polish
city of Warsaw sometime in the late nineteen twenties. In the course of the
first Russian occupation of Warsaw (1914-1915) the Russians had built an Eastern
Orthodox Christian cathedral on this central spot in the city that had been the
capital of the once independent Roman Catholic Christian country Poland. The
Russians had done this to give the Poles a continuous ocular demonstration that
the Russians were their masters. After re-establishment of Poland's independence
in 1918, the Poles pulled this cathedral down. The demolition had been
completed just before the date of my visit. I do not greatly blame the Polish
government for having pulled down that Russian church. The purpose for which the
Russians had built it had been not religious but political, and the purpose had
also been intentionally offensive,' says universally acclaimed historian Sir
Arnold Toynbee.
In
Turkey, they turned the Church of Santa Sophia into a mosque. In Nicosia
churches were converted into mosques. The Spaniards spent many centuries
re-conquering their land from Muslim invaders.
About
India this was what Toynbee had to say: 'Aurangzeb's purpose in building those
three mosques (Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura) was the same intentionally offensive
political purpose that moved the Russians to build their Orthodox cathedral in
the city centre at Warsaw. Those mosques were intended to signify that an
Islamic government was reigning supreme, even over Hinduism's holiest of holy
places. I must say that Aurangzeb had a veritable genius for picking out
provocative sites. Aurangzeb and Philip II of Spain are a pair. They are
incarnations of the gloomily fanatical vein in the Christian-Muslim-Jewish
family of religions. Aurangzeb -- poor wretched misguided bad man -- spent a
lifetime of hard labour in raising massive monuments to his own discredit.
Perhaps the Poles were really kinder in destroying the Russians'
self-discrediting monument in Warsaw than you have been in sparing Aurangzeb's
mosques.' (One World and India (1960, pp 59-60).
Medieval
Indian history is replete with instances of wanton aggression on its holy places
by Muslim hordes. Innumerable instances of defaced Hindu idols and
destroyed Hindu/Jain/Buddhist holy places stare at us everywhere. These
destructions were not done just for the sake of fun as some eminent Indian
(read Marxist) historians would want us to believe. These were deliberate acts
of religious vandalism perpetrated by intolerant Islamic invaders.
However,
one would be grossly and sadly mistaken if he confuses the present day awakening
in the form of the Ram Janambhoomi movement to an effort to 'avenge the historic
wrongs.' Many so-called liberal (euphemism for Marxist) intellectuals spread
this canard either deliberately (most probable) or at times out of ignorance
(rare).
The
movement for the Ram Janambhoomi is basically a movement for the self-assertion
of a civilisation. It is a wounded civilisation trying to re-invent its roots.
It has to be understood properly, instead of dismissed with contempt. That is
what Sir Vidia Naipaul also says: 'If people just acknowledged history, certain
deep emotions of shame and defeat would not be driven underground and would not
find this rather nasty and violent expression. As people become more secure in
India, as a middle and lower middle class begins to grow, they will feel this
emotion more and more. And it is in these people that deep things are stirred by
what was, clearly, a very bad defeat. The guides who take people around the
temples of Belur and Halebid are talking about this all the time. I do not think
they were talking about it like that when I was there last, which is about 20
something years ago. So new people come up and they begin to look at their world
and from being great acceptors, they have become questioners. And I think we
should simply try to understand this passion. It is not an ignoble passion at
all. It is men trying to understand themselves. Do not dismiss them. Treat them
seriously.' ('The truth governs writing,' an interview by Sadanand Menon, The
Hindu, July 5, 1998)
The
movement has reached a historic stage after the demolition of the non-mosque in
1992. It was a non-mosque because it was never used by Muslims after 1934. It
was never registered as a waqf property by any of the Sunni or Shia boards
anywhere in UP or the country. There was no Muttawalli/Imam attached to it. In
effect, it ceased to be a mosque at least since 1934. And what is more, it was
– and still is – a functioning temple at least since 1949.
Hence,
what was destroyed in a very unfortunate incident on December 6, 1992 was a
non-mosque and a functioning temple only. The destruction was a result of the
pent up frustration caused by the inordinate delays and insensitive
approach of a section of leaders.
The
dispute reached the Supreme Court in 1993 when the government of the
day referred to it the core question of whether a Hindu temple existed at the
disputed site before the construction of the mosque or not. Declining to answer
the core question, the five-member Supreme Court bench in its judgment in
October 1994 said keeping aside the disputed land of 2.77 acres on which
the make-shift Ram temple stands today, the remaining land of about 67 acres may
be returned to its owners if the government thinks such a step would not
hamper the legal proceedings on the disputed site.
It is
pertinent to note here that there is no dispute about the ownership of this land
or its title in any court anywhere. This undisputed land was acquired by the
Union government in 1993 along with the disputed land. There was a move by the
central government in 2002 to hand over this undisputed land to its original
owners including the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas. The Nyas on its part was willing to
give an undertaking to the effect that it would provide a corridor to
the disputed site as access in case the judgment on that site went the other
way. However, a public interest litigation was filed by a Muslim individual
acting upon which a three-member Supreme Court bench asked the
Government of India to
maintain the status quo on the 67 acres.
All that
the leaders of the movement are asking at this point in time is that their part
of the undisputed site be returned to them. It does in no way affect the
judicial proceedings on the disputed site. The Government of India has moved an
application in the Supreme Court seeking vacation of the status quo
order so that it can implement the 1994 judgment.
While the
facts of the matter clearly indicate the demand of the leaders of the
movement is fully legal and constitutional, -- at no point in time are they
demanding that the disputed site be handed over to them -- a campaign of calumny
full of falsehood and insinuation has been unleashed by a section
of intellectuals.
It is a
tragedy that these intellectuals fail to understand the movement in its
entirety. This is what Sir Vidia had to say about them: 'Indian intellectuals,
who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going
on, especially if these intellectuals happen to be in the United States. But
every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a
larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes
to be threatening.'
And this
is the advice he has for those intellectuals: 'It is not enough to abuse them or
to use that fashionable word from Europe: fascism. There is a big, historical
development going on in India. Wise men should understand it and ensure that it
does not remain in the hands of fanatics. Rather they should use it for the
intellectual transformation of India.' ('An area of awakening,' interview by
Dileep Padgaonkar, The Times of India, July 18, 1993)
So much
transformation has taken place in the intellectual world after 1993
that a large section of our intelligentsia understands and appreciates the
significance of this movement today.
Let me
end by quoting Dr Rajendra Prasad during the renovation of the historic
Somnath temple in 1950 which was vandalised by a 11th century Muslim invader,
Mohammad Ghazni.
'By
rising from its ashes again, this temple of Somnath will proclaim to the world
that no man and no power in the world can destroy that for which people have
boundless faith and love in their hearts... Today, our attempt is not to rectify
history. Our only aim is to proclaim anew our attachment to the faith,
convictions and to the values on which our religion has rested since immemorial
ages.'
Just
replace Somnath with Ayodhya.
Ram
Madhav is joint spokesman for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
|