Resting my head on an arm, I leaned through the window. Stuck in the kilometre-long traffic jam the bus moves at a snail’s pace occasionally immovable for hours. I was feeling exhausted after the daylong school picnic trip, and now, disgruntled. Around 10 P.M. the bus reached the school. My portly rounded mom held us both (my sister and me) by the wrist and hoped into an autorickshaw heading home.
‘Next time, nobody is going for the picnic’, my mom ordered with a stern voice.
‘What happened?’
‘Nothing…’ mom replied, however, her face has signs of panic.
After some time, she opened up. ‘Today, there was a great ruckus.
‘It’ got demolished to the core.’ My mom said in a hushed voice.
‘Demolished…what?’ I asked,
‘The mosque…Baburi Masjid…it was pulled down…wrecked…turned into
rubble.’ Mom synonymy.
It was December 06, 1992. Honestly, thence, I did not understand how one could demolish a mosque or why it is a serious matter. But, throughout the two-and-half decades (like many) have realised the significance of demolition. The wintry December of 1992 changed India, in context of its social fabric, the history, hypocrisy and counter-hypocrisy, and the politics.
The dispute of Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi was one of the longest ever land suit in human history, second to the Temple of Solomon in Israel. In 1528-29, one Baqi Tashkindi (or Mir Baqi) allegedly built a mosque on the grounds of Ram Janmabhoomi. Although, the date of construction of the mosque was often debatable. He named the mosque as ‘Baburi Masjid’.
Gulbadan Bano, the daughter of Babur, who wrote a biography of Babur during the reign of Akbar, did not mention of any Baburi Masjid in her book nor does Abul-Fazl’, the author of Ain-i-Akbari. Instead, Fazl’ in his minutest details of the Ayodhya narrated, ‘it is one of the holiest places for Hindoos, for its significance to birth of Ram, a revered lord, in Treta Yug’. In 1611, William Finch visiting the court of Jahangir also records, ‘every year, Hindoos would visit Ayodhya in large number to the birthplace of Ramchandra’.
So, [allegedly] it could be the Aurangzeb’s reign when the temple came to formation like Gyanvyapi Mosque or discretion of Somnath. The first recorded communal violence was in 1717, a decade after the death of Aurangzeb. (Strange)
For three centuries and more, the land remained a bone of contention occasionally breaks into legal and communal clashes which culminate with the breaking of domes and the mosque on December 06, 1992. Since then, generations have witnessed long court-cases, communal tensions, politics of appeasement, Hindoo-and-Moslem separatism, and the rise of jihadi and saffron extremism.
Last year, in November 2019, the apex court, pronounced its final and conclusive judgement on the matter. The 10-acre land, where once the Baburi Masjid stands, handed over to the temple trust; another 5-acre far from the temple site to Moslem litigants. Initially, the Wakf rejected the land but later made a U-turn. The story would have ended there but, alas! It continues and will be continuing.
On August 5, 2020, the brazen BJP and All India Hindu Mahasabha decide to lay the foundation stone for the temple. And, it opened a series of debates and a pandora-box.
The dissenters of temple construct were up in arms. They pulled out the panchangs, resort to ancient Hindu astrology calculating the movement of stars and planets—a Moslem politician from Hyderabad in his starched sherwani sermons on the secular ideals from the Constitution. A maulana, who was President of All-India Imam Association published a pamphlet calling people to demolish the temple. Many have refurbished their old ‘naara’ (slogan), “Not temple but a school, a library” to “Not temple but employment opportunities”. And, half-reads, better not ask, they write and publishes without having an iota of a topic.
As a commoner, my two-bits on the recent hullabaloo on stone-laying ceremony and construction row:
How does the construction of a temple could severe the ideals of country’s secularism? Will those who say so, may I ask will they voice the same if a mosque or church is in construction instead of a temple?
There were long eulogies on ‘dead secularism,’ and ‘constitution’ - a politician from Hyderabad who was limited to the few Moslem quarters and only the Old city of Hyderabad was its frontrunner. May, I ask, the politician was ‘democracy’ precedes secularism in the constitution. Selective and deliberate misreading is a folly in the Indian education system that brazenly practised. The ideal of the Indian Constitution is it democracy and not secularism, how difficult was that anyone to realise.
The brother of the said Moslem politician with crisp pastel sherwani once said, “15-crore Moslems can maim and kill the 100-crore Hindoos in 15-minutes’. The motormouth brother later threatened ‘a PM, if visit Hyderabad, will have adverse reactions [he meant he would kill]’. Another off his party man delivered a flammable hate speech inciting Moslems (now 25-crore) at Kalburgi, Karnataka. The motormouth brother, however, proven himself a paper-tiger and PM did visit the state, not once but twice or thrice, while he remained holed. May, I ask, the sherwani-clad Moslem politician was secularism thence, outpouring?
A theory used as a tool to brainwash the community people is about, ‘Martyrdom of Baburi Masjid’. The truth, however, remains quite distant from the popular belief. On the court papers, the litigants, Wakf and Ram (represented) were engaged in the title of the property. Wakf argues since ‘they’ have been longly-staying in the property have their share while the Ram claims the land belongs to him and Wakf has no claim.
Let me put it in a simple form. A man inherits a hundred-year-old property from the ancestors. The property also houses a tenant who has been living in the property for more than fifty years. The owner asked the tenant to vacate; the tenant refused. The owner went to court. The tenant claim that the family has been living on the property for ages so he should be duly compensated or considered as one of the stakeholders. It makes Ram Janmabhoomi dispute as a civil case; not a religious or criminal case as packaged.
Another random theory often popularised that the building should be converted to a school or hospital instead of a temple. May, I ask, the proponents of the theory can they voice the same for Kaaba or Pope’s citadel, Vatican City. Strangely, Islam which propagates itself as a monotheist religion takes offence (immediately) if anyone comments on Kaaba, or Hajj subsidies, or the meteorite or the fanciful zam-zam ka pani.
But, the proponents won’t claim to convert Kaaba to an Islamic study centre or a hospital but wants a temple land should be given to building a school or library or hospital. Absurd.
The slogan recently refurbished as, ‘no temple but employment opportunities’—another illogical socialist stalemate. A temple, or a mosque, or a church often serves as the hub to many economic activities. Locals put stalls and shops selling garlands, sweetmeats, pooja samagris, and errands—besides, the handlooms, painters, photographers, metal workers also pans-out abundant source of employment. Still, when the question of employment opportunities crops, I wonder, what qualifies as employment opportunities?
Will the construction of Ram Temple would help India to fight the coronavirus? A most-laughable criticism. People who cannot segregate topics or put the right things on the right bucket should not be given a scope to opine. An individual in his daily life does different things, which are unrelated to each other. A nation also deals with multiple things, like geopolitics, foreign policy, domestic issues, economics—and, all are unrelated or partly related. The construction of the temple is a religious issue; coronavirus is a health-related issue. Different ministries are responsible for managing the two issues. How could one relate coronavirus to the temple?
For the sake of argument, if one takes into account the illogical logic, how the mass prayer during the Eid can help India to fight against coronavirus?
Someone petitioned the court to bar that the telecast of Bhoomi Pujan. It will incite communal violence and flouting of social distancing norms. The court rightly rejects the plea. ‘It was based on surmises’, the court replied. Many have-reads and pseudos fantasise of fanciful surmises, no absolute or concreteness. The base of their argument is on hypotheses.
Finally, a few objects the Prime Minister for attending the Bhoomi Pujan. I find that the argument is mostly flimsy. A chief minister can flout her white shawl gifted from a masjid when attending any rally. A nation where politicians name their party as ‘All-India Majlis-e-Ittahedul Musalmeen’ or a person whose lineage is under scrutiny and often debatable wears and show-off janeu (the Brahmanical thread), why cannot a Prime Minister be allowed to follow his faith?
A lady-prime minister can wear rudraksh from Anandomai, or if the President of the country is selected on the basis on the faith or social strata, why raise a hue and cry, if the recent Prime Minister inaugurates a temple. How his sole and personal act can harm the secular thread?
No matter, even if all the questions are answered; logic in Indian society is a rarity. People continue to clamour and keep preserving their agendas. So, if a few cries out or wail or beat their chest; the temple is finally going to stay. Another thirty or fifty years, it would take to assess its impact.
No comments:
Post a Comment