FOCUS
AYODHYA – MEDIA & POLITICS
'Kasab attacked Jail staffer’, ‘Prosecution submits CCTV footage to court, exposing his dangerous assault’.
This was the print media news from Mumbai on 29th Sept. 2010. A thought inadvertently crossed the mind. ‘What if Kasab was a Christian or a Hindu, and was caught and jailed in Pakistan?’ After the above attack would he still be alive to see the next day?
But in India there is a semblance of law and order and this Kasab, the lone Pakistani terrorist caught during the 26/11 attack, is alive, and apparently kicking.
On 30th Sept. 2010, the next day, India was waiting with bated breath, the long awaited judgement in the dispute on the land surrounding the Ayodhya shrine, where Babri Masjid stood before 6th Dec. 1992, which was demolished by a restive crowd of, apparently, Hindus, who claimed that Masjid stood on the ground where Hindu God Lord Rama was born, and that a temple was demolished to build the mosque by Babur, (pronounced Baabar) the Mongol who established the Moghul dynasty in India.
Could there be truth in the claims of Hindu faithfuls?
According to the TIME/LIFE history series published from Amsterdam, Islam came to India in 12th century. Writing in its book ‘History of the World AD 1100-1200’, it informs the readers, that the ‘Quwat-al-Islam mosque' in the city of Delhi was ‘built by forced Hindu labour, on the site of a Hindu shrine, from the materials of wrecked Hindu temples’. It writes about the ‘rubbled remains of the 27 neighbouring Hindu temples that had gone into the making of the mosque’ (page 95). These history books were published for the first time in 1989 and were reprinted in 1996, confirming that the claims by the writers of these history books were not disputed, at least until 1996.
Recapitulating the events between AD-1500-1600, historians at TIME/LIFE write "In Jan. 1505, a band of horsemen led by Babur, a descendent of Taimur and Chengis Khan, both Mongols, set out on an expedition of the east from Kabul. In matter of days they were into a land, in the words of Babur "where everything was different, from grasses, the trees, the animals, the birds, the manners and customs of peoples’. He was literate and was in the habit of writing diaries. From the barren mountains of central Asia, to the fertility of Northern India, "we were amazed, and in truth there was much to be amazed at", was Babur’s take. Having come only to plunder and go, he was attracted to the wealth of India. After some visits he decided to stay put in India to mark the beginning of Mughal dynasty. Here it is important to note that Mughal is a corrupted version of Mongol, which means a Mughal is a Mongol. According to TIME/LIFE historian, Babur spoke of "those Mughal wretches" and complained that "mischief and devastation must always be expected from the Mughal hordes". Probably Babur was not far from truth about the mischievous and inhuman aspect of Mongols. It was in 1219, according to this TIME/LIFE history series, Chengis Khan was speaking to the refugees in the main mosque of Bukhara, in the central Asia, quote, "I am the flail of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you." Right enough, the book further states, ‘In those years, half the known world reeled under an onslaught of unprecedented ferocity. Outside their empire, the Mongols inspired universal dread.’
With this background, chronicled by Europeans, is it difficult to surmise that those invaders who came to India through Khyber pass, from Afghanistan and beyond were not those who were in love with India? Having found the locals non-resistant, partly due to their peace loving nature and lack of preparedness, these marauders had a field day and succeeded in subjugating the locals to their dominance. Stay put in India, suited them.
Records of Mohammedan rule in India, except during that of Akbar, the grandson of Babur, was not exemplary as history would testify. Akbar was probably the most tolerant of all Muslim rulers of India, though illiterate himself, he had respect for learned teachers and believed in evenhandedness in dealing with his subjects including his own people. According the TIME LIFE history series, Akbar punished the son of his chief foster mother with death, for his involvement in killing Akbar’s Chief Minister. Among the Muslim rulers of India Aurangazeb was the most despised Mughul for his cruelty towards non-Muslims and their places of worship.
Reversal of fortune is an ongoing universal phenomenon. Like colonising whites lost their colonies the world over, marauding invaders who became rulers by oppressive and repressive methods, sun perforce had to travel to the setting side of the horizon. Slowly the Muslim political dominance ended with the 1857 sipoy mutiny. British too had to leave India leaving the political powers to the locals, but while leaving they bifurcated the country on religious lines. Although for record, their intention was to protect the interest of Muslims in the Hindu majority India. Could it be that ‘Britishers wanted the Indian sub-continent to remain on the boil for all times to come?’ Britain had made its fortune from its colonies and India was the ‘Jewel in the Crown’. They didn’t want to lose India. Winston Churchill did not hide his disappointment when the labour government of Clement Attlee granted independence to India. He had reportedly stated that "India will be ruined and there will be chaos all over’. Time has moved on and India is a very prominent member in the comity of nations, trying to have a pot shot at Super Power Status. But the ‘divide and rule policy’ of Britishers left behind, is still hurting the Indian body politic.
Upon independence Pakistan became a theocratic state and Indian constitution makers sensibly went for ‘Sarva Dharma Samabhava’, which is the underlying Indian etho of secular governance. Over the years, this constitutional guarantee of ‘Sarva Dharma Samabhava’ was blatantly misused by all political parties and agenda driven media. While everybody spoke of the rights and freedom of expression, nobody, at least not many, thought of the responsibility of protecting and sustaining the pluralistic fibre of social harmony. If politician was interested in vote bank politics, media was interested in its USP and TV ratings, so that it can have better circulation and more advertisement revenue. They indulged in blatant fixation of who is right and who is wrong rather than issue based what is right and what is wrong.
Babri Masjid at Ayodhya has a history of hundreds of years. This Masjid-i-Janmasathan, as it was called prior to 1940, probably was constructed between 1194 and 1528. The former year was when Mohd. Ghori invaded India. There is a claim which informs that this Masjid was built in 1528-29 according to the Persian inscription put on the Masjid.
Available informations from different sources confirm that both Muslims and Hindus were using the premises around the Masjid. However there appear to be some affidavits filed by some Muslim residents of Ayodhya stating that "at least from 1936 onwards the Muslims have neither used the site as a mosque nor offered prayers there. The same source informs that in 1949 Hindus took over the mosque.
However things did not remain quite, different socio-political groups, both among Hindus and Muslims, were fishing in the troubled waters of Ayodhya. Repercussion in Nov. 1989, across the border in Pakistan and Bangladesh, caused large scale destruction of temples and homelessness to Hindus. One source quotes that these events left some 50,000 homeless in Bangladesh. In Pakistan some 245 temples were demolished and 200 in Bangladesh. If its true, its very dastardly. A year later during the demonstration by Hindu karsevaks in the Masjid site to build temple, many people died in police firing. Although officials claimed less than 50, activists claimed between 80 and 170. The raised temperature around the Babri Masjid led to its razing by the Hindu crowd on Dec. 6, 1992. That was a dark day for the Indian etho of tolerance. Violence and blood shed followed.
Did the demolition of an old decrepit structure built some 500 years ago, and in disuse, deserve the brutal killing of some 2000 people both Hindus and Muslims? Yes, demolition was bad, but would those killings recompense the demolition?
There were many who probably caused the rupture. Rajeev Gandhi, P. V. Narasimha Rao, Kalyan Singh, L.K. Advani etc. Former two have died, later two are answerable to the court.
Yes, since then life has gone on, and 30th Sept. 2010 arrived to deliver the judgement, who owned the Babri Masjid site?
Everybody reacted differently. Politicians, Media and general public. But the India of 2010 was different from the India of 1992.There was no visible public expression of joy or disappointment. But there were politicians and men and women of media reacted rather stupidly.
Look at what Mulayam Singh Yadav said on the Ayodhya Judgement. He is reported to have said that "Muslims are feeling cheated by the verdict." So was Prakash Karat of CPI said "Verdict based on faith is improper." L.K. Advani’s statement that he ‘feels vindicated’ was very unnecessary and was completely avoidable. Advani has a tremendous responsibility of guiding Hindutva outfits. Having got the bigger size of the cake, these organisations need to be more circumspect and act with larger purpose. Such statements can be stumbling blocks for any possible compromise. Look at what Times of India, Mumbai said ‘2 parts to Hindus, 1 part to Muslims’. Isn’t it highly irresponsible statement, despite its justification the next day to its readers who complained of insensitivity? And ‘The Hindu’, another self styled secular daily said "High Court awards two thirds of disputed Ayodhya site to Hindu parties and one third to Sunny Waqf Board". But strangely TOI Bangalore/Mangalore had "Ayodhya Land to be divided into 3 parts" simple, matter of fact and straight forward. And the not so ‘well regarded’ (as per TOI Mumbai) Free Press Journal from Mumbai stated "STATUS QUO FOR NOW – 3 WAY SPLIT OF LAND PROPOSED" equally matter of fact and straight forward.
The fact of the matter is, if religious issues have remained as an ‘open wound’, its because of the highly irresponsible media men and women, both print and electronic, beside of course, the political parties fishing in troubled waters, by their vote bank politics.
Vidya Subramanian, writes in The Hindu, "Verdict over, a fantastic, credible quite followed. There was not a single incident reported from anywhere. The maturity of the average Indian was on spectacular display". If this is what media should always present, straight forward and even-handed, she goes a little further and says, "The three way division of land ordered by the judges was based not on hard irrefutable evidence but on the claimed faith and belief of a Hindu majority". This ‘intelligent’ observation was not needed to ruffle the quite waters. If the courts have come to the conclusion they came to, they would have applied their legal acumen to see all aspects. And only when they felt that any decision based on facts of the case and circumstantial evidence can only make things more uncertain, they probably went for compromise. Being ‘rarest of rare’ case, there appeared little choice for the court. "By saying the disputed land should be trifurcated among the three claimants, the court prevented all parties from claiming the judgement as a victory. The verdict is a victory for secularism" writes M Jeyaram from Singapore. There is sense in what this Singaporean of Indian origin says.
This Vidya writes further "The Sunny Waqf board, correctly announced its decision to move to the Supreme Court." Here she tries to take side, without fully reading and understanding implication of this ‘rarest of rare’ case. She writes, of the anguish and disappointment of young educated Muslims at the ‘reason being substituted with the faith’ by the court. While one can argue with this statement, the question that comes up is ‘what if court had gone ahead and bifurcated the land and given it to two other claimants, nothing to Sunny Waqf Board, based on the ‘facts’ of the case as the court saw it’? It was indeed a balancing act. But this Vidya doesn’t stop at that "A sagacious judgement would have been for the judges to dismiss the Muslim suit for being time barred, though accepting the facts in the case were clear, well established and in favour of Muslims". This is atrocious, for there are any number of arguments which can prove this lady wrong. She is clearly fishing in troubled waters. It is recorded as far back as 1885, much before this lady was born, by the sub judge of Faizabad court, an Englishman, dismissing a plea to build a temple on this site, observed however, that "It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance." And then there are ASI findings which has proved the existence of structure similar to temples found during excavations. In the light of these available records for some intelligent journos to play smart is really uncalled for. What media and media men and women need to do is to highlight and support liberal and flexible views among all communities. Like that of V.C. of Pondicherry University Jaleel Ahmed Khan Tareen. He writes "Now that the judgement is out and the Waqf Board which has been given a third of the disputed land is planning to appeal in the Apex Court, I call upon all Muslims to form a public opinion saying we do not support the Board decision to continue this fight. The 1/3rd land should be gracefully gifted to Hindus to build the temple. We have seen 60 years of changing governments. Properties worth billions remains misused and mismanaged by Waqf Board." Here whether they would give the land to Hindus or not, is not the point, Prof. Jaleel is making conciliatory statements. These sane voices are the need of the hour.
Coming to the issue of what next, suggestions from different sections of society that a Hospital and a school would be the better option, should be seriously taken up by the media and political parties. There should be continuous and ongoing debate to drive home the truth of the proposal. There have been media reports about the one-up-manship of different Hindu outfits, who want to be the ultimate arbiter of Infant Lord Rama the presiding deity at the 1/3 land allotted by the court. All Hindu outfits, both religious and political, should be convinced that it shall indeed be the defining moment for a long term and even a permanent solution to the volatile socio political situation in the country.
While the demolition of Babri Masjid can to categorised as ‘Law and Order’ issue, the ownership of the disputed land at Ayodhya need to be debated for what ever importance it deserves. We all realise that Judgement and justice are not the same thing. The response across the country, as majority of them have stated, both from Muslim and Hindu adherents, that they are satisfied, is a very good sign.
Media hype and the fear psychosis that gripped government machineries did increase the level of uncertainty. But Indians have proved that they are getting wiser, that violence shall never pay. Peace loving public and the governments all over India did give a sigh of relief. What is extremely heartening is that there is a set of newer Muslim fraternity coming up with conciliatory statements of accepting the judgement. AIMPLB, had appealed to Muslims even before the pronouncement to accept the verdict, to maintain peace and harmony in the country. There are emerging forces within the community who would want to offer the 1/3rd land to Hindus in a spirit of "Bhai Chaara". There are others who are proposing ‘Shram Daan’ or Kaar Seva in building temple by Muslims and Masjid by Hindus. These are matured statements of co-operative co-existance. India had always lived like this. It has a history of thousands of years of harmonious co-existence. Ask Parsies driven away from Persia, or those Jews persecuted elsewhere or even Ahmediyas who were declared by the court as non-Muslims in Pakistan, which is an Islamic Republic, all would vouch that there is no place like India for its innate tolerance.
Of course the Indian National Congress, the biggest political party of India has played down the political rhetoric. So also, our system throws up people like P Chidambaram and Karunanidhi, who show their intelligence in being little more verbose than necessary and then there are media smarties like The Hindu and CNN/IBN and NDTV, pick up these ‘tongue-in-cheek’ remarks to serve their USP and TV ratings. But the great people of this country, know very well where lies their welfare. And life hopefully shall go on.
Yes. Peace be upon India. Peace be upon the earth.
This was the print media news from Mumbai on 29th Sept. 2010. A thought inadvertently crossed the mind. ‘What if Kasab was a Christian or a Hindu, and was caught and jailed in Pakistan?’ After the above attack would he still be alive to see the next day?
But in India there is a semblance of law and order and this Kasab, the lone Pakistani terrorist caught during the 26/11 attack, is alive, and apparently kicking.
On 30th Sept. 2010, the next day, India was waiting with bated breath, the long awaited judgement in the dispute on the land surrounding the Ayodhya shrine, where Babri Masjid stood before 6th Dec. 1992, which was demolished by a restive crowd of, apparently, Hindus, who claimed that Masjid stood on the ground where Hindu God Lord Rama was born, and that a temple was demolished to build the mosque by Babur, (pronounced Baabar) the Mongol who established the Moghul dynasty in India.
Could there be truth in the claims of Hindu faithfuls?
According to the TIME/LIFE history series published from Amsterdam, Islam came to India in 12th century. Writing in its book ‘History of the World AD 1100-1200’, it informs the readers, that the ‘Quwat-al-Islam mosque' in the city of Delhi was ‘built by forced Hindu labour, on the site of a Hindu shrine, from the materials of wrecked Hindu temples’. It writes about the ‘rubbled remains of the 27 neighbouring Hindu temples that had gone into the making of the mosque’ (page 95). These history books were published for the first time in 1989 and were reprinted in 1996, confirming that the claims by the writers of these history books were not disputed, at least until 1996.
Recapitulating the events between AD-1500-1600, historians at TIME/LIFE write "In Jan. 1505, a band of horsemen led by Babur, a descendent of Taimur and Chengis Khan, both Mongols, set out on an expedition of the east from Kabul. In matter of days they were into a land, in the words of Babur "where everything was different, from grasses, the trees, the animals, the birds, the manners and customs of peoples’. He was literate and was in the habit of writing diaries. From the barren mountains of central Asia, to the fertility of Northern India, "we were amazed, and in truth there was much to be amazed at", was Babur’s take. Having come only to plunder and go, he was attracted to the wealth of India. After some visits he decided to stay put in India to mark the beginning of Mughal dynasty. Here it is important to note that Mughal is a corrupted version of Mongol, which means a Mughal is a Mongol. According to TIME/LIFE historian, Babur spoke of "those Mughal wretches" and complained that "mischief and devastation must always be expected from the Mughal hordes". Probably Babur was not far from truth about the mischievous and inhuman aspect of Mongols. It was in 1219, according to this TIME/LIFE history series, Chengis Khan was speaking to the refugees in the main mosque of Bukhara, in the central Asia, quote, "I am the flail of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you." Right enough, the book further states, ‘In those years, half the known world reeled under an onslaught of unprecedented ferocity. Outside their empire, the Mongols inspired universal dread.’
With this background, chronicled by Europeans, is it difficult to surmise that those invaders who came to India through Khyber pass, from Afghanistan and beyond were not those who were in love with India? Having found the locals non-resistant, partly due to their peace loving nature and lack of preparedness, these marauders had a field day and succeeded in subjugating the locals to their dominance. Stay put in India, suited them.
Records of Mohammedan rule in India, except during that of Akbar, the grandson of Babur, was not exemplary as history would testify. Akbar was probably the most tolerant of all Muslim rulers of India, though illiterate himself, he had respect for learned teachers and believed in evenhandedness in dealing with his subjects including his own people. According the TIME LIFE history series, Akbar punished the son of his chief foster mother with death, for his involvement in killing Akbar’s Chief Minister. Among the Muslim rulers of India Aurangazeb was the most despised Mughul for his cruelty towards non-Muslims and their places of worship.
Reversal of fortune is an ongoing universal phenomenon. Like colonising whites lost their colonies the world over, marauding invaders who became rulers by oppressive and repressive methods, sun perforce had to travel to the setting side of the horizon. Slowly the Muslim political dominance ended with the 1857 sipoy mutiny. British too had to leave India leaving the political powers to the locals, but while leaving they bifurcated the country on religious lines. Although for record, their intention was to protect the interest of Muslims in the Hindu majority India. Could it be that ‘Britishers wanted the Indian sub-continent to remain on the boil for all times to come?’ Britain had made its fortune from its colonies and India was the ‘Jewel in the Crown’. They didn’t want to lose India. Winston Churchill did not hide his disappointment when the labour government of Clement Attlee granted independence to India. He had reportedly stated that "India will be ruined and there will be chaos all over’. Time has moved on and India is a very prominent member in the comity of nations, trying to have a pot shot at Super Power Status. But the ‘divide and rule policy’ of Britishers left behind, is still hurting the Indian body politic.
Upon independence Pakistan became a theocratic state and Indian constitution makers sensibly went for ‘Sarva Dharma Samabhava’, which is the underlying Indian etho of secular governance. Over the years, this constitutional guarantee of ‘Sarva Dharma Samabhava’ was blatantly misused by all political parties and agenda driven media. While everybody spoke of the rights and freedom of expression, nobody, at least not many, thought of the responsibility of protecting and sustaining the pluralistic fibre of social harmony. If politician was interested in vote bank politics, media was interested in its USP and TV ratings, so that it can have better circulation and more advertisement revenue. They indulged in blatant fixation of who is right and who is wrong rather than issue based what is right and what is wrong.
Babri Masjid at Ayodhya has a history of hundreds of years. This Masjid-i-Janmasathan, as it was called prior to 1940, probably was constructed between 1194 and 1528. The former year was when Mohd. Ghori invaded India. There is a claim which informs that this Masjid was built in 1528-29 according to the Persian inscription put on the Masjid.
Available informations from different sources confirm that both Muslims and Hindus were using the premises around the Masjid. However there appear to be some affidavits filed by some Muslim residents of Ayodhya stating that "at least from 1936 onwards the Muslims have neither used the site as a mosque nor offered prayers there. The same source informs that in 1949 Hindus took over the mosque.
However things did not remain quite, different socio-political groups, both among Hindus and Muslims, were fishing in the troubled waters of Ayodhya. Repercussion in Nov. 1989, across the border in Pakistan and Bangladesh, caused large scale destruction of temples and homelessness to Hindus. One source quotes that these events left some 50,000 homeless in Bangladesh. In Pakistan some 245 temples were demolished and 200 in Bangladesh. If its true, its very dastardly. A year later during the demonstration by Hindu karsevaks in the Masjid site to build temple, many people died in police firing. Although officials claimed less than 50, activists claimed between 80 and 170. The raised temperature around the Babri Masjid led to its razing by the Hindu crowd on Dec. 6, 1992. That was a dark day for the Indian etho of tolerance. Violence and blood shed followed.
Did the demolition of an old decrepit structure built some 500 years ago, and in disuse, deserve the brutal killing of some 2000 people both Hindus and Muslims? Yes, demolition was bad, but would those killings recompense the demolition?
There were many who probably caused the rupture. Rajeev Gandhi, P. V. Narasimha Rao, Kalyan Singh, L.K. Advani etc. Former two have died, later two are answerable to the court.
Yes, since then life has gone on, and 30th Sept. 2010 arrived to deliver the judgement, who owned the Babri Masjid site?
Everybody reacted differently. Politicians, Media and general public. But the India of 2010 was different from the India of 1992.There was no visible public expression of joy or disappointment. But there were politicians and men and women of media reacted rather stupidly.
Look at what Mulayam Singh Yadav said on the Ayodhya Judgement. He is reported to have said that "Muslims are feeling cheated by the verdict." So was Prakash Karat of CPI said "Verdict based on faith is improper." L.K. Advani’s statement that he ‘feels vindicated’ was very unnecessary and was completely avoidable. Advani has a tremendous responsibility of guiding Hindutva outfits. Having got the bigger size of the cake, these organisations need to be more circumspect and act with larger purpose. Such statements can be stumbling blocks for any possible compromise. Look at what Times of India, Mumbai said ‘2 parts to Hindus, 1 part to Muslims’. Isn’t it highly irresponsible statement, despite its justification the next day to its readers who complained of insensitivity? And ‘The Hindu’, another self styled secular daily said "High Court awards two thirds of disputed Ayodhya site to Hindu parties and one third to Sunny Waqf Board". But strangely TOI Bangalore/Mangalore had "Ayodhya Land to be divided into 3 parts" simple, matter of fact and straight forward. And the not so ‘well regarded’ (as per TOI Mumbai) Free Press Journal from Mumbai stated "STATUS QUO FOR NOW – 3 WAY SPLIT OF LAND PROPOSED" equally matter of fact and straight forward.
The fact of the matter is, if religious issues have remained as an ‘open wound’, its because of the highly irresponsible media men and women, both print and electronic, beside of course, the political parties fishing in troubled waters, by their vote bank politics.
Vidya Subramanian, writes in The Hindu, "Verdict over, a fantastic, credible quite followed. There was not a single incident reported from anywhere. The maturity of the average Indian was on spectacular display". If this is what media should always present, straight forward and even-handed, she goes a little further and says, "The three way division of land ordered by the judges was based not on hard irrefutable evidence but on the claimed faith and belief of a Hindu majority". This ‘intelligent’ observation was not needed to ruffle the quite waters. If the courts have come to the conclusion they came to, they would have applied their legal acumen to see all aspects. And only when they felt that any decision based on facts of the case and circumstantial evidence can only make things more uncertain, they probably went for compromise. Being ‘rarest of rare’ case, there appeared little choice for the court. "By saying the disputed land should be trifurcated among the three claimants, the court prevented all parties from claiming the judgement as a victory. The verdict is a victory for secularism" writes M Jeyaram from Singapore. There is sense in what this Singaporean of Indian origin says.
This Vidya writes further "The Sunny Waqf board, correctly announced its decision to move to the Supreme Court." Here she tries to take side, without fully reading and understanding implication of this ‘rarest of rare’ case. She writes, of the anguish and disappointment of young educated Muslims at the ‘reason being substituted with the faith’ by the court. While one can argue with this statement, the question that comes up is ‘what if court had gone ahead and bifurcated the land and given it to two other claimants, nothing to Sunny Waqf Board, based on the ‘facts’ of the case as the court saw it’? It was indeed a balancing act. But this Vidya doesn’t stop at that "A sagacious judgement would have been for the judges to dismiss the Muslim suit for being time barred, though accepting the facts in the case were clear, well established and in favour of Muslims". This is atrocious, for there are any number of arguments which can prove this lady wrong. She is clearly fishing in troubled waters. It is recorded as far back as 1885, much before this lady was born, by the sub judge of Faizabad court, an Englishman, dismissing a plea to build a temple on this site, observed however, that "It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance." And then there are ASI findings which has proved the existence of structure similar to temples found during excavations. In the light of these available records for some intelligent journos to play smart is really uncalled for. What media and media men and women need to do is to highlight and support liberal and flexible views among all communities. Like that of V.C. of Pondicherry University Jaleel Ahmed Khan Tareen. He writes "Now that the judgement is out and the Waqf Board which has been given a third of the disputed land is planning to appeal in the Apex Court, I call upon all Muslims to form a public opinion saying we do not support the Board decision to continue this fight. The 1/3rd land should be gracefully gifted to Hindus to build the temple. We have seen 60 years of changing governments. Properties worth billions remains misused and mismanaged by Waqf Board." Here whether they would give the land to Hindus or not, is not the point, Prof. Jaleel is making conciliatory statements. These sane voices are the need of the hour.
Coming to the issue of what next, suggestions from different sections of society that a Hospital and a school would be the better option, should be seriously taken up by the media and political parties. There should be continuous and ongoing debate to drive home the truth of the proposal. There have been media reports about the one-up-manship of different Hindu outfits, who want to be the ultimate arbiter of Infant Lord Rama the presiding deity at the 1/3 land allotted by the court. All Hindu outfits, both religious and political, should be convinced that it shall indeed be the defining moment for a long term and even a permanent solution to the volatile socio political situation in the country.
While the demolition of Babri Masjid can to categorised as ‘Law and Order’ issue, the ownership of the disputed land at Ayodhya need to be debated for what ever importance it deserves. We all realise that Judgement and justice are not the same thing. The response across the country, as majority of them have stated, both from Muslim and Hindu adherents, that they are satisfied, is a very good sign.
Media hype and the fear psychosis that gripped government machineries did increase the level of uncertainty. But Indians have proved that they are getting wiser, that violence shall never pay. Peace loving public and the governments all over India did give a sigh of relief. What is extremely heartening is that there is a set of newer Muslim fraternity coming up with conciliatory statements of accepting the judgement. AIMPLB, had appealed to Muslims even before the pronouncement to accept the verdict, to maintain peace and harmony in the country. There are emerging forces within the community who would want to offer the 1/3rd land to Hindus in a spirit of "Bhai Chaara". There are others who are proposing ‘Shram Daan’ or Kaar Seva in building temple by Muslims and Masjid by Hindus. These are matured statements of co-operative co-existance. India had always lived like this. It has a history of thousands of years of harmonious co-existence. Ask Parsies driven away from Persia, or those Jews persecuted elsewhere or even Ahmediyas who were declared by the court as non-Muslims in Pakistan, which is an Islamic Republic, all would vouch that there is no place like India for its innate tolerance.
Of course the Indian National Congress, the biggest political party of India has played down the political rhetoric. So also, our system throws up people like P Chidambaram and Karunanidhi, who show their intelligence in being little more verbose than necessary and then there are media smarties like The Hindu and CNN/IBN and NDTV, pick up these ‘tongue-in-cheek’ remarks to serve their USP and TV ratings. But the great people of this country, know very well where lies their welfare. And life hopefully shall go on.
Yes. Peace be upon India. Peace be upon the earth.
Comments