FOCUS

AYODHYA, MEDIA & ADITYANATH: IS A SOLUTION POSSIBLE?

Twenty five years ago, on 25^th December 1992, something unthinkable happened. Reportedly, a part of age old Indian ethos was ruptured beyond repair. Babri Masjid, allegedly built on the ground in Ayodhya where Hindu God Lord Rama supposedly was born, was reduced to rubble. It was claimed that a temple was demolished to build the mosque by Baabar( Babur), the Mongol who established the Mughal dynasty in India.

According to historians at TIME/LIFE, published from Amsterdam, Holland, Islam came to India in the 12^th century, and Baabar, a descendent of Chengis Khan, a Mongol, came to India during early part of the year 1505. Surely Ramayana, the epic on Lord Rama, dates back beyond the Gregorian calendar over 15 centuries earlier. Therefore it is safe to surmise that Lord Rama’s antecedents dates back beyond few millennium to that of the arrival of Mongol tribe led by Baabar. However here the question is whether Baabar demolished a shrine with Infant Lord Rama as the presiding deity, in Ayodhya?

Going back to the source in Amsterdam, the history series of ‘TIMES/LIFE: ‘HISTORY OF THE WORLD AD 1100-1200’, 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 temple’ while adding, ‘rubbled remains of 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 writers of these history books were not disputed.  

Continuing their writings, historians at TIME/ LIFE, describes Baabar as somebody with knowledge of literacy, who describe entry into India from Kabul as “Where everything was different, from grass to trees to animals to birds and even manners and customs of people.” Having travelled from barren mountains of Central Asia into the fertile plains of Northern India, Baabar’s diary informs “we were amazed and in truth there was much to be amazed”. It was clear that Baabar was attracted by the place and its wealth and stayed put, to establish his writ leading to the Mughal Empire. He had only heard of the wealth of India and had come only to plunder and go. Couple of trips-up and down-he decided, once-and-for-all, to make India his home. He had obviously no difficulty in establishing himself with force, since locals were not only peace loving but were also unprepared for any combat with an adversary with far superior skills in the use of weaponry. After all they were marauders always ready to hit the object of prey, and hence they had no difficulty in subjugating locals to their dominance.   

Having established Mughal seat of power in India, it started spreading its tentacles through the length and breadth of India. Thus somewhere before 1530, a mosque was built in Ayodhya. With the kind of history made available by Europeans, it was not difficult to conclude that there could have been a temple which was demolished to make the mosque. And as claimed by Hindus, Lord Rama could have born at the site where temple existed.

Somewhere before 1885, Hindus approached the then English administration and made a plea to the court in Faizabad to allow them to build a temple on this site. The sub-judge of Faizabad court had reportedly dismissed the plea with the observation. “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”. As a matter of interest prior to 1940 Babri Masjid was called as Masjid-e-Janmasthan. There is also this finding by Archeological Survey of India (ASI) which proved the existence of structure similar to temple found during excavation. Of course Babri Masjid Action Committee has disputed the finding of ASI. Post 1992 demolition of Babri Masjid, there was riot in Mumbai, but not in Ayodhya. Mark this. So, it was not those in Ayodhya who felt outraged at the demolition. Riot happened in Mumbai, probably engineered by some vested interest. Some 2000 were killed in the riot.

However what needs to be pointed out and told loudly to our deaf media that there appears to be an affidavit filed by some Muslim residents of Ayodhya stating that “at least from 1936 onwards Muslims have neither used the site as mosque nor offered prayers there”. Reportedly the same source informs that in 1949 Hindus took over the mosque. Here the question is, ‘did the demolition of an old and dilapidated structure built some 500 years ago and in disuse, deserve the brutal killing of some 2000 people, both- Hindus and Muslims?’    

Post demolition of Babri Masjid, UP government was dismissed, citing breakdown of Law & Order. President’s rule was imposed. Union government hands over the case of criminal conspiracy to CBI in 1993.

February 27, 2002, Godhra carnage takes place. 58 pilgrims returning from Ayodhya were burnt to death by burning the railway bogie they were travelling in. Chasm widens to unprecedented level. Riot follows in Gujarat, which left some 2000 dead, both Muslims and Hindus. In the meanwhile 3 parties- Nirmohi Aakhada, Ram Lalla & Sunny Waqf Board claimed the land, where Babri Masjid existed.

Come 2010, December 5, Allahabad High Court rules on these title claims of the Masjid-e-Janmasthan land now under dispute. Court, in its wisdom, decides to play it safe, looking into the sensitive nature of the case. They divide the land into 3 parts, among 3 claimants, equally. Two of the parties to the dispute belonged to Hindus and the 3^rd one is Sunny Waqf Board. It was clearly a balancing act. Expectedly there were reactions galore. Some admired court’s wisdom and some outright rejecting it. Times of India Bangalore/Mangalore remarked “Ayodhya land to be divided into 3 parts”, simple, matter of fact and straight. But strangely TOI Mumbai was outrageous in its reaction, “Two parts to Hindus, One part to Muslims”, clearly a divisive and irresponsible statement. Free Press Journal also from Mumbai too was matter fact and straight forward, ‘Status Quo for Now-3 way Split of Land Proposed’. And the The Hindu, the self styled secular daily had the headlines “High Court Award Two Thirds of Disputed Ayodhya site to Hindu Parties and One Third to Sunny Waqf Board”, clearly with mischief in mind. 

Of course politicians were just as bad. LK Advani of BJP said “Feels Vindicated”, a very unnecessary and completely avoidable statement. Having got the bigger size of the cake, he could have been more circumspect and gracious. Mulayam Singh Yadav, a former UP Chief Minister of Samajwadi Party, had remarked “Muslims are feeling cheated by the verdict”

Of course we cannot expect all politicians to be statesmen. Since divisive politics is their vote bank. But what about the media?

If religious issues in India have remained an ‘open wound’, it is because of the highly irresponsible media men and women, both print and electronic, fishing constantly in troubled waters.

Vidya Subramanian, writes in The Hindu, “Verdict over, a fantastic, credible quiet 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.

Vidya writes further “The Sunny Waqf Board, correctly announced its decision to move 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 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 numbers of arguments which can prove the 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 have 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 1/3^rd land should be gracefully gifted to Hindus to build the temple. We have seen 60 years of changing governments. Properties worth billions remain 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.

In 2011, Supreme Court suspends the Allahabad High Court ruling. Court fixed the hearing to start on 5^th December 2017. India of 2017,is certainly different from the India of year 2010 when the last ruling was done. At that time UPA government was at the centre so was the government of Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh. But in 2017, there is NDA government led by BJP, is in the centre, so also BJP in saddle at Lucknow. However, it is the Chief Minister of U.P. Yogi Adityanath who is a divisive personality and therefore probably has a closed mind on the Ayodhya issue. What will he do? is a big question. Was there any agenda when he was brought in as the Chief Minister? It was a very big surprise even in BJP and of course others were shocked. He was an MP for many terms from his Gorakhpur constituency. Except administering temples he had no administrative experience in managing state machinery. His competence was tried when small children died in Gorakhpur hospital by the dozens, allegedly due to lack of oxygen supplies. As state Chief Minister, he has to build bridges with all communities, especially Muslims who look at him with lot of discomfort. His measures involving Madrasaa has not helped matters. There is an element of antagonism in his approach towards Muslims. As the Chief Executive of the state he has to take everybody into confidence, for the overall peace, stability and therefore development of the State. Because the BJP led NDA is in power at the centre and also in power with a big majority in Uttar Pradesh, and having hoisted Adityanath as CM, there is a huge expectation from those who are demanding temple to be built in Ayodhya disputed site. Prime Minister Modi, in his early days as PM, had stated that TOILETS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN TEMPLE. But now, he too is keeping quiet not giving any indications of what is in his mind. Thus the situation is dicey. With the possible erection of 100mtr tall statue of Lord Rama on the banks of Sarayu river, the temple movement is certainly getting a boost. The offer of 10 silver arrows by UP Shia Central Waqf Board has only strengthened the temple movement. With them agreeing for temple in Ayodhya and Masjid in Lucknow it has become an open support for the construction of temple for Lord Rama on the Babri Masjid site.

Indeed, the co-operative co-existence has to be the spirit of modern times and the Shia support for temple shall help reduce tension to some extent. Hope enthusiasm of Shia percolates down to all sections of Muslims so that all can live in peace in coming days, months and years. This can lead to stability and therefore unprecedented growth of India of tomorrow, which is truly what is needed.

However, Hindus being what they are, there is a huge section which is in favour of activities other than temple for Lord Rama on the disputed land. Educational institutions, orphanages, hospitals and other facilities for the betterment of Human Development Indices (HDI) in and arround Uttar Pradesh, where HDI is one of the lowest in the country. Whole of India is witness and privy to the knowledge involving Gorakhpur health scenario and many deaths of infants. The claim of unmanaged incidence of encephalitis, for decades, and how devastating its effects on infants have been there, are reasons enough to prioritize issues of governance rather than emotive temple issue. Problems involving women and children too are priorities which Lucknow must recognize to attend in right earnest. Chief Minister Yogi Adithyanath has a huge responsibility of improving these social indices in UP rather than concentrating on building temple for Lord Rama. Ayodhya must celebrate the greatness of Lord Rama by becoming a symbol of reconciliation than further alienation. It is for him to take the call in the interest of India’s eternal vision of SARVE JANAHA SUKHINO BHAVANTHU.