FOCUS
AYODHYA, DIVISIVE MEDIA & SUPREME COURT
26 years ago, on 6th December 1992, a frenzied crowd of Kaar Sevaks had pulled down the decrepit and disused structure of what was then called as Babri Masjid. This crowd of Kaar Sevaks, apparently Hindus, had claimed that this structure called Babri Masjid was built on the ground Hindu God Lord Rama was born some thousands of years ago and a temple was demolished to build the masjid by the then Mughal King Babur (pronounced Baabar).
This Masjid-e-Janmasthan, as it was also called prior to 1940, was built in 1528-29 according to the Persian inscription inscribed on the walls of the masjid. However, it fell into disuse in later years and some of the affidavits filed by some Muslim residents of Ayodhya confirm this state of the masjid. According to the affidavit, “at least from 1936 onwards the Muslims have neither used the site as a masjid nor offered prayers therein”. The source also informs that in 1949, Hindus took over the masjid.
Clearly this Babri Masjid aka Masjid-e- Janmasthan has a history of many hundreds of years, like many other long standing masjids across India. These masjids were built by the Muslim rulers of that time mostly by demolishing Hindu temples, say Hindu faithfuls.
But what is the truth?
TIME/LIFE HISTORY OF THE WORLD SERIES, are books published from Amsterdam in the Netherlands. There are some 21 books covering some 50/100 years each, starting from before the beginning of Christian era.
According to the historians covering the world events between AD 1500 & 1600, “In Jan 1505, a band of horsemen led by Babur (pronounced Baabar), a descendent of Taimur and Chengis Khan, both Mongols, set out from Kabul on an expedition of the east. 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 people’. He was literate and was in the habit of writing diaries. From the barren mountains of central Asia, to the fertile land of North India, ‘we were amazed, and in truth there was much to be amazed at’ was Babur’s take.
However, what needs to be recognized and therefore accepted is that Islam came to India much before the arrival of Babur. At least over 300 years before Babur, there were marauders who came to India through the Khyber Pass.
According to European historians, India was no stranger to foreign invaders. Thanks to well watered soil and a population skilled in crafts, it was far wealthier than the more desolate lands to the north. Over the past millennium and a half, Greeks, Scythians and Huns had in turn been drawn to India by its legendary riches. But none had radically altered Indian life. Islam was new to India, very much unlike the ways and beliefs of other invaders of India. Muslims brought with them theologians who preached a gospel of monotheism radically different from Hindus beliefs which espoused a multitude of Gods. With the advent of Islam, the fabric of India changed forever, write these European historians.
TIME-LIFE HISTORY OF THE WORLD series also informs that Muslim invaders brought Islam to India around late 12th century and it was in 1195 that the first masjid in Delhi was built. ‘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 27 wrecked neighbouring Hindu temples’ informs the book ‘History of the world AD-1100-1200-(page 95).
The above details available in the public domain were never contradicted and therefore were believed to be true. Hence if Hindu faithfuls, who razed the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya claim that this masjid was built after demolishing a temple, the claim clearly is not misplaced. Archeological excavation has only confirmed that there indeed are the remains of a temple below the razed structure of this disused Babri Masjid.
Indians are privy to the violence that followed, mostly in Mumbai, following the demolition of this decrepit masjid and many have died in the violence. It is indeed very sad and bad that so many should have died for raging down of a 500 year old structure which was in total disuse. What if, this dilapidated structure had collapsed on its own, which anyway would have collapsed in matter of some years? Of course this is hypothetical.
Coming to the issue of Babri Masjid / Ram Janmabhoomi impasse, there appears to be only the issue of ownership of land, which the Allahabad High Court on 30th September 2010, in its wisdom, delivered a judgement trifurcating the land to three litigants involved in the court battle. Being a judgement of High Court, it had the scope to be challenged in Supreme Court. And as expected some of the interested parties have indeed gone to court and we are in 2019, already over 8 years. Supreme Court apparently is not seized of the issue, is taking it rather routinely.
It is true; the crowd of those who violently reacted in 1992 is no more violent. The judgement of 2010 of Allahabad High Court was rather taken in a spirit of acceptance of law and order. There was no visible public expression of joy or disappointment. But it was the political class and the print media, which tried to further muddy the troubled waters.
Mulayam Singh Yadav of Samajwadi Party reacted “Muslims are cheated by the verdict”. Prakash Karat of CPI said “Verdict based on faith is improper”. LK Advani reacted unnecessarily as “feels vindicated”, he could as well have kept quiet. However it was a part of the print media, which went berserk. Times of India Mumbai wrote in its front page “2 parts to Hindus, 1 part to Muslim”. Similar was the remark of The Hindu, the self styled secular daily. But there were also those who were more matter of fact like the Free Press Journal which said “Status Quo for now 3 ways split of land proposed”.
But, the highly irresponsible statement came from one Vidya Subramanian, writing for The Hindu of 11th September 2010, “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 quiet 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 available then can only make things more uncertain, HC probably went for a 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 numbers 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 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 1/3rd 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.
Come 2019, Supreme Court is trying to get in with its considered wisdom into the vexed problem, by playing by the ears. RSS and other Hindu organizations are putting pressure on the apex court to take up the case in earnest and in all seriousness. But somehow, the apex court thought entry of women into Sabarimala more pressing and therefore acted rather fast, despite the only lady judge in the bench disagreed completely with the majority (4-1) consisting of only men. There are other two recent pronouncements by the highest adjudicator of the country, the one on section 377 involving LGBTQ and the other about the Malayalam novel Meesha. In both cases apex court appeared very concerned and acted with swiftness. No wonder RSS was at its vitriolic best when it branded the observation of Supreme Court on Ayodhya petition saying “Remarks of apex court on Ayodhya case is an insult to Hindu sentiments”. On October 29, 2018, the Supreme Court had said, “We have our own priorities. Whether the matter will be heard in January, February or March, the appropriate bench will decide”.
Addressing the media after three days meeting of Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal, RSS general secretary Suresh Joshi has reportedly stated “The Hindu community looks at the statement with surprise, pain and humiliation. The Ram Temple is connected to the faith of crores of Hindus hence SC must expedite hearing. If such serious issues tied to the sentiments and sensitivities of crores of people are not on the SC’s priority then what else is”? he wondered.
As if to compound the irritation of Hindu outfits, this was the news in the print media, “Ayodhya hearing adjourned again, judge recuses himself ”, on 11th January 2019. The hearing was due on 10th January 2019. Surely the decision on the constitution of the five member bench must have been taken well in time. Since the last pronouncement was on 29/10/2018, there were 73 days upto 10th January 2019. But Justice Lalit waited until the 10th January, the day of the hearing, to express his disinclination and recuses himself, since he had appeared as a lawyer to Kalyan Singh, a litigant in the case, in 1997. Even Chief Justice Gogoi too could have taken confirmation of all judges who are made part of the bench. Clearly there is apparent lack of seriousness on the part of apex court to deal with the subject in earnest. These are the kinds of lackadaisical approach that pushes an average Hindu to think that in his own country he is not getting Justice. Can he be faulted to think like this?!
Report also informs that ‘Secretary General of the apex court registry was still in the process of translating the voluminous documents’. Isn’t this very strange that it was on 30th September 2010, the judgement was delivered by the Allahabad High Court which was subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court. After 8 years, if Supreme Court says that its registry has not translated the related documents, it is the height of irresponsibility of the registry. Is getting translators a problem in the country? In its order, the court is reported to have observed “In these circumstances, the registry of this court is directed to physically inspect the records which are lying under lock and key: make an assessment of time that will be taken to make the cases ready for hearing by engaging, if required, official translators of the requisite number and give a report thereof to the court”. This means, an clement of uncertainly has been introduced, which if judges at the helm of happening could have been serious, the problem could have been addressed without any delay when the petition was filed. This is clearly a casual handling of a serious issue. And we moan, there are hundreds and thousands of cases pending across the courts in India, and why not!?
BJP is already talking about other options, while ruling out ordinance route, if Supreme Court doesn’t fast track the Ayodhya case and conclude it at the earliest. What other option it has, is unknown.
Here it is pertinent to remember former Prime Minister P.V Narasimha Rao, who had coined a limerick “inaction itself is action”, meaning procrastination can help solve the problem on its own. It is true that this kind of procrastination tricks have known to have reduced the intensity of the matter involved and thereby help in solving the problem with fewer hurdles. As the Allahabad High Court had termed this Ayodhya tangle as the ‘rarest of rare cases’, it may be sensible to buy time and go slow on the sensitive issue. Let us all hope that there is no lingering bitterness in the resolution of this long pending vexed issue. Hope it does.
J. Shriyan
26 years ago, on 6th December 1992, a frenzied crowd of Kaar Sevaks had pulled down the decrepit and disused structure of what was then called as Babri Masjid. This crowd of Kaar Sevaks, apparently Hindus, had claimed that this structure called Babri Masjid was built on the ground Hindu God Lord Rama was born some thousands of years ago and a temple was demolished to build the masjid by the then Mughal King Babur (pronounced Baabar).
This Masjid-e-Janmasthan, as it was also called prior to 1940, was built in 1528-29 according to the Persian inscription inscribed on the walls of the masjid. However, it fell into disuse in later years and some of the affidavits filed by some Muslim residents of Ayodhya confirm this state of the masjid. According to the affidavit, “at least from 1936 onwards the Muslims have neither used the site as a masjid nor offered prayers therein”. The source also informs that in 1949, Hindus took over the masjid.
Clearly this Babri Masjid aka Masjid-e- Janmasthan has a history of many hundreds of years, like many other long standing masjids across India. These masjids were built by the Muslim rulers of that time mostly by demolishing Hindu temples, say Hindu faithfuls.
But what is the truth?
TIME/LIFE HISTORY OF THE WORLD SERIES, are books published from Amsterdam in the Netherlands. There are some 21 books covering some 50/100 years each, starting from before the beginning of Christian era.
According to the historians covering the world events between AD 1500 & 1600, “In Jan 1505, a band of horsemen led by Babur (pronounced Baabar), a descendent of Taimur and Chengis Khan, both Mongols, set out from Kabul on an expedition of the east. 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 people’. He was literate and was in the habit of writing diaries. From the barren mountains of central Asia, to the fertile land of North India, ‘we were amazed, and in truth there was much to be amazed at’ was Babur’s take.
However, what needs to be recognized and therefore accepted is that Islam came to India much before the arrival of Babur. At least over 300 years before Babur, there were marauders who came to India through the Khyber Pass.
According to European historians, India was no stranger to foreign invaders. Thanks to well watered soil and a population skilled in crafts, it was far wealthier than the more desolate lands to the north. Over the past millennium and a half, Greeks, Scythians and Huns had in turn been drawn to India by its legendary riches. But none had radically altered Indian life. Islam was new to India, very much unlike the ways and beliefs of other invaders of India. Muslims brought with them theologians who preached a gospel of monotheism radically different from Hindus beliefs which espoused a multitude of Gods. With the advent of Islam, the fabric of India changed forever, write these European historians.
TIME-LIFE HISTORY OF THE WORLD series also informs that Muslim invaders brought Islam to India around late 12th century and it was in 1195 that the first masjid in Delhi was built. ‘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 27 wrecked neighbouring Hindu temples’ informs the book ‘History of the world AD-1100-1200-(page 95).
The above details available in the public domain were never contradicted and therefore were believed to be true. Hence if Hindu faithfuls, who razed the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya claim that this masjid was built after demolishing a temple, the claim clearly is not misplaced. Archeological excavation has only confirmed that there indeed are the remains of a temple below the razed structure of this disused Babri Masjid.
Indians are privy to the violence that followed, mostly in Mumbai, following the demolition of this decrepit masjid and many have died in the violence. It is indeed very sad and bad that so many should have died for raging down of a 500 year old structure which was in total disuse. What if, this dilapidated structure had collapsed on its own, which anyway would have collapsed in matter of some years? Of course this is hypothetical.
Coming to the issue of Babri Masjid / Ram Janmabhoomi impasse, there appears to be only the issue of ownership of land, which the Allahabad High Court on 30th September 2010, in its wisdom, delivered a judgement trifurcating the land to three litigants involved in the court battle. Being a judgement of High Court, it had the scope to be challenged in Supreme Court. And as expected some of the interested parties have indeed gone to court and we are in 2019, already over 8 years. Supreme Court apparently is not seized of the issue, is taking it rather routinely.
It is true; the crowd of those who violently reacted in 1992 is no more violent. The judgement of 2010 of Allahabad High Court was rather taken in a spirit of acceptance of law and order. There was no visible public expression of joy or disappointment. But it was the political class and the print media, which tried to further muddy the troubled waters.
Mulayam Singh Yadav of Samajwadi Party reacted “Muslims are cheated by the verdict”. Prakash Karat of CPI said “Verdict based on faith is improper”. LK Advani reacted unnecessarily as “feels vindicated”, he could as well have kept quiet. However it was a part of the print media, which went berserk. Times of India Mumbai wrote in its front page “2 parts to Hindus, 1 part to Muslim”. Similar was the remark of The Hindu, the self styled secular daily. But there were also those who were more matter of fact like the Free Press Journal which said “Status Quo for now 3 ways split of land proposed”.
But, the highly irresponsible statement came from one Vidya Subramanian, writing for The Hindu of 11th September 2010, “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 quiet 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 available then can only make things more uncertain, HC probably went for a 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 numbers 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 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 1/3rd 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.
Come 2019, Supreme Court is trying to get in with its considered wisdom into the vexed problem, by playing by the ears. RSS and other Hindu organizations are putting pressure on the apex court to take up the case in earnest and in all seriousness. But somehow, the apex court thought entry of women into Sabarimala more pressing and therefore acted rather fast, despite the only lady judge in the bench disagreed completely with the majority (4-1) consisting of only men. There are other two recent pronouncements by the highest adjudicator of the country, the one on section 377 involving LGBTQ and the other about the Malayalam novel Meesha. In both cases apex court appeared very concerned and acted with swiftness. No wonder RSS was at its vitriolic best when it branded the observation of Supreme Court on Ayodhya petition saying “Remarks of apex court on Ayodhya case is an insult to Hindu sentiments”. On October 29, 2018, the Supreme Court had said, “We have our own priorities. Whether the matter will be heard in January, February or March, the appropriate bench will decide”.
Addressing the media after three days meeting of Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal, RSS general secretary Suresh Joshi has reportedly stated “The Hindu community looks at the statement with surprise, pain and humiliation. The Ram Temple is connected to the faith of crores of Hindus hence SC must expedite hearing. If such serious issues tied to the sentiments and sensitivities of crores of people are not on the SC’s priority then what else is”? he wondered.
As if to compound the irritation of Hindu outfits, this was the news in the print media, “Ayodhya hearing adjourned again, judge recuses himself ”, on 11th January 2019. The hearing was due on 10th January 2019. Surely the decision on the constitution of the five member bench must have been taken well in time. Since the last pronouncement was on 29/10/2018, there were 73 days upto 10th January 2019. But Justice Lalit waited until the 10th January, the day of the hearing, to express his disinclination and recuses himself, since he had appeared as a lawyer to Kalyan Singh, a litigant in the case, in 1997. Even Chief Justice Gogoi too could have taken confirmation of all judges who are made part of the bench. Clearly there is apparent lack of seriousness on the part of apex court to deal with the subject in earnest. These are the kinds of lackadaisical approach that pushes an average Hindu to think that in his own country he is not getting Justice. Can he be faulted to think like this?!
Report also informs that ‘Secretary General of the apex court registry was still in the process of translating the voluminous documents’. Isn’t this very strange that it was on 30th September 2010, the judgement was delivered by the Allahabad High Court which was subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court. After 8 years, if Supreme Court says that its registry has not translated the related documents, it is the height of irresponsibility of the registry. Is getting translators a problem in the country? In its order, the court is reported to have observed “In these circumstances, the registry of this court is directed to physically inspect the records which are lying under lock and key: make an assessment of time that will be taken to make the cases ready for hearing by engaging, if required, official translators of the requisite number and give a report thereof to the court”. This means, an clement of uncertainly has been introduced, which if judges at the helm of happening could have been serious, the problem could have been addressed without any delay when the petition was filed. This is clearly a casual handling of a serious issue. And we moan, there are hundreds and thousands of cases pending across the courts in India, and why not!?
BJP is already talking about other options, while ruling out ordinance route, if Supreme Court doesn’t fast track the Ayodhya case and conclude it at the earliest. What other option it has, is unknown.
Here it is pertinent to remember former Prime Minister P.V Narasimha Rao, who had coined a limerick “inaction itself is action”, meaning procrastination can help solve the problem on its own. It is true that this kind of procrastination tricks have known to have reduced the intensity of the matter involved and thereby help in solving the problem with fewer hurdles. As the Allahabad High Court had termed this Ayodhya tangle as the ‘rarest of rare cases’, it may be sensible to buy time and go slow on the sensitive issue. Let us all hope that there is no lingering bitterness in the resolution of this long pending vexed issue. Hope it does.
J. Shriyan
Comments