To the Hindus Why didn't Tulsidas mention Ram temple demolition?

Ayodhya’s verdict shatters farcical ‘secular fabric’ of India

Questioning the verdict of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suits, a group of left-leaning intellectuals on Friday said the judgment was “yet another blow to the secular fabric of the country” and the “repute of our judiciary”.

The scholars, including Romila Thapar, K M Shrimali, K N Pannikar, Irfan Habib, Utsa Patnaik and C P Chandrasekhar, said in a statement through the platform of Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT) that the verdict had raised “serious concerns” because of the way history, reason and secular values had been treated in it.

“The view that the Babri Masjid was built at the site of a Hindu temple, which has been maintained by two of the three judges, takes no account of all the evidence contrary to this fact turned up by the Archaeological Survey of India’s own excavations — the presence of animal bones throughout as well as the use of ‘surkhi’ and lime mortar (all characteristic of Muslim presence) rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque,” the statement noted.

“The ASI’s controversial report which claimed otherwise on the basis of ‘pillar bases’ was manifestly fraudulent in its assertions since no pillars were found and the alleged existence of ‘pillar bases’ has been debated by archaeologist. It is now imperative that the site notebooks, artefacts and other material evidence relating to the ASI’s excavation be made available for scrutiny by scholars, historians and archaeologists,” it said.

The scholars said the judgment had legitimised violence and muscle power and recognised the forcible break-in of 1949 through which the idols were placed under the mosque dome.

The statement accepts “the destruction of the mosque in 1992 as an act whose consequences are to be accepted, by transferring the main parts of the mosque to those clamouring for a temple to be built”.

“For all these reasons we cannot but see the judgment as yet another blow to the secular fabric of our country and the repute of our judiciary. Whatever happens next in the case cannot, unfortunately, make good what the country has lost,” the statement said. Indian Express.

Tags : Allahabad High Court, Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suits, ASI, Romila Thapar, K M Shrimali, K N Pannikar, Irfan Habib, Utsa Patnaik, C P Chandrasekhar

Even though the Bill No. 124-C of 1991, known as “Place of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991,” does not apply to Babri Masjid, because of the technical reason that the matter was subjudice and hence was excluded from the purview of the law passed in 1991, well before the crime of demolition was committed, it (the law) was basically enacted to prevent conflicts arising out of facts and fictions related to history of places of worship. The court should have read the sense of the parliamentary vote and acted accordingly: It should have acted to “prevent conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto,” as clearly stated in the law book.

After all why was the “Place of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991” passed? It was passed because there is no end to conflicts related to places of worship, particularly when the side creating such controversies sees political gain out of the ruckus. So the status quo of places of worship should be restored back to what it was prior to the criminal act.

Not being a lawyer I do not know if the judge in a title suit has the jurisdiction to enforce rebuilding of an illegally destroyed building by culprits. However, my common sense says that the judge should be able to levy appropriate fine on the culprits and use part of the same to get the demolished structure re-constructed, in addition to the compensating the victims for the cost of litigation and pain and suffering inflicted upon them. This much should be done in the title suit itself, notwithstanding the criminal penalty that the criminal court would and should impose upon the perpetrators of the heinous crime. The crime committed was not simply the act of demolishing the structure of Babri Masjid but it was done for the express purpose of sparking off a riot and deriving political wind fall out of the same.

The latter intent is so clear from the huge writings on the wall of logic that even the stupidest person can read. The phenomenal rise in the votes collected by BJP stands as a testimonial to the real political gains accruing out of most communal controversies and riots in India. Everybody including the perpetrators of the communal disturbances have stated and reiterated the political gains accruing out of such disturbances in justification for such policies on their part. Even looking at the statements of various Sanghi politicians, including that of Narendra Modi, one can see that they themselves attributed BJP victory in Gujarat to the pogrom there prior to the riots, and Modi is on record for having stated that (the events of) Gujarat need to be repeated all over India. In view of such a clear cut connection between communal riots and political wind fall to one of the parties, it should not be difficult to guess who the culprits are behind most such riots; and unless severest punishment is imposed upon the culprits, the communal riots and additional demolitions of places of riots are bound to continue.

In the case at hand, the two judges giving majority verdict were probably fearful that the hooligans have become too strong and that a judgment against them would bring them to the streets and cause a lot of grief to everybody. Well, I am afraid this kind of mixed compromising judgment is not going to put any kind of restraint on the hoodlums. Instead, it is only going to encourage more of such acts of wanton terror on the part of criminals.

Romila Thapar has rightly said: “The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law that land can be claimed by declaring it to be the birthplace of a divine or semi-divine being worshipped by a group that defines itself as a community. There will now be many such janmasthans wherever appropriate property can be found or a required dispute manufactured. Since the deliberate destruction of historical monuments has not been condemned what is to stop people from continuing to destroy others? The legislation of 1993 (most probably she meant 1991) against changing the status of places of worship has been, as we have seen in recent years, quite ineffective.”

She has further gone on to say: “True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence.” Here I would take liberty of adding that in this case it was neither faith nor belief regarding the place of birth of Rama that led the political mobsters to demolish the Masjid, it was a clear calculation of causing a large scale communal riot and ensuing political windfall that led them to demolish the mosque. It does not take big understanding of political or psychological or historical theories to see the connection between the all acts of communal disturbance, including the act of demolition at hand, and electoral gains. The only way to break this connection is via noting the said connection (judiciary, media and other politicians) for the gullible public to see and understand and imposition of appropriate penalty upon the perpetrators of political/communal crimes. Anything less will not only aid communal riots, it is bound to abet the same.

There are some who suggest “magnanimity” on the part of Muslims and seek acceptance of the clearly wrong verdict. Well, here is a sort of story that comes to my mind: A ruffian comes and demolishes a poor man’s abode (let’s leave aside the malicious political intent behind the crime for a moment). A judge awards two third of the piece of land where the poor man lived to the hoodlums responsible for demolition of his hut. And then these advocates of magnanimity are advising the poor man to be magnanimous and be happy that he got at a third of his land to reconstruct his hut!

I would say that first of all make the man feel that justice has been done – his land has been restored back to him, his demolished hut has been ordered to be erected back with fines charged of the culprits, and appropriate punishments meted upon the culprits for the injuries, pain and grief inflicted upon the victim. It is only after such a judgment has been passed that one can ask the poor and weak man to show some magnanimity and seek recommendation from him for the judge to be a little lenient in the imposition of various penalties. He could even be advised to invite the culprit and accommodate him on the little piece of land control of which has been restored back to him. Instead the legal system has joined the strong bullies, saying: yes, yes, two third of the piece of land belongs to the rogues. And the purveyors of peace and amity and magnanimity are clapping for the blatantly unfair judgment as if it was one of the greatest balancing act done by the justices.

It is clear that what the thugs are really interested in is confrontation with the minority communities, as that is what gets them some votes. In fact, even if the Muslim community were to completely relinquish their claim on Babri Masjid, the rogues would not be satisfied. They would go to Kashi and Mathura to start new imbroglio, according to their own officials. In view of these obvious facts, the court should, instead of rewarding the rogues with any piece of land, should try to make it obvious for the gullible public that all of these charades about Ram Lalla and Ram janambhoomi are being performed for none other than political reasons; and that they need to pay for all kinds of damages and grieves that they have inflicted upon innumerable people. Only after justice has been done for the aggrieved, the proponents of peace and conciliation would be in a position to suggest ways of reconciliation.

There can be innumerable ways a middle ground can be found: The ardent worshipers of Ram could buy a plot of land some place liked by the rightful owners of Babri Masjid land for whatever the latter would like to construct on that piece. The rightful owners could take their time and decide to construct a replica of what existed there but place Ram Lalla as well as possibly all kinds of gods and goddesses in it and hand over the structure to the government for anyone to visit and offer any kind of prayer or whatever. The rightful owners of the land could perhaps simply plant a tree for reconciliation and remembrance of those who have perished in the unnecessary riots caused by the demolition. They may decide to open an international library and research center for peace ways of conflict resolution; and so forth. Building massive Mandir or Masjid would be shear waste of money and effort.

Lastly but not the least, just as a judge is supposed to recuse himself or herself in cases involving relatives or friends, s/he should be required to recuse himself/herself in cases involving religion. As such, this and other future cases involving religion or communal riots should be adjudicated by judges none of whom have allegiance to either of the two religions between which the confrontation is being propped up.

Author:
Dr. Satinath Choudhary
Formerly college professor in the USA
Currently activist in Delhi & New York
satichou@gmail.com

Babri Masjid Verdict: Justice Still Not Done By Dr. Satinath Choudhary

North 24 Parganas:

Why didn't Tulsidas mention Ram temple demolition?

By Parmod Kumar

New Delhi : Was legendary poet Tulsidas, who wrote "Ram Charit Manas" in the 16th century, so scared of Mughal emperor Akbar that he did not mention the demolition of a Ram temple in Ayodhya and the construction of the Babri mosque thereupon in his work?

"If a temple standing on the premises in dispute had been demolished and a mosque had been constructed thereupon less than 50 years before Tulsi Das wrote 'Ram Charit Manas' at Ayodhya, there was no reason for not mentioning the said fact by him in his famous book," Justice S.U. Khan of the Allahabad High Court said in his judgment on the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi title suits Sep 30.

Justice Khan made this observation while rejecting the contention of several counsel appearing for different Hindu parties on this count.

These counsel had tried to explain this vital omission - no mention of the demolition of Ram's temple and construction of the mosque at the site - on the ground that Tulsidas feared emperor Akbar would not like it and cause him harm if he mentioned it.

But Justice Khan said such a wild accusation against a poet of such repute and calibre as Tulsidas was rather unpalatable even to non-Hindus.

Moreover, Justice Khan says Tulsidas had given up all the comforts of life and had virtually renounced the world by separating himself from his wife for writing "Ram Charit Manas" at Ayodhya. The work is considered the common man's Ramayana.

"A poet in such a situation and of such calibre is not expected to be fearful in writing the truth," said Justice Khan.

It was during the reign of emperor Akbar (1556-1605) that Tulsidas (1532-1623) wrote "Ram Charit Manas" from 1574 to 1577 in Awadhi, which was the common man's language at that time.

Justice Khan said: "Even if it is assumed that the mosque was subsequently constructed by Aurangzeb, still Tulsidas should have mentioned in 'Ram Charit Manas' that a specific small piece of land measuring 1,500 square yards or a temple standing on such a site was birthplace of Lord Ram.

"Symbolism and similes are two most essential, handy tools of poetry. Accordingly, if not directly then at least symbolically or in similes some indication could have been given by Tulsidas regarding the premises in dispute to be the birthplace of Lord Ram and demolition of the temple," underlined Justice Khan.

Further disagreeing with the counsel of Hindu parties, Justice Khan said: "Apart from (its) religious importance, 'Ram Charit Manas' has got great poetical value. Poetry is basically flight of imagination" and this could not be subjected to any fear."

Elaboratin, Justice Khan said: "Wealth and fear are two great retarding gravitational forces for flight of imagination. No wealthy or fearful person has composed great poetry."

However, he said, this principle does not apply to prose writers. Leo Tolstoy who wrote "War and Peace", the best novel of the world, was a feudal lord of Russia of considerable wealth and position.

The Ayodhya verdict, given by the Lucknow bench of the high court, has divided the disputed land into three parts - one for Ram Lalla, one for the Nirmohi Akhara and one for the Sunni Wakf Board. It also said the Babri mosque had been built on a site that was the birthplace of Hindu god Ram.

took out a victory procession and held a meeting at Deganga to celebrate the AllahabadHigh Court judgement on Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title suit case on October 4, 2010. Vinay Katiar, one of the accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case was the main speaker at the meeting. The BJP went back on its promise not to hold a victory rally after the judgment and instead tried to disrupt peace in the area.

The area chosen for the rally, Deganga, had recently witnessed communal riots between Hindus and Muslims over the Puja being held at a Muslim burial ground.

A press release by IUML west Bengal state unit said that the BJP leaders gave extremely provocative speeches at the rally threatening the Muslim community that they choose between Bangladesh or living in India as second class citizens. The leaders also threatened Muslims with the repeat of Gujarat genocide in Deganga and of loss to their lives and properties if they didn’t allow Ram Temple to be constructed in Ayodhya.

The press release also said that the BJP activists had planned to invade the Muslim burial ground and attack the nearby Deganga mosque. The leaders said that this rally and meeting has been organized to teach the Muslims a lesson. They even used abusive language against Islam and Muslims in their speech.

“The police arrangements were not adequate in the area and only 150 policemen with lathis were stationed there to protect the Muslim mosque, shops and their lives. It seemed that the administration intentionally was allowing the situation to get bad,” according to the press release.

The Indian Union Muslim League West Bengal state President Shahanshah Jehangir along with General Secretary Of Qaumi Manch Firoz Ahmed Warsi, President of Muslim Youth League West Bengal Sabir Ghaffar reached the spot and met the local District Magistrate, Superintendent Of Police North 24 Parganas, Officer In Charge of Deganga police station and demanded adequate forces as well arrangements to protect the lives, properties and religious places of Muslims.

Shahanshah Jehangir further demanded that the BJP leaders be punished for making provocative speeches against the Qoran, Islam and Muslims. He further asked the local masses to remain calm and not get incited by the provocative speeches of BJP leaders, who were holding a meeting to create a riot like situation in the area.

Firoz Ahmed Warsi also demanded immediate arrest of all those making provocative speeches and initiating a police enquiry against them. He even objected as to how the local administration could allow the BJP to hold such a rally in this communally sensitive area when not even a week had passed since the Babri Verdict was delivered.

Shahanshah Jehangir also spoke to the Home Secretary and apprised him of the situation in Deganga and expressed his shock at the callous attitude of the local administration.

Extra police force with arms was then brought into the area and the BJP leaders were asked to stop making provocative speeches.

The Muslim League and Qaumi Manch supporters along with local masses showed black flags to Vinay Katiar and other BJP leaders as they entered Deganga area and demanded the arrest of Katiar.