July 22, 2018

Ram Janmabhumi- The Fury of Frustrated Faith

It was 6th of December again, as it is around this time every year, owing to the untiring revolution of the Earth around the Sun. It does remind me of the truth dark – skinned Pagans of India discovered centuries before Galileo Galilei was charged with being a heretic, forced to recant his assertions that Earth does revolve around the Sun, and was forced spend the rest of his life under house arrest. That said, the spiritual and philosophical bend of Hinduism did force it live under a hostile rule for close to Nine Hundred years. Whether the invaders from the West, adopted India because they fell in love with the country or because of their greed is a matter on which the Right-wing and Left-wing stand bang opposite.

The leftists would always tell us that this was because they loved India that they made it their home. What they will not talk about is if they were accommodative to the majority natives of India, why did they not undertake any developmental activities in their adopted land, which treated them much kindly than their own motherlands in hostile deserts of the Middle-East where death and devastation awaited them. As is the wont of the leftists, they are falling one over another to claim one of the most monstrous personality in the history, Alauddin Khilji was a Hindu loving able administrator. But ask them how many Temples Khilji or even the most secular Akbar built for the Hindus who formed a majority of their citizen, it will draw a blank. The leftists usually get charged up at the mention of the word – Temple. The Hindu communist is usually atheist. A Muslim or Christian Communist can, however be a devout Muslim or Christian and still be a Communist. Indian Communist Philosophy considers no other faith except Hinduism as opium for the masses. Any faith which is non-Hindu, to them is a refreshing cup of Coffee.

Since they do not understand, acknowledge and accept the Nine centuries of slavery imposed on the Hindus of India, who kept themselves busy praying the trees and protecting the rivers and animals; they are totally blind to a savaged race. The first Six centuries, starting from the Delhi Sultanat were spent in milking this blessed land and at the same time propagating Islam; the last three centuries, again in exploiting the native and propagating Christianity. Not one University was opened to preserve the culture and heritage of the land which gave them so much, not one temple was built by those in power for the people over whom they ruled. It is the flexibility and adaptability of the faith which kept Hinduism alive. Hinduism was always pro-humanity, pro-nature and pro-life. It was never against anyone, not even against those who perpetrated the worst of cruelty on the natives of this land. This docility of Hinduism kept it from dying a quick death. This ability to suffer in silence kept the Hindus alive, until they die out of apathy or lack of affection. The Hinduism across the South East Asia and Far East too withered away similarly. Hinduism was neither out in the foreign land expanding the empires, nor was it defending the empire. When greed and fear forced people to convert, a learned Hindu would simply smirk and shrug the shoulder at the foolish abandonment by the followers, of a way of live which had centuries of wisdom on its side. Hinduism neither went on Jihad nor on Inquisitions. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam- country after country would continue to fall out of Hindu fold. It might hurt the people to acknowledge that the place from where Hinduism originated also fell out of Hinduism under the garb of Secularism, leaving the Hindus with no place to call their own. Years after India fell to secularism, Nepal fell to Marxism and the annihilation of Hindu space on the globe was complete.

                December the 6th, means many things to many people. On this day in 1992, the disputed structure was demolished by revolting Hindu masses. The disputed structure, which in the later days became a rallying point for the Muslims and Communists alike, as a Mosque, was built in 1528 AD by, Mir Baqi a Military general of Babur, the Mughal who invaded India and built the foundation for the Mughal Empire. The fact however remains that the day when the disputed structure was demolished, for years, it was abandoned by Muslim worshipers and therefore, as per Islamic qualifications, it does not qualifies to be termed as a Mosque. There are mosques routinely demolished in the Middle-East, from where Islam originated for development work and not even a murmur is heard. Just as Islam does not mandates cow-slaughter, it does not, in essence, talks of the particularity of a place as a defined worshipping space. In the Judgement of Constitution bench in the context of the Ismail Farooqui Vs Union of India Case (1994), it, after due consideration of Islamic law (Courts are pretty careful in India in rubbing the Muslims the wrong way and will always check what Holy Quran says on a matter before checking what the Constitution of India says on a particular matter) said-

“Under Mohammedan law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession. A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and Namaz can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India.”

Thus two things are certain, one, the structure which I would call disputed structure was not a Mosque, Two, even if it was a Mosque, nothing in Islam prohibits its acquisition of a Mosque for other purpose. A man ego is more pronounced when he knows the adversary is unlikely to respond. After Nine Centuries of silent slavery, no one expected the Hindus to retort. The insistence of calling it a Mosque and making it a bone of contention does not take into account what the Temple means to Hindus. It counts totally in the idea of a docile Hindu, someone who Voltaire called- “A peaceful and innocent people, equally incapable of hurting others or of defending themselves” and smacks of a clear intention to put those slaves back in their place. It is a battle of supremacy, nothing else. Justice, secularism- all these fine and fancy words are nothing but a charade. These are used by the elite liberals who are not liking the emergence of un-Voltaire-ly Hindus. Beneath the surface, below the din of all the noise about bringing back secularism is nothing but hidden attempt to re-establish supremacy.

The felling of the Domes is not something any democratic nation would love, in general. It was not a democratic image, Mobs pushing through the state and getting it down to the dust. In a proper democracy, the Government and the Judiciary are nothing but safety-valve to public disquiet, anger and fury. Once needs to understand the sacred necessity of Lord Ram (and Shiva and Krishna) as the corner-stone of Hindu faith. Ram, like most other Hindu Gods, is an epitome, a possibility of what a moral man can become. Thousands of year of slavery was made bearable to Hindu people by the faith which kept silently burning in his heart like a lonely lamp. The wonder of Hindu faith is that it just need to exist, in darkness, in silence, without being too pronounced and obvious. It does need public demonstration. Hinduism doesn’t, but we have come to a time where Hindus do need it. It is easy to take a high moral ground, like those Champagne-sipping socialists and throw the arms in air despairing about the failed democracy. But the safety-valves of justice have not been working. There is too much of pent up anger on account of suppression of Hindu faith under slavery and later under socialism.

                When Mahant Raghubar Das reached out to the then Faizabad Dy. Commissioner, in 1885, seeking permission to make a temple, next to the Mosque, his request was turned down. It is absurd to believe that the option of descending in the darkness of the night with devastation of demolition, which eventually happened on 1992, on the disputed structure was not open to the Hindus in 1885. It was. It was not that the legal course was not pursued. An argument like the one given by the SC in case of Kashmiri Pandits recently was then too given by the Judge, Mr. FEA Chamier on 18.03.1886. He said-

“It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as the even happened 356 Years ago it is too late now to remedy the grievance.”

 The famous British jurisprudence failed us then. The justice failed the Hindus for last century ever since the pretense of Justice arrived in India under the grand emblem of British Justice system.

The Hindus kept approaching the courts to reach a just settlement. All they sought was a right to pray, ‘next to the mosque’, and they were refused. Hindus kept going to the courts, year after year. 1950, Gopal Simla VIsharad filed another suit. Paramhamsa Ramchandra Das filed another one.  Then in 1959 Nirmohi Akhara filed the suit. A small place was all that a huge majority of Hindu population, with the skew of numerical superiority with them, asked. But they were declined that. We claimed that the land had a temple earlier, demolished and acquired by foreign religion, but we were mocked. We knew little, but the authorities knew it all, still they did not step forward to acquire the land and allot it to the Hindus. But all Hindus were given was a century long silence on the four centuries old injustice and a lecture on secularism.

When the Archeological Survey report, in spite of the intellectual intimidation of Dr. KK Mohammad by Communist historians like Dr. Irfan Habib, came to public notice; the presence of Hindu temple underneath the structure became public. (Here is link to the Firstpost article http://www.firstpost.com/india/left-historians-connived-with-extremists-mislead-muslims-on-babri-issue-says-archaeologist-in-new-book-2592188.html ). This was however not the first set of evidence corroborating the presence of a temple, which was vanquished to construct the Mosque. There are plenty of written evidences which have clear reference to it. A. Fuhrer in his book “The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh” records “Mir Khan built a Masjid in AH 930 during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name. The old temple must have been fine one, for many of its columns have been utilized by Musalmans in the construction of Babar’s Masjid.”

HR Neville in his Fyzabad District Gazetteer, Lucknow, written in 1905 mentions that “in 1528 AD, Babar came to Ajodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient Temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar’s Mosque. The materials of the old structure were largely employed, and many of columns are in good preservation.”

 We can be abundantly sure that neither A. Fuhrer nor HR Neville were members of either Hindu Mahasabha or RSS.  There are also references to Guru Nanak arriving at Ayodhya and wanting to visit the temple of Ram Janmabhumi. In the presence of irrefutable proofs, forget the faith which does not require facts, all hindus get is disdain and silence. Now that the courts are about to decide, we have politicians donning the Lawyers robe, intellectuals putting their somber faces to keep the matter in a state of perpetual pendency.

If we look back, the human history has the worst of the wars fought by the greatest of the nations over faith. Even in Twenty-first century, when we in India run the debate over forceful, unrestricted entry into Hindu temples under a stupid, still much-hyped televised campaign like Right-to-Pray; the British Royals ask the Church if the wedding of the Prince can happen in the Church given that the lady he is marrying is a divorced woman. What happened on 6th December of 1992 was a failure of civilized system of justice. But it was the last act of a long-continuing drama. It was a disturbing release of the bottled up fury of a frustrated faith. Comparing it with the worst of the wars of human history from Jihad to Crusades, fought for faith, it was too mild to be even complained against. We can be abundantly sure that neither A. Fuhrer nor HR Neville were members of either Hindu Mahasabha or RSS.  There are also references to Guru Nanak arriving at Ayodhya and wanting to visit the temple of Ram Janmabhumi. In the presence of irrefutable proofs, forget the faith which does not require facts, all hindus get is disdain and silence. Now that the courts are about to decide, we have politicians donning the Lawyers robe, intellectuals putting their somber faces to keep the matter in a state of perpetual pendency. The Ayodhya demolition wasn’t plain vandalism. It was an act of frustrated faith, unheeded; emerging as a furious anger. India, the only land of Hindus in the world, need reassurance and only Ram can offer him that. The farce has gone for too long, and facts have come back to stake the claim. Faith and facts are not dependent on one another, but on rare occasions, when they do come together, neither of the two should be brushed aside. Facts are firm and irrefutable, but that is another matter. When Tulasidas wrote grieving, about how Babar demolished the Ram Janmabhumi and made it a mosque, he would not have anticipated the matter to come up in the courts, centuries later. My question to those who are questioning the Ram Temple is simple- Is faith not enough? If not than how revelations form the foundation of any religion. How do we know God did speak to a person, a human being? Isn’t it all about faith?

Picture Credit: Wikipedia

Disclaimer

About Saket Suryesh 5 Articles
Saket is an engineer from NIT Raipur and Master in International Business. He works with a large IT MNC. He writes on literature, history and poetry on his blog, www.saketsuryesh.net. Saket has published collection of poems, a book of short stories and English translation of Autobiography of Bismil.