|
Coming to terms with our past
- By M.V. Kamath
http://www.samachar.com/features/210302-fpj.html
Source: Free Press Journal
After all the hatred against the Vishwa Hindu Parishad has been spewed,
after all the breast-beating and self-denigration (at which Hindus are
so good) has been gone through, could it be that the time has come to
ask ourselves what the killings in Godhra and the rioting in Ahmedabad
have been all about?
The answer is simple: The people of India - especially the Hindus
- have yet to come to terms with their history. Let this be first understood:
no other country in the world has been overrun so often and so ruthlessly
and its native people treated so shabbily by the conqueror as India and
Indians have been. Not the United States, not any country in the North
and South American continents, not the countries of Africa or even Europe,
for that matter not even Japan and China in Asia have had to experience
the horrors of invasion as India has had to experience in its long and
turbulent history.
India, in that sense is unique. So are Hindus, unique. So is their religion,
unique. Right from 1000 AD, India has been the subject of a series of
invasions that have left their mark on the psyche of the people. In these
last one thousand years Hindus have been kicked around, their temples
have been desecrated, their religion mocked as has never happened to any
other people in the world. The Hindus have survived - but they have not
forgotten the hurts and insults that have been heaped upon them century
after century.
And what are these insults? A few quotes from Islamic writers would be
in order. Thus Zia-ud-din Burani (14th century) wrote in Tarikh-i-Firuzshahi:
"The obligation to be the refuge of the faith cannot be fulfilled
until they (the Islamic rulers) have utterly destroyed infidelity and
unbelief, polytheism and idolatry...If they cannot wholly extirpate polytheism
and infidelity because of their large number, it will not be less meritorious
if, for the sake of Islam...they use their efforts to insult and humiliate
and to cause grief and bring ridicule and shame upon the polytheistic
and for the glory of Islam and the honour of the true faith permit even
a single unbeliever and polytheist to live as a respectable person..."
Then there are the writings of Abd-al-Quddus Gangohi (1456-1537), a well-known
Sufi saint among which there is this gem: "Non-Muslims should not
wield the pen in offices and they should not be commanders or tax-gatherers.
In the sharia, the subordination of Kafirs is enjoined. And, in accordance
with it, they should be humbled, subordinated..."
As Bimal Prasad, a noted historian has recorded, in the early years of
the 17th century, a much more famous Sufi sanit, Sheikh Ahmed Sirhinid1564-1624
held similar views. In one of his letters to Sheikh Farid Bukhari he wrote:
"The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects
the kafirs dishonours the Muslims...They (kafirs should be kept at arms
length like dogs...If some worldly business cannot be performed without
them, in that case only a minimum of contact should be established with
them but without taking them into confidence..." In this context
what the distinguished historian R. C. Majumdar has written makes
sense.
He wrote: "The worship of images which forms the most cherished
element in the religious beliefs of the Hindus was anathema in the eyes
of the Muslims; and the long tradition of ruthless destruction of temples
by them for nearly a thousand years formed a wide gulf between the two..."
No matter how much our secularists may rant and rave, the fact remains
that a temple built to Shri Ram had been destroyed in Ayodhya and a masjid
built on its site using the very material of the destroyed temple. Thus,
the Babri structure had 14 pillars made of Kasauti black stone with Hindu
images. Also inside the Babri compound was a piece of a doorjamb with
images of 'Mukut-dhari dwarpal' and 'devakanyas'.
Among the archaeological findings seen in the excavations have been noted
a temple bell, several intricate and detailed carvings, an image of Vishnu
and several other Hindu deities. The principal finding, however is a 2ft
wide and 4.5 ft long buff sandstone tablet bearing an inscription in Devanagari.
The fourth line of this shila lekh specifically described a temple of
Lord Vishnu '(Hari) as the janmabhoomi sthal". No greater evidence
is required to prove that the Babri structure was indeed built over the
site of a destroyed temple.
But here may the point be made that even if no temple had been destroyed,
a masjid had been erected in Ayodhya, a city sacred to Hindus, to demonstrate
an Islamic ruler's contempt for Hinduism and to emphasise who was the
ruler. During the entire reign of Mughals, Hindus had to remain tight-lipped
and suffer insults quietly and with dignity. It was only after the Mughals
were defeated and the British took over that the first stirrings against
the Babri structure made themselves felt. At that point in time the British
had no desire to upset the Islamic applecart and the pleas of Hindus went
unattended. What happened after the British left is now history.
The least that Muslims could have done was to hand over the Babri structure
to Hindus when the latter started agitation to regain their self-respect,
That they refused to do; handing over so-called masjids built over destroyed
Hindu temples meant acknowledging that a grievous wrong had been done
to Hindus - and that, a certain section of Muslims have been most reluctant
to admit. And in their arrogance they have had the support of the English
media and leftist intellectuals.
The usual argument is: Do not anger the Muslims, do not recall
past insults, do not disturb the status quo, let the dead past bury the
dead etc. But to Hindus the hurt persists. It is important to remember
that when Christians came into their own in Spain, they went on a spree
of destroying every vestige of Islam in the entire Ibrrian peninsula.
Even the famous Imambara (alhanmbra) was not spared though later it was
repaired to remind Spaniards of their servile past.
In India, Hindus are more tolerant. Or are afraid. Syed Shahabuddin,
convenor of the Babri Majsid Co-ordination Committee (BMCC) was quoted
in Sunday (March 20, 1983) as saying: "Hindus profess secularism
because they are cowards and are afraid of Muslim countries". But
another explanation can also be given. The "secularists" - a
gentle word to describe Hindu apologists - want to show how different
they are from Muslims especially in Pakistan. But even more importantly,
one suspects, they want the Muslim vote at any cost. The Muslims, understandably,
are taking full advantage of both the explanations.
Had the Babri structure been graciously handed over to the Hindus as
early as in 1949 as one major effort at prayaschitta - atonement - the
history of Hindu-Muslim relations would have undergone a major change.
There would have been no need to demolish the Babri structure. It could
have been dismantled and its very bricks - even stolen pillars from an
earlier temple - could have been used to build a bigger, grander masjid
- elsewhere. In order to spite the VHP and the BJP, oursecularHindus (and
they belong to all non-BJP parties) have been defending the Musilm stand,
attributing all manner of motives to the VHP. It is an extraordinary phenomenon.
In a sense it amounts to cutting one's nose to spite another's face.
The Babri masjid was a standing monument to everything that was wrong
in Hindu-Muslim relations. Its handing over to the VHP would have brought
eternal credit to Muslims. It would have wiped out a thousand-year period
of Islamic offensiveness and brought Hindus and Muslims closer to gather.
The secularists obviously do not want that to happen.
As long as the 'dispute' remains unresolved, they can claim to be the
"true friends" of the Muslims and prosper with their votes.
That would explain the behaviour of the Samajwadi Party leaders and even
the leaders of the Telugu Desam and Trinamool Congress parties. What they
are anxious to evolve is not peace, but the continuance of their vote-banks.
And all this is done under the holy name of 'secularism'.
It is important to remember here that under Congress leadership there
was no hesitation to change road names in Delhi or, for that mater, in
Mumbai. There was no hesitation either to have statues of British rulers
removed from public places and confined to museums. If that is not "desecration"
what is? The statue of Queen Victoria in Mumbai's fort area had its nose
cut. The statue of King Edward VII on a horse, that once stood at Kala
Ghoda also in the fort area was removed. Wasn't that des ecration of sorts?
Road names have been changed; to give but just one example: Hornby Road
is now Dadabhai Naoraoji Road.
These moves were made by Congress government or under their aegis. Why
should an unused majsid in Ayodhya be an exception? In any event the Babri
masjid had no right to exist in Ayodhya, in the first place, just as no
Muslim would ever tolerate a temple in Mecca. This has nothing to do with
secularism. No decent ruler would ever have contemplated hurting Hindu
sentiment. But neither Babar nor his general can be described as 'decent'.
They were what they were: conquerors and they showed the typical conqueror's
disdain for local sentiments.
|