Ayodhya & the Hindu Psyche

[abhi_the_great 0]

By M.V. Kamath

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 desecration 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.

 

And when that is said, all is said.