TO UPHOLD “SECULARISM” IN INDIA
RAM MANDIR WAHI BANAO
(MAKE RAM TEMPLE AT
THAT SPOT AT AYODHYA)
By Anirban Roy, Advocate
A. Introduction
1.
Constitution
of India
enjoins the State to be “Secular” i.e. be impartial to all religions and not
grant preferential status to any religion. Although the term “Secular”, in the
sense it is used in our Constitution, cannot be extended to individuals, it is
freely applied to individuals. A person who strongly talks about any religion
is perceived to be “Non-Secular”. A person who either is an atheist / agnostic
or doesn’t openly talk about any religion or talks sweetly about all religions
or denounces any kind of religious talks as ancient / medieval is “Secular”. (I
have penned down more thoughts on this aspect in my earlier blog India is “Secular”. Indians can be “Communal”.)
2. “Ayodhya Ram
Mandir Movement” (ARMM) by its very
name is “Non-Secular” in the eyes of “Seculars”. It doesn’t stop at that. It is
also perceived to be a futile movement to correct and avenge a perceived wrong of
the medieval era. It is also perceived to be a movement to foment trouble and
usurp the rights of others. And so on.
3. After December
06, 1992, when the “Babri Masjid” (as majority of the “Seculars” call the
structure in India)
was pulled down, the arguments against the ARMM grew stronger. Two decades
after December 06, 1992, the same arguments against the ARMM are heard and many,
who think we have moved far too ahead for such unimportant issues, call for
concentrating on more important and better things in life like corruption and
economic development.
4. A majority of
the protagonists of the thoughts in the preceding two paragraphs and such
similar thoughts have sketchy details of the ARMM or have not been able to
appreciate the Movement in its proper perspective. Some obviously speak out of
compulsions.
5. I was never a
protagonist of radical Hinduism or Hindutva (as radical Hinduism is erroneously
called). However in the late 80s, freshly out of college, I was impressed by
whatever was being said about the ARMM although I never played any direct or
indirect role in support of the Movement. In the totality of circumstances, I
perceived December 06, 1992 as an inevitable accident resulting from an
administrative failure. The riots and loss of lives that followed were obviously
traumatic and filled me with a lot of bitterness. Eventually, with other
pressures of life, I gradually forgot about the ARMM.
6. The 20th
Anniversary of December 06, 1992 on December 06, 2012 (mourned / celebrated
depending upon one’s perceptions) brought back the ARMM into my focus and I
re-visited some of the issues.
7.
Today, two
decades later, I am more balanced and I strongly feel that we should move on.
Move on and forget December 06, 1992. Move
on with the ARMM and construct a Ram Mandir at that very spot where it was
intended.
8.
The above
would undoubtedly be an outrageous suggestion for “Seculars” and I have a lot
of good friends who are “Seculars”. Some of them would even dismiss the same as
an archaic thought. However let me try my luck and share my thoughts with those
“Seculars” who are under no compulsion to oppose the ARMM. I wish to clarify at
this stage that I am personally not a protagonist of the ARMM.
B.
Basis of the ARMM
9.
Briefly
stated, following were the essential features of the ARMM:
a. That Bhagwan
Shri Ram was born at the spot or in or around the spot where the “Babri Masjid”
stood.
b.
That an
ancient temple of
Bhagwan Shri Ram once
stood at the spot where the “Babri Masjid” stood. This ancient temple of Bhagwan Shri Ram was demolished by the
Moghuls in the 16th Century.
c.
That a dome
was constructed by the Moghuls over the remnants of the ancient temple of Bhagwan Shri Ram and converted into a
mosque called the “Babri Masjid”.
d.
That the
mosque was never a mosque as understood in the tenets of Islam. And even assuming
that the structure was a mosque, it ceased to be a mosque.
e.
That since the
spot where the “Babri Masjid” stood was sacred for the Hindus, the structure of
“Babri Masjid” be shifted to an alternate site and a grand Ram Mandir be
constructed at the spot where the “Babri Masjid” stood.
10.
Let us now briefly
examine each of these aspects individually. However none of the above aspects
could be viewed in isolation and had to be necessarily considered in totality
to ascertain the merits of the Movement.
Birth Spot
11. Some strongly
believe that Bhagwan Shri Ram is a mythological figure who couldn’t have been
born. Let alone be born at a particular spot. Accordingly, according to them,
there is no merit in the contention that Bhagwan Shri Ram was born at or about
the place where the “Babri Masjid” stood.
12.
However there are
others in India
who believe otherwise and they are equally entitled to their beliefs. They may
be wrong in their beliefs (although the issue is beyond proof or determination)
in which case it would be a myth but they are entitled to myths as well. Every
religion, be it Hinduism, Christianity or Islam, has its myths and its
followers are entitled to myths.
13.
India is a deeply religious country and it would
continue to do so for a long time to come. Majority of the Indians are Hindus
and Bhagwan Shri Ram occupies a prominent place in the lives of many of these Hindus.
Two of the prominent festivals of Hindus namely Dussera & Diwali are
related to events connected with the life of Bhagwan Shri Ram. Not too long
back, we had people garlanding and worshipping their TV Sets during the
telecast of the Serial Ramayana.
14. We cannot deny
the belief / myth of those who firmly believe that Bhagwan Shri Ram was born at
the spot where the “Babri Masjid” stood nor can we denounce or ridicule them.
15.
However merely
on the basis of their belief / myth, the protagonists of the ARMM couldn’t have
demanded the construction of a Ram Mandir at the spot where the “Babri Masjid”
stood. Had they claimed the “Babri Masjid” spot solely on the basis of their
belief / myth that Bhagwan Shri Ram was born there, we would have probably told
them “Look we respect your belief / myth but we cannot snatch away someone
else’s land for your belief / myth. That would be Land Grab. Sorry”. But the
Birth Spot belief / myth was just one aspect of the ARMM. It had to be combined
with other aspects and couldn’t be viewed in isolation.
Ancient Temple & its Demolition
16.
Today it is an
undisputed position that an ancient temple
of Bhagwan Shri Ram stood
at the spot where the “Babri Masjid” stood. This is not a myth but a fact. The
same has been verified by independent archeological surveys and by the
Judiciary. It is beyond the scope of this blog to get into the details.
17.
There are two
different expert views on demolition. The first is that the ancient temple was
demolished to build the “Babri Masjid”. The second is that the ancient temple
was already reduced to ruins and the “Babri Masjid” was constructed over those
ruins. However the prior existence of the ancient temple is not in dispute in
either of the two views.
18. The Birth Spot
belief / myth when combined with the fact of prior existence of the ancient
temple makes a stronger case for a Ram Mandir at the spot.
19.
Some may argue
that even if it were so, making a temple at the spot would have been an attempt
to correct and avenge a wrong of the medieval era. It is not so as there were
other aspects.
Structure wasn’t a mosque and / or ceased to be one
20.
The pillars /
foundations of the “Babri Masjid” had features which are contrary to / opposed
to those found in mosques. It seemed that those were the pillars and
foundations of the ancient temple giving credence to the theory that the
ancient temple was demolished to construct the “Babri Masjid”. However what was
more important is the fact that the structure wasn’t a mosque as per the tenets
of Islam and had no significance for the Muslims.
21.
Further, as
the history of events (narrated later) would show, from 1935 onwards, no
prayers were ever offered in the “Babri Masjid” and accordingly, as per the
tenets of Islam, the “Babri Masjid” ceased to be a mosque.
22.
Since the “Babri
Masjid” was not a mosque and in any event was not being used as a mosque, it
made the case for a Ram Mandir at the spot stronger. It is just that the Muslims had
to be persuaded to view it in proper perspective.
Shifting of the “Babri Masjid”
23. The ARMM did
not seek a simplicitor demolition of the “Babri Masjid” since it was not a
movement to avenge a wrong. It was an essential aspect of the ARMM that the
existing “Babri Masjid” structure would be shifted to an alternate site.
24.
How does one
shift a structure as huge as the “Babri Masjid”? It is said that technology was
available for such shifting and such shifting was often done even in Arab
countries.
25.
As per Muslim
Law, a mosque is just an ordinary property and the sole claim to that property
is that of the Mutawalla. The Mutawalla of the “Babri Masjid” stayed 10 miles
away from the spot and had no objections to the shifting of the structure to a
place near the place where he stayed.
26.
For those
doubting the availability of the requisite technology for shifting, there was
an answer. Since no prayers were being offered at the “Babri Masjid”, there
couldn’t have been any emotions attached to that structure. It would have been
fine even if the structure had been pulled down, most respectfully, and a
new structure made at an alternate site, most respectfully.
27.
What is most
important was that the acquisition and shifting of the structure was desired to
be done, not forcefully but, by appropriate legislations.
C.
Rival Positions
28.
In light of
the essential features of the ARMM, the following position emerged in respect
of the claims of the Hindus and the Muslims.
29.
For the
Hindus, it was a claim for a spot, sacred to them based on their belief / myth
about their most prominent deity, where an ancient temple of the deity once
stood and which temple was pulled down to build just a structure which structure
was now proposed to be respectfully and by appropriate legislations shifted to
an alternate site with the consent of the person legally treated as owner of
the structure. And the claim was endorsed by several Hindus across India.
30.
As far as
Muslims are concerned, since a mosque to a Muslim is not the same as a temple
to a Hindu, there was never an issue with Muslims across India. It was
at the most an issue with the local Muslims. But even with local Muslims it
ought not to have been an issue. Firstly, no prayers were offered there since
1935 and accordingly, the mosque had no significance even for the local Muslims.
Secondly, no disrespect was being shown to the structure so that it could even
remotely offend them. Thirdly, they would have got a new mosque to pray.
31.
Thus the
Muslims had nothing to lose by the ARMM. The Hindus had lot to gain.
More importantly, it was an ideal opportunity for
the Muslims to show their generosity and magnanimity towards the Hindus. Such a
glorious gesture would have strengthened the bond between the two communities
across India.
D.
Was the ARMM “Non-Secular”?
32.
Since the term
“Secular” as applied to people, political parties, movement etc. is not well
defined, I would avoid using it in relation to the ARMM but, viewed
objectively, there seemed to be nothing outrageous about the ARMM. It wasn’t a
movement to correct or avenge a wrong of the medieval era but a more positive
movement. It wasn’t a movement to usurp someone else’s rights but an endeavor
to redefine the rights in a mutually beneficial manner.
33.
I am sure, if
viewed in proper perspective, most of my “Secular” friends would agree with the
perception that the ARMM wasn’t a “Non-Secular” Movement. However some of them may
still say “Fine, the ARMM wasn’t “Non-Secular” but it wasn’t necessary either.
There were more important issues to deal with”.
E.
Was the ARMM “Necessary”?
34. Everything in
life is not about material things and religion is and will continue to be an
integral part of the lives of Indians and till we reach a stage where we eschew
everything religious, an issue like ARMM can never be unimportant.
35. Further, the
ARMM isn’t a movement that sprang out of nowhere in the mid 80s. It was just an
organized form of a movement which started long back may be as far back as the
demolition of the ancient temple and the construction of the “Babri Masjid”.
This is evident from the history of events.
History of Events
36. It is outside
the scope of this blog to set out every event in history related to ARMM but
some the relevant ones may be set out as follows:
a.
The demolition
of the ancient temple and construction of the “Babri Masjid” is believed to
have happened in the 16th Century. There are historical accounts of
several armed struggles by Hindus to reclaim the land since then.
b.
There are also
historical accounts of “Pujas” and “Ram-Navami” being held in the area outside
the structure. The Hindus had never given up hope for reclaiming the structure.
c.
The first
legal action was possibly taken in 1885 when the Faizabad District Judge
granted a status-quo in respect of the structure.
d.
Riots
reportedly took place in the area around 1935 and the British Government
acquired the structure. No namaaz was offered thereafter by the Muslims inside
the structure.
e.
On the night
of December 22 and 23, 1949, an idol of Bhagwan Shri Ram was placed inside the
structure under the dome which used to remain locked. As a result of this, iron
gates were constructed around the sanctum sanctorium. However “Pujas” commenced
and continued to be performed in respect of the idols.
f.
In January
1950, the first two suits in respect of the structure were filed by two Hindus
seeking “Puja” rights and an injunction not to remove the idols. Injunction as
prayed for was granted and operates till date. Thus from 1950, the “Babri Masjid”
had been a de-facto temple apart from being a mosque, if at all.
g.
In 1961, the
Sunni Waqf Board filed suits to challenge the 1949 events.
h.
Despite
directions by Allahabad
High Courts, the aforesaid suits filed by Hindus and Sunni Waqf Board were not
heard for decades.
i.
Around 1984, frustrated
at the delay in resolution of the disputes, the ARMM took birth. A RamJanmabhoomi
Liberation Front was formed by the Sadhus from across India to press
for a solution to the nearly four decade old problem.
j.
In October
1985, the Sadhus gave a call for opening the locks of the structure by March
1986.
k.
On
February 01, 1986, the District Magistrate (read Rajiv Gandhi Government at the
Centre) ordered opening of the gates of the structure and further ordered that
there should be no hurdle in “Darshan” and “Puja”. This single event gave
sanctity to the ARMM and once again (after the injunction order in 1950 as set
out above) gave endorsement and recognition to the fact that the “Babri Masjid”
was a de-facto temple.
l.
Soon
thereafter, the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself the suits relating
to the structures pending before the Civil Courts since 1950 and began hearing
thereupon.
m.
Around the
same time, on November 10, 1989, with the consent of the Allahabad High Court, Shilanyas
was allowed to be performed outside the structure for construction of a grand temple of Bhagwan Shri Ram as a part of the ARMM.
37.
The sequence
of events set out hereinabove shows that the ARMM did not spring out of nowhere one
fine morning. It had been there for decades if not for centuries. It is
most unfortunate that for four long decades, a local issue couldn’t be resolved
locally. It was a collective failure of Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.
38.
An issue which
had been pending for four decades had to be confronted and solved. It defies
all logic to even suggest that it ought to have been ignored till eternity. The
ARMM pushed for solution of the four decade old problem and there was nothing
wrong in this and on the contrary, this grants further legitimacy to the
Movement. In fact, with the ARMM, things began to move.
39.
All that was
required to resolve the issue (which was allowed to grow and become stronger over
time by inaction) was quick disposal of the suits relating to the structure and
/ or a legislation to acquire the structure by the State and /or efforts and
initiatives by the State to get the two communities together to find a mutually
beneficial solution. But that was not to be on account of needless opposition
and politicization.
F.
Opposition & Politics
40. In 1986,
possibly as a counter-blast to the ARMM and to oppose the same, the “Babri
Masjid Action Committee” was formed by Muslim leaders across India. Muslims
across India
were made to believe that the “Babri Masjid” was a mosque and it would be an
act of sacrilege to build a Ram Mandir at Ayodhya by demolishing it. A local
issue was made national (which eventually went international). In the totality
of facts and circumstances, the rationale for such an opposition is not
comprehensible.
41.
In 1989, the
Bharatiya Janata Party took up the ARMM as an election issue. In 1990, Shri LK
Advani embarked upon a Rath Yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya to spread awareness
on the issue. The Rath Yatra was stopped at Samastipur and consequently, the
Bharatiya Janata Party withdrew support to V P Singh Government. The issue
became the topmost issue at the national level.
42.
With
opposition and politicization of the issue, rhetorics and provocative speeches
started all over India
and an atmosphere of hostility was created.
43.
Kar Sevaks or
volunteers of the ARMM got aggressive. On October 30, 1990, the structure was
partially damaged by some Kar Sevaks. On November 02, 1990, some of the Kar
Sevaks were fired upon by Mulayam Singh Yadav Government of Uttar Pradesh resulting
in loss of several lives. This was the first time lives were lost in the
Movement.
G.
Demolition of Babri Masjid on December 06, 1992
44.
The events
leading upto the demolition of the “Babri Masjid” or rather the dome structure
atop the de-facto temple on December 06, 1992 are well known. The Kar Sevaks
had assembled there for a symbolic Kar Seva. However given the numbers, the frenzy,
the sequence of events leading upto that and to top it all the ambivalent stand
of the State and Central Government, the demolition was inevitable.
45.
The
demolition was certainly a wrongful act. Mob Violence in any form cannot be
countenanced. It wasn’t / isn’t an incident which is to be celebrated in any
form as “Shaurya Divas” or otherwise.
46.
At the
same time the demolition wasn’t an attack on “Secularism” or the “Secular
Fabric” of the nation as sought to be portrayed by the “Seculars”. There is no
point shedding tears on every anniversary of December 06, 1992.
47.
More
importantly, the demolition did not certainly render the entire ARMM wrong. Nor
was there any merit in the case that given the demolition, the ARMM had to be
disbanded and discontinued.
H.
Violence post Demolition
48.
The demolition
was followed by violence by Muslims across India. The immediate anger was
directed at the Police force. Subsequently the Hindus were targeted. The
rationale has never been understood. The Muslims perhaps had a reason to be
offended but all grievances cannot be redressed by violence.
49.
The Hindus
across India
obviously did not resort to violence after the demolition. It defies all logic
to even suggest otherwise though some “Seculars” genuinely believe so and want
the rest of us to believe.
50.
In Mumbai, the
immediate disturbance began on the very next day of demolition when Muslims
attacked the Police at various places. It may not be too outrageous to ask as
to what wrong did the Police in Mumbai do. The violence subsided for sometime
and restarted in January 1993 when several innocent Hindus were burnt alive at
Radhabai Chawl, Jogeshwari. Subsequently, all Hindu shops and establishments in
Muslim dominated areas were systematically targeted and vandalized. There were
shows of strength by holding “Namaaz” by blocking roads. Hindu temples
including “Siddhi
Vinayak Temple”,
one of the most prominent temples in Mumbai were threatened to be demolished.
It may not be too outrageous to again ask as to what wrong did Mumbai or the
Hindus living in Mumbai do.
51.
In
retaliation to the violence by the Muslims, the Shiv Sena stepped in and reciprocated the same.
Muslim shops and establishments across Mumbai were targeted and vandalized. “Namaaz” was countered by “Maha Aartis”.
52. Riots erupted.
Mumbai burned. I still recall seeing innumerable fires around me from a
skyscraper in Central Mumbai during those days
in 1993.
53.
The Muslims
were outnumbered in the riots. There was loss of life and damage to property.
Many abandoned their property and left Mumbai. As a retaliation to this, there
were Bomb Blasts in Mumbai in March 1993 which led to further loss of innocent
lives, both Hindus and Muslims. Luckily for us, there was no violence by Shiv
Sena or Hindus in retaliation to the Bomb Blasts.
54.
There were
also riots and loss of lives in other parts of India after the demolition.
55.
Thus a lot of
blood did flow after the demolition of December 06, 1992. There is no point
discussing as to who was responsible for the loss of lives. No one was
responsible and all were responsible. However, to hold the protagonists of the ARMM
responsible for the flow of blood would be too far-fetched and naivety at its
worst.
56. It is
equally absurd to dramatize things by saying that the Ram Temple,
if built now, would be built over blood. It sounds like a dialogue straight from Bollywood. And if blood did flow at or around the site, it was of the Kar Sevaks in 1990.
I.
Judicial & Legislative Developments post December 06, 1992
57.
Shortly before
the demolition, the Uttar Pradesh Government had acquired an area of 2.77 Acres
of land around the structure. The same was subsequently struck down by the Allahabad
High Court.
58.
Post
demolition the Central Government acquired an area of 67.7 Acres of land around
the structure.
59.
On September
30, 2010, 60 years after the first suits were filed in respect of the
structures, the Allahabad High Court disposed off the suits by holding that an
ancient temple did exist at the spot where the “Babri Masjid” stood and that
Hindus have been praying at the “Babri Masjid” for centuries along with Muslims.
The High Court directed a three way division of the total area between the
Hindus and Muslims. The area under the dome of the “Babri Masjid”, the main
claim of the Hindus, was directed to be handed over to the Hindus.
60.
On an appeal,
the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the Order of the Allahabad High
Court. The matter is still pending before the Supreme Court.
J. Way Forward from here
61. It has been a
collective failure of the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary that even
after six decades of independence, we haven’t been able to solve a local issue
and instead we have allowed it to be made a national issue and eventually an
international issue. We have also failed as a society in this respect.
62. Issues
including burning issues and those issues which have actually burnt need to be
confronted and resolved. Not kept in limbo till eternity nor wiped under the
carpet and wished away nor passed on to the future generation to tackle it when
it erupts next. It would be an act of cowardice if we do so.
63. We seek
resolution of international disputes say with Pakistan
on Kashmir and with China
on Border. But before that shouldn’t we solve a relatively simpler internal
issue? After all, all Hindus and Muslims in India are our own people.
64.
It will be
naïve to presume that the ARMM is dead or would die out. It wouldn’t. In that
case, what are the options from here?
65.
The first
option would be to construct a memorial there or a utility like a hospital.
Nothing will be achieved by that except for adding salt to the injuries of the
protagonists as well as the antagonists of the Movement. The suggestion is also
extremely juvenile.
66.
The next
option would be to construct a mosque at the site. If a mosque is to be
constructed, why not at the alternate site which was proposed in the ARMM? It
will also be imprudent to sow the seeds for another century of discord.
67.
The only
option is to construct a Ram
Temple at the spot as
envisaged with the participation of the Muslims. The emphasis is on the second
part “participation
of the Muslims”.
68. The Muslims
need to change their perception. It was just a structure which came down in
adverse circumstances. It certainly wasn’t pulled down to
deliberately hurt the sentiments of the Muslims. If a Ram Mandir is
built there with their participation, the Muslims wouldn’t lose anything but
would certainly gain the goodwill of the Hindus. And a temple always existed, exists and would continue to exist at the spot even if we do nothing from now on.
69. The Muslims
have been hurt by the demolition and the violence thereafter. One cannot deny
that Hindus also have been hurt by the initiation of the post demolition
violence by the Muslims. But it is time for both the communities to forget the
bitter past and move ahead and forge a new bond.
70.
As stated
earlier, it is a golden opportunity for the Muslims to show their generosity
and magnanimity and silence their critics once and for all. It is also a golden
opportunity for the Muslims in India
to show the rest of the world that they are different and they have a large
heart.
71.
The State also
has a positive role to play. If it facilitates the process of coming together
of the Muslims and Hindus and the construction of a Ram Temple
there, it wouldn’t be acting against the ideals of “Secularism” enshrined in
the Constitution of India. On the contrary, it would be ensuring that India is
“Secular” where conflicting religious grievances aren’t ignored but addressed
impartially. It is pertinent to recall here what Dr. Radhakrishnan, former President
of India,
had to say on “Secularism”. He said that “Secularism” doesn’t mean India rejects
relevance of religion or exalts irreligion. It just means religious impartiality.
72.
More
importantly, by facilitating the process of construction of a Ram temple at
Ayodhya, the State would only be strengthening the bond between the two
communities. Working towards the unity and integrity of India would
certainly not be opposed to the Constitution.
Anirban Roy
December
11, 2012
Email: anirban@royslawfirm.com
Twitter : @AnirbanFromRLF
Facebook: Anirban FromRlf