The horrifying story of the Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992 by Hindu chauvinist vandals who sought to preempt a judicial resolution of the ownership of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site on which the 500-year-old mosque stood, by reducing it to rubble, was one of the darkest chapters in our history. It also severely dented India's image as a pluralist democracy committed to the secular character of its public space.
Fortunately, with the phenomenon of Hindu cultural nationalism receding from the centre of India's political discourse in recent years, it has become possible to rebuild the faith of minority communities in the capacity of India's political and judicial system to deliver justice. The Supreme Court's direction in March 2008 to set up a special investigation team to probe afresh a bunch of cases pertaining to the 2002 post-Godhra riots in Gujarat was a significant intervention. It signalled to the minority communities that the judiciary would strive to uphold the principles of the rule of law and equality before the law as mandated by the Indian Constitution.
A major reason for the retreat of Hindu cultural nationalism in recent years is the recognition by large sections of the Indian middle classes that the aspiration to make India a power to reckon with globally in terms of economic clout would require an underpinning of a secular public culture in which personal identities are consciously subdued. It is also clear that this aspiration, in which many young Indians have invested their hopes and dreams, requires a national narrative scripted in an idiom of modernity.
Religious clashes drawing upon imagery of tridents battling crescents are clearly out of place in this unfolding narrative which requires an emphasising of identity as an Indian citizen rather than any other affiliation. This is why the recent Ayodhya judgment with its implied reaffirmation of concepts that have no place in a modern democracy founded on the rule of law is deeply unsettling.
It has opened the backdoor for the return of the Hindu cultural nationalist narrative with its strong majoritarian political overtones. A judicial pronouncement which includes an assertion that “the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram” and that “the place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity” not only admits Hindu mythology into the public arena but also accepts unquestioningly the claim that the disputed site is indeed the Ayodhya mentioned in the Ramayana epic, belongs more in a theocracy than in a modern democracy.
Also reinforcing the impression of theocratic overtones was the observation by the special Bench of the Allahabad High Court that the portion under the central dome of the three-dome structure of the demolished mosque where the idol of Ram Lalla had been placed was the birthplace of Lord Rama “as per faith and belief of the Hindus”.
As leading historian Romila Thapar has pointed out in this newspaper (October 2) “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.” Noting that the deliberate destruction of the medieval mosque found no mention in the summary of the verdict, Dr. Thapar has also expressed concern that “there will now be many such janmasthans wherever appropriate property can be found or a required dispute manufactured.”
This is the core of the Hindu cultural majoritarian challenge to India's democratic framework. The rallying of mass sentiment on the Ayodhya issue, which hinged on the metaphor of Ramjanmabhoomi, essentially utilises Hindu sacred geography to build a political movement around religious pilgrimage centres. Ayodhya, Mathura, Varanasi, are metaphors designed to evoke primordial religious fervour and channelise this into a political movement. By making Hindu sacred geography the landscape on which the Indian nation is to be imagined, it becomes much easier to exclude those who are not Hindus and render them second class citizens.
The second premise of Hindu cultural majoritarianism that had perhaps unwittingly been given credibility by the Ayodhya judgment is the fallacious concept of prior antiquity. The sharply contested findings of the Archaeological Survey of India's excavations suggesting the ruins of a 10th century temple lay underneath the mosque's rubble, a point repeatedly highlighted by the Hindutva temple agitation, have been given credence by two judges of the Special Bench who observed that the mosque was built after the demolition of a temple.
Given that the Babri Masjid had been razed to the ground precisely to avenge an act presumed to have been done centuries ago, to provide any link in juridical terms between the ruins of the temple, the razed mosque and the proposed temple of the future, would be setting a dangerous precedent in a democracy governed by modern civil laws. Basically, the idea that shrines existing today can be knocked down on the basis of unproven claims that they stand on the ruins of temples destroyed centuries ago is to suggest that prior antiquity of shrines, even if not really proven, can be a ground to tear down present day structures.
It was the Narasimha Rao administration which had first given respectability to the Hindu cultural majoritarian argument that if the prior antiquity of a temple's existence could be established, it would be sufficient ground to insist that the mosque be shifted from the contested place. This specious concept which seemed to have no time bar and could span over centuries was placed on the agenda of the negotiations between the VHP and the Babri Masjid Action Committee that were held under the aegis of the Prime Minister's Office. The saving grace was the Supreme Court's refusal in 1993 to legitimise this line of inquiry. It categorically rejected the Presidential reference put to it under Article 143 on this issue of whether a temple pre-existed a mosque or not, thereby ensuring that this idea lost all credibility as a point in the negotiations.
Ayodhya as an issue appeared to dwarf all other concerns in the agenda of Hindu cultural nationalists because it became a point of competitive contestation between the Congress and the BJP. Since 1986, by a series of gestures intended to rally a vote-bank of Hindu voters, the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi gave substantive credibility to the temple agitation. Of course it was the BJP and L.K. Advani whose Rath Yatra pitchforked the Ayodhya issue into the public spotlight, which made the temple issue the centre piece of the resurgence of Hindu cultural nationalism in the 1990s.
It is possible to argue that Ayodhya is an exception, particularly so because of its historical circumstances, and that the momentum has ebbed from the political tide of Hindu cultural nationalism and that the issue is indeed moving to closure, even if it goes to the Supreme Court. It is also heartening that there is the Places of Worship Act (1993) which is a strong legal bulwark against similar disputes erupting over other existing shrines elsewhere in the country.
Yet what we need to guard against is the reemergence of a narrative that harks back to an imagined past and draws from cultural and mythological traditions of a particular community. This is not to suggest that in our own homes and in the private sphere, we do not have a right to celebrate our own cultural or religious identities. The danger manifests when we assert that these identities have political rights attached to them.
The ascendancy of cultural majoritarianism and its attendant narrative would only be at the expense of the entitlement of every Indian citizen to have equal cultural space in India's democratic framework. For those of us who take pride in the idea of India as a rising power, we cannot afford backward-looking or unidimensional narratives that cannot really capture India's sensational success story as an economy and as a democratic republic. We must script a new narrative that puts the Indian citizen in the forefront as its central protagonist.
________________
The writer makes two main arguments against the judicial pronouncement. 1) it belongs more in a theocracy than in a modern democracy. 2) It creates an unwelcome precedent in the court of law that land can be claimed by manufactured, undemocratic elements and disputes of prior antiquity. The writer (and also the historian who expressed similar concerns here earlier) but has not given any reason whatsoever in support of their arguments. Why should someone agree with their personal thoughts on the judgment? The verdict is more democratic than our present notions of democracy of religious faiths. That's why despite its obvious incongruence with the accepted legal ideals, most of the common people in India have greeted the verdict with peace. And there are reports that people are trying for out of the court settlement of the issue which is a very reassuring sign for a healthy democracy. People are aware of the limitations of legal systems in handling a rare case as that of Ayodhya. Again its a sign of healthy democracy that the irrational, mythical and religious beliefs of its members too get some space (even divided and decreasing)in the maintenance of the democracy (so support the Ground Zero Mosque). You can cite scientific, rational beliefs, secular ideals against the construction of a mosque or any religious structure in a modern secular democracy. Or you can try to understand the character of democracy and its citizens in our time. Those who support the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque on contemporary-democratic principles would agree with the virtues of the Ayodhya verdict. Not dissimilar multiculturalism! The second argument of the writer appears to be just another personal bias, given the unique context of the verdict. I am not going into the details of the essay or the verdict, it is suffice to say the common people are not unhappy with this judicial compromise. Only extremists, political analysts and some news channels, see a "calm before the storm in India" in this judgment. The ordinary people want some kind of settlement of the issue and they are expressing their willingness to contribute by all means to have peaceful days ahead. Yes, "We must script a new narrative that puts the Indian citizen in the forefront" of the imaginary of democratic India. The new narrative need not be something like our writers and social critics have concocted. The new narrative may be that of inclusive, accommodating the freedom and beliefs of all others, not just the other. "Let there be spaces [of understanding] between the shores of souls".
___________
I was very disappointed to read many biased articles in Hindu for the last few days from well known analysts. Many of the articles (including this one) are mere personal opinions and projects only one side of the issue. Authors need to understand, History is unlike any other science, it is unique and follows an entirely different path compared to "general science". Increasing number of modern historians are trying to view a larger historical picture by including cultural, oral, and even mythical "facts" in their research (along with the "hard historical evidence"). By this method modern archaeologists were able to identify many tombs and lost buildings. This method carefully records all historical records, legends, myths and other orally transmitted facts and try to use modern archaeology to find the truth. Applying this technique to Ayodhya Ramajanmabhoomi site,we can see that there was a clear oral tradition among local Hindus about a Rama temple being destroyed by Babar's Army in 16th century. This "legend" has surprisingly stood the decadence of time and was consistently followed the same script in many parts of North India. Many eminent medieval Muslim historians and writers wrote that Babar indeed built a temple at the birth place of Rama in Ayodhya (Mirza Jan etc). There were also records of Hindus offering prayers in front of the Masjid in 18th century. A historian needs to really understand the real truth by analysing such facts. Finally archaeological survey of India had irrefutably found many temple artefacts on the site which clearly proves that historical legends are anything but truth! Finding animal bones or Islamic pottery at the site can not refute the fact that there indeed was a temple foundation beneath the mosque. The site was inhabited by Muslims for the last 4 centuries, it is of no surprise that evidence of their presence would show up in an archaeological dig. Besides it is a known fact that ancient north Indian temples followed the tradition of Mriga Yagna (animal sacrifice). So in this case arguments of many historians like Romila Thapar seems to be ideologically biased and they consistently refuse to see the "bigger picture" -ie legends, myths being vindicated by archaeological evidence. Should Indians build a temple or mosque at that site? As a historian I am not interested in that debate. But as a career historian I am convinced that there indeed was a temple at that site and most probably it was destroyed by Babar's commander.
__________
I feel that your essay is ignoring two things: First of all, you seem to be ignoring that in the 500 years between the demolition of the original shrine (let us please just take that as an assumption, b/c it was the perception of the Hindus of Ayodhya long before there was an Indian Republic or any hope that they might have a shot at political power) there was a long and continuous attempt by Hindus to reclaim the shrine, to worship at the land held sacred, and a continuous tradition of calling the area Ram Janmabhoomi. The suit that the Court decided was not a suit over the mob destruction of the Mosque, but a much older suit involving local religious communities, which itself followed hundreds of years of (much more peaceful) conflict about this mosque's location. You don't address the conflict of that original suit: for hundreds of years local Hindus had been continuously attempting to worship at land they felt was sacred to them, and local Muslims had been trying to stop them, feeling that the Mosque had reconsecrated the land to Islam. When you write, "Basically, the idea that shrines existing today can be knocked down on the basis of unproven claims that they stand on the ruins of temples destroyed centuries ago is to suggest that prior antiquity of shrines, even if not really proven, can be a ground to tear down present day structures," you are deliberately ignoring the history of continuous protest by the local Hindus. Yes, it would be unreasonable and impractical for Hindus to go around and just now *find* every single temple that once existed and was razed by Muslims, insisting on tearing down whatever was now on top, regardless of the history between the tearing down and now. That would probably tear up many Hindu homes as well as Muslim shrines. But it's a very different matter to completely deny local Hindus who have steadily been trying to reclaim a shrine, who have continuously been begging, generation to generation, for a redress of grievances at a particular place. Such *continuity* and persistence implies that it was a place that was particularly important, particularly unjustly demolished, and particularly more likely to be accurately located. To ignore a continued a grievance *merely* b/c it is old seems like a deliberate infliction of injustice. "Oh sorry, you couldn't get heard under the Moghul empire, you couldn't get hear under the entirely self-concerned British empire, but now that you're a subject of a secular democracy, you definitely won't get heard, b/c we blame you for failing to be heard by the previous two regimes!" Secondly, when you write, "Yet what we need to guard against is the reemergence of a narrative that harks back to an imagined past and draws from cultural and mythological traditions of a particular community. This is not to suggest that in our own homes and in the private sphere, we do not have a right to celebrate our own cultural or religious identities. The danger manifests when we assert that these identities have political rights attached to them," you seem to be ignoring that the very nature of Hindu theology is to not simply celebrate in 'our own homes' and 'private sphere---exactly as it is not in the nature of Muslim theology either. Your railing against sacred geography is, by definition, a railing against Hindu belief: the notion of Dham, Tirtha, pilgrimage, and holy land is deeply ingrained within Hindu scripture and tradition. Would you ask that Muslims restrict their observances to their home and private sphere and never go out on a public Ashura parade, and never go on Hajj pilgrimage? No, you would not. But to declare that Hindu sacred geography has no political significance is exactly equivalent. For Ram-bhaktas--specific sects of Hindusim--there is no replacement for Ayodhya. Staying at home is not the same thing. Where exactly are we Hindus supposed to maintain these sacred places of pilgrimage, anyway? The ones in Pakistan, Bangladesh, China and now Nepal are dangerously inaccessible for most ordinary Hindus. By denying us the right to petition for a redress of destruction in India itself, just because India is secular, you are asking Hindus to allow a major part of our faith and practice to wither away. In every other country, Hindus are a minority. They have to hope that the majority will allow them to have public parades, public festivals and public gatherings. And in most other countries, they have no sacred places. Only in India do they both have some hope of an assumed right to conduct their religion as their scripture and tradition tells them to--which is often in public and in reference to sacred geographies. Why does their status as a majority immediately lose them that right? What was the mechanism by which the supposed will of the majority influenced the Supreme Court's decision, anyway? Is there solid evidence that the majority even wanted that decision? The majority of India may be ethnically Hindus, but are the majority of that group even Ram Bhaktas? Your name indicates that you are ethnically Hindu, yet you clearly aren't part of this seemingly oppressive Hindu majority when it comes to this issue. Is any grievance that a Hindu has with the government or a non-Hindu b/c they feel they are being unfairly obstructed in their attempt to be devout automatically discounted because to consider it would be to pamper the majority? If you were a religious Hindu, a Ram-Bhakta, someone who took seriously the scriptural injunction to go to the birthplaces of avatars and worship there, what outcome would you have use the courts to fight for? What solution do you think you would have been able to advocate for with integrity and respect for the idea of a pluralistic India? Personally I think this solutions seems pretty great, and I really respect Mr. Ansari of the Waqf board for trying to make it work.
____________
Lots of opinions and comments had been made in the past few days for and against the Ayodhya verdict. I wish to ask a few fundamental and basic questions on this issue. 1) What is the benefit to an average Hindu if a Ram Temple is built there and what is the benefit to an average Muslim if a mosque is built there? 2) If the people who wish to build a Ram Temple there claim that it will be the authentic Ram Temple in the country, will it mean that all other Ram Temples are pure waste and Ram is not present in them? Can all other Ram Temples be demolished after building this Ram Temple? 3) The same question to Muslims. If the Mosque that they wish to build there is going to be the ultimate mosque, then will it mean that all other mosques are redundant? People forget the basic fact that God is present everywhere. It does not matter where you worship God. God only looks at how you worship Him. All the scriptures, whether that of Hindus or Muslims, clearly state that God considers only the sincerity of the worshipper but not the rituals, offerings and other external activities. Worship of God is a purely internal action. We need not go to any temple if we can be sincere in our prayers sitting at home. Visiting various temples, mosques and churches as tourists has become a fashion instead of a serious religious activity. When are we going to realise the difference between 'Emotions without Devotion' and 'Devotion without emotions'? God prefers only the second one, not the first one.
No comments:
Post a Comment