Ayodhya 1

University of Leicester, UK Centre for the History of Religious and Political Pluralism Institute for the Study of Indo-Pakistan
Relations South Asian History Academic Papers 9 ISSN 1475-178X General Editor: Professor Richard Bonney
University of Leicester Centre for the History of Religious and Political Pluralism Institute for the Study of Indo-Pakistan Relations Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK www.le.ac.uk/pluralism South Asian History Academic Papers 9 ISSN 1475-178X General Editor: Professor Richard Bonney bon@le.ac.uk Individual Authors and Centre for the History of Religious and Political Pluralism / Institute for the Study of IndoPakistan Relations (INPAREL), University of Leicester, UK. 2003 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the Director of the Centre / Institute. Within the UK, exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms and in other countries should be sent to the Director at the address above. This publication is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publishers prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
Ayodhya 1992-2003: The Assertion of Cultural and Religious Hegemony
Jan-Peter Hartung, Gillian Hawkes and Anuradha Bhattacharjee

Leicester 2003
Table of Contents
Frontispiece. Cartoon of the Mosque Razers Introduction Professor Richard Bonney The Land, the Mosque, the Temple: More than 145 Years of Dispute over Ayodhya JanPeter Hartung Ayodhya: An International Perspective Anuradha Bhattacharjee The Archaeology and Politics of Ayodhya Gillian Hawkes Documents i
33 Cartoon of the Mosque Razers: 90

Uma Bharati (left), MM Joshi (centre), LK Advani (right) Artist: Arvind. Source: Ram Puniyani, Communal Politics: An Illustrated Primer (Delhi: Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust, January 2001). Reproduced by permission of Dr Puniyani.
115
Professor Richard Bonney
Ayodhya 19922003: the Assertion of Cultural and Religious Hegemony Introduction*

commentators have expressed their reservations.1 On 10 September 1991, anticipating problems on the vexed question of the conversion of religious buildings from one faith to another, the Lok Sabha, the Lower House of the Indian Parliament, passed the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Bill prohibiting the conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.2 On 6 December 1992, the Republic was besmirched, as The Times of India put it the following day, because of the destruction of the Bab[a]ri Masjid: the worst was feared in Ayodhya and the worst has come to pass.3 The precedent is a frightening one, because of the very large number of religious buildings which could potentially fall under the claim from the champions of another religion that at some point in the distant past they had enjoyed rights of worship at that location.4 On 7 March
<www.hvk.org/articles/0302/114.html> The preface to the Indian Constitution talks of the resolve of the constitution makers to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. <www.parliamentofindia.nic.in/bills/1991/1991-37.htm> The Republic Besmirched. 6 December 1992, ed. Anand K. Sahay (Delhi: Safdar Hasmi Memorial Trust, 2002), 70. Deepshikha Ghosh, India: potential temple-mosque trouble spots abound, Indo-Asian News Service (13 March 2003): S.Q.R. Illyas, the spokesman of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, said the 1991 act was a sound legal safeguard. It may be true that mosques were built on temples. But how far can you go on digging [up] the past? However, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has vowed to turn its attention to Kashi and Mathura towns in Uttar Pradesh after Ayodhya in order to lay claim to two other ancient mosques that were also allegedly built after razing Hindu shrines. The Kashi and Mathura campaigns are expected to take a political turn ahead of the state elections this year. In another simmering conflict in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, Hindus and Muslims are claiming rights to pray at a Muslim shrine believed built on the site of a temple known as Bhojshala. Many medieval mosques bear inscriptions that Dikshit said proved that they were built on temple ruins. An example is the Quwwat al-Islam mosque in New Delhis towering Qutb Minar monument built in 1192 on which is inscribed how material from 27 razed temples went into the construction. Shiv Sena activists have tried to hold Hindu rites in the Qutb Minar complex. The 15th century Manvi mosque in Karnatakas Raichur district and the Jami Masjid mosque in Banaskantha district of
Equal respect for all religions (Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava). Does the Indian Constitution, especially in its commitment to secularism, that is, pluralism within the western understanding, work in practice? Experienced Indian
* Richard Bonney is Professor of Modern History at the University of Leicester, Director of the Centre for the History of Religious and Political Pluralism and Director of the Institute for the Study of Indo-Pakistan Relations. K Subrahmanyam, Securing Secularism, The Times of India, 26 March 2002: secularism is not an end in itself. It is a means of promoting unity among people by removing religion as a divisive factor in politics. The founders of the Indian republic obviously had the same objective in mind when making India a secular state. But, unfortunately, in India the first-past-the-post system of elections has created enormous vested interests among most of the politicians to pursue the politics of divisiveness. Most of our politicians are following the British imperialist policy of divide and rule. Because of the first-past-the-post system, this country has never had a parliament whose members represented the majority of the people. Conditioned by this system of non-democratic rule under the label of democracy our political class is more interested in perpetuating vote banks, communal and caste divides than in promoting the politics of unity and secularism Irrespective of their public rhetoric, most of our politicians, including those in socalled secular parties, are not true secularists.
2 3 4
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003: Introduction
2003, the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat (AIMMM) stated that it considers that the Order [for new excavations at the Ayodhya site] is fraught with far-reaching consequences because it sets a very questionable and dangerous precedent. Today the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is claiming 30,000 mosques. The Sangh Parivar will use this Order as a precedent to demand excavation of all those Masjids5 .rom 6 December 1992, in effect the Muslim community lost control over a rarely used, if not redundant, place of worship (that is, redundant in the sense that Anglican churches are declared redundant, when worshippers have moved from the area; as the Indian Muslim community has made clear, a mosque is a mosque and it cannot be sold or demolished or shifted: Document 19). This change of worship occurred in spite of the legislation of 10 September 1991 and earlier government assurances (Document 18). Moreover, the status quo ante was no longer 6 December 1992, but 7 January 1993, that is, after a make-shift Ram Mandir had been rapidly constructed (Documents 31, 32, 41, 42). Of the three principal mosque razers identified by
Gujarat bear similar telltale etchings. The Hammam Darwaza Masjid at Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, built in 1567 has on it the words: Thanks that by the guidance of the everlasting and the living (Allah), this house of infidelity became the niche of prayer. The Jami Masjid mosque at Ghoda in Maharashtra and the Gachinala mosque in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, are further examples. In his account of the destruction of Hindu temples, author Sita Ram Goel identifies many such big and small spots across India. In Naraina in Rajasthan, an old pillared mosque is said to have been built on old Hindu temples in 1436. Excavations at Sarnath in Uttar Pradesh in 1904 indicated that a Muslim ruler destroyed temples after defeating a Hindu king. In West Bengals Gaur and Pandua, the Adina mosque built in the 14th century used up debris of destroyed Hindu temples. In Delhi, apart from Qutab Minar, the mausoleum of Muslim ruler Iltutmish is believed to stand on temple ruins. The Mathura campaign to liberate the alleged birth site of Krishna had been announced in 1984 (Document 1). It continued: the Court should have prudently limited the scope of its order by explaining why excavation had become absolutely essential in the absence of alternative evidence, scriptural, literally or otherwise, and, therefore had to be ordered in this case, and that it shall not be used as a precedent. <www.milligazette.com/IndMusStat/2003a/013aimmm07mar03.htm>
the anonymous cartoonist, Vajpayee remains as Prime Minister, Lal Krishna Advani remains as Deputy Prime Minister, and only the third, the Human Resource Development Minister, Murli Manohar Joshi, was finally forced in September 2003 to resign to face prosecution (in politics there is power and morals. Equal emphasis should be given to morality in politics) but this resignation was withdrawn at the request of Prime Minister Vajpayee ten days later.6 Indian commentators have been among the first to make the link between the demolition of the mosque and the pogrom against the Muslims launched in 2002 by the government of Gujarat under the leadership of Chief Minister Modi.7 It is our contention in this publication, however, that the true postscript to the turbulent decade 1992 2002 is to be found in the legal verdicts of 2003, in the contemptible report of the archaeological survey (temple builder [kar sevak] archaeology, as A. G. Noorani called it in the Hindustan Times),8 in the escape of the Deputy Prime Minister, Lal Krishna Advani from prosecution over responsibility for the demolition of the Babri Masjid,9 and in
6 The Hindu (20 September 2003). Dr. Joshi sent his three-line letter of resignation to the Prime Ministers Office and informed the Deputy Prime Minister, L. K. Advani, of his decision. Although Mr. Advani, the Bharatiya Janata Party president, M. Venkaiah Naidu, and the RSS chief, K. S. Sudershan, spoke to Dr. Joshi on the telephone and reportedly told him there was no need to resign, Dr. Joshi insisted on doing so: <www.hindu.com/2003/09/20/stories/2003092006580100.htm> <www.news.indiainfo.com/2003/09/23/23joshi.html> K. N. Panikkar and Sukumar Muralidharan, Communalism, Civil Society and the State. Reflections on a Decade of Turbulence (Delhi: Safdar Hasmi Memorial Trust, 2003). A. G. Noorani, A monumental mistake, Hindustan Times, 12 Sept. 2003: The ASIs report on its excavations at Ayodhya amply confirms the fears expressed when the Allahabad High Court ordered the excavation on 5 March 2003. It is unprecedented, devoid of jurisdiction and violates flagrantly a unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court. No sooner was the Babri Masjid demolished than the VHP jumped into the fray with its kar sevak archaeology: <www.hindustantimes.com/news/printedition/120903/ detIDE01.shtml> The Special CBI court hearing the Babri Masjid demolition conspiracy case today [19 September 2003] discharged the Deputy Prime Minister, Lal Krishna Advani, but found grounds to proceed against the seven other accused in the case, including the Human Resource Development Minister, Murli Manohar Joshi, the
7 8
10
the gradual stirring of impatience in the Supreme Court with the Modi governments failure to prosecute those responsible for the atrocities in Gujarat in 200210 (how could the Gujarat government prosecute itself?) The exoneration of Deputy Prime Minister Advani was not unexpected. Part of the testimony against him to the Liberhan Commission arose from a family dispute and might be viewed as vitiated. The testimony of Advanis daughterin-law (who was formerly Lal Krishna Advanis Special Assistant from November 1989 to October 1991) is nevertheless revealing as to the motivation for the destruction of the Babri Masjid, which is as near to the genuine motivation as we are likely to get:11
former Union Minister, Uma Bharti, and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader, Ashok Singhal. The CBI had filed a composite chargesheet against Advani and the others accused under Sections 120 B (criminal conspiracy) and 295 and 295 A (injuring and defiling place of worship and indulging in an act intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class), besides other sections of the IPC. The Special Judge, V.K. Singh, in his order observed that while statements by certain witnesses spoke of Mr. Advani attempting to incite the kar sevaks to pull down the disputed structure at Ayodhya, there were others who contended that the BJP leader was in fact trying to stop it. Mr. Advani, according to one set of evidence, had expressed his displeasure over the kar sevaks not heeding his pleas against demolition of the structure. Citing a Supreme Court ruling in the Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal case, the judge held that in the face of conflicting viewpoints, charges could not be sustained against the accused. <www.hindu.com/2003/09/20/stories/2003092006590100.htm> <www.hindu.com/2003/09/20/stories/2003092006570100.htm> 10 Thus Amnesty International on 19 September 2003: six days ago the Supreme Court of India severely criticized the state government of Gujarat for failing to provide justice to victims of communal violence which took place there in 2002. It also pointed to the possibility of collusion between the Government and the prosecution in subverting the cause of justice. < w w w . a m n e s t y u s a . o r g / c o u n t r i e s / i n d i a / document.do?id=ECA716A364699C8980256DA40052B2C9> 11 <www.keralamonitor.com/advanidemolition.html>: that the applicant submits that L K Advani started his rath yatra on 1.12.1992 from Varanasi. Before the start of the Rath Yatra, Vinay Katiyar came to meet L K Advani. The applicant was also present in this meeting. The application was by Mrs Gauri Advani, L K Advanis daughter-in-law, a London-based solicitor. Keralamonitor.com posted this deposition to the Liberhan
L K Advani told Vinjay Katiyar [a top Bajrang Dal leader] that the ultimate aim of the rath yatra, which he had been undertaking right from 1990 and the build up to kar seva by mobilizing the Ram Bhakt Brick movement, is not only to do kar seva and appease Hindu sentiments but also to garner and muster votes and come to power at the Centre. L K Advani categorically linked religion, exploitation of Hindu sentiments and the opportunity to do the kar seva with the real aim of benefiting [the] BJP politically by mustering the Hindu vote bank. He also discussed that in order to create a strong Hindu vote bank, which
Commission on its website on 15 March 2002. The deposition is also of interest because of the statement about Advanis religious position: Gauri, a Hindu, alleged that neither Advani nor his family practised the Hindu religion and that the home minister had given a false gotra when asked for it before the commencement of the rath yatra. She said the family follows the Sikh religion That soon after the marriage, the applicant came to know that L K Advani and his wife Kamla Advani and other family members do not follow the rites, rituals and ceremonies attached with Hinduism and are basically followers of the Sikh religion. Despite being a follower of the Sikh religion, L K Advani was using Hinduism to mobilise the Hindu vote bank. Hinduism was used to play with the sentiments of general Hindu masses in order to the garner support and the vote of the Hindu masses to enable the BJP to come in power at the Centre That L K Advani, in the privacy of home had confided to the applicant on the occasion of Deepavali in 1991 that though he has no faith in Hinduism, but to maintain and appease the religious constituency of his Party, he had to keep this charade. He in fact, further informed the applicant that he has no Gotra, but at the time of starting his rath yatra from Somnath in 1990, he had coined the Bhardwaj Brahmin Gotra to avoid embarrassment as the Pujaris in various temples en route to Ayodhya would have asked about his Gotra and Hindu connection. L K Advani told the applicant that this information about the Bhardwaj Gotra should remain secret and no one outside the family should come to know The gotra system was instituted for the purposes of identifying ones ancestors and in order to pay respects during various invocations and other rituals to honour their fathers, fore-fathers and so on, up to their respective Rishis. This was later extended to other aspects of the Brahmin life, such as marriage and temple worship. There are 8 Rishis (the Saptha rishis + Agastya). The Seven Saptha Rishis are Gautama, Bhardwaja, Vishwamitra, Jamadagni, Vasistha, Kashyapa and Atri. All present-day Brahmin communities are said to be descendants of these 8 Rishis: <www.gsbkerala.com/gotra.htm>
Ayodhya 1992 2003: Children in the - makingIntroduction
11
12
would vote for BJP, the time has come to encash the Hindu sentiments by carrying out the demolition of the Babri mosque. L K Advani told Vinay Katiyar that the movement to build a Ram Temple at Babri mosque had to be taken to its logical end, i.e. coming to power at the Centre and that would not be possible without demolishing the Babri mosque as that will unite the Hindu vote bank in favour of the BJP.
According to Mrs Gauri Advani, L K Advani returned from Ayodhya exultant: Jo karne gaye the, who kar aye (we have done what we had gone to do.) Advani did not deny the political purpose of the campaign in his public statements (Document 11):
In the last 40 years if nationalism has become weak, one reason is that it is losing its inherent content. Its cultural content is provided by Hinduism My objective is not merely the temple I regard the attitude of all political parties and the government to the temple issue as a characteristic example of pseudo secularism The Rath Yatra did have a political purpose The impact the Rath Yatra has had in obliterating the caste-ist animosities created by [the] Mandal [Commission Report] is remarkable
fact, politics should be based on religion.12 The reality was that even Gandhis mixing of religion and politics, which was more an addition of a spiritual dimension to politics, was misunderstood at the time and created problems with the very constituencies that he wished to cultivate. At no stage did religion mean sectarianism for Gandhi,13 while Vivekananda did not spare his co-religionists from criticism, and even envisaged a junction of the two great systems, Hinduism and Islam into a Vedantic brain and an Islamic body.14 In both cases, Gandhi and Vivekananda, for all the attempt by the BJP to appropriate them for their own interests, their thought was at the other end of the spectrum from hindutvas commitment to cultural and religious hegemony. In the aftermath of the destruction of the Babri Masjid, the BJP denied that it wanted a theocratic state (Document 21):
The BJP neither believes in, nor subscribes to, India ever becoming a theocratic state. The BJP reiterates its commitment to, and conviction about, equal opportunity and equal rights to all citizens of India. It implicitly believes in Justice for all and appeasement of none We are confident of victory because today History had made the future of India synonymous with the future of BJP
He further claimed (Document 12) that

Not even a single incident of violence took place all through my Rath Yatra. Neither the Rath Yatra nor my visit to Ayodhya has in any way inflamed communal passions. In fact, we have been able to convey the right signals to the other party
Lal Krishna Advani has claimed that the Ayodhya struggle became the biggest mass movement in independent India. Like the independence movement, it gave a historic turn to Indias society and polity, re-anchoring both in the soil of Hindutva. The people of India have massively supported the Ayodhya movement, recognizing Hindutva as the essential identity of our nation, he claimed. In the golden jubilee year of Indian Independence [1997], let us resolve to make the 21st century an Indian century by channeling Ram bhakti into rashtra shakti. Defending his partys stand of mixing religion with politics, Advani denied that there was anything wrong about mixing religion and politics. After all, Mahatma Gandhi did it and so did Vivekananda... In
Advanis remarks were made before the destruction of the Babri Masjid, and serve to confirm the judgement of Theodore P Wright Jnr, made in 1991 before the demolition, that the controversy need never have arisen and that it was essentially a political dispute and not a religious one.15 Theodore P Wright Jnr also drew attention to the phenomenon known as majority backlash, a politically mobilizing perception, and one reinforced by the ethnic numbers game, that is, the fear that the majoritys numerical preponderance, the basis for legitimacy of its claims to political hegemony, may be reversed by dynamic
12 13 14 15 <www.rediff.com/news/jul/07advani.htm> B. R. Nanda, In Search of Gandhi. Essays and Reflections (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002), 24. Ibid. 67. T. P. Wright, Jnr, The Babari Masjid Controversy in India, Islam, Politics and Society in South Asia, ed. A. Wink (New Delhi: Manohar, 1991), 184.
13
14
factors such as differential birth and migration rates, religious and linguistic conversion or changes in state boundaries.16 The RSS subsequently justified the demolition precisely on the grounds of majority backlash (Document 29):
The confidence-trick sought to be played by the Central Government with the Hindu leaders, the unconscionable delay of the Allahabad High Court in coming out with its decision, the no-holds-barred vicious propaganda barrage unleashed against the movement by the anti - Hindutva forces led by the Government, the Communists, the pseudo-secular journalists and political groups-all this had provoked the Hindu outburst on 6 December. Although unexpected and never planned by the organisers of kar seva, nevertheless it resulted in the removal of the disputed structure- that blot of foreign slavery on that holy spot.
(why were the Jews, Zoroastrians and Bahais not included among the non-Indian religionists, except that the real aim is to target two religions, Islam and Christianity, which are perceived as adversaries by the advocates of hindutva?)19 Hans Bakker, writing in June 1991, called Ayodhya the Hindu Jerusalem and itemized four tendencies which might ensure that communal conflict becomes transformed into Hindu-led holy war in India:20
1) the formation of an exclusive community of Hindus who share the desire for a common good; 2) a shift in religious emphasis towards a single, personal, God, Rma; 3) a tendency to see Islam and its adherents as agents of evil (which may be described as demonization of the enemy); 4) the regarding of Hindus who perish during conflicts with Muslims as victims of the common weal.
a book Religious Demography in India by A. P. Joshi, M. D. Srinivas and J. K. Bajaj. The book has been published by the state-funded Indian Council of Social Sciences Research along with the Centre for Policy Studies. Advani and the other speakers on the occasion noted that the book made a distinction between Indian and non-Indian religions. It talked of Indian Religionists as a category that included Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains. Muslims and Christians, obviously, were the Non-Indian Religionists. This is Hindutva at its most horrendous. It is the premise of the parivar politics that Hindus and others who can be assimilated into the Hindu fold are primary citizens. The rest are relegated to the status of non-Indians and should be given second-class citizenship There is nothing startlingly new, of course, about this bogey of religious demography raised by the Bharatiya Janata Party and the rest of the parivar. They have always talked of the fear of being swamped by [the] Muslim and other minority populations which are said to be growing unchecked. They conveniently ignore [the fact] that the Muslims have remained a minority despite centuries of Muslim rule and that Christians form only about two per cent of the population despite British colonial rule. <www.groups.yahoo.com/group/indiathinkersnet/message/ 3230> Syed Shahabuddin, Religious demography of India analyzed. Muslims and Christians constitute security risks for Sangh Parivar, The Milli Gazette, 1630 Sept. 2003, p. 12. Hans Bakker, Ayodhy: a Hindu Jerusalem. An investigation of Holy War as a religious idea in the light of communal unrest in India, Numen, 38 (1991), 102.
Several of the elements identified by Theodore P Wright Jnr have been perceived by other commentators of the hindutva phenomenon since 1990. It explains both the propaganda against high birth rates and alleged immigration rates among the Muslim community in India, the immigration coming for the most part from Bangladesh. It also assists in understanding the otherwise inexplicably flawed analytical framework underlying the religious demography of India project published by the Centre for Policy Studies, Chennai with government finance from the Ministry of Human Resources.17 L K Advani, no less, wrote the introduction for the volume and presided at its press launch. Not only was his speech deeply political;18the methodology of the research project was flawed
16 17 18 Ibid. 179. A. P. Joshi, M. D. Srinivas, J. K. Bajaj, Religious Demography of India (Centre for Policy Studies, Chennai, 2003). J Sri Raman,Non-Indian minorities, The Daily Times, 29 April 2003: At a public function in New Delhi on April 20, Indias deputy prime minister declared that religious demography was of paramount importance for the integrity of our borders and peace, harmony and public order within the country. Elaborating this point he said, Politicians should not shy away from (the issue of) demographic changes in India such as in the North-East. The region is of particular significance for the parivar because of the large number of Christians and its proximity to Bangladesh He was attending the launch of
19 20
15
16
Prior to the demolition of the Babri Masjid there was indeed talk among the Sangh Parivar of a dharma yudha or holy war if their objectives were not met.21 Already by October 1985 there was a threat of massive agitation by religious leaders of the country if the birthplace of Lord Rama was not returned to their community by 8 March 1986 (Document 2). The Hindu campaigners for the temple claimed an upsurge in Hindu support after 1984, with 500,000 pledges for the temple campaign from devotees received on 5 April 1987 (Document 8). If the 2.77 acres of disputed land had been handed over to the Hindu community at any stage before 4 December 1992, they claimed, the mishap of the demolition could have been avoided. In any case, so the Hindu campaigners argued, symbols of Mughal aggression should have been removed after Independence (Document 22). However, as retired Justice Suresh noted, between 1948 and 1989 the dispute was confined [to only] a few individuals in Ayodhya. It was only in 1989 that the BJP hijacked the dispute and enlarged it for political gain (Document 31).22 The claim that the mosque was built on the site of a temple had been made as far back at least as 1889 (Document 4), and received some hearsay substantiation in 1937 on a brief private visit (Document 26). But it was not until the night of 2223 December 1949 that Hindu idols were surreptitiously and unlawfully introduced (the Muslim viewpoint: Document 14) or that the place was once again sanctified by the installation of the idol of Shri Rama (the Hindu viewpoint: Document 8). Both Nehru and Patel became alarmed at what risked becoming a rapid deteriorating in relations between the communities in the state (Document 49), but in the event a protracted legal dispute resulted (Document 15).
21 22
Ram Puniyani, The Babri MasjidRam Janambhoomi dispute: Abode of Ram or House of Allah?, in Puniyani, Communal Politics: .acts versus Myths (New Delhi: Sage, 2003), 141. Vajpayee claimed in effect that if the BJP had not done so, the Government would have done it instead: Document 7. Suresh confirms this: thereafter [i.e. after 1989] it was a race between the Congress and the BJP, not for solving the dispute, but to keep it alive (Document 31).
In reality, the dispute between the parties over a preceding Hindu temple on the site of the mosque admitted only one out of seven possibilities as the outcome: 1) acceptance of the unverified assertion that the temple had pre-existed the mosque (since the day Babar, the Mughal aggressor, first demolished the temple in 15[2]8 and put up a mosque at the hallowed spot of Shri Rama Janmabhumi, the birth-site of Shri Rama in Ayodhya, its liberation and restoration has been a constant point of struggle in vindication of national honour: Document 8); 2) acceptance of the temple after an attempt to prove that the temple pre-existed the mosque, and its exact location, from extant manuscript evidence (this could not be sustained from the Sanskrit evidence, because the texts were silent on the question of the site: Document 35); 3) acceptance of the temple after an attempt to prove that the temple pre-existed the mosque, and its exact location, from the archaeological evidence (this was asserted by the BJP, on the basis of the Archaeological Survey of the Ramayan sites carried out by Dr. B. B. Lal,23 at the instance of the then Education Minister, Shri Nurul Hasan, had reported the existence of brick bases of the pillars which once belonged to an 11th Century Hindu temple: Document 21. But Lal had notoriously changed his mind, perhaps under BJP influence, and it is doubtful if archaeological surveys can ever provide such precise information). The (suspect) architectural report of 2003 has been rejected by the Muslim side (Document 53);24 4) a pronouncement on the inadmissibility of such an enquiry since a possible (but unproven) temple destruction nearly five centuries ago cannot be remedied by the destruction of a mosque in 1992. According to this principle, the mosque should simply be rebuilt on the site to which the Muslims had a legal title (Document 24), and a new
23 Lals exploratory study was as early as 19556, and was then repeated 20 years later in 19756 and reported in 19767: D. Mandal, Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition (Delhi: Longman Orient, 1993, repr. 1994), 1, 3. As early as 1997 there had been calls for objectivity in the excavations: Document 37.
24
17
18
temple complex for Lord Rama established elsewhere in Ayodhya. However, in 1996 the government undertook to rebuild the mosque at the same spot, but only provided that the Supreme Court gave its opinion that there was no temple prior to the disputed structure (Documents 33, 34). Moreover, in all the plans for a negotiated settlement, it has been assumed that the Muslims would move the site for a reconstructed mosque, preferably as far away as possible from the holy atmosphere of Lord Ramas birthplace (Document 25);25 5) entrust the adjudication of the issue to the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court (in order to obtain a legal cover and a judicial fig-leaf to incorporate the Masjid site in the Mandir plan, the Government subsequently acquired the Babari Masjid site and made a Reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution on a specious historical question of pure fact which has no legal consequence: Document 27). However, it is by no means clear that the Hindu extreme Right Wing would accept the decision of the courts on a matter considered to be an article of faith;26 in any case the pillars for the new temple were well under construction by 1998 (Document 40), while by March 2001 there was a firm commitment to build the temple (Document 46). 6) entrust the adjudication of the issue to the Liberhan Commission (a Commission headed by Justice Shri Manmohan Singh Liberhan was set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, on 16 December 1992 to inquire, inter alia, into the sequence of events leading to, and all the facts and circumstances relating to the occurrences in the RJB-BM complex at Ayodhya on 6 December 1992. The inquiry is in progress: Document 28); 7) encourage, whether by arbitration or otherwise, the two parties to reach a compromise agreement as settlement of
25 In May 2003, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad asserted that it would not allow any masjid to be constructed within the panch koshi parikrama (approximately five km radius) of Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya: <www.keralanext.com/news/index.asp?id=11321> <www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp? art_id=13882539&sType=1>
the dispute. Before the demolition, there had been some prospect of this, since it was one of the two preferred options of the government in 1992 (exploring a solution in the larger national interest: Document 18). After the demolition of the mosque, it was obviously much more difficult to reach a settlement, though the government still considered this a possibility in December 1994 (Document 30). It was always clear, however, that the Hindu hardliners would have the upper hand in the negotiations since they were in possession of the site, and might simply insist that the Muslims forego their claims (Documents 38, 44). This suspicion was fulfilled when, in January 2001, Prime Minister Vajpayee shifted his position and suggested that the Muslim community be given an alternative site for their mosque (Document 45). In April 2003, however, the BJP President suggested that, in return for giving up their claim to the Ayodhya site, goodwill would be generated which would also end the chapter of disputes all over the country (Document 50). In July 2003 a possible compromise was ruled out on the Muslim side,27 while in August the Muslims also rejected the Archaeological Survey of Indias Report on the grounds that it makes irresponsible speculations about what may lie at lower depths in the excavated area which it has not [actually] excavated while it disregards the material evidence of continuous Muslim habitation in the area since the 12th Century (Document 51). Underlying the Ayodhya dispute lies the question of what sort of Indian polity people actually want. The question had been posed by the All-India Catholic Union shortly after the demolition of the mosque (Document 23). Abir Padhy commented in December 1996 (Document 36):
6 December 1992 saw the barbaric dance of Hindu .ascist organizations over the ruins of the Babari Masjid, while the state, like an accomplice watched and waited for the destruction to be complete. What followed were some of the most violent and widespread riots ever witnessed in the country since Partition in 1947 in well every two hundred places, in 15 out of our 25 states, killing thousands of people.
27 On 6 July 2003, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) rejected a compromise suggested by Shankeracharya Jayendra Saraswati to resolve the issue.
26
19
20
The recent twelve years will go down in history as the period when communalism took a new and ugly turn The riot became more and more planned and more barbaric, often ending as carnages directed against the minority communities. The Hindu communal organizations grew in strength and influence. The state became increasingly linked to Hindu communalism. Its machinery, especially the police, the paramilitary, the executive and often even the press, playing a covert or overt role
The Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee (BMMCC) issued an open letter to all secular parties, forces and personalities on 21 April 1993, arguing that Indian secularism demands a united public stand in favour of [the] reconstruction of [the] Babari Masjid (Document 24):
The BMMCC is convinced that the Babari Masjid question has today become the touchstone both for constitutionalism and secularism and the secular forces are duty-bound to take a clear stand on the question. The reconstruction of the Babari Masjid is a constitutional, legal, moral and political imperative.
Hindutva the ruling [BJP]s frequently used ontologically and culturally assertive term for Hinduness does not so much promote religion as it does material success for the followers of the Hindu religion. Success, in the 1990s, has been its keyword, but success for the majority only; it will not barter or share it with anyone else; it will even pretend that no one else exists; if they do, it will see to it that they cease to. I presume that it is not a coincidence that the extreme measures of ethnic cleansing in Gujarat should be undertaken by those who have been the most effective proponents of the new Hinduisms mantra of material well-being Ironically, saffron is the colour of our mainstream. Saffron, or gerua in the Indian languages: its resonances are wholly to do with that powerful undercurrent in Hinduism, vairagya, the melancholy and romantic possibility of renunciation. At what point, and how, did the colour of renunciation, and withdrawal from the world, become the symbol of a militant, and materialistic, majoritarianism? Gerua represents not what is brahminical and conservative, but what is most radical about the Hindu religion; it is the colour not of belonging, or fitting in, but of exile, of the marginal man. Hindutva, while rewriting our secular histories, has also rewritten the language of Hinduism, and purged it of these meanings; and those of us who mourn the passing of secularism must also believe we are witnessing the passing, and demise, of the Hindu religion as we have known it [Neither Ramakrishna nor Vivekananda could have foreseen that the religion they helped revive] would become, in essence, a globalized urban faith, in Delhi and Bombay, London and New York, divorced from the vernacular experience that Ramakrishna represented. The followers of the post-modern Hindutva still ritually, and piously, celebrate Vivekananda, but, a hundred years after his death, no longer exult in conscience or discernment.
In the year 2003 that call made ten years earlier remains to be answered. Instead, the electorate seems to face a choice between soft Hindutva and the hard-line version. .or Romila Thapar, writing in 1991, some religious movements have merely been a mask for social and political concerns. .or her,28
the movement which has grown around the demand for the replacement of the Babri Masjid by a temple to Ram has been of the latter kind. It has not only politicized the worship of Ram, but has equally unfortunately denied the validity of variant versions of the story of Ram.
Amit Chaudhuri, writing eleven years later, talks of the suborning of saffron and analyzes how Hinduism became a rich mans religion:29
28 29 R. Thapar, 'A historical perspective on the story of Ram, reprinted in Thapar, Cultural Pasts. Essays in Early Indian History (Delhi: OUP, 2000), 1075. Amit Chaudhuri, The Suborning of Saffron, Times Literary Supplement, 31 May 2002, 1415.
It remains only to introduce our three papers that form this composite volume. Jan-Peter Hartungs paper looks at the history of the Ayodhya dispute and in particular focuses on the Muslim reaction to this. He examines how the Muslims inability to find a unified voice has damaged their cause in
21
the aftermath of the destruction of the mosque. He also deals with the rise of communalism which preceded and followed the destruction. His paper takes the reader up to 1993 and he discusses the immediate aftermath of the destruction, with particular focus on the Muslim communitys reaction to this and their efforts to find a unified voice. He also traces the rise of the Hindu fundamentalists and their attempts to have a temple built on the site. Anuradha Bhattacharjees paper examines how Ayodhya and its aftermath was covered in a selected group of .rench newspapers (Le Monde, Le .igaro, La Croix Lvnement and La Libration). The author analyzes the way in which India and the Ayodhya incident in particular were represented at the time and deals with sensationalism and factual inaccuracies. Together these give a poor impression of India and provided the .rench public with a biased and prejudiced view of life in India. The author also reflects on the political background which made Ayodhya possible and how the rise of communalism was reported internationally. Gillian Hawkes paper focuses on the archaeological evidence from Ayodhya and examines the evidence provided in the immediate aftermath and the more recent excavations in the light of archaeological methodologies. The author also provides an analysis of the interaction between archaeology and politics and how archaeology has been abused to satisfy nationalist claims. The paper also highlights the problems of identity in the past and how this identity is interpreted and misused in the present. The author presents a discussion of the archaeological evidence and the nature thereof and combines it with a theoretical analysis of the nature of identity and the interplay between archaeology and nationalist politics. This book is dedicated to all those who campaign for justice, freedom and harmonious community relations in India and who wish to see the vision of Dr Ambedkar and the other Indian Constitution-makers survive the challenges of the twenty-first century. Professor Richard Bonney Leicester, September 2003
The Land, the Mosque, the Temple More than 145 Years of Dispute over Ayodhya
Jan-Peter Hartung
*
When on the 27 .ebruary 2002 the Sabarmati Express at the train station of Godhra in the Indian state of Gujarat was assaulted and set on fire, and when, as a result of this, the whole state of Gujarat was overturned with the most severe riots in India in nearly 10 years, the world community became reacquainted with an issue long since forgotten outside India: the so-called Babri MasjidRamjanmabhumi, or Ayodhya conflict. 1. Prelude to the Conflict: The Construction of Communalism The Ayodhya conflict is a dispute over sacred space between the two largest religious communities in South Asia, the Hindus and the Muslims. It is, moreover, tightly bound to colonial thinking and politics in nineteenth-century British India, and thus nowadays an inseparable part of
* Jan Peter Hartnung carried out his doctoral thesis at Erfurt University, Germany on the Life Works of Sayyid Ab l-Hasan Al Nadw. He has published on Islamist theories especially related to South Asia, Muslim scholarship in South Asia and their transnational relations in the 18th and 20th centuries, Orientalism and South Asian Sufism. His current research focuses on the transmission of the rationalist tradition of the religious sciences in Islam from Iran to North India and its institutionalization in the School of Khayrabad/Awadh (17th19th century).
The Land, the Mosque, the Temple
23
24
Jan-Peter Hartung
what Breckenridge and van der Veer have named the 1 postcolonial predicament. Taking these two points together, the Ayodhya conflict is the paradigmatic embodiment of a phenomenon known as communalism: an ideology that perceives society entirely as divided into distinct religious communities with nothing in common. Although authors like Christopher Bayly, Kenneth Jones, and others presume that tendencies towards such thinking were already present in precolonial times, whether seen as an unfolding of patriotism or as a continuation of socio 2 religious protest movements, the proper creation of communalism was nevertheless linked to an analysis of structures immanent in Indian society and their standardization by the British colonial administration in order to set up an adequate pattern of governance. Since these colonial projections were largely absorbed into the thinking of newly emerging functional elites among the indigenous population, the communalist paradigm became heavily politicized in the course of decolonialization and found its most pithy expression in the socalled Two Nations Theory by Muhammad Iqbal in 1930 and adopted by the AllIndia Muslim League. An independent India, it was argued, would be essentially a country dominated by the religious interests of the Hindu majority, and it became therefore a necessity for the Muslims of South Asia to have their separate post independence nationstate. After the tragic events that accompanied the partition of India in 1947 and the creation of Pakistan as the state of Indian Muslims, the vision of the first prime minister of the Indian Union and leader of the National Congress Party, Jawaharlal Nehru, that India should become a secular democracy, seems from the very beginning to have fallen prey to communalist tendencies within Indian society.
1 2
Cf Carol Breckenridge, Peter van der Veer (eds.), Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament. Perspectives on South Asia (Philadelphia, 1993). Cf Christopher A. Bayly, Origins of Nationality in South Asia. Patriotism and Ethical Government in the Making of Modern India (New Delhi, 1998). Kenneth W. Jones, Socio-Religious Reform Movements in British India (Cambridge, 1989).
In an attempt to set up a counter-public sphere to the secularist inclination of the Mahatma Gandhis political vision 3 by embracing religious minority rights, and the National Congress Partys initial efforts to put this vision into practice, communalist forces started to organize themselves into increasingly radical organizations. Already in the early decades of the twentieth century three new platforms were set up to represent the communal interests of the principal religious communities: the already mentioned AllIndia Muslim League (AIML), the Shiromani Gurdvara Prabandhak Committee for the Sikhs, and, finally, the Akhilbharatiya Hindu Mahasabha for Hindus. Within the latter, the Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh (RSS), founded in 1925, deserves special attention being one of the most radical groups among Hindu communalists. The RSS was a significant mobilizing force in the events leading to the genocide of Muslims that followed partition in 1947, and it is suspected to have been behind the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. Hindu communalism gained greater currency in post independence India, confirming the earlier expectations of the AIML, that the Indian Union would exist politically to safeguard the interests of the Hindu religious majority, what would be transformed into Hindu nationalism. The bundling of Hindu nationalist forces of every colour would be achieved by the Sangh Parivar, an umbrella organisation, under which outfits like the RSS, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) which was founded in 1964, or the Shiv Sena which was founded in 1966 and primarily confined to the Indian state of Maharashtra, could coordinate their activities and work out strategies to reach different layers of society. One such strategy was the foundation of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS) in 1951, a political party under the aegis of the RSS, out of which todays ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) emerged in 1980. The rhetoric of this new political association included, besides a national political economy and the topos of justice versus corruption, more and more religious symbols as core strategies of political mobilization
3 On the problem of Gandhis understanding of secularism in the Indian context cf S. K. Chaube, Indian Secularism Place of Religion in Human Life', The Statesman (21 January 1997).
25
26
Jan-Peter Hartung
within the process of communalization of the political sphere, 4 as Thomas Blom Hansen puts it. Major symbols were sacred law and sacred space; the first was manifest in the debate on a Uniform Civil Code versus Muslim Personal Law which reached its highest peak so far in the socalled Shah Bano 5 case in 1985, the second sparked off by the mosque temple dispute and found its climax with the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in December 1992 by militant Hindu nationalist outfits. 2. History of the Ayodhya Conflict Much has been written since the culmination of the conflict in the early 1990s about the issue, which centres around the question whether the mosque in Ayodhya, erected in 1528 by order of the first Mughal emperor Babur, replaced 6 a Rama temple which was destroyed for this purpose. The consolidation of the opinion of Ayodhya as the historical birthplace of Rama, an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu, is provably a product of a colonial construction of the Orient in the nineteenth century. Even though Ayodhya has been mentioned in the Sanskrit epic of the Ramayana, it seems more likely that this is a topos to underline the 7 heroism of the epic Rama. The topos nevertheless seems to become politicized in the sixteenth century in the Ramcharitmanas, a popular poem of the Rama legend composed by Tulsidas. It was only about that time that Rama worship started in the town of Ayodhya, but became
4 5 Cf Thomas Blom Hansen, The Saffron Wave. Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India (New Delhi, 1999). On 23 April 1995, the Supreme Court of India passed a judgement with reference to paragraph 125, Criminal Procedure Code, that the husband of Shah Bano Begum, who divorced her under the valid Muslim Personal Law from 1937, had to pay maintenance to his divorced wife over the indicated period of the iddat almarratin. The judgement was justified by the Hindu judge with reference to Quran 2:241-2: according to the Muslim religious establishment, he was not entitled to interpret the primary source of sharia law. Most of the work done so far highlights the genesis and the radicalization of a communalist Hindu nationalism; the Muslim side has been very much underrepresented. The Sanskrit term ayodhya, deriving from the root yudh (to fight, to conquer), literally means the Invincible, the Impregnible.
6 7
a dominant feature of the place not before the eighteenth century, when a Rama worshipping Hindu minister of Safdar Jang, the Shiite nawwab of Awadh (reigned 174854), influenced the nawwab to make concessions to the Rama ascetics in Ayodhya in order to set back the so far dominant Shiva ascetics. The Ramanandis were backed further by the British colonial administration for their loyalty to the Raj during the uprising in 1857. The transformation of a debate so far confined to the Hindu communities into a HinduMuslim debate received its initial spark in the socalled Hanumangarhi affair in 1855, during the time when the Sunni majority among the Muslim population of Awadh started to rebel against the Shiite nawwabi administration. The Shiite brand of Islam was introduced to Awadh as the state religion only in the course of the emancipation of the vassals of the Mughal court from the political control of the Mughal emperor in the eighteenth century. The nawwab (lit: deputy, vassal) Asaf alDawla (reigned 1775-97) consciously used the religious element in the emancipatory process of state formation in Awadh. However, it remained the religion of the ruler who was thus able to prove his emancipation from the Sunni Muslim Mughal emperor, but it did not affect the beliefs and practices of the Sunni Muslim majority in the state to any 8 great extent. But, being themselves a religious minority in a predominantly Hindu environment, the Sunni Muslim communities of Awadh felt insufficiently protected by a ruler who did not share their religious creed. As a result, Sunni Muslim militancy increased in the middle of the nineteenth century against the nonMuslim majority and, thus, they put the nawwab to a severe test. A group of Sunni Muslims under Shah Ghulam Husayn (killed 1855) began to spread the theory that the Hanumangarhi temple complex in Ayodhya had been built on a site previously occupied by a mosque. The affair culminated in a militant encounter between Shah Ghulam Husayns followers and some thousand Ramanandis that ended in a
8 Cf Juan R. Cole, Roots of North Indian Shism in Iran and Iraq. Religion and State in Awadh, 1722-1859 (Berkeley, 1988), 36-66.
27
28
Jan-Peter Hartung
massacre of the Muslims who had fled into the Babri Masjid. This incident shifted the internal SunniShia tension among the Muslim communities of Awadh towards Muslim communal sentiments. In a second wave of violence, Amir Ali Amethawi (killed 1855) led his followers again towards the liberation of the Hanumangarhi site; this time the uproar was halted by the troops of the politically already weak nawwab with assistance of British forces. The Hanumangarhi affair of 1855 thus provided a fertile ground for growing communalist sentiments among Muslims as well as Hindus. Sacred space has been recognized as a remarkable symbol to demonstrate communal superiority as well as to mobilize for political purposes. The topos that mosques in South Asia have always been erected on the debris of sacral buildings of other religions was undermined by European Orientalist projections of Islam as an essentially martial religion versus the Hindu religion as an essentially tolerant and spiritually oriented religion. This finally led to a growing selfconfidence among Hindus and, in our case, to the occupation of a significant part of the Babri Masjid by the priest of the Hanumangarhi in 1857, setting up a raised platform for worship (chabutra) in the court and claiming the place to be the historical birthplace of Rama (ramjanmabhumi). This incident marked the beginning of the actual Babri Masjid Ramjanmabhumi dispute. What followed from the establishment of the chabutra up to the present might be described as flux and reflux of juridical and activist conflict. .or about one hundred years the issue was left to the courts, while the British colonial administration seems to have been more eager to maintain the status quo than to take sides with one of the two 9 conflicting parties. The next incident took place right after Indian independence, when on the morning of the 23 March 1949, two idols of Rama and his wife Sita were found under the middle dome of the mosque. What was perceived as a miracle and a definite proof of the legitimacy of the temple claim by Hindus seems to have a rather profane explanation because the miracle had been preceded by a nineday
9 Cf Uttar Pradesh State Archives Lucknow, Oudh General, .ile 2027/1863, Box 238.
long nonstop recitation of the Rama legend by the Akhil Bharatiya Ramayana Mahasabha just outside the mosque. However, the Indian government responded to the tension following this incident by declaring the mosque a disputed area and closed it down for both conflicting communities. Another three decades of juridical struggle followed, during which Hindu nationalist thought entered almost every strata 10 of Indian society and expressed itself clearly when the VHP in 1961 openly called for the demolition of the mosque. In 1984, a Committee to the Sacrifice for the Liberation of Ramas Birthplace (Shri Ramjanmabhumi Mukti Yagna Samiti) was founded and, finally in 1986, by a decision of the .ayzabad district court, the mosque reopened for Hindus only. .rom here it took only a short step to a secret agreement between the VHP and the independent Union Home Minister Buta Singh to erect a temple instead of the mosque in 1989 and the demolition of the mosque by RSS and Shiv Sena activists on the 6 December 1992. 3. The Problem of Advocacy: Parliamentary versus Non Parliamentary Representation The intelligentsia of the Indian Muslim community, whether belonging to the religious functional elites or to more secular segments of society, were aware of the dangers of the communal polarization of Indian society at quite an early stage. That was even more important because of the fact that Indian Muslims, unlike Muslims in Pakistan, lacked effective political representation within the parliamentary system after partition in 1947. This fact provided a fertile ground for Hindu communalist forces which managed step by step to enter party politics: already the Congress movement had, from a very early stage, been undermined by the Hindu communalist thoughts of certain leaders, such as Bipin Candra Pal (d 1932), Aurobindo Ghosh (d 1950),
10 Society is understood in the Weberian sense, as an institutionally differentiated rational form of social intercourse. It is distinct from community which, as in the case of religious communities, is based on a traditional or affectional communal spirit. This distinction has to be highlighted because it shows that Hindu nationalist thought was able to penetrate the entire Indian society without necessarily entering all the religious communities in India.
29
30
Jan-Peter Hartung
Bal Gangadhar Tilak (d 1920) and Lala Lajpat Rai (d 1928). This tendency within the Indian National Congress (INC) manifested itself after independence under Indias first Home Minister and Vice PrimeMinister Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel (d 1950): he championed the conservative and proHindu group in the INC in opposition to Nehrus socialist and secular 11 vision. Apart from this internal communalization of the INC, Ramesh Kumar detects a shift in the partys leadership, from the Nehruvian mass political party because it represents all sections of society [...], no particular 12 community, no particular class, no particular interest to a partimonial regime under Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv, to the gerontocracy of the Narasimha Rao government in 13 the mid1990s. Indira Gandhis increasing accumulation of power especially led to an ominous identification of the party with its leader and the partys fate relied totally on the abilities of its head. State and local Congress organisations that were breaking their links with the centre have been systematically undermined and destroyed. The suppression of opinions divergent from that of the leader, as well as a shift towards populism in the political rhetoric of the INC under Indira Gandhi, eventually opened the floor for alternative interpretations of governance: Hindu communalist organizations, e.g. the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha, constituted the political opposition to the respective INC governments and the BJS, finally, has been a major constituency of the Janata Party which broke the 14 INCs monopoly of rule between 1977 and 1979. On the Muslim side none of the existing political groups and movements managed to play a similar role within the parliamentary system of the Indian Union after independence. The AIML had been reorganized in 1948 in
11 Cf. Ramesh Kumar, Congress and Congressism in Indian Politics (New Delhi, 1994), 63-6. B. D. Graham, The Congress and Hindu Nationalism, in D. A. Low (ed.); The Indian National Congress. Centenary Hindsights (Delhi, 1988), 177-80. Ramesh Kumar, Congress and Congressism in Indian Politics, 93. Cf. ibid., 118, 126. Cf. Rajesh Kumar Paliwar, Janata Phase in Indian Politics (New Delhi, 1986), 45-65.
Madras under the leadership of Muhammad Ismail, but could develop only marginal activities in South India, since it was unequivocally associated with the demand of a 15 separate Muslim polity and the partition of the former Raj. Also the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), having emerged from the old AllIndia Muslim League, could not gain as much support from the Muslims of the Indian Union in order to represent Muslim interests as a political party in 16 parliament. .inally, the Jamaati islami (JiI), which in the following years became transformed into a political party in Pakistan, was not able to gain firm hold in India. It has, therefore, been forced to modify its strategy to such an extent that it no longer has much in common any more with its sister organisation in Pakistan, led by the founding 17 figure Mawlana Abu lAla Mawdudi (d. 1979). If anyone was perceived as politically representing the Indian Muslim community by its intelligentsia, and especially the religious functional elites among them, it was the Jamiyyati ulamai Hind (JUH). This body, founded in 1919 in the course of the Khilafat agitation, was by and large constituted from major factions of Deobandi Muslim 18 scholarship, and favoured during the movement for independence the idea of a nominal secular polity for India and thus became a major ally of the INC. But even the JUH was not able to represent the whole spectrum of views and interests within the Muslim communities in India; it, moreover, understood itself as a nonparliamentary body, but with political ambitions.
15 16 17
12 13 14
18
Cf. Z. M. Quraishi, Emergence and Eclipse of Muslim Majlise-Mushawarat, Economic and Political Weekly 7:25 (1971), 1229. Cf. T. P. Wright Jr., The Muslim League in South Asia since Independence: A Study of Minority Group Political Strategy, American Political Science Review, 60:3 (1966), 57-99. Cf. Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, The Vanguard of the Islamic Revolution. The Jamaati Islami of Pakistan (Berkeley, 1994), 28-43, et passim. M. S. Agwani, Islamic .undamentalism in India (Chandigarh, 1986), 64-72. So far, no monograph has been written on the JUH and it is, therefore, difficult to evaluate the real role and importance of this body as a political expression of Indian Muslims.
31
32
Jan-Peter Hartung
The lack of parliamentary representation of Indian Muslims is the reason that they used to vote en bloc for the INC, at least until the imposition of emergency in 1975 by Indira 19 Gandhi when Muslims lost confidence in the INC. But the growing communal polarization put the quest for public representation of Muslim interests back on the agenda. The failure of all attempts to establish some common advocacy of the diverse interests within the Muslim 20 communities in parliament led to the setting up of a number of nongovernmental bodies in order to face particular developments, comprising of what otherwise would be hostile factions within the Muslim communities of India. As early as 1964 the AllIndia Majlisi mushawwarat (AIMMM) was founded in Lucknow, when communal riots in Western Bengal and Uttar Pradesh called for effective political representation on a broad base. Its main constituencies were the remains of the AIML, the IUML, the JiI, the JUH, and different Muslim individuals close to the INC. According to his memoirs, Mawlana Sayyid Abu lHasan Ali Nadwi (d. 1999), internationally renowned head of the National Council of Sunni Muslim scholars (Nadwat alulama), was a driving force behind the constitution of the AIMMM: Dr Sayyid Mahmud (d. 1972) gave birth to the idea to fill in the vacuum of moral leadership within this nation, for which (according to the teachings of the Quran and the example 21 of the prophet) Muslims are predestined. Nadwi, and his
19 Cf. V. Graff, The Muslim Vote in the Indian General Elections of Devember 1984, in Paul Brass, .rancis Robinson (eds.), The Indian National Congress and Indian Society, 1885-1985. Ideology, Social Structure and Political Dominance (Delhi, 1987), 439. The fact that the IUML holds a few seats in the National Assembly, and other minor groups are present in some of the State Assemblies, cannot hide the fact that their influence on Indian politics is rather marginal. Abu lHasan Ali Nadwi, Karwan-i zindagi, (Lakhnau, 1997), 504. In fact, Dr Sayyid Mahmud himself was an old committed Congressman who became disillusioned with the state of Muslim protection under the INC after partition. He, most probably, got the initial spark for the establishment of the AIMMM from the riots in Jabalpur in 1961 and in Jamshedpur in 1964, when many Muslims lost their lives. Cf V. N. Datta, B. E. Cleghorn (eds), A Nationalist Muslim and Indian Politics, being the Selected Correspondence of the late Dr Syed Mahmud (Delhi, 1974).
20
21
close associate Mawlana Muhammad Manzur Numani (d. 1997), used their personal contacts with representatives of the JUH and the JiI to call in the constitutive assembly. The AIMMM made its foremost aims explicit: to overcome the traumatic experience of the partition in 1947 and to integrate all parts of society into the Indian Union. However, the demands that it simultaneously announced, unveil an inconsistency and disunity that has been a vivid expression of the conflicting and sometimes even antagonistic positions and interests of all the different factions within the AIMMM. The JiI, for example, was, in adherence with aspects of its fundamental ideology, strictly against every intention to take part in elections as only one pressure group among others. Moreover, the traditional rivalry between the AIML and the INC continued within the AIMMM and led finally to a withdrawal of the INCassociated JUH. As a result of these inner conflicts the AIMMM unsuccessfully participated in the 1967 Assembly Elections in seven states, while the leaders of the body confined its activities to the support of single Muslim candidates from the established parties. The Uttar Pradesh branch of the AIMMM transformed itself, under the charismatic leadership of Dr Abd alJalil .aridi (d. 1974), into a proper political party that managed in the 1969 State Assembly Elections to gain two seats in the U.P. State Assembly. After this split the remnants of the AIMMM under the leadership of the Deobandi mufti Atiq alRahman Uthmani (d 1984) adopted new statutes which defined the body as a rather loose association of different Muslim organizations with no intention at all to take part in parliamentary politics. Another attempt to organize different factions of the Muslim communities in postindependence India for joint action was the foundation of the AllIndia Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) in December 1972 in Bombay. This body gained its initial spark with the radicalization and agitation of Hindu communalism as well as certain secularist forces calling for the abolition of the religious personal laws and, instead, the adoption of a Uniform Civil Code. These developments have been perceived by Muslim intellectual elites as a severe threat to IndoMuslim identity and as a violation of the constitutional article of the freedom
33
34
Jan-Peter Hartung
individually to profess any religious faith. Driving forces in the establishment of the AIMPLB were the Muslim jurists from the Imarati shariyya, an Islamic law academy in Phulwari Sharif near Patna in the state of Bihar, the scholars from the renowned Dar alulum seminary in Deoband, and, again, Abu lHasan Ali Nadwi and Muhammad Manzur Numani. With Nadwis election as the second president of 22 the body in December 1983 the most active period began in the history of the AIMPLB that revolved around the Shah Bano case in 1985. The perception of this court case, however, led to an open split within the Muslim community in the Indian Union and the different and irreconcilable positions among the IndoMuslim intelligentsia, which had so far been only latent, became obvious and also became proof of the fact that the AIMPLB was not regarded as a proper representative of the majority of public opinion among the Indian Muslims. Even though the AIMPLB emphasized the violation of constitutional rights by this court decision and showed that they were willing to argue 23 on the basis of the secular constitution of the Indian Union, its point of view was flatly refused by those factions among the Muslim intellectual lites that subordinated their religious 24 identity to their national identity. A third approach to the organization of Muslim intellectual and political elites in order publicly to express IndoMuslim interests is, again, inseparably connected with the personality of Nadwi, who appeared as a key figure in the attempts to integrate different factions of the Indian Muslim
22 23 24 As the president of the AIMPLB, Nadwi was preceded by Mawlana Qari Muhammad Tayyib (d 1983), the former head of the Dar alulum in Deoband. Cf. AIMPLB: Resolution on the Supreme Court Judgement in Shah Bano Case, Muslim India 3:30 (1985), 259, 276. The open split within the Indian Muslim community led to the establishment of different bodies publically to represent a point of view opposite to that of the AIMPLB and its allies. Examples of such bodies were the Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal (MSM), established in March 1970, the Islamic Shariat Board, established in January 1986 by a number of secular Muslim jurists, and different womens groups. Cf. H. A. Gani, Reforms of Muslim Personal Law. The Shah Bano Controversy and the Muslim Women (Protection of Right of Divorce) Act, 1986 (New Delhi, 1988), 85-119.
communities into a united block within the Indian Union. In opposition to the AIMMM and AIMPLB, that aimed for a joint expression of Muslim interests against primarily Hindu communalist tendencies in Indian society, the forum Payam i insaniyyat, founded in 1974 in Allahabad under the aegis of Nadwi, and focussed on dialogue with different confessional as well as political groups in India in order to overcome the growing communal polarization of the Indian society. The movement used to organize public gatherings, socalled conventions, on a rather local level in order to propagate communal harmony. The success of Payami insaniyyat was, however, limited owing to several reasons. One such reason was that this initiative originated from Muslim circles closely associated with the nowadays transnationally active missionary movement Tablighi Jamaat. Its recruiting strategy, as well as its modes of action, as evident in leaflets and small booklets circulated by Payami insaniyyat, resembles 25 very much these strategies of the Tablighi Jamaat. Thus, the involvement of Muslim leaders in this respect must appear to nonMuslims as an attempt to convince them that the Muslim umma, as recipient of Gods final and most perfect 26 revelation, is indeed the best of all communities, destined for the moral and political guidance of mankind. A second reason for the movements lack of success might be found in the limitation of the activities of the Payami insaniyyat to a local level, mainly to Uttar Pradesh. Although there are offices in other Indian states as well, most notably in Maharashtra, it cannot be denied that the impact of Payam i insaniyyat on shaping a noncommunalist public consciousness was rather marginal. With the demise of the charismatic Nadwi and the passing on of his leadership to the Deobandi scholar Mawlana Abd alKarim Parekh of Nagpur, 27 who himself was a close associate of the late Nadwi, the public impact of the movement became even smaller.
25 26 27 Cf. e.g. Ishaq Jalis Nadwi, Mawlana Sayyid Abu lHasan Ali Nadwi sahib se tahrik Payam-i insaniyyat ke bare men ek ahm intarwiyu (Lakhnau, n.d.), 21-4. Cf. al-Quran, Al Imran 110. Cf. Murshidi ruhani, muslihi ummat Hadrat Mawlana Sayyid Abu lHasan Ali Nadwi, urf Ali Miyan sahib, ke khutut mufassar-i quran Hadrat Mawlana Abd alKarim Parekh sahib ke nam (Dehli, 1999).
35
36
Jan-Peter Hartung
All of the three attempts to organize Muslim leadership that have been outlined, e.g. the AIMMM, the AIMPLB, and the movement Payami insaniyyat, cannot be seen as separate from a joint effort of the Muslim communities in India to unite in view of the menace to their cultural identity which was equally perceived as a violation of the secular basis of the Indian Constitution by Hindu nationalist forces. Therefore, these efforts of Muslim leadership have to be seen within the framework of the constitutional principles of equality and freedom of religion. Both were perceived to be threatened by the administration of Indira Gandhi as early as 1972 to persuade Muslim elites to adopt a Uniform Civil Code and thus to abjure their Muslim Personal Law. .or example, Indira Gandhis second legislative period from 1979 until her assassination in 1984 brought Nadwi, as the then president of the AIMPLB, to the understanding that the INC was on its way to discharging the main values that had made up the foundations of Indian national identity, for which the INC once stood. This latent communalism of the Congress Party made it possible for the Hindu nationalist movements in the Sangh Parivar to work out strategies for a cultural and political genocide on Muslims, in the result of which Muslims would not any more persist as a culturally distinct 28 community within this society. One strategy that Muslim leaders were quite aware of was the conversion of historic mosques as symbols of Muslim cultural identity into temples which was not prevented, and many have been encouraged by the central and local governments. .or example, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi provided assurance to Nadwi and other leading Muslim personalities during talks in .ebruary 1986 to take a strong vote for the Muslims in the Babri Masjid dispute, which almost coincided with the reopening of the mosque only to Hindus. The AIMPLB reacted with disbelief, but at the same time pleaded with the Muslim community to act with restraint and not in anger, to pray to Allah for the liberation of the Masjid and to undertake organized defence 29 of their rights over this mosque.
28 29 Nadwi, Karwan-i zindagi, iii, 81. All India Muslim Personal Law Board: Resolution on Opening of the Babari Masjid to Hindu Community, 2 .ebruary 1986, Muslim India 4:39 (1986), 111.
The series of shortlived and weak central governments, following the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1990, finally opened the floor to the triumph of open communal politics. The newly founded BJP increasingly used in its electoral propaganda communalist symbols; under the presidency of the current Union Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani (b. 1925) the Babri Masjid issue became crucial from 1989 onwards and thus was transformed from what had so far been a regional controversy into a national question. The ideal of an unified, strong and selfconfident Hindu nation shifted into focus, and was symbolized in Advanis rath yatra in September 1990, when he led a campaign towards Ayodhya in an open Toyota jeep as an allegory of the epic battles of the Ramayana and Mahabharata, the march of good and righteous Hindus against evil and demonic powers. The BJP government in the State of Uttar Pradesh during 19912 finally provided the political framework for the demolition of the mosque in 1992, which has been perceived in Sangh Parivar circles as the victory of hindutva 30 Hinduness.
30 There are a number of general theories to explain the rise of communal politics in India in recent years. Some of the dominant ones ought to be mentioned here: Stuart Corbridge and John Harriss advocate the idea that the liberalization of the economy especially since 1991 has aggravated religious tensions, because the disparities between rich middle class and poor have become more obvious, and ostentatious display of western consumer goods, etc. perhaps encourages people to cling to traditional religious identities:(cf. Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu Nationalism and Popular Democracy (Cambridge, 2000). Another approach argues that there are links between global capital and Hindutva: (cf. Baldev Raj Nayar, Globalization and Nationalism: the Changing Balance in Indias Economic Policy, 1950-2000, New Delhi, 2001; Thomas Blom Hansen, The ethics of Hindutva and the Spirit of Capitalism, in Thomas Blom Hansen, Christophe Jaffrelot (eds.), The BJP and the Compulsions of Politics in India (New Delhi, 1998), 291-314. Besides these two, there is a highly controversial argument that secularism does not suit the Indian environment because it is fundamentally a western import: (cf. T. N. Madan, Secularism in its Place, The Journal of Asian Studies 46:4 (1987), 747-59; Ashis Nandy, The Politics of Secularism and the Recovery of Religious Tolerance, Veena Das (ed), Mirrors of Violence: Communities, Riots and Survivors in South Asia (Delhi, 1990), 69-93. A very good
37
38
Jan-Peter Hartung
However, the controversy over the site, now officially named disputed site, was by no means ended. The United .ront governments between 1992 and 1998 resembled the British in the second half of the nineteenth century, in their eagerness to maintain a status quo rather than take sides by making a decision. Even the BJP, winning the national elections in March 1998 and entering into the central government, found itself caught within the dilemma of taking up government responsibility and maintaining the strong communalist position it had while being the political opposition. Moreover, Hindu nationalist organizations such as the VHP or the RSS were surprised to have been allowed by the political establishment to go as far as to demolish the mosque without facing lasting consequences, and for the first time since 1992 some uncertainty ran through the Sangh Parivar. .inally, national Muslim alliances, like the AIMPLB or the Babri Masjid Movement Coordination Committee (BMMCC), already founded in .ebruary 1986 on the initiative of the then member of parliament Sayyid Shahab alDin (b. 1935) and under the auspices of the AIMMM, succeeded in launching effective public campaigns and thus, for other reasons as well, managed to at least maintain a status quo and to bring the issue before the court again. The same year the Lakhnawi advocate Zafar Yab Jilani called in the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC), originally a regionally confined body meeting on an adhocbasis which in the meantime had become a national platform as well.
4. Seeking TransNational Solidarity The developments, from the opening of the Babri Masjid solely for Hindus in 1986 to its demolition in 1992, have been carefully watched by Muslim communities abroad. Transnational bodies, like the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), or the Mekkabased Muslim World 31 League, the Rabitat alalam alislami (RAI), were quickly alerted to the threatening developments in India. The acting secretarygeneral of the RAI at that time, Dr Abdallah b. Umar Nasif (b. 1939), immediately sent a note of protest to the Indian government on the occasion of the mosques reopening and demanded appropriate steps to end the communalization of Indian society which had often led in 32 the past to the outbreak of violence. .ollowing this, the periodicals of the RAI frequently reported on the communal situation in India. This attention, however, was not by chance. Leading personalities of the Indian Muslim intellectual lite have been involved in the establishment of transnational platforms for Muslims in the wake of all sorts of difficulties they were facing in the decolonialized world from a very early stage. Pioneers in this regard were, once more, the scholars from the Nadwat alulama of Lucknow, above all Abu lHasan Ali Nadwi. He managed to develop and to maintain relations with different, sometimes even conflicting, groups and personalities in the Arab speaking world, in which his good command of the Arabic language, as well as his pious and humble public appearance, helped him to
31 The RAI has been founded in Mekka in 1962 as an attempt to organize different Muslim organisations and selected brands of Muslim scholarship worldwide under the aegis of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the OIC has been founded in 1970 as a permanent umbrella organization comprising not only the religious, but also the political and economic elites of Muslim countries. Although Saudi Arabia could secure itself an important vote in the OIC, it was unable to maintain its hegemonic ambitions. Cf. Reinhard Schulze, Islamischer Internationalismus im 20. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Islamischen Weltliga (Leiden, 1990), 266-75. Cf. al-Rabita tastankiru tadakhkhul alhukuma lhindiyya fi lahwal alshakhsiyya lilmuslimin alhunud, Akhbar al alam alislami 964 (1406/1986), 3.
reply to these arguments is: Achin Vanaik, The .uries of Indian Communalism: Religion, Modernity and Secularization (London, 1997). .inally, there are theories which suggest that the rise of the Hindu right, like caste politics, is actually a sign of the health and strength of Indias democracy, basically because ordinary people are actually choosing leaders on the basis of what appeals to them rather than being led by western educated elites: (cf. e.g. Amrita Basu, The Dialectics of Hindu Nationalism, Atul Kohli (ed.), The Success of Indias Democracy (Cambridge, 2001), 163-89. (The author is very much indebted to Yasmin Khan, University of Oxford, for focusing my attention on these different theories.)
32
39
40
Jan-Peter Hartung
gain high esteem among the Arabs. Thus, he became a major representative of the Indian Muslim intellectual elites within the transnational framework, institutionalized by his membership in the Constitutive Assembly of the RAI 33 and some of its subordinated bodies. Being subject to changing political constellations on the transnational tableau he sometimes seemed to have been unable to see through all the implications of certain decisions made by the leaders of the RAI, and it seems as if it was because of this that he, in his last few years, became marginalized within this body. He, nevertheless, remained a highly respected member of these transnational committees and thus he was among the foremost of the Indian Muslim leaders to be able to bring local issues to the awareness of the transnational Muslim community. Besides scholars from the institutional framework of the Nadwat alulama, which seems to have served as an unofficial outpost of the RAI 34 in India at least during Nadwis lifetime, representatives of the Jamaati islami Hind, were above all standing in for Indian Muslims within the RAI. To Nadwi and other IndoMuslim religious scholars, the Babri Masjid issue and the communal situation in India in general was neither primarily political in its nature, nor regionally confined; in the first place they were religious and aimed at a disintegration of the Muslim umma as a whole, just as other issues of that time were, like the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, or the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. .or a religion that claims universal validity, a threat to one of its parts must necessarily be perceived as a threat to the whole; thus, in the religious and political rhetoric of Muslim intellectual lites, a regional issue such as the Babri MasjidRamjanmabhumi dispute has to be reimagined as a global issue. To achieve wider attention, leading
33 On Nadwis role within this context cf. JanPeter Hartung, Ulama of Contemporary South Asia. Globalizing the Local by Localizing the Global, in Daniela Bredi (ed.), Venuti per restare: i musulmani in Asia meridionale, Roma, forthcoming. It has, however, to be mentioned that the RAI never opened an official office in India. There are various reasons for this but, due to the obvious limitations this paper is subjected to, they cannot be explained here.
representatives of the Indian Muslims activated their trans national networks to sensitize the Muslim intelligentsia worldwide to the Babri Masjid issue. .rom the Jamiyya Salafiyya in Benares, for instance, the intellectual headquarter of the Ahli hadith in India, an Arabic work has been published on the matter and circulated among Saudi Arabian scholars. Parts of this work of Dr Muqtada Hasan alAzhari, entitled Mushkilat almasjid albabari fi daw altarikh walkitabat almuasira, became published 35 as a series in the RAIs weekly Akhbar alalam alislami. Even though the RAI carefully observed the developments that finally led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the new communal constellation that emerged from that incident, and even though it frequently reported on these developments in its own periodicals, it appears as if the issue did not gain as much attention as others at around the same time. Thus, it is interesting to note that, in the annual meeting of its Constitutive Council between 21 and 25 December 1993, almost exactly one year after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the RAI placed neither the Babri Masjid issue, nor the issue of the conditions of the 36 Muslim minority in India, on its agenda. On the other hand, other bodies under the aegis of the RAI, such as the Supreme World Council of Mosques (alMajlis alala al alami lilmasajid) in its seventeenth annual meeting in December 1994, explicitly demanded the reconstruction of the demolished mosque, alongside the demand for an end to the communal violence and discrimination of Muslims by 37 members of Indias Hindu majority. However, the Babri Masjid issue, as well as the problem of the conditions of the Muslim minority in India, generally remained on the
35 Cf. Akhbar alalam alislami 1197 (1411/1990) 8f.; 1206 (1411/1991), 8f.; 1207 (1411/1991), 8f.+14. The close relationship between the scholars of the Ahl-i hadith in India and Wahhabiyya scholarship in central Arabia can be traced back to the time of the emergence of both reformist movements at the turn of the 18th to the 19th century. Thus, taking up the Babri Masjid issue by an Ahli hadith scholar might guarantee much more influence on the shaping of public opinion on the matter among the scholars from Saudi Arabia. Cf. alAlam alislami 1341 (1414/1993) 2f. Cf. alAlam alislami 1386 (1415/1994) 9.
34
36 37
41
42
Jan-Peter Hartung
RAIs agenda in the following years, although its place among all the issues varied from year to year due to different and complex reasons which are never really made explicit. Over and above this attention that was given to the issue within the RAI, the body used its tight relationship with the Saudi Arabian state to attempt to put some pressure on successive Indian governments. Thus, for instance, in 1998 the that-time secretary general Dr Abdallah b. Salih alUbayd (b. 1942) of the RAI met with the Indian ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Muhammad Hamid Ansari, to urge the Indian government to improve the living conditions of Indian Muslims according to the article of equality of the Indian constitution and to dissolve the Babri Masjid controversy by returning the soil to the Muslims so as to 38 have the mosque rebuilt. However, this declaration of solidarity with the Indian Muslims cause by the RAI should not be mistaken for the fact that the Babri Masjid issue did not play a major role within the perception of the Arab Muslim leaders. It served as just another proof of the menace Muslims were being subjected to worldwide. .or the Arabs, the foremost issue remained the demand for a Muslim Jerusalem that centred around the disputed Temple Mount with the Jewish Wailing Wall and the Muslim complex of the Dome of the Rock and 39 the alAqsa mosque, even though attempts to seek international backing and, at the same time, to seek and refresh mutuality in other domains of social and political life, came from the whole spectrum of the otherwise 40 fractious Muslim intelligentsia from India.
38 39
40
Cf. alAlam alislami 1571 (1419/1998) 1. This has been made explicit, for instance, by the Secretary General of the RAI in 1997. Cf. Amin amm rabitat alalam alislami yuakidu: alQuds hiya lqadiyya lula walrabita tasaa lihaml almujtama alduwwali lilamal ala iadatiha lilhawza larabiyya lislamiyya, alAlam alislami 1504 (1418/1997) 1. One example could be Zafar Yab Jilanis attempts made during his pilgrimage to Mekka in 1991 (cf. Akhbar alalam alislami 1220 (1411/1991), 15).
Nevertheless, the Babri Masjid issue, especially after its demolition in 1992, served the Arabs as a blueprint to a scenario that might happen elsewhere in the Muslim word as well, and above all in Jerusalem. It has, therefore, been welcome to the Arabs religious political rhetoric, but was less designed to gain proper political support beyond lip service; the attempts of the leaders of Indian Muslims resemble the more or less fruitless efforts of the Grand mufti of Jerusalem, alHajj Muhammad Amin alHusayni (d 1974), who, in the late 1930s, tried to convince Adolf Hitler actively to engage in the liberation of Jerusalem from the Jewish settlers. The symbolic power of the Babri Masjid controversy was not as big as other issues, past and present, such as the Caliphate in the 1920s, or, now and again, Jerusalem. Thus, it could not mobilize a transnational Muslim mass movement, such as the Khilafat movement in the early 1920s, and India, with its old and rich Islamic culture, remained in the periphery of the perception of the Arab Muslim lites. 5. Internal .actions .ailing to gain the desired massive support of the Arab Muslim communities, the struggle for the cause of the Indian Muslim minority of population in general, and for a solution in the dispute over the Babri Masjid in particular, was left to the Indian Muslim lites. However, lacking a charismatic leader that was acceptable to all the different and sometimes hostile factions within the Muslim community and who could keep together a strong unified alliance in order to form a front against the Hindu nationalist threat, the attempts of bodies like the AIMPLB or the BMMCC were soon visibly undermined by an opposing faction within their own community. Shortly after the demolition of the mosque, the AllIndia Babri Masjid Rebuilding Committee (AIBMRC) formed under the leadership of Yunus Siddiqi, expressed dissatisfaction over the BMMCCs attempt for a political solution of the Ayodhya issue and started to mobilize Muslims in a way strongly reminiscent of the mobilization strategies of the VHP. Meanwhile, a schism within the Babri Masjid Movement itself led to the splitup of the faction led by Sayyid Shahab alDin, maintaining the BMMCC as an independent body. The AIMPLB, led until his passing away
43
44
Jan-Peter Hartung
by Sayyid Abu lHasan Ali Nadwi, was not accepted by a wide portion of rather secular Muslims due to its position in the Shah Bano case. Even the recent attempt to include BMAC and MBACC under the aegis of the AIMPLB brought only a nominal unity, but could neither settle nor hide the internal quarrel. All these developments were carefully observed by Sangh Parivar circles and finally gave them a way to mount a fresh venture, when the VHP, becoming the major representative of the body, announced the beginning of the temple construction works on 15 March 2002. Despite the continuing countywide mobilization of volunteers by the VHP and its allies within the Sangh Parivar, it cannot be ignored that discord, especially over the Ayodhya issue, also rocked the Sangh Parivar. In particular, the Hindu religious establishment denied the VHP the right to pronounce judgements on religious matters. .or the Shankaracharyas, the highest religious authorities within the Hindu communities, the right to express views on the temple issue lay exclusively with the Ramjanmabhumi Nyas, a religious trust led by the priest Paramhams Ramcandra Das (b. 1912). The BJP central government gave the maintenance of law and order priority over its own affinity to the Sangh Parivar and prevented the consecration ceremony for two pillars on the disputed site, marking the start of the temple construction work, as long as no legal decision on the land had been passed. The Godhra train incident and the following communal riots in Gujarat only two weeks before the proposed date strengthened the governments position and led to the imposition of drastic steps in and around Ayodhya to prevent a spread of the communal riots from Gujarat to other areas in North India. The VHP, caught between its own commitment, pressure from the government and pressure from the Hindu religious establishment, tried to compromise by negotiating with all the involved sides, including the AIMPLB. Giving the promise to leave the decision over the disputed site to the court, the VHP wanted to ensure the possibility of having the consecration ceremony performed on the socalled undisputed site, the land just bordering the site where
the actual mosque once stood. The leading forces within the weakened AIMPLB, torn by its inner conflicts and having confined its demand to the disputed site, finally gave way to the VHPs proposal. 6. Continuing Dispute Only a few months after the consecration ceremony was held under high security conditions, the legal battle continues to rage at the Uttar Pradesh High Court, Lucknow. The prevailing discord within the Muslim community and its inability to pronounce publicly on a single opinion can be illustrated by the statement made by Sayyid Kalbi Jawwad, leading Shia cleric and member of the most influential family 41 of Shia scholars in Lucknow since nawwabi times, during the court hearing on 4 March 2002. He claimed that a mosque in the first place is a sacred space, whether it contains an architectural structure or not. To underline his statement he referred to the first mosque constructed by the Prophet Muhammad at Madina, which had neither dome nor minarets, since adhan, the call for prayer, was introduced 42 only some time after the completion of the mosque. By giving this remark he introduced a similar concept of sacred space as the protagonists of the Sangh Parivar: A space that once contained a sacred building remains a sacred building, even if its architectural structure has been removed. This perception suggests a particular Shiite 43 understanding wherein this argument is rooted. Moreover,
41 42 43 On this family cf. Irshad Jafari (ed) Azim majalis ke mawqa par yadgari majalla. Khandani ijtihad Number (Lakhnau, October 2001). Cf. Times of India, Lucknow Edition (5 March 2002), 2. In this respect, one might also think of the conception of the turba, the claystone used for Shiite prayer to symbolize the historical battleground of Karbala, or the idea of the Husayniyya or Imambara as the symbolic throne hall of the Imam Husayn b. Ali. Indeed, the Imambara in particular may adopt the terminology of court architecture giving the impression of a darbar hall, but, on the other hand, this conflats with its shrine character, where rather Sufi vocabulary applies. I am, however, grateful for the critical comments by Hussein Keshani, University of Victoria, Canada, on my hypothesis on a distict Shiite understanding of space, and I am fully aware of the fact that scholarship has not yet provided sufficient proof to justify this hypothesis.
45
46
Jan-Peter Hartung
it seems to undermine the understanding of the Ayodhya issue by large portions of the religious lites of the Sunni Muslim majority; to them, the question is in the first place a profane legal question concerning the rights over the land, since a mosque is only a place for collective worship 44 and does not in itself have a special sanctity. Mawlana Abu lHasan Ali Nadwi, the president of the AIMPLB and a major representative of Sunni Muslim scholarship in South Asia and beyond, stated in 1993 that, although a mosque does not require a special architectural form, it is only a place of extraordinary ritual purity but not sanctity and is, therefore, destined for ritual performances such as Quran reading and prayer. It is, over and above, a place for collective worship which, according to the normative sources 45 of Islam, is the preferential form of religious worship. Interestingly, legalist opinions of Sunni Muslim scholars like Nadwi become more and more marginalized by the point of view expressed by Mawlana Kalbi Jawwad in court: On my question on how to evaluate Kalbi Jawwads argument, Zafar Yab Jilani emphasised that the dispute, indeed, is not over the land where the mosque once stood, but over 46 land that is identical with the mosque. This argument is, as far as I have investigated, almost unknown in other parts of the Muslim world, mainly because mosques are rarely subject to destruction by members of other religious communities. To my knowledge, the first similar case appeared in 1985 when Israeli forces occupied the alAqsa 47 mosque complex in Jerusalem. But even in this case the architectural structure of the mosque has not been destroyed, even though the space has been desecrated by nonMuslims.
44 It has to be made clear that the position of Sunni Muslim scholars, based on their theoretical understanding of the normative sources of Sunni Muslim religiosity, the Quran and the prophetic Sunna, is quite different from the concept of sacred space applied in practice by a majority of common Sunni Muslims in South Asia. Cf. Abu lHasan Ali Nadwi, Tablighi din ke lie ek ahm usul, Tamiri hayat 31:4 (1993), 7-9, 16. Cf. Interview 14 April 2002 in Lucknow. Cf. Akhbar alalam alislami 929 (1405/1985).
However, the differences within the Muslim representatives in the Babri MasjidRamjanmabhumi dispute are not confined to theological arguments. Kalbi Jawwads pronounced openness to talks with the VHP outside the court is only one more indication of the fact, that even within the Muslim community the Ayodhya issue is used by different factions to push through their specific interests and to consolidate 48 their own position within the Muslim communities. An absolute prerequisite from the perspective of the Muslim communities of South Asia for a solution of the Babri Masjid Ramjanmabhumi dispute in particular, and the communalist dilemma in general, is a joint aspiration of common interest. As long as the internal quarrel within the leadership of Muslim communities remains, a political solution to the problem seems far away and the floor appears open to militant encounters, for which the example of the Godhra train incident in .ebruary 2002 and its aftermath supplies evidence.
48
45 46 47
In the case of Kalbi Jawwad, he might have used his argument for the sanctity of religious space despite the existence or nonexistence of an architectural structure also as a mean to assert his theological argument over the Sunni Muslim scholars understanding. Thus, factionalism might be not only politically motivated, but could also be perceived as the continuation of the old doctrinal dispute between the Shii and Sunni interpretation of religion.
Ayodhya: An International Perspective
47
48
Anuradha Bhattacharjee

Anuradha Bhattacharjee*
1. Introduction As the 20th century drew to a close, the Indian nation also saw a revival of some of the worst forms of ignorance and prejudice culminating in the savage and senseless burning of an Australian missionary and his nine- and seven-year old sons. Regular media reports on ugly racial incidents against ethnic minorities, have, as a matter of fact, mushroomed in recent years. Media outcry against violation of human rights have a direct bearing on the image of a country since they evoke worldwide shock and outrage. These reports cannot be shrugged off as the products of a perversely creative mind that delights in churning out periodic pieces of shocking news that are also financially rewarding. These are not works of fiction but based on true incidents of racism and xenophobia supported by the electronic media. If media headlines are to be believed, certain European countries like Germany, for example, have gained a reputation as a fascist and racist country around the world. Immigrant workers in post-war Germany were initially viewed as part of the great German economic miracle and even
* Anuradha Bhattacharjee is an independent researcher who carried out her doctoral thesis in the Sorbonne, Paris.
hailed as welcome guest workers. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the costs of accommodating asylum seekers have become high, the crisis compounded by the rise of economic migrants from Asia and Africa. The escalation of violence against foreigners in Germany, triggered by rising unemployment and in the background the global economic slowdown, has now made it essential for the country to demonstrate that racism and xenophobia are not typical of their society. In the words of the German Chancellor, Mr. Gerhard Schroeder: Anyone as dependant on exports as Germany cannot afford to have others to write or report badly about them. It is perfectly possible that the true image of Germany is not as radical as it is made out to be. However, over zealous and detrimental reporting on a few stray demonstrations can often make the watching world forget the fact that neo-Nazi fascist demonstrations are often met with much larger liberal demonstrations against xenophobia within the country. The difference, in fact, lies in the degree of objectivity attached to the report. Certainly, from personal experiences formed during my stay in Germany, I have always found the Germans to be friendly and hospitable towards strangers like myself. The average German is in fact, often acutely embarrassed by the upsurge of racist violence which is now common in many parts of Europe following a resurgence of right wing ideologies in recent times. However, fed by the media blitz, it is perhaps the image of a racist Germany that comes more easily to mind than that of a hard-working, decent and hospitable people. If the fear of rising unemployment has in recent years, brought neo-Nazi politics to the fore among young Germans in Europe and caused a decline in the image of the country, the growth of right wing-extremism in the Indian subcontinent, seems also to have shaken its traditional image of a tolerant and secular nation. The forces propagating the doctrines of violence are perhaps here also, limited to a few unwieldy, uneducated elements but it is the general image of India as a peace-loving, secular democracy that has taken a beating in the eyes of the watching world. If the neo-Nazis argue in simplistic terms that Germanys unemployment crisis would be resolved if
49
50
seven million foreigners were immediately thrown out of the country, similar populist concepts have also caught fire in the Indian subcontinent where a decade ago, the demolition of the Babri mosque at Ayodhya, sent signals of the death of the Indian secular dream. I was a student in Paris when the Ayodhya conflict exploded across the front pages of practically all major national and international dailies. I thought at the time I was suitably distanced from the sound and fury that raged at home in India. I found myself on the contrary, fielding a barrage of questions from fellow students ranging from nave curiosity to barbed taunts regarding the battle of the sacred cows. .or the majority of the motley crowd that thronged around me at the time, the battle was in a strange and distant land where the Taj Mahal and mysticism towered above an unpalatable mix of dust, heat and poverty. Startled by some of the questions and comments directed at me, I decided to explore the kind of images churned out by some of the leading .rench dailies for the consumption of their readers. My study was undertaken in the .rench language and targeted towards a .rench audience. My interest in the .rench press was motivated primarily by the expatriate desire to find out whether serious reporting on apparently controversial issues in developing countries could go beyond the sensational. In attempting to record the saga of violence in political and civil life of the worlds largest secular democracy, has the written press in .rance, the 22nd largest in the world and the seventh largest in the Europe with 157 copies sold per 1,000 inhabitants, remained controlled, informative and unbiased at all times? It is to be noted here that there are just under a 100 national and regional dailies in .rance excluding specialist papers (with 2 million readers) and the street press (a new type of newspaper which appeared on the streets in 1993 and which are sold for 10 to 15 .. in public places like the underground and railway station by unemployed and homeless vendors). About 12 million copies are printed daily. 49% of the .rench read a newspaper every day as compared to 55% twenty years ago. .rench dailies sell at a considerably higher price than their British or German
counterparts despite State assistance: 7.50 .. for Le Monde as against 30 pence (about 3.00 ..) for the Times. Most .rench dailies come out in the morning, only Le Monde is an afternoon paper. On the whole, none of the dailies ostensibly espouse a political view, the general tone having become more neutral except in editorials and opinion pages. In fact, the ideologically aligned daily press, very much in evidence before World War II, has now virtually disappeared. The only remaining examples are La Lettre de La Nation, the voice of the Rassemblement Pour La Republique (RPR), the Communist Partys LHumanit founded by Jean Jaures in 1904 and presently, a platform for the far right. The Catholic daily, La Croix belongs to the largest religious press group in .rance Bayard Presse although it is more of a general daily than a religious newspaper. Some of the important newspapers include Le Parisien Aujourdhui, star of the popular press with a circulation of approximately 500,000 and a readership of 2 million and .rance Soir popular news daily with a circulation of approximately 173,000. However, the dailies that I chose to study are: Le Monde, Libration, Le .igaro, La Croix lvnement. These newspapers (with a combined circulation of almost 1 million with nearly 5 million readers) are nationally and internationally acclaimed for quality and unbiased reporting. The articles pertaining to the demolition of the mosque that appeared in these .rench dailies during the period taken into consideration (4 months following the demolition) have been studied with the specific aim of ascertaining whether they inform objectively and correctly the .rench reader. It is to be assumed here that the average .rench person has a very superficial knowledge about a developing country like India. Consequently, I have tried to analyze some of the more obvious instances of bias, sensationalism, lack of sensitivity or factual errors which could mislead the reader and perhaps even encourage him to form prejudiced opinions. In the age of global interdependence, no healthy or vibrant democracy can hope to survive for long if the credibility of the political process sinks in the eyes of the voters as well as international opinion. Through the dissemination of information, right or wrong, both the electronic and the
51
52
print media wield the power to make and to break reputations, to monitor diplomatic ties on a daily basis. It is the job of the media to shed light on happenings around the world and to help people arrive at informed and unbiased opinions. A well-informed and participatory public is the backbone of a strong and healthy democracy. And just as a strong civil society guided by an enlightened and credible political process is essential for the smooth functioning of any democracy, a vibrant, vigilant and objective media is an important sinew that connects and binds not just within the country but across the globe. One of the major duties of the media is to reflect public opinion as well as mould it. Consequently, it has to be restrained as well as responsible in its coverage. Distance, it is often said, lends enchantment to the subject. Does it also lend clarity and objectivity? Can international reporting on controversial issues (especially in the developing parts of the world), claim to be objective and sensitive enough? Do correspondents not succumb to the taste buds of sensation-starved readers? Or even compromise their integrity and independence in the face of editorial pressure? Sometimes, by their own admission, many correspondents do not feel sufficiently at home in the country to which they are assigned and this, in its turn, is reflected in their writing. Sometimes also, they choose to make their reputations by patronizing or even condemning the natives. Sometimes, past or present associations and constraints merge to influence their writing. On the positive side, the media has played no mean part in informing and arousing public indignation on ethnic atrocities, violation of human rights, religious upheavals in far-flung countries of the globe. Many journalists have even been known to endanger their lives in the pursuit of their story. On the not so positive side, stories have seemingly been sensationalized, suppressed and even doctored. On the visual media front, many channels from the developing parts of the world often faithfully reflect the reports relayed by foreign visual media - much like those newspapers which have no foreign correspondents and rely exclusively on a tie-up with American and British news. Consequently, the public sees and believes what the American and British
media want it to see and believe. The veracity of the reports in these instances is relatively difficult to establish. It is not surprising to note that the socio-cultural and religious parameters in India have consistently eluded the average western mind that is by turns fascinated by the tradition of rich cultural diversity and equally befuddled by the strange rituals and norms. What does the land of maharajahs, snake charmers and naked fakirs mean for the average .rench person? What can the small and hitherto unknown town of Ayodhya in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (ranked as the most populous state in India with a population of nearly 139 million), possibly conjure for him? Is the bloody conflict over a centuries-old monument justified for him? Or is it a mere bagatelle, an exciting potpourri of religion and politics in the developing corner of the world? Given the fact that the conflict traces its genesis to the advent of Islam in India which saw the uneasy and potentially antagonistic co-habitation between two radically opposed religions, does the report do suitable justice to the study of the ideological battle - a challenge even for the best of Indian minds? Have the above cited national dailies, responsible for informing and fashioning public opinion, helped the reader have a clear understanding of the conflict by acquainting him with a number of complex facts that have their moorings in centuries-old history? And which have resurged in the light of contemporary sociopolitical and religious upheavals taking place in the country? These are some of the questions which saw my foray into the .rench world or monde of print journalism in the winter of Paris, 1992. How did a traditionally tolerant and civil society succumb to this violent clash of cultures on the eve of the 21st century? Is it a legacy of history or a product of contemporaneous politics? A decade later, who is to be blamed for the spate of communal violence in the State of Gujarat, the birthplace of Mahatma Gandhi? .or the climate of continuing hate and mistrust? Although the answers at this juncture are perhaps not as important as the actual task of rebuilding the nation, let us recall here some of the events that fed the mob frenzy at Ayodhya on 6 December 1992.
53
54
Why revive Ayodhya here? The issue, as was blatantly apparent even at the time, was not destined to die on us not even a decade later. The Narasimha Rao Government had at the time responded to the demolition by arresting some of the prominent BJP leaders and by dissolving the legislative assembly of the BJP ruled States. It was only logical to assume that the BJP would become even more fiercely determined to extract the utmost political mileage out of the issue. In other words, it was only to be expected that it would become even more aggressive and militant in the future. Ten years after the demolition of the mosque, how successful have we been as a nation in relegating the bitterness to the pile of debris from which it issued? The answer, sadly, does not seem to call for any celebration. It is true that we have managed to avert a civil war and the two warring communities have gone about their own business as usual. However, even as we leapfrogged into the 21st century by making giant strides in the software industry and hitting international beauty headlines in quick succession, the project of construction of a Rama Temple keeps the cauldron of communal tension on the boil. Viewed in the larger context, religious extremism is a modern global phenomenon and the rise of Hindu fundamentalism in the Indian subcontinent, only one of its reflections. In the current turmoil, what seems to be globally apparent is that democracy and secularism, ideals on which more parts of the developing world are striving to build their goals, are succumbing to a crisis of survival faced with an upsurge of religiosity. As nations search for their own individual solutions, it will be premature to dismiss the wave of religious violence as a passing phase. 1. Ayodhya 1992: An International Perspective Winter in Paris 1992. Battling in vain against the fierce cold, I absorbed the shock of screaming headlines boldly splashed across the front pages of some of the leading newspapers in .rance: Le Monde, Libration, Le .igaro, La Croix LEvnment. The headlines were of course attention grabbers that compelled a closer dekko at the body: More than one thousand Indians dead since the demolition of the Ayodhya mosque (Libration, 12-13 December 1992).
The riots have already claimed more than 700 lives (Le Monde, 11 December 1992); The Indian Sub-Continent plunged into bloody confrontations. More than 200 dead and 1000 wounded (Le .igaro, 8 December 1992). I have attempted to focus here on some of the more specific instances of sensationalism, myopia, factual distortions, and lack of sensitivity that emerged during my study of the body of .rench articles. This is just a sample work and not representative of western media in general. In my opinion however, there are positive aspects to every piece of writing and often these also outweigh the less positive factors. Bearing this in mind, I have also indicated excerpts which, in my view, demonstrate a good insight into some of the events leading to and flowing out of the demolition of the Babri Masjid. At times, I also found it useful to compare between the national dailies in my search for journalistic excellence. i) Le Monde, 8 December 1992 The article .olie hindouiste Ayodhya (Hindu Madness At Ayodhya) by Bruno Philip, a .rench journalist based in India at the time, is in its essence a good (if somewhat dramatic) summing up of the madness that gripped the demolishing crowd on that fateful day. It was sheer folly given the secular character of the Indian Constitution and it is to be emphasised here that not all Hindus were a party to this. In fact, the vast majority of rational and secular Hindus expressed collective shock and dismay, many of the prominent members strongly pledging their support with the Muslim minority. Many of the leading Indian dailies were also unanimous in their condemnation of the Saffron Brigade. As regards the retaliatory bloodbath which inevitably followed, not to mention the diplomatic backlash, it is to be rightly conceded that the folly did not end with the tearing down of the mosque. However, Bruno Philip (unwittingly no doubt) contributes to the making of a few journalistic follies himself by always being very correct in his assumptions or theories. Although the article does on the whole provide a good insight into the Ayodhya issue, some of the errors that surfaced here seem to point towards a lack of objectivity. Mr. Rao thought
55
56
it wise to wait till the very end; none of the 13,000 strong paramilitary forces despatched around Ayodhya were sent to the rescue of the local police. Had it been done so, at least the confrontation and the massacre would have been avoided. The facts presented here are only partially correct. .our RA. battalions led by P.N. Ramakrishnan had reached Saket Degree College a mere two kilometres away from the site where they found several barricades of burning tyres and stones strategically placed at vantage points. When they requested permission to clear them, the District Magistrate, Mr. Srivastava who had earlier called in the RA., stated that the troops were no longer required as the situation now was under control. He ordered the RA. back. At 2 pm, the 3,500 men retreated minutes after the dome fell. It is first and foremost a factual error on the part of the daily to state that the paramilitary forces were not sent to the rescue of the local police. However, if Le Monde neglects in this instance to cross-check its facts, other national dailies such as Libration and La Croix LEvnement are more judicious in their observations. To quote Libration dated 7 December 1992, Police and political and religious leaders, visibly overtaken by the events, stood by, either helpless or abettors to the crime. The Kar Sevaks had blocked the roads leading to the historical town with barricades of burning tyres and stones in order to prevent the arrival of the 4,000 soldiers sent to the rescue. To quote La Croix LEvnement dated 19 December 1992: More disturbing are the news according to which the security forces despatched by the Central Government much before the event, could not reach Ayodhya because the roads had been systematically blocked. Although the BJP Government in the State of Uttar Pradesh had promised to protect the mosque, it seems that a real conspiracy hatched among the various Hindu factions, perhaps even with the connivance of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the mother organisation from which all the other factions are more or less formed, led to the tragedy. The actual responsibility regarding the upholding of the Supreme Court Verdict, lay with the State Government although the Central Government too cannot be entirely
absolved of its share of responsibility. (This is reflected by the fact that many sought the resignation of the Prime Minister following the demolition). It is true that in the ultimate analysis of things, even though the State was guilty of conniving with the Kar Sevaks, the Central Administration too failed in its supreme duty to protect the mosque. However, given the fact that in the context of the Indian federal democracy, each Indian State disposes of a legislative assembly and a Government headed by a Chief Minister, Mr. Rao could not simple bypass the Uttar Pradesh Government and order the paramilitary troops to intervene as this would have amounted to a constitutional breach. The Central Government had to tread with the utmost caution especially since the Uttar Pradesh Government in this instance also happened to be the BJP Opposition. The Presidents Rule (Article 356) could be imposed only in the case of a violation of the Constitution which clearly was not the case here. So all Mr. Rao could do under the circumstances was to provide the State with the necessary paramilitary troops to combat the crisis in case of need. Le Monde was not unaware of the fact that the Kalyan Singh Government had promised that the law of the country would be upheld. As it underlines in paragraph 11 of the same article, Mr. Rao has dismissed the Chief Minister Mr Kalyan Singh of the BJP Government. He had in fact promised that law and order would be maintained and we have seen what took place. Le Monde was apparently equally aware of the fact that Indian federalism is cooperational and not confrontational in nature. The Central Government cannot flex its muscles in areas within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State which include the police and some aspect of law and order. As it stated in an article published three days later (see Le Monde 11 December 1992), because in the context of the Indian federal democracy, the States which are responsible in the first place for the maintenance of law and order, are generally less well equipped than New Delhi to undertake precautionary measures. The Central Government did provide the State Government with the requisite paramilitary troops as a safety measure. The express orders not to shoot, the lack of all visible
57
58
efforts to stop the demolition undertaken in the presence of the BJP leaders, the connivance at the highest echelons of the bureaucracy, are all indicative of a deliberate and criminal negligence of duty. Viewed from the constitutional angle, Mr. Rao cannot be faulted. If the Central Government failed in its duty to protect the mosque, it is primarily because it trusted in the solemn assurances of a democratically elected State Government. The .rench journalist chose to turn a blind eye to the constitutional dilemma of the Indian Prime Minister by stating that had Mr. Rao now waited till the very end, the confrontation and the massacres would have been avoided. This is all the more astonishing because in his native country, the .rench Prime Minister too cannot take the law into his own hands. However, what surprises most is the manner in which the national daily repeatedly contradicts itself, either in the same article or in its subsequent issues. In a report published a few days later (see Le Monde 14-15 March 1993), the .rench newspaper does an abrupt volte-face and accuses the Central Government this time, of being unduly despotic. I quote As regards federalism, the following factor seems to suggest that it no longer functions in a satisfactory manner. Almost one citizen out of three today is governed by the Centre and not by elected representatives. The four large States governed by the BJP saw their Assemblies dissolved after the demolition of the Ayodhya mosque. Taking into consideration its earlier statement regarding the lackadaisical attitude adopted by the Narasimha Rao Government which was only adhering to Constitutional norms by not taking the law into its hands, this statement comes as a surprise. What exactly is the Central Government guilty of? The fact that it dismisses State Governments which fail to keep their word or that it does not rush in to dismiss them sooner? As regards federalism, the Indian Constitution describes India as a Union of States and not as a federation. It is true that India has perhaps the strongest Centre in the world but this was deemed as a necessary measure by the framers of the Indian Constitution who, basing their observations on Indias history, said: we perish if we make the Centre weak. Hence the component units
of the Indian Union were not given the right to frame their own Constitution. According to Dr. Ambedkar, the Constitution of the Union and the States is a single frame from which neither can get out and within which they must work. (The only exception to this was the State of Jammu and Kashmir which framed its own Constitution). However, the Indian Constitution can be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances. In normal times, it works as federal but in times of emergency, it can be converted into unitary form without any formal amendment. This is a unique feature of the Indian Constitution. However, as we have seen in the framing of the Indian Constitution, if the President is satisfied either on the recommendation of the Governor or otherwise that the Government of a particular State cannot be carried out in accordance with the Constitution, he may declare Emergency in that State. In the case of such a contingency, the President of India may assume to himself any or all functions of the Government of the State concerned and all or any of the powers of the Governor of the State. In fact, even though the imposition of Presidents Rule in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, the remaining three states governed by the BJP, was subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court, a ninejudge Bench, without a single dissent, upheld the imposition of Presidents Rule. Through separate but concurring judgement, the judges explained that secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution meant that religion could not be mixed with any secular activity of the State. The State has no religion; it is the duty of the State to protect life, liberty and property of all citizens, provide security to them and enable them to exercise their fundamental rights. Without wishing to condone or uphold here the retaliatory measures taken by the Indian Prime Minister, the statements issued by the journalist appear presumptuous, contradictory and contextually incorrect. The report also displays a seeming lack of sensitivity vis vis native (from the Indian viewpoint) sentiments as illustrated by the following remark: the astrologers had fixed 12 pm on Sunday 6 December as the propitious hour for commencing the ritual ceremony. Perhaps the lyrical
59
60
turn of phrase was not intended to strike a false note but as the opening statement of an article meant to be taken as serious journalism, it falls short of expectation. Indeed the catchy delivery line is all wrong! Le Monde had chosen a particularly unfortunate event to illustrate the role of astrology and ritualism in the life of the Indian nation. This statement so lacking in tact and sensitivity, exemplifies the manner in which some foreign journalists tend to rub in well known clichs that conform to the traditional perception of the country as the land of snake-charmers, naked fakirs and religious mumbo-jumbo. Some of the other distortions however, are less serious as they are due primarily to the linguistic and cultural barriers between the two countries. The soldiers of Rama set out on the war-path, a demented look in their eyes, brandishing their tridents (symbol of Vishnu of whom the hero Rama is an Avatar) As most Indians would be aware, the trident is not the symbol of Lord Vishnu but that of Lord Shiva. The symbol of Vishnu is the chakra or the disc. In a land that boasts a myriad of gods and goddesses, this confusion is perhaps understandable. ii) Le Monde 10 December 1992 INDE: Aprs la destruction de la mosque dAyodhya (INDIA After the destruction of the Ayodhya mosque) by Bruno Philip once again, articulately sums up the manner in which the Indian nation, following the demolition of the mosque, is clearly caught between frustration and modernism. The .rench journalist makes a good analysis of the predicament of the BJP after the demolition of the mosque. The maniacal frenzy displayed by the Hindu zealots who demolished the mosque of Babur in five hours on Sunday 6 December, was not something that was planned in the BJP agenda. The party now stands to lose face as an organisation that had always boasted of the strong discipline practised amongst its ranks. Not that any of the party members regret the demolition but what they cannot ignore is that millions of their voters, many of them from middle class background, did not give them their support in order to witness the burning of the country. To rebuild the temple of Rama was one thing. To plunge the biggest democracy in the world
into an orgasmic fever of inter-religious violence is quite something else. This view is also shared by Libration (9 December 1992) which writes that the majority of the Indians, irrespective of their religion, unanimously condemned the demolition. Raos image has taken a beating in the eyes of 80% of the Hindu majority who expressed deep anguish over what took place and demanded that the guilty be brought to book. A balanced and comprehensive viewpoint that underlines the fact that the Hindu Madness at Ayodhya cannot be generalized to include all Hindus. Le Monde also analyses some of the factors responsible for the deep-rooted feelings of insecurity displayed by the Hindus in their own country. The agenda pursued by the Congress I over a number of years, was directed at appeasing the minorities. .aced with the policies adopted over the decades by successive Congress I Governments to woo and to pamper the Muslim minority, the majority of the Hindus have today ended up by feeling isolated in their own country. Very true since the BJP, as we have seen, has very cleverly used this very rhetoric to rouse and to mobilize the Hindu voters. Le Monde, to its credit has also quoted here two wellknown researchers Max-Jean Zins and Violette Graff, an authority on Islam in India. The .rench daily however, appears to be a little confused regarding the credentials of the VHP or the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. The R.S.S militants and their brethren in politics, the B.J.P or their colleagues in religion, the Vishnu Hari Dalmia (VHP) cannot be so easily dismissed as religious bigots. It has to be pointed out to the esteemed daily that the VHP does not stand for Vishnu Hari Dalmia but World Hindu Association. Mr. Dalmia only happened to be its President. iii) Le Monde, dated 11 December 1992 INDE: Aprs la destruction de la mosque d W 2 Ayodhya W 2 (INDIA After the destruction of the Ayodhya mosque) by Jean Pierre Clerc makes on the whole a rather objective assessment of the communal situation in India. 30 W 2 The fundamentalists on both sides are perfectly familiar with
61
62
the inflammable character of the situation which, under normal circumstances, is peaceful and sometimes even harmonious. However, once the riot is triggered off, it is generally the Muslims who suffer more than the Hindus because they are in the minority and because the police, mostly Hindu, adopts, unlike the army, a partisan attitude. The .rench journalist has underlined here the basic vulnerability of the Muslim minority in India (Les Musulmans, une minorit tres expose) by citing the backdrop of the cruel memories of the 1947 Partition. He mentioned among other things, the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 as one of the factors that has contributed towards the climate of suspicion between the two communities. The initial climate of suspicion has certainly not improved after Pakistan in its turn imploded in 1971 to give birth to Bangladesh following a war which, strongly supported by New Delhi, opposed the Muslims of the east with their co-religionists of the west. The article however, makes no mention here of the nature of this particular intervention which came in fact to save the East Bengalis after Pakistan had first crushed democracy by jailing a popular elected leader and then resorted to the genocide of 500,000 to a million of its own East Bengalis thereby turning another 10 million of them into refugees that fled to India. Nowhere does the journalist mention that even though Pakistan was militarily crushed and India had about 93,000 West Pakistani prisoners of war at the time, these were returned without seeking the slightest concessions on Kashmir. What saves the article however from going completely overboard in its depiction of the Muslims as boucs-emissaires or scapegoats (it carries in fact an illustration of a holy cow facing a holy Mullah with a Koran in his hand and the head of a goat) are a few particularly pertinent observations. It emphasises for example Indias choice of a secular policy as opposed to Pakistan and this despite an overwhelming Hindu majority. While Pakistan was conceived as an Islamic State, India, with an overwhelming Hindu population, opted for a secular democracy in 1950. Even though the article has painted a very realistic portrait of the simmering communal situation in India, it has nonetheless failed to cite one of the principal reasons for
which the Muslim community remains so vulnerable the lack of capable and visionary leaders in its fold. This factor is highlighted by another .rench daily, La Croix LEvnement (see La Croix LEvnement 10 December 1992) in its article The .ear of Alienation after the Ayodhya violence. There are also instances of factual errors which indicate negligence on the part of the .rench daily to cross-check its facts. Apart from Hinduism (around 82% of the population) and Islam (more than 11% as against less than 10% in 1951), a statistic which reveals a faster demographical growth in the case of the Muslims making India the fourth country with the largest Muslim population in the world, next only to Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Statistics however, indicate that the Muslim population in the above mentioned countries are the following for 1991: Indonesia with 159 million; Pakistan with 107 million; India with 100 million and Bangladesh with 93 million. In fact Islam with over one billion adherents in 55 Muslim countries, extends from Gambia to Indonesia which has the largest Muslim population in the world. Muslims of course also live in Pakistan which was specifically created as a homeland for Indian Muslims in 1947. Pakistan was subsequently partitioned to form Bangladesh in 1971 due to the intolerance and arrogance displayed by the Muslims in West Pakistan towards their co-religionists in the east. Muslims also live in Europe and North America and account for 1 to 5 per cent of the total population in these regions. The .rench correspondent also appears to ignore the fact that there are no reserved quotas for Muslims in India on grounds of their religion. They also have their reserved quotas in the Government services and the universities along with the Untouchables, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes and other religious minorities. The Indian Constitution, to realise equality and justice, pays special attention to the socially and economically backward sections of the society. However, even though it enumerates a number of provisions which seek to protect the interests of the minorities, no discrimination is made on matters of employment or education on grounds on race, religion or caste. According to the Indian Constitution (Article 15), there are no reserved quotas in the government
63
64
services and the universities for Muslims and other religious minorities. It is due to their economic and social backwardness that the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes have traditionally been accorded special provisions. Handicapped by their accumulated disadvantages and lagging behind socially, economically, educationally and politically, it was primarily through State action for sponsored mobility (reservation of seats in politics, education and employment) that these backward classes could hope to participate in terms of (relative) equality in the life of the nation. There are no reserved quotas for any community on the basis of religion for the simple reason that India is a secular democracy that does not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion. Secularism has been one of the essential components in the basic structuring of the Indian Constitution that lays down that all citizens have the fundamental right to follow and propagate their own religion. The State will not discriminate between the citizens on the grounds of religion and language. This fact is apparently ignored by the foreign journalist! iv) Le Monde, 14 March 1993 Vague dattentats sans prcedent Bombay (Wave of Unprecedented Violence in Bombay) by Bruno Philip attempts to analyse the causes responsible for the unprecedented violence which exploded in the bustling city of Bombay on 12 March 1993. The city which had barely recovered from the aftermath of the communal riots that immediately followed the destruction of the mosque, was this time, rocked by powerful bomb blasts which once again claimed hundreds of lives and injured thousands. The article although well-written, is nonetheless interspersed with some gratuitous remarks. I quote: The visibly well-coordinated nature of the explosions is a source of worry for the Indian authorities. Conspiracy - the word is already on every lip and even though the term "international conspiracy" used by the Home Minister, Mr. Chavan, is no doubt without any real proof'. The implication here seems to be that the Indian Home Minister, Mr. Chavan, is normally in the habit of talking through his hat while discussing issues that visibly
threaten the peace and stability of the country. Considering the fact that the Indian authorities had already confirmed the visibly well-coordinated nature of the explosives, that could not have been the work of any indigenous terrorist groups, does the journalist have any evidence to support his statement to the contrary? Or is he simply being biased and opinionated with regard to a developing nation? Does Indian opinion not count in the least? Once again, what is most surprising is the manner in which Bruno Philip contradicts himself. In paragraph 10 of the article, he himself states that: Indian analysts tend to believe on the basis of an initial report that none of the terrorist groups within the country had the means to plan on such a vast scale, the series of blasts that rocked the city. Why is it so difficult to believe that if the Indian Government suspects a foreign hand in the series of explosions that shook Bombay, it is because it is well-placed to do so? In the initial stages of investigation, it is also neither advisable nor mandatory to reveal the details of any suspicions or findings. It is a habit of contradiction that on the one hand, the .rench journalist agrees that the explosions have a visibly well-coordinated character that does not conform to the means at the disposal of the indigenous groups and on the other, he summarily dismisses the explanations of an international conspiracy forwarded by none other than the Indian Home Minister himself. Of course, in a later issue (see Le Monde 25 March 1993), Bruno Philip confirms the progress made by the Indian authorities thereby retracting his own pet theory of the imaginary fears of a beleaguered nation. The information at the disposal of the police does not as yet enable us to ascertain who is the brain behind the whole affair but the involvement of an Indian family of Iranian origins, the Memons, is certain. The .rench journalist, not for the first time, issues on the one hand matter of fact and unsubstantiated remarks and on the other, contradicts himself at a later date in the light of conclusive evidence. Although the true picture does gradually emerge, these rather impetuous statements do not in any way boost the image of a nation painfully limping back to normalcy.
65
66
v) Libration, 8 December 1992 The article Le Sac dAyodhya enflame le Sous-Continent indien (The Ayodhya Demolition sets the Indian Subcontinent on fire) by Caroline Puel and Patralekha Chatterjee which was published two days after the mosque was torn down, describes at length the damages caused by the demolition including the repercussions on the diplomatic front. Contrary to Le Monde (see Le Monde, 11 December 1992) which contents itself by painting a rather traditional and biased view of the Muslim community in India as boucs emmissaires (scape-goats) or une minorit tres expose (a very vulnerable minority) complete with a caricature of a Mullah (scape-goat) and a sacred cow (symbol of militant Hinduism), this article also highlights the retaliatory measures adopted by the Muslims. The Muslims set fire to shops, residences and vehicles in order to protest against the sacrilege. It is Bombay, the financial capital of the country which seems to have been the worst hit. More than 10,000 Muslim demonstrators barged into places of Hindu worship and destroyed a temple dedicated to Ganesha, the Lord of Prosperity. While fifty buses were set ablaze, local trains came to a halt on Monday evening. In many of the suburban areas, the police opened fire and killed at least 40 people. Most of the excessive violence was restricted to Muslim dominated areas and a curfew was imposed in Calcutta, the largest city in India (12 million inhabitants) of which one third of the population is Muslim. The Muslim minority in India which has a population of 875 million inhabitants, mostly Hindus, is more than 100 million. This is indeed a very pertinent observation on the part of the two journalists because one must not forget that the Muslim community in India is in fact the third largest in the world. India today has one of the most important concentrations of Muslims in the world. Of the one billion Muslim population in the world, India today is home to between an estimated eighty to one hundred and twenty million or approximately 10% of the global community. The uniqueness of Islam in India can be gauged from two factors: Muslims are a minority in India - 12.12% of the population according to the 1991 Census yet a minority that
constitutes the third largest Muslim community in the world after Indonesia and Bangladesh. However, there is also an attempt at sensationalizing the Ayodhya issue in this report. Earlier, in 1990 and 1992, Ayodhya had caused the fall of two former Governments. The Governments referred to here are obviously those formed by Mr. V.P. Singh and Mr. Chandra Sekhar respectively. It is true that the V.P. Singh Coalition Government fell in November 1990 because of the Ayodhya issue but no other Government was toppled due to Ayodhya in 1992. It was with the aim to check-mate the BJP that on 7 August 1990, the then Prime Minister, Mr. V.P. Singh had announced a new reservation policy for the backward classes. Up until now, 22.5% of the Government jobs were reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Henceforth an additional 27% of the jobs were to be reserved for the other backward classes in India as per the recommendations of the Mandal Commission. .or the V.P. Singh Government, the wave of violence that followed the announcement helped create a split between the Hindu voters who were heading towards the BJP and the VHP. As a matter of fact, the hue and cry raised did relegate for the time being the BJP to the background. However, if this caused a temporary set-back to the BJP plans, it could not for long check its rising popularity. Ultimately, the axe fell on the VP Singh coalition Government which was toppled in November 1990 following the withdrawal of BJP support (at the instigation of the Congress I) in the wake of the arrest of the BJP leader, Mr. L. K Advani during his rath yatra. Since both the BJP and the Rajiv Gandhi headed Congress I subsequently declined to form the Government, the President of the Indian Republic, Mr. Venkatraman, had no other alternative but to request the only other Prime Ministerial candidate, Mr. Chandra Sekhar, to form the Government. Mr. Chandra Sekhar, a one-time member of the Janata Dal, the party of Mr. V.P. Singh, had the support of Rajiv Gandhi, who, although defeated less than a year earlier, continued to head the strongest political party in the country. In March 1991, Rajiv Gandhi, who was
67
68
obviously only biding his time, withdrew his support and the six-month old Chandra Sekhar Government having been summarily dismissed, fresh elections were envisaged for the months of May-June 1991. Rajiv Gandhi, however, was assassinated while campaigning for his party in the south of India. .ollowing his death, the Congress I, riding on a massive wave of sympathy votes, was returned to power with a majority. It is thus clear that the Chandra Sekhar Government did not fall in 1992 due to Ayodhya. Chandra Sekhar was little more than a transitional Prime Minister, his sole raison dtre being to fill in the political vacuum created by the resignation of Mr. V.P Singh and the subsequent refusal of both the BJP and the Congress I to form the Government at the Centre. .ortunately, this error is not reiterated by most of the other .rench dailies. Le .igaro (8 December 1992) for example, correctly states that Ayodhya had led to the fall of one coalition Government. In the course of recent years, the battle of the mosque in India has already claimed several thousands of lives, Hindus and Muslims and led to the fall of a coalition Government in New Delhi two years ago. vi) Libration, 9 December 1992 The article Rao rprime pour viter lincendie intercommunautaire (Rao represses to prevent the country from going up in communal flames) by .rancois Sergent, studies the repressive measures adopted by the Narasimha Rao Government to prevent parties from vested interests from stoking communal passions in the country. The journalist displays good insight in the third paragraph of the article where he sums up the shaky position of the Indian Prime Minister clearly caught on the horns of a dilemma. It remains to be seen whether these belated repressive measures against parties which had made no secret of their intentions, are going to suffice to resolve the crisis. Rao, for the moment, has gained a few days of reprieve and the country is gradually limping back to normalcy. In Bombay, however, 37 people (according to a rough estimate), died yesterday in fresh skirmishes. As the Prime Minister struggles for mastery over the country and
his own divided Congress Party, he is constantly exposed to the threat of more violence being unleashed - a phenomenon which is characteristic of the Indian political cauldron. Rao has promised to rebuild the mosque at Ayodhya while preserving the temple of Rama. This could well provide the spark for more riots. The .rench journalist also draws a vivid portrayal here of the psychological state of the Muslim community in India following the demolition of the mosque. The 100 million Muslims emerge from the ordeal shell-shocked and wonder whether they still have a place in a country whose principles of tolerance and secularism are getting eroded every day. In fact, this is a question which has also increasingly come to haunt many members of the non-Muslim community in India who now fear for the secular future of the country. The only discordant note in this otherwise cohesive article is the interpretation accorded to the R.S.S. .inally, the armed branch of the BJP, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as well as another aggressive Hindu organisation, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), have been dissolved. .irstly, the RSS which is often described as the mother organisation of all Hindu fundamentalist groups within the country, can by no means be summarily dismissed as a simple branch of the BJP. Secondly, what exactly does the .rench journalist mean by armed? It is true that the members of the RSS do not hesitate to use their lathis (batons) in the service of their cause, but can this in any way be interpreted as an authorisation to wield arms? The RSS, in fact, has always attempted to control successive Hindu national parties - the Hindu Mahasabha until 1951; the Jan Sangh until 1979 and the BJP since its creation in 1980. The RSS is solely responsible for the creation of the BJP as well as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in 1964. The BJP in fact, constitutes the 'political arm of the disciplined RSS which tolerates no nonsense as far as its philosophical goals (i.e. cultural regeneration of the Hindus) are concerned. More recently, the official publication of the RSS, the Suruchi Prakashan Jhandelwalan, New Delhi, published a book, Param Vaibhav ke Path Par (1997), detailing more than forty organisations created by
69
70
the RSS for different purposes. The BJP figures at number three on the list of prominent organisations created by the RSS. The RSS is thus to all intents and purposes, the mother organisation of all religious and political Hindu organisations and can, in no way, be termed as a branch. What is perhaps interesting to note here is that the same daily was more precise in its definition of the RSS in an article published in 1989. The BJP appears in reality to be subjugated to the RSS, a fundamentalist Hindu organisation. In certain circles, it is even stated that the 52-year-old BJP President, Mr. L.K. Advani, has his hands clearly tied by the RSS. Politically right-wing and fiercely devoted to the task of defending India against foreign influences which try to divide a country ill-equipped to ward them off, the BJP-RSS alliance is responsible for the growing religious tensions in the country. (see Libration, 28 November 1989). Why has Libration got its facts mixed up here? vii) Libration 10 December 1992 The article Quand le BJP preche lInde aux hindouistes (When the BJP preaches a Hindu India) by .ranois Sergent once again, studies in depth some of the factors responsible for the growing popularity of the BJP in recent years. The .rench journalist enumerates here the various psychological and political factors responsible for the sweep of the saffron brigade in the country. The Ayodhya mosque is to all intents and purposes a practical symbol for the BJP to vent its anger against what it claims to be special treatment accorded to the Muslims. The BJP continues to target the Muslim minority in all its speeches despite the fact that the community has very little say in the social and political life of the country. The Hindu party has thus managed to very cleverly exploit the political gaffes made by the Congress I which had overtly wooed the Muslims in the past to its own advantage. India was the first country to ban the Satanic Verses of Salman Rushdie. The Congress-I had wooed the Muslims through a series of appeasement policies aimed at obtaining the minority votes. If the attempt on the part of the journalist to describe in a detailed and articulate manner (complete with statistics) the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party is laudable, the
recourse to blatant sensationalism in the following extract, is perhaps not so praise-worthy. More than the issues of unemployment, poverty or the collapse of the U.S.S.R, the question of this mosque has taken up all attention of the Indian politicians and has contributed to the fall, one after another, of several governments. As we have seen time and again, the only Government to fall on the Ayodhya issue was the coalition Government of Mr. V.P. Singh in November 1990 following the arrest of the BJP leader, Mr. Lal Krishna Advani and the withdrawal of the partys support. It thus appears once again to be a case of attempting to sensationalize the issue to state that Ayodhya makes one after another Government heads fall. The same error had surfaced in its earlier edition dated 8 December also. The inference here clearly seems to be that Indian politicians are more busy dealing with apparently relatively minor religious problems instead of tackling the more fundamental issues plaguing the country. This statement seems to be indicative of the general western perception of India as a superstitious, poverty-ridden country concerned solely with addressing caste and religious issues while turning a blind eye to the more pressing problems facing the nation. No doubt Ayodhya has become a major political problem for the country in the north but certainly it never assumed the preponderance required to make one after another Indian Government fall. It is a blatant attempt at sensationalizing an issue that hardly made any waves in the south where the BJP has made very limited inroads. viii) Libration, 21 December 1992 In its edition dated 21 December 1992, Questions: Menace sur la lacit indienne (Questions: A threat to Indian Secularism), Libration has carried an interview with a former Congress-I member, M. J. Akbar, a distinguished journalist, historian and Muslim who has also authored several books on contemporary Indian history. The questions addressed to him here by .ranois Sergent, are both hard-hitting and probing. M. J. Akbar defends Indias secular credentials by pointing out that the majority of the educated Hindus have decided to boycott the Hindu fundamentalist parties. As he underlines
71
72
India is not secular because the Muslims who constitute only 11% of the population, want it; India is secular because the Hindus want it too. Although most Indians who read their newspapers are aware of the fact that during the riots which broke out following the demolition of the mosque, many members of the Hindu community went out of their way to provide shelter to the persecuted Muslim minority, the .rench reader too has to be acquainted with this. M. J. Akbar does precisely that. As he points out, When one speaks of fundamentalists, one must not include all the Hindus. It is the same thing for the Muslims as well. There are fascists in both the camps. They are not the majority but an active and noisy minority can often suffice. The majority is often silent. Just as the Muslim fanatics do not represent the Muslim way of thinking or the tenets of Islam in general, the Hindu mindset cannot be confined to illiterate, slogan-shouting mob hysteria. M. J. Akbar raises the moot point: Why should an entire community be held responsible for the actions of a few who happen to belong to that community? He emphasises the fact that the Muslim community, like the other minority groups in India, have also contributed towards the material and cultural production of the society. Conditioned by years of community life, the majority of the Hindus do not have an axe to grind with their Muslim neighbours. As he underlines: These communities traditionally got together or used to get together at one time. Moharram, the festival of the Muslim shiites in India, is a unique phenomenon. It is also the festival of the sunnis and the Hindus. The Hindu women believe that taking part in this festival would cure sterility. The Indian music is also a wonderful example of this synchronisation. The most powerful and magnificent of the ragas are a blend of Hinduism and Islam. It is only in India that such music could be created through religious harmony. Considering the fact that India has suffered a loss of dignity in diplomatic circles following the destruction of the mosque, it is important to reach out to the international community through articulate native spokespersons in an effort to rebuild bridges. M. J. Akbar, in this instance has also skilfully fielded some of the more sensitive questions directed at him. In response for example, to the question as to how a
country as religious as India could claim to have a secular foundation, he replies: It is the whole paradox of India. The term secularism does not exist in any Indian language. We had to borrow it from the British because the Indian way of thinking admits equal freedom to all religions, all philosophies, all communities. Hinduism, as we have seen earlier, did not even have a name for itself. Hindus were never a homogenous community in the same sense as the Muslims for example, who, despite their internal feuds common to any social polity, possessed a closer sense of religious bonding. The present article is a good example of attempting to educate the .rench reader by providing him with first hand information from a distinguished and native source a well-known Indian writer and politician who, incidentally, also forms part of the Muslim minority in India. ix) Le .igaro, 10 December 1992 Le .igaro too has sought to analyse the root causes of the Ayodhya conflict by publishing an interview with Violette Graff, researcher at the National Institute of Political Sciences (Paris) and an authority on Islam in India. In her interview, Violette Graff who is apparently well-versed with the traditional customs and beliefs in India, sums up the controversy surrounding the age-old belief in India regarding the birth-place of Lord Rama in the following phrase: what is taking place in India today is a dangerous intrusion of religion into politics. She goes on to add: with or without a proper rationale, the Hindus consider the sacred town of Ayodhya to be the birthplace of Lord Rama. But if there are hundreds of temples in Ayodhya, there is also only one mosque built by the Mughal Emperors in the 16th century standing precisely on the same site where Rama is believed to have been born. In fact, it continues to be a mystery to most educated Indians as well as others, as to how the BJP came to locate the exact spot of Lord Ramas birth (born some 90,000 years ago). The issue, in fact, has to be debated not only with the Muslims but also with the people of Thailand who believe that the real Ayodhya was in Bangkok where even today, the ruling king is named after Lord Rama. As archaeologists are unable to shed any
73
74
definite light on the matter, the controversy remains a volatile amalgam of passion and politics. In comparison with Le .igaro here which has highlighted the fact that Ayodhya may or may not be a scientific battle but what cannot be ignored is the play of raw emotions which have their place in the historical context of the raging conflict, Le Monde (also 10 December 1992) chooses to underline the absence of all logic and rationale. Hindus believe without the slightest shred of archaeological evidence that Ayodhya is indeed the birthplace of Lord Rama. By sidelining the emotional factor, Le Monde has not taken into account the socio-cultural and political embryo. How else does one grasp the totally illogical yet powerfully symbolic significance of events such as the Ratha Yatra, the journey in a traditional chariot undertaken by Mr. Advani beginning in Gujarat (where the historic Somnath temple is located which was desecrated on several occasions by Muslim invaders) and leading to Ayodhya? Or even the Shilanya Puja which saw thousands of bricks from various corners of the country being carried in a symbolic gesture to Ayodhya with the specific aim of constructing a temple of Lord Rama? .or many of the Hindus in the country today, the Babri mosque is a sore reminder of a humiliating historical past. And if Rama and Ayodhya have merged to become a single truth, religion and politics too have converged to become a single reality. The close nexus between politics and religion in the country is highlighted by the fact that a television serial on the life of Lord Rama proved not only extremely popular with the Indian middle class in the mid-eighties, but the young woman who played the role of Sita, wife of Rama, even went on to become a member of the Indian Parliament. Although Le .igaro article begins on a promising note, it also reiterates the same error carried by Libration dated 8 December. On this issue, Indian Prime Ministers fell like flies. The bricks caused the downfall of Rajiv Gandhi in 1989; the chariot toppled the V.P. Singh Government in 1990. Once again, this statement appears as a blatant effort on the part of the daily to sensationalize the issue by grossly exaggerating the number of Indian Governments
which actually fell on Ayodhya. Although the coalition Government of Mr. V.P. Singh, as we know, fell on the issue, neither the Chandra Sekhar nor the Rajiv Gandhi Governments were toppled because of Ayodhya. It is true that the brick ceremony was held during the tenure of Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister but it is the occurrence of certain scandals which were primarily responsible for his electoral defeat. In the five years following the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1984, Rajiv Gandhi, who had started out initially with a lot of promise, also ended up by accumulating a string of failures - escalation of violence in Punjab; fiasco in Sri Lanka where Indian peace-keeping forces had been despatched; and allegations of corruption against the Government in the Bofors scandal. In fact, it is alleged involvement in the Bofors deal which did the most to damage the credibility of a Prime Minister who had initially started out as Mr. Clean. On 16 April 1987, following a Swedish radio broadcast, the Indian nation learned that several top Indian officials had received kickbacks amounting to several millions of dollars through middlemen from a Swedish gun-manufacturing firm, Bofors. Rajiv Gandhi and several of his close associates were suspected of being involved in the deal. The controversy dragged on and although nothing concrete ever came out of it, as far as the majority of the Indians were concerned, the determined efforts of the Government to hush up the case, were proof enough of its duplicity. Rajiv Gandhi therefore was voted out of power at the end of his fiveyear term. Although the article has made a laudable attempt to educate the reader by carrying an interview with an authority on the subject (other national dailies such as Le Monde also dated 10 December for example, have only quoted in passing the same researcher), what cannot perhaps be so easily overlooked here, is the resort to embellishment. In this particular instance, it is all the more astonishing because in an earlier publication (see Le .igaro, 8 December 1992), the daily had correctly stated that Ayodhya was responsible for the fall of one coalition
75
76
Government in New Delhi two years ago. Why the usage of sensationalism in this instance? x) La Croix LEvnement 10 December 1992 The article La Peur de lIsolement aprs les violences dAyodhya (The .ear of Alienation after the Ayodhya Violence) analyses here some of repercussions which inevitably followed the demolition: communal violence which claimed hundreds of victims; opposition parties clamouring for the resignation of the Prime Minister, Mr. Narasimha Rao; fear of diplomatic and communal backlashes from Muslim countries. The .rench journalist underlined the fact that the Muslim world has unanimously rallied to the cause of the Indian Muslims and has even threatened India with dire consequences. Although this is a correct summing up of the Indian problem, it is the first paragraph of the article which highlights the most serious of them all: the death of the Indian secular dream. The Muslim fundamentalists reiterate that it is the Babri mosque; the Hindu fundamentalists claim that it is the temple of Rama. What was actually buried in the rubble at Ayodhya on 6 December is above all the principle of secularism as advocated by the founding fathers of the nation. The .rench journalist also makes a brief summary of the socio-economic conditions of the Muslim community in India in a box-article entitled Co-habitation in Danger. She cites amongst other things the absence of a strong leadership as well as the influence of some of the Arab countries as factors responsible for the Muslim predicament in India as well as globally. It is a sensitive and objective portrayal of the Muslim community that refused to progress culturally, socially and economically in the pre-Independence days. As we have seen, at the time of Independence in 1947, the Muslim lite in its overwhelming majority, migrated to Pakistan. Almost fifty years later, the Muslims who had stayed back in India at the time, continue to lag behind in terms of literacy and employment, prey to their own illiterate and fundamentalist leadership. Most of the Muslims follow traditional vocations and are either weavers or carpenters. Their children often do not attend school. To quote Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian and scholar
with the US Administration think-thank who attributes the backwardness of the Muslims to the cultural factor: when it comes to war, one billion people and the worlds oil are not nearly as valuable assets as MIT, West Point, the House of Representatives The Islamic world does not do the necessary introspection to find out that they languish because their populations are large and illiterate, governments are not free, economies are not open and fundamentalists stand in the way of scientific enquiry and cultural exchange. The intercultural exchanges between the two communities in India, as we have seen earlier, also led to some very fine contributions in the fields of architecture, painting, music. If Anne Vaugier only refers in passing here to the development of a composite culture at the end of Muslim rule in India, noted historian and political analyst, M. J. Akbar, in his interview with Libration, was much more specific with regard to the fusion of the two cultures. Unfortunately, this article also contains an instance of factual distortion. I quote: The Muslim community in India is the third largest in the world after Bangladesh and Indonesia. It is true that India with a 100 million strong Muslim population has the third largest Muslim population in the world, but not after Bangladesh. In fact, Bangladesh has only 93 million Muslims while Pakistan has 107 million. Consequently, it would be more accurate on the part of the .rench journalist to state that the Muslim community in India is the third largest in the world after Pakistan and Indonesia. xi) La Croix LEvnement, 13 January 1993 The article Bombay paralys par les emeutes (Bombay paralysed by riots), is a concise and articulate description of the mayhem that reigned in Bombay following riots which paralysed the economic nerve-centre of the country for some time. The style of writing is descriptive. However, the interpretation accorded by the journalist to the Bal Thackeray led Shiv Sena party charge sheeted with the crime of instigating the Bombay riots, is erroneous. According to the authorities, the improvement in the situation in certain localities, could be due to a signal of
77
78
cessation of hostilities issued by Bal Thackeray, chief of the Shiv Sena (army of Lord Shiva), a fundamentalist Hindu organisation with a strong power base in Maharashtra whose capital is Bombay. It has to be noted here that the Shiv Sena does not stand for the army of Lord Shiva (one of the prominent gods of the Hindu pantheon) as suggested by the journalist. The Shiv Sena, in fact, borrows its name the army of Lord Shiva from the famous Maratha leader, Shivaji Bhonsle, who incarnated the Maratha spirit of rebellion against Mughal rule in the seventeenth century. The tough and hardy Marathas had their homes along the Western Ghats spilling into the plains of the Konkan and across the Deccan into Central India. They had a common language (Marathi), a common religion (Hinduism) and a strong sense of regional and national belonging. Shivaji, their great leader, transformed them into a mighty power in the eighteenth century that greatly contributed towards the decline of the Mughal Empire. The objectives of the Bal Thackeray led Shiv Sena party, founded in 1966, was in the beginning to defend the rights of the sons of the soil, i.e. the population of Maharashtra against migrant workers and other non-Marathi invaders (from rural Maharashtra and elsewhere) who came initially because Mumbai needed the labour force for its industries and port. The initial migration to the city, however, escalated many times over in the years following Partition, leading to serious housing problems. Today, the Shiv Sena, which began with an anti-south tirade in the late 1960s, has identified itself with the Hindu revivalist movement. Although the error here is relatively minor, it could convey the impression that in India everything and especially politics, is linked with religious hocus pocus. This may be partially true in the light of the present conflict but it is a relative truth and a (mis)representation that only adds to the string of clichs vis--vis India in the eyes of the West. 2. Post-Scriptum Most of the articles on Ayodhya appeared in the newspapers in .rance primarily in the month of December, in the immediate aftermath of the demolition of the Babri Masjid. On the whole, they were well-written with occasional
attempts by some of the dailies to acquaint the reader with the native point of view by way of an interview. However, although the .rench press has, by and large, sought to provide its readers with pertinent and insightful excerpts on a distant and relatively unknown country, some of the articles cannot be said to be wholly objective or error-free in their interpretation. In attempting to chronicle the saga of violence in the biggest democracy in the world (as Le Monde is inordinately fond of describing India in all its articles), some of the national dailies tended to cast India in the stereotyped mould of a country languishing in religious and social dogmas. As we have seen, Le Monde on 8 December 1992, chose a deliberately lyrical beginning for its article which considerably diminished the gravity of the tragic content: The astrologers had fixed 12.15 pm on Sunday 6 December as being the most propitious hour for commencing the ritual ceremony. The .rench daily attempted to capitalize on the traditional native mumbo jumbo thereby demonstrating a lack of sensitivity vis--vis native sentiments. The stereotyped image of India was further supported in this instance by an illustration of the sacred cow (symbol of militant Hinduism) on the one hand and the holy Mullah with a goats head (symbol of the Muslim scapegoat) on the other. Le Monde has also resorted to other clichs such as caste domination (the agnostic and socialist Brahmin, Jawaharlal Nehru). It has also cited cows, pigs and the holy Koran as the three principal reason for all riots in India (a Muslim who nudges a cow; a Hindu who dumps a pig in the home of others; a Koran mishandled ). Perhaps the West forgets that despite some of its more popular symbols (i.e. poverty, astrology; caste domination, and sacred cows) and exports (i.e. yoga, guru, ayurveda, and Buddhism) the Indian genius is not confined to these images alone. Indians have globally excelled in software technology, medicine, mathematics, and beauty pageants to name but a few. And if the modern world increasingly uses terms (most of which are found in the Rig Veda itself) such as dharma, karma, dhyana, prana shakti, kundalini, chakras, yoga, atman, it is equally fascinated by Indian cuisine, writing, music, and dance.
79
80
Compared with some of the other dailies such as Libration, Le .igaro and La Croix LEvnement, Le Monde generally uses a rather bombastic and insensitive style of writing. In fact, the dailies cited above, although not entirely free of exaggeration, appear on the whole, to be more balanced and positive in their approach. Le Monde, on the contrary, tends to adopt a discriminatory and even patronising attitude by projecting India as a superstitious and tradition bound country ridden with imaginary fears of the foreign hand in its internal affairs. As we have seen, it had debunked the Indian Home Minister, Mr. Chavans theories of foreign interference in the series of explosions that rocked Bombay, without providing in its turn, any shred of evidence to the contrary. Similarly, in its editorial dated 14-15 March 1993, it had stated: Already weakened by the recent spate of violence, the Narasimha Rao Government found it convenient to denounce, without any apparent proof, an international conspiracy. This of course is directed towards Pakistan whom India is quick to blame for everything that goes wrong in India. Anyone would think that India did not have enough ethnic, religious and social problems of her own without having to look beyond her borders. These statements are indicative of the special kind of myopia displayed by Le Monde vis--vis certain internal problems facing India such as the proxy war. Hence, following the series of explosions in Mumbai in March 1993, if the Narasimha Rao Government alluded to an international conspiracy, it was not out of any imaginary fears as the journalist is wont to imagine. History has shown time and again that it was not the Indian nation that acted as the aggressor. The proxy war reflects not only the current political strategy of Pakistan against India but also the mindset of the Army top brass in Pakistan that sees nothing wrong in playing the Islamic card as a means of settling scores. It has to be pointed out to Le Monde that Pakistan is not automatically blamed for everything that goes wrong in the country. It has never been held responsible for unemployment or overpopulation or the unequal distribution of wealth but for fomenting trouble within the country and seeking to de-stabilize it. It is Pakistan that needs to
be reminded that it cannot hope to progress as a society if it allows Kashmir to cloud its national goals of social and economic modernization. Although for over a decade now, India has been crying itself hoarse about international terrorism, it is only now that the West too has become painfully aware about the implications of the rapid spread of extremist violence across the globe from Afghanistan and the borderlands of Pakistan. Today the western world knows from its own bitter experiences that terrorists develop global networks driven by religious fundamentalism and that even remote countries can become outposts of disorder for the rest of the world. The international terrorists are nameless, faceless and prepared to die for their cause. And even though the worlds only remaining superpower has been compelled to double its financing of counter terrorism research, there is no fool-proof technique to identify the terrorists or combat the possibility of nerve gas being released in subway stations or bombs exploding in crowded market places. The patronizing tones of the western media can perhaps be attributed to the fact that the West normally prefers to turn a blind eye to the root causes of the malaise plaguing the developing nations of the world. All too often the corners of the world that generate fundamentalism or other forms of social and civil disorders, are impoverished or shattered societies where hunger, repression and illiteracy have bred violence, despair and extremism. Much of the developing world today is caught in the vice of disease, poverty and political instability. The West highlights social inequalities in developing countries while ignoring the fall-outs of their colonial legacy. It actually profits from terrorism and civil strife throughout the world which it ignores if not actually promotes. Many of the terrorist groups were originally even trained by the West. Large-scale financial and scientific help to the poorer nations today is perhaps an investment worth making. Since most international newspapers have their field correspondents, it came as something of a surprise to discover the quality and quantity of errors which surfaced in the limited purview of this study. I am not referring here to typographical errors such as Bajran Ban (see La Croix
81
82
LEvnement, 30 December 1992) to indicate Bajrang Dal but rather instances where the foreign journalist has deliberately attempted to sensationalize the Ayodhya issue. On this issue, Prime Ministers fell like so many flies; more than the issues of unemployment, poverty or the collapse of the USSR, the question of this mosque occupies all the attention of the politicians and makes one after another Government fall. Earlier, in 1990 and 1992, Ayodhya had caused the fall of two former Governments. As we know, one and only one Indian Government fell on Ayodhya and what is more, it was a coalition Government that could be toppled on just about any issue. The statement that Ayodhya has occupied practically all the attention of the politicians in recent years does perhaps hold some truth but in what does it authorize a responsible national daily to subscribe to imprecise exaggeration? As we have seen, practically all the dailies have resorted to exaggerating the number of Indian Governments that fell on the Ayodhya issue in order to enhance or sensationalize the reporting. Is sensationalism an integral part of journalistic writing? In which case, what about journalistic ethics? Some of the lapses, of course, can be considered as minor in the light of the linguistic, geographical and cultural barriers between the two countries. Hence it is perhaps not so tragic to mistake the trident as the symbol of Lord Vishnu. However, some of the errors, as we have seen, are more grave and seem to suggest a lack of sensitivity on the part of the international press. It is this same lack of sensitivity which shocked many on the occasion of the visit of the Indian President to .rance in the month of April 2000. Le .igaro was the first to publish three articles, all in the same issue and all of them authored by the same journalist, Jean Leclerc du Sablon. The title An Untouchable at the Elyse shocked many especially the Indian community. A second article traced the career of the Indian President and started with the tactless sentence Rare event in the Elyse protocol. Jacques Chirac will shake hands today with an Untouchable. The same afternoon, the muchrespected Le Monde also brought out a full page devoted to the Untouchable President. Perhaps the term Untouchable was used to attract and to sell since
newspapers are also obliged to market themselves for commercial reasons. Perhaps the term untouchable was used since the appropriate word Dalit in this instance would not have been understood by the .rench public. .rom the Indian angle however, it was still an unforgivable lapse and the .rench side clearly embarrassed by the Indian reaction. Some of the discrepancies or instances of misrepresentation can also be attributed to a lack of knowledge of the facts and figures and could perhaps have been eschewed by a fact-finding exercise. Hence there are no reserved quotas in the Indian universities and other public services for the religious minorities on grounds of religion since India has specifically enshrined the term secular in the Indian Constitution to indicate that the State does not make any discrimination against any citizen of India in matters of entry to public services or admission into educational institutions on grounds of religion. It was solicitude and concern for the socially and economically backward which led independent India to make special provisions like reservations in the statute book for Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes in India. However, as we have seen, in the last few years, a new breed of politicians has made capital out of the caste system with the aim of swelling their vote-banks. Some of these political parties cashed in on the concept of the reservation policy by seeking to introduce populist measures for electoral gains. The Ayodhya impasse owes its birth to the political games played against the backdrop of emotive issues such as the Shah Bano case and the Mandal Commission Report. The real agenda was to aggravate communal tensions for political gains since it is highly doubtful if any party really cares whether the reservation policy has been an effective tool for social justice which can justify the call for more reservation. All said and done however, if the international press gleefully picks up such burning controversies in developing regions of the world or embellishes the presence of an Untouchable at the Elyse, can one wholly blame it? It is not cost-effective to carry bland and positive news especially if the country in question has a history of abject poverty, institutionalised prejudices, child marriages, bride
83
84
burning as well as caste conflicts? If international media coverage has harped on the caste and religious factors, it is because as recently as the early decades of this century, one could still find upper caste Hindu households practising the most shameful forms of untouchability simply because they were brought up to believe that all this formed part of their religion. If international media coverage has underlined the ignorant and mumbo jumbo customs of the Hindus at Ayodhya, it is not entirely without reason. On the eve of the twenty first century, the mumbo jumbo generating ignorance has indeed come to dominate the political life of the biggest democracy in the world. If the .rench press perceives India as a land of poverty, illiteracy and colourful contradictions, can one really contradict it? It is here that women are deified on the one hand and subjected to the most humiliating treatment on the other. It is here that one finds the largest number of poor (judged by the World Banks Poverty Line of Per Capita income of one dollar or less a day) as well as some of the wealthiest families in the world. The attainment of the goal of universal elementary education is still a distant dream. Like some wild, unruly weed, the population problem stalks us with no immediate solution in sight. At the present rate of demographic progress, we are poised to overtake even China as the most populous nation in the world in the next four decades as per projections of the United Nations .und for Population Activities (UN.PA). And while it would be nave to expect that corruption can ever be totally eradicated in any system, it is disconcerting to note that India is now classified amongst the most corrupt countries in the world along with Indonesia, Vietnam and China according to the corruption index notified annually by Transparency International. This index is based on the assumption that a businessman will have to resort to bribery to obtain public contracts. If journalistic ethics, probity and credibility in this instance still leave much to be desired, our present democratic polity too is cause for despair and reason for introspection. The .rench zoom on Ayodhya, with all its hype and embellishments, has only unveiled a deep-seated national malaise. At the moment, even though the growing concerns
of the international community remain largely unstated, the image of India teetering on the abyss of extended communal violence does not augur well for the future. In order now to vanquish some of the more negative images in world mind, India has indeed a struggle to win! 3. Ayodhya 2002: A National Perspective A decade later in Indian history, the nation, sadly, has done little to redeem its reputation in the eyes of its voters and the international community as a peace loving, secular and rational democracy committed to the welfare of all its citizens. Delhi 1984; Ayodhya 1992; Mumbai 1992-93; Gujarat 2002. All these events have things in common they were all communal riots that took place with the open assistance of the State law and order machinery; they all saw ordinary, law-abiding citizens turn into killing monsters as political parties mobilised their cadres to carry out violence; they all saw the breakdown of civil society. On 6 December 1992, the Babri Masjid was demolished in the presence of BJP leaders. The demolition was in violation of the orders of the Supreme Court of India which permitted only bhajan (devotional songs) by the Kar Sevaks and a breach of the assurance given by the BJP Government in Uttar Pradesh. After the demolition, the idols were replaced on the site of the ruins of the mosque. A temporary structure was also put up and the make-shift temple on the disputed site survives. During the night, Presidents Rule was imposed on the State and the Assembly dissolved. The country witnessed widespread communal riots resulting in the loss of innocent lives and destruction of property on a large scale. Gujarat, .ebruary 2002. The communal carnage, if eyewitnesses are to be believed, was here also statesponsored and supported. The BJP Chief Minister is here also accused of either involvement or abdication of duties. No adequate measures or safeguards were provided while mayhem reigned in one of the most industrialised States in the country. Here also, communal violence claimed thousands of victims. Indian democracy lies in the hands of a diverse conglomerate of parties both at the regional and the national levels.
85
86
Over the years, two parties have emerged as major players at the national political level - the BJP and the Congress-I. However, there continue to be other smaller parties, mostly regional in character: the DMK and the AIDMK in Tamil Nadu and the TDP in Andhra Pradesh - regional parties with ethnic orientation; the Akali Dal in Punjab with religious orientation; the Communist Party in West Bengal and Kerala; BSP and Samajwadi Party in Bihar; the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra to name but a few. The BJP has been in power at the Centre over the last five years with Sri Atal Behari Vajpayee heading a coalition of 24 parties. The CongressI, however, wields power in some of the major States including Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. If the Congress-I continues to accuse the BJP of stoking communal passions for electoral gains, it is also similarly targeted for its minority politics and pseudo-secularism. The BJP had initially attempted in the early eighties to consolidate the secular legacy of the Janata Party by breaking with its Jan Sangh inheritance. This was partly because its membership had expanded dramatically and partly because value-based politics of the JP movement in the mid-seventies had proved to be extremely popular. However, by 1984, the BJP presence in the Lok Sabha amounted to only 4 seats whereas the Congress-I had 403. Subsequently, the BJP leadership began an intense scrutiny of its agenda and came up with its new strategy as the defender of the Hindu religion in order to increase its presence in the national power structures. The VHP in the meantime had begun the task of mobilising Hindu opinion on the Ayodhya issue. All this bred quick profit for the 1989 election results which, as we have seen, indicated a close nexus between the Shilanya Pujas, the Ratha Yatra, communal violence and electoral gains. The 1989 elections catapulted the BJP for the first time into the third largest national party as its share of the votes increased from 7.4% in 1984 to 11.4% in 1989. By 1991, the party had won 119 seats in Parliament expanding its share of votes from 11.4% in 1989 to 19.9%. The BJP had also in the meantime started drawing a large number of its candidates from the VHP and the Bajrang Dal both of which openly espoused right-wing ideologies. With the demolition of the
Babri Masjid, the BJP was transformed into the party that led a coalition at the Centre. Between 1990 and 1996, the party politics centred around attacking pseudosecularism and appeasement of the minorities. However, if the old mantra was Hindutva, the new policy gradually became flexibility as the BJP reinvented itself for wider acceptability. The party could come to power at the Centre ironically by tempering its aggressive stance and by forming an alliance with secular parties. In 1998, the BJP dropped the so-called contentious issues which included the construction of a Rama temple on the disputed site at Ayodhya, the introduction of a common civil code and the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution conferring a special status on Jammu and Kashmir. This was due primarily to the political compulsions of forming a coalition Government with partners who did not share its views. The way the BJP adopted the Hindutva agenda to come to power and the way it abandoned it again on coming to power, is once again indicative of the volatile nature of contemporaneous Indian politics. Since December 1992 when the mosque was pulled down, the Ayodhya card was played and re-played several times. It is brought out of its political cold storage as and when electorally expedient. In fact, it was only to be expected that the pressures of political stratagem would push the BJP more and more towards tactics that have become staple in Indian politics: stoking communal hysteria. The apparent moderation of the party on coming to power was based on the necessity of convincing voters that it could be a governing party. Today, faced with the pressures of nonperformance and the task of keeping its alliance partners happy, the BJP is once again scrutinizing its political aces. The BJP Ministry in Uttar Pradesh has not had a very impressive innings in recent years. The Chief Minister, Mr. Kalyan Singh (re-instated by the BJP Ministry) was forced to quit after many in the party held him responsible for its poor performance in the 1999 Lok Sabha polls. His replacement, Mr. Ram Prakash too failed to impress. After his removal, different strategies were evolved in a bid to seduce the reluctant voter. The party which had traditionally
87
88
relied on emotive factors more than anything else, now realised that in a State like Uttar Pradesh, voters were guided more by factors of caste and community and that certain social groups could be specifically targeted. The casting coup introduced by the BJP legislated to provide for reservation within the overall reservations for the most backward and the most oppressed communities amongst the backward and the Scheduled Castes. Social justice was going to be delivered to the most backward and the most oppressed in the form of sub-quotas so that they could avail of reservations that would ensure that they were no longer pushed around by the dominant castes. Clearly, this move was aimed at undermining the Samajvadi Party (the main BJP political rival in the State) and the Bahujana Samaj Party (BSP) and this is exactly what happened. The rival factions banking on the exclusive support of sections of the Dalits and the backward classes were taken aback to begin with. However, the BSP recovered enough to immediately extend all support to the new reservation policy. The SP and the Congress-I demanded special reservation for the minorities. As it slowly became clear that the Mandal hat trick alone might not work, the BJP once more resumed an intense scrutiny of its political agenda. Eleven years ago, the BJP had played the Rama card in Uttar Pradesh to counter the Mandal move by Mr. V. P. Singh. .ollowing the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the Union and the Uttar Pradesh Government (both controlled by the Congress-I after Presidents Rule had been imposed on Uttar Pradesh) allowed matters to drift so that a makeshift temple appeared on the site in December 1992. Subsequently, a status quo was declared on 7 January 1993 that legitimised limited prayers at the temple. While the BJP knows that the movement to build a temple may not be as effective a propaganda tool as it was a decade ago, the country is once again passing through a similar phase of collective angst. The rise of global terrorism, terrorist attacks in Kashmir and on the Indian Parliament, visible signs of an assertive orthodoxy amongst some sections of Muslims, a weakening economy, all provide fertile terrain for whipping up communal passions.
The VHP and the Bajrang Dal sought once more to whip up passions over Ayodhya. The Ayodhya card was brought out at the Dharam Sansad meeting at the Kumbh Mela in Allahabad in January 2001. The VHP announced its plans to start the construction of a temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya and also stated that beyond March 2002, it would not wait for a negotiated settlement or a court verdict. Matters of faith as it stated, cannot be determined by the Judiciary. It threatened to take possession of the disputed land by force if necessary. Leaders of the Babri Mosque Action Committee and Muslim Personal Law Board also declared that they were not prepared for any compromise on their plans to rebuild the mosque. The efforts of the BJP to revive Hindutva and Ayodhya in similar pre-election drama, despite its commitment to eschew the contentious issue when it formed the National Democratic Government at the Centre, seem like dj vu. Once again, it is important to recall here the positive experiences of the pluralist co-existence in an effort to preserve the sense of nationhood shared by millions belonging to different faiths. The building of a temple or a mosque cannot strengthen our unity. Our unity can be strengthened only through a united endeavour to ensure that the justice of the land, irrespective of class, creed, profession or political affiliation, is upheld. And this can be done only with the active support of the judiciary, the bureaucracy and the electorate. The bureaucracy in India remains perhaps too dependent on the political leadership. Hence the responsibility falls primarily on the judiciary and the electorate. The people of India especially need reminding that they cannot continue to be mere spectators to the drama. As M. J. Akbar pointed out in his interview with the .rench Libration, the majorities within all faiths have retreated and have allowed the more intolerant elements to take charge. Considering the long established tradition of nonviolence and tolerance as essentials of Hinduism, the term Hindu militancy as employed by international coverage to describe a non-vengeful, secular nation, is a contradiction
89
90
in terms. And really, does Hinduism need anyone to enforce it? However, as political parties show their increased willingness to pay any price, take any stand, forge any alliance to win, the educated classes are taking more and more a backseat in public life. In the case of Ayodhya, their passivity was also to a certain extent responsible for things spinning out of control. A declining inclination to participate in the electoral procedure has resulted in the voting section being confined to party loyalists who generally do not discriminate. The discriminating non-party section on the other hand, does not vote at all. The parties, as a result, feel emboldened to make any alliance that suits them, put up any candidate they wish. More than ever now is the time for the ordinary citizen to stand up, not as members of one religious order or the other but as rational citizens of a secular India. The present legal system in India is heavily biased in favour of the very rich or the very powerful. The general public is often witness to cases of those facing trial on charges of corruption or other malpractices going to court surrounded by slogan shouting supporters who do not hesitate to indulge in violent demonstration against negative court verdict. In contrast to the treatment meted out to the ordinary citizen, especially the poor and the helpless, the more prominent members are found to be either innocent or the evidence collected not strong enough. The Ayodhya cases, for one reason or another, simply drag on. A decade after the demolition of the disputed structure, a clear verdict has yet to be issued. In the case of those accused of conspiring to demolish the mosque, after a decade of hearings and depositions, the commission probing the circumstances leading to he demolition, is yet to conclude its findings. A clear enunciation of secularism can come about only if it made abundantly clear that the law of the land applies equally to everyone. A secular country has to first guarantee equality of status to all its citizens man, woman, young and old. How can one learn to tolerate differences when there is so much disparity at fundamental levels? Just as a temple, mosque, church or gurdwara is accessible to all citizens, every Indian should ultimately be provided equal rights to education and justice.
What has changed in the socio-political landscape of the biggest democracy in the world? It would seem that the Indian voter still cares about his religion just as he continues to care about the half a century old democratic system and the principles of secularism as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Although the BJP used the Ayodhya movement to mobilise and to consolidate Hindu voters, it could come to power only by adopting a more neutral stance, at least for some time. As Le Monde in its issue dated 10 December 1992 had firmly stated: Not that any of the party members regret the demolition but what they cannot ignore is that millions of their voters, many of them from middle class background, did not give them their support to witness the burning of the country. To rebuild the temple of Rama was one thing. To plunge the biggest democracy in the world into an orgasmic fever of inter-religious violence is quite something else. The decline in the political fortunes of the Congress-I too started with the blurring of its secular image as it pandered to minority votes. The electoral defeat of the BJP in some of the major States shows that the Ayodhya gambit may no longer work. In fact, religious totalitarianism as a concept is now pass in the modern world. The global village has thrust us into an era where plurality will increasingly form the bedrock of world culture. There cannot be only one race, one culture, one religion. Most polities in the world today are multireligious, the common pattern being one majority religion and a few minority ones: in the South Asian region, Buddhism in Bhutan and Sri Lanka (70%); Hinduism in India (82%) and Nepal (90%); Islam in Bangladesh (86%); Pakistan (97%) and Maldives (100%). As Sri Aurobindo has emphasised in his essay on the Hindu Mahasabha, a hegemonic Hindu nation is unscientific and inappropriate to modern conditions whatever its values in the past. In his essay, The Unhindu Spirit of Caste Stratification, he visualizes Indian nationalism as inclusive and composite. The 100 million plus Muslims in India cannot be simply wished away. Nor can they be coaxed and cajoled with minority programmes. They must be awakened to a sense of pride in their status as citizens of a secular India. In the words of Sri Aurobindo: We do not shun, we desire the awakening
91
92
of Islam in India even if its first crude efforts are misdirected against ourselves, for all strength, all energy, all action is grist to the mill of the nation builder. In that faith, we are ready when the time comes, for us to meet in the political field, to exchange with the Musulman, just as he chooses, the firm clasp of the brother or the resolute grip of the wrestler. An effort has to be made by all concerned parties to rise above petty politics and to work towards a common national goal. To quote Sri Aurobindo once again: Nationalism depends on its success on the awakening and organising of the whole strength of the nation. It is therefore vitally important for nationalism that the politically backward classes should be awakened and brought into the current political life. The great mass of orthodox Hinduism which was hardly ever touched by the old Congress Movement, the great slumbering mass of Islam which has remained politically inert throughout the last century; the shopkeeper, the artisan class, the immense body of illiterate and ignorant peasantry; the submerged classes, even the wild tribes and races still outside the pale of Hindu civilisation. Nationalism can afford to neglect and omit none. It is finally the Indian people, he suggest and not the leaders who will determine the future of the country 'when the Indian people are wiser than their leaders and wise men, the democratic future of the country is assured. It is to be hoped that despite the prevalent negative image in the world mind today for poverty, illiteracy, overpopulation, religious violence, the new information age will bring increasing global appreciation of Indian culture. A diverse nation with a variety of people and traditions bound together by a common secular goal is a great strength for the future. There is but one road ahead. In the immortal words of Swami Vivekananda, the most powerful exponent of Hinduism - we have to 'arise, awake and stop not till the goal is reached. We must awaken to our sense of pride (Gaurava) and spirit of renaissance, the message of which was carried to the world by Swami Vivekananda.
The Archaeology and Politics of Ayodhya

Gillian Hawkes*
The destruction of the Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992 was the culmination of decades of communal strife and controversy over this historic monument. The destruction of any historic monument is a disaster for all humanity. Archaeologists, and right-minded people all over the world were horrified to witness the destruction. Archaeologically it is notoriously hard to establish the exact nature of a building let alone attribute it to a particular personage or event in the past. One need only think of the discoveries of the gardens of Eden or Noahs Ark to realise that this is not valid academic research. It is also not the purpose of archaeology to allow the exploitation of the past for modern, transient, political ends. Yet, archaeology, as it deals so intimately with who we are and where we come from, is fertile ground for use and abuse in the modern world. One need only think of the archaeological excavation carried out by the SS to prove descent from an Atlantean race to realise that archaeology when mixed with politics and bigotry is a heady mix. Archaeology has at its heart a search for the everyday lives of people of the past through an examination of their
* Dr. Gillian Hawkes is Research Assistant to Professor Richard Bonney in the Institute for Indo-Pakistan Relations, University of Leicester.
93
94
Gillian Hawkes
material remains. Through the small things of everyday life people have over the millennia expressed who they are. This is why archaeology holds such an appeal to demagogues who want to claim the past as their own. Archaeology and Ayodhya The historical accuracy of the Ramjanmabhumi and the temple which is believed to have been located in Ayodhya has become a hotly contested issue. The claim was first raised by the VHP, RSS and the BJP. They claimed that the Babri Masjid stood on the precise site of the birthplace of Rama and that the site had been commemorated by a magnificent temple which was destroyed and replaced by a mosque.1 This was refuted in a pamphlet published by historians and archaeologists based in Jawaharlal Nehru University in 1989 and again in 1992.2 The identification of Ayodhya with the birthplace of Rama is something which is hotly contested by historians and archaeologists. It is almost impossible to use archaeological evidence to locate the precise location of either a building or a person. The Ayodhya case raises many issues. Archaeological evidence is being used by people who are placing certain political demands on these remains and who are determined that only one possible interpretation is valid. Archaeology, nor does any other discipline, provide the user with a single uncontestable interpretation. This will be discussed further when we consider the interplay between archaeology and identity in the present day. The excavations which were concluded in August 2003 were conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India and a private company, Tojo-Vikas International Pvt Ltd which was acting in an advisory capacity. This excavation is unlikely to lead to a conclusive, clinching, final determination of the question: Did a Hindu temple exist, and was it destroyed, where the Babari Masjid was built in 1528? Nor will it settle the Ayodhya title suit before the Lucknow bench of the High Court, which originates in a property dispute in the modern period, not in medieval history.
1 2 Thapar, R. 1993, Editorial Preface, In: Mandal, D. Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition, Orient Longman (Delhi), ix. The Political Abuse of History, Jawaharlal Nehru University.
This series of excavations has raised objections from historians and archaeologists. .irstly, there are concerns over the social morality of the move. Assuming that the ASI found that a Hindu structure existed at the site prior to 1528, would that merit or retrospectively justify the demolishing of the mosque as part of the process of revenge? Many monuments were built in ancient and medieval India on top of demolished religious structures, but not only in India, all over the world, the inevitable tide of history with different civilizations coming and going have left their mark on the archaeological record. What would be done if it were found that the Taj Mahal, or some of the great Hindu temples, belonged to this category? Would they too be legitimate targets for destruction, to historically cleanse the land? These are actions which cause international outcry and which are forbidden under the UNESCO charter for the protection of historical sites and monuments. One needs only to think of the destruction by the Taleban of the Bamiyan Buddhas to see the reprehensibleness of these kinds of actions. Most Indian historians accept this ethical viewpoint. In 1993, the principal organization of historians, the Indian History Congress, voted by an overwhelming majority against the view that a monument can be destroyed or removed if there are any grounds for assuming that a religious structure of another community had previously stood at its site. It also stated that such post-facto rationalization of what was done on 6 December 1992 would place in jeopardy the fate of numerous historical monuments all over the country, an increasing number of which are being targeted for destruction by communal forces.3 History of Archaeological Excavations on Site What could be the practicable outcome of excavations at Ayodhya? At the end of August of 2003 the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court released the results of the five-month excavation to interested parties. According to reports, the ASI discovered a possible Hindu temple dating
3 Bidwai, P., No voodoo archaeology, please, (26 March 2003), <www.rediff.com/cms>
95
96
Gillian Hawkes
to tenth century. This is almost impossible to determine archaeologically. There are no facts in archaeology, or any other field for that matter, if that means that they are incontrovertible and faithful statements about objects or events external to us. .acts are, to the best of our knowledge as a collective body of investigators using certain criteria for judgement, the most accurate, precise, and reliable accounts of observations. They are also accounts which we may believe to be accurate, precise, and reliably representative of observations by others. Accuracy, reliability and precision, as in statistics, are matters of conventional wisdom and standards. There are very few publications on the excavations at Ayodhya which allow for other archaeologists to comment on these excavations; there are no site reports, no detailed stratigraphical information, no finds analyses. In what appears to be a propaganda brochure written by Sharma et al, claims are made for the destruction in the early sixteenth century of a Hindu temple at the site of the Babari Masjid. This publication provides as evidence a big hoard of beautifully carved buff sandstone pieces in a large pit 12 feet from the ground level near the Ramajanma Bhumi Temple.4 Allegedly, careful study by eight eminent archaeologists and historians found all these objects are architectural members of a Hindu temple-complex of the 11th century AD.5 The objects were, however, recovered on 18 June 1992, when the ground near Ramajanma Bhumi was being levelled. The document further states: On the 22 and 23 July Dr. K. M. Srivastava and Dr. S. P. Gupta went to Ayodhya and scraped the section facing east and also dug at least two feet still deeper in a small area along this section. They discovered a huge burnt-brick wall of more than a dozen courses running along the section and beyond it. Below this after a little break, the remains of another rock-wall have been found. At two different preIslamic levels there are the remains of brick-laid floors.6
4 5 6 Sharma, Y.D. et al. Ramajanma Bhumi: Ayodhya: New Archaeological Discoveries. (Delhi, n.d.), 1. ibid: 1. ibid: 12.
Also discussed is evidence for destruction, which conclusively proves what Prof. B. B. Lal, the previous excavator of this site, has been repeatedly saying that here at Ramajanma Bhumi there was an impressive structure of the 11th-12th century built on pillars standing on a series of parallel burnt-brick bases which was destroyed in the early 16th century; in all likelihood the bases carried on them the same temple-pillars which were fixed in the mosque.7 According to Muralidharan, writing in .rontline8, B.B. Lal commenced an excavation project at Ayodhya in the mid1970s. His findings indicated continuous occupation of the site between the seventh century AD and the thirteenth century AD, followed by a break of a few centuries. According to Muralidharan, Lal did not revise his conclusions until 1989, when he wrote in a journal of the RSS that his excavations had uncovered a series of brick pillar bases just beyond the Babari Masjid, and it seemed reasonable to suppose that these were the remnants of a pillared temple which stood at the site prior to the construction of the mosque. Lal apparently did not produce any documentation of his findings until two years later when he produced some photographs. At the same time, the plea was advanced on behalf of Lal, that the site notebook pertaining to the excavation could not be located, since it has been prepared many years before.9 Investigations by a team of historians and archaeologists including R.S. Sharma and Suraj Bhan concluded that the provenance of the so-called pillar bases could not be firmly established; and that these remnants belonged to an ordinary structure of reused bricks, which was neither religious nor monumental.10 K. V. Soundara Rajan, who collaborated with Lal on the excavation, affirmed that the supposed pillar bases had indeed been found, but that they could have belonged to a structure contemporary or slightly antecedent to the mosque either ancillary to or independent of it.
7 8 9 10 ibid: 12. Muralidharan, S. Questions of ethics, .rontline 11 (25): 99101. Ibid: 100. Ibid: 100.
97
98
Gillian Hawkes
Mandal, archaeologist at Allahabad University, concluded that it is highly probable that the so-called pillar bases are actually portions of walls of different structural phases.11 The remnants consist of clusters of bricks laid haphazardly and seem to date between the thirteenth and the fifteenth century AD. The interpretative leap from bricks to a Hindu temple of a specific date requires a great deal of archaeological information. Archaeological data, factual or putative, are the building blocks of interpretations and models that are deemed adequate as long as they are logically consistent, concordant with observations by competent investigators, and congruent with previously accepted principles. .rom this perspective it would be unproductive to ponder whether there are indeed archaeological facts, when in the case of Ayodhya, the claims of certain archaeological remains can be checked by a body of non-partisan specialists. Even if it was conclusively established that the remnants of a temple, a Hindu temple, exist at Ayodhya what justification would that be for the destruction of the Babari Masjid, an archaeological site dating to the sixteenth century? International conventions forbid the destruction of archaeological heritage for sectarian or partisan purposes, and call for their preservation. Archaeological sites do not belong to one person, or even one nation but are our common heritage. Any decision to sacrifice major archaeological sites for a common good is an onerous decision and must involve international bodies as has been the case in campaigns to salvage the antiquities in Nubia in conjunction with the construction of the Aswan Dam.12 Similarly, rescue excavations are organized whenever archaeological remains are threatened both in Britain and in other countries, so that we can learn as much as possible about life in the past before it is destroyed forever.
The malicious destruction of archaeological heritage for chauvinistic political purposes is morally indefensible. .or example, the Nazi manipulation of the past in occupied Poland is a case in point.13 Artefacts of Slavic origin were either dispersed or destroyed and objects which bore relevance to a Nazi viewpoint were imported and put on prominent display. This was supposed to provide evidence for the proto-Germanic character of Central Poland. Today, with the re-emergence of fascism in Europe and all around the world, the resurgence of fundamentalist movements and the appearance of chauvinism, archaeologists face a responsibility they can no longer avoid. However, many heritage organizations and professional in India are outraged at this desecration and the nature of the archaeological investigation and interpretation to which the Babari Masjid site has been subjected. .or example, the Indian History Congress stated on 15 .ebruary 1993: The Indian History Congress is deeply perturbed at the way in which, in two distinct rounds, the kar sevaks have been permitted to dig up the ground, destroy evidence of stratification, and remove or destroy materials like the mosque inscriptions. The kar sevaks have claimed discoveries that by their own admission have been made in total absence of archaeological control and of independent observers. The recent report which has appeared as a result of the five-month-long excavations carried out by the ASI has, as was expected, attracted much controversy. The report concludes that: there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive structure (11-12th century) having a minimum 50x30 metre (in size) in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure. 14 The
13 Mikolajczyk, A. Didactic Presentations of the Past: Some Retrospective Considerations in Relation to the Archaeological and Ethnographical Museum, Lodz, Poland, in Gathercole, P. and Lowenthal, D. (eds). The Politics of the Past (1990), 247-256. Damodaran, P.M. 2003, ASIs archaeological incorrect treatise on Ayodhya In The Milli Gazette, September 2003 (New Delhi).
11 12
Mandal, D. Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition (New Delhi, 1993). Hassan, .. Conference Review, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 6, 81-86.
14
99
100
Gillian Hawkes
structure had a huge pillared hall (or two halls) with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it, belonging to 1000 AD onwards. The ASI has concluded that the existence of a massive and monumental structure below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure along with the yield of stones and decorated bricks in the north and fifty pillar bases in association of the huge structure were indicative of remains which were distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India.15 There are however, many loopholes in the ASIs report and this has caused much discussion amongst the historical and archaeological communities in India and beyond. There is a general feeling that the report is, at least in part, politically motivated and that the conclusions are convenient for the BJP government which has pledged its support for the building on the site of the Babri Masjid. The report mentions the discovery of fifty pillar bases with temple-style carvings bearing lotus motifs and a mutilated sculpture of a divine couple. These are put forward as evidence for the existence of the temple. However, this type of evidence is open to many different interpretations. The pillars do not belong to a particular periods and they range over different chronological periods. As Sahu has mentioned working out that they belong to a temple structure is difficult.16 The other point, apart from the one mentioned above about stratigraphical sequence, is that decorated bricks and tiles could have been used in other buildings and not necessarily exclusively in a temple. There are also methodological problems with the way in which evidence has been collected from the excavations and presented in the report. The animal and human bones recovered from the site are not discussed, nor was it deemed necessary to ascertain the date of these either through
15 16 Damodaran, P.M. tise on Ayodhya Delhi). Damodaran, P.M. tise on Ayodhya Delhi). 2003, ASIs archaeological incorrect treaIn The Milli Gazette, September 2003 (New 2003, ASIs archaeological incorrect treaIn The Milli Gazette, September 2003 (New
radio-carbon dating or through stratigraphical analyses. The contexts from which these were excavated have also been insufficiently been detailed. The presence of large amounts of pottery, animal bones and human bones (from a cemetery site) would indicate the domestic nature of the site. The report then also goes onto to contradict itself about the dating of the site itself; after radio-carbon dating charcoal (although the contexts from which the samples came was not specified) the ASI concluded that no temple-like structure existed for a period of nearly 2700 years.17 The new report however, does not come up with new material to justify the temple theory rather much the same as before was found. Archaeological evidence cannot allow for a function to be attributed to archaeological remains, these can only ever be speculative. The nature of the excavations, which clearly did not pay as much attention as it should to the material culture and environmental remains or to the stratigraphy is deeply flawed methodologically and the evidence can therefore not be seen as primary archaeological evidence. In summary, the claim that a temple lay underneath the Babri Masjid rests on two archaeological finds: the socalled brick pillar bases and the hoard of sculptures recovered from a pit in the course of land-levelling. These finds have been projected as proof of the temple theory. The archaeological excavations which have been carried out post-demolition and the current phase of excavations leave much to be desired in terms of archaeological methods and practice. A series of photographs of the excavations reveals that the brick-pillar bases are not all contemporaneous and may not have served as pillar bases at all. These would have been too weak to support the weight of pillars. These rows of pillar bases are also not in alignment as has been claimed by the ASI reports. There is also very little clearly datable material culture which would indicate the presence of a temple. The hoard of sculptures does not fit in with any of the stratigraphical
17 Damodaran, P.M. 2003, ASIs archaeological incorrect treatise on Ayodhya In The Milli Gazette, September 2003 (New Delhi).
101
102
Gillian Hawkes
sequences established by Mandal in his re-examination of the archaeological evidence. The fact too that these remains were excavated in an uncontrolled setting means that their primary contextual information has been lost and so they become archaeologically valueless. The status of this hoard is therefore no more than a surface find. The destruction of a temple (of which no remains have so far been found) would have left a mark in the archaeological record. However, there is no evidence for a destruction layer in the form of charred material or of masses of broken masonry, bricks or tiles. The only archaeological material which has come to light in the aftermath of the destruction of the Babri Masjid, only those initial excavations carried out by Lal in the 1970s can be regarded as primary archaeological material. These excavations were conducted according to established standards of excavation and recording. His conclusions can be seen as demonstrating that brick was a ubiquitous building material in the lower levels rather than evidence for a lower, pre-mosque structure extensively constructed of stone.18 The stratigraphy of the trenches indicates that the socalled pillar bases are not contemporaneous with one another, but belong to different structural phases. The pillar bases are also too small to have served in a loadbearing function. It can be suggested that the pillar bases are actually the remains of various walls of different structural phases. These bases are also not aligned and are of varying lengths and breadths. They also do not have straight edges or sides. Mandal suggests that these brick remnants are indicative of kaccha construction and not of a monumental stone temple. There is evidence for domestic occupation in the period immediately preceding the level of the mosque, which is associated with Islamic ceramics. These deposits can be dated to between the 13th and 15th centuries.19 There is also no evidence for material culture associated with the supposed temple.20 The proponents of the temple
18 19 20 Mandal, D. ibid, 63. Mandal, D., ibid, 64. Mandal, D., ibid, 64.
theory themselves have not to date discovered any more evidence than the so-called pillar bases and the hoard of sculptures discussed above. These sculptures were supposedly deposited in the 16 th century after the destruction of the temple, however, there is no 16th century material incorporated in the pit which would be usual for a destruction context. It is also clear from the surface abrasion on the sculptures that they were not buried but were located on the surface for most of their archaeological lifespan. When the archaeological material is looked at with an objective eye and regard for archaeological conventions of excavation and recording, it is clear that there is little evidence to support the temple theory. The archaeological excavations which have been carried out to date are at best poor in term of their methodology, at worst politically influenced and biased to produce a result which is palatable to the government of the day. This is the worst kind of archaeology and scholarship. Archaeology and Nationalism: A Problematic Relationship The identification of past cultures and peoples in archaeology has, for the most part, been dependent on the assumption that bounded, monolithic cultural entities (archaeological cultures) correlate with past peoples, ethnic groups, tribes and/or races. There are many problems with this approach which have been addressed in processual and post-processual critiques of archaeology.21 However, in summary, these critiques can be subdivided into three main categories. The first is concerned with the straightforward correlation of archaeological cultures with ethnic groups, the second with the nature of archaeological distributions and the status of archaeological cultures as classificatory entities, and the third with the nature of ethnicity and the very existence of bounded homogenous ethnic and cultural entities. It is clear as Binford states that the past was not homogenous and that people behaved in ways which were
21 Tilley, C. 1990, Post-Processual Archaeology, Routledge. See also Shennan, S.J. 1989 Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, Routlegde.
103
104
Gillian Hawkes
different than those ways accorded to them by culturehistory:

culture is not necessarily shared; it is participated in. And it is participated in differentially. A basic characteristic of cultural systems is the integration of individuals and social units performing different tasks, frequently at different locations; these individuals and social units are articulated by means of various institutions into broader units that have different levels of corporate inclusiveness.22
The whole concept of the existence of ethnic groups as fixed bounded entities can also be questioned. Ethnic groups are dynamic and situational phenomena. Studies have clearly revealed that the boundaries of ethnic groups and the identification of individuals may change through time and from place to place, often as a result of the strategic manipulation of identity with relation to economic and political relations. In the archaeological literature it has also been suggested that ethnicity is a dynamic and instrumental phenomenon and that material culture is actively used in the justification and manipulation of intergroup relations.23 Very few archaeologists however, have recognized the more radical conclusions of some recent anthropological research which questions the very existence of ethnic groups in the form of bounded, monolithic territorial entities, and suggests that such a conceptualization may itself be a legacy of nineteenth-century taxonomic systems.24 An example of how difficult it is to use material culture and archaeological remains to determine the ethnicity of the peoples living there in the past is demonstrated by excavations carried out in Amsterdam. Large areas of the city were excavated, including the Jewish quarter. It was expected that the inhabitants of this area would have left
22 23 Binford, L. 1965, Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process, American Antiquity 31: 203-210. Hodder, I., 1982a, Symbols in Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See also: Shennan, S.J. 1989b, Introduction, In Shennan, S.J. (ed), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, 1-32, London: Routledge. Shennan, S.J. (ed), 1989b, Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, 7-9, London: Routledge.
a clear signature within the archaeological remains. The excavator assumed that the animal bones assemblage in particular would be distinctive; there would be a lack of pig bones. However, it turned out to be very hard to differentiate between the two different assemblages, that from the Jewish settlement and that from the native Dutch settlement.25 It can be suggested that peoples identity is constructed in a very complex manner, perhaps some Jewish people were eating pork, even though religiously they were forbidden to do so. It also illustrates the fact that archaeological remains cannot be taken as an indication of ethnic or religious identity per se. The idea that identity is in any way homogenous, and unchanging over time shows a limited understanding of the human condition. People will act and behave in different ways depending on the contexts in which they are functioning; people perform many different roles in day-to-day life, mother, daughter, sister, wife, employee, in all of these roles that persons identity is defined both by herself and other people. The same goes for material culture; different objects mean different things in different contexts. A crucifix in a church symbolizes the sacrifice of Christ however, it can equally show the latest fashion craze for young people. Therefore excavated material cannot be accorded one, unchanging function or identity. There is a conspicuous political trend in archaeology which is concerned with the influence of ideology on interpretations of the past. Cutting across this kind of political consciousness - but not clearly integrated with it - is the experience of archaeologists in dealing with issues more obviously (because more immediately) to do with allocating, exercising or resisting power in society. Monuments like Stonehenge and the Parthenon Marbles raise questions which are political in this sense - about access (to whom?), protection (from whom?), and what they represent (in whose interests?). Similarly, the looting, destruction or
25 Ijzereef, ..G. 1989. Social Differentiation from Animal Bones Studies. In Diet and Crafts in Towns: Evidence from Animal Bones from Roman to Post-Medieval Periods, edited by D. Serjeantson, T. Waldron. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series No. 199, 52-67.
24
105
106
Gillian Hawkes
neglect of archaeological evidence bring to the fore not just the motives of those implicated in such things, but also the system of social division and exploitation which generates the motives themselves.26 There is always a tension in archaeology between the past and the present; between the desire to know what happened in the past, and to understand past societies, and the historically contingent concepts and meanings through which knowledge of the past is produced in the present.27 This tension is at its greatest in interpreting past identities. Popular historical representations provide a touchstone for ethnicity and nationalism and vice versa; the end product being an historically validated continuity of identity.28 The representation of national or ethnic traditions frequently involves the projection of an unchanging, essentialist culture and identity deep into the past in an attempt to establish the national community as so natural as to require no other definition than selfassertion.29 The critical role that the past plays in the assertion and legitimation of modern ethnic and national identities ensures that archaeological knowledge is frequently used in the construction of such essentialist ethnic histories. In this context, archaeological knowledge is not only appropriated at an abstract level within nationalist and ethnic ideologies, but at a more pragmatic level it is being used in the determination of land claims and the ownership of cultural heritage.30
26 27 Durrans, B. 1989, Theory, Profession, and the Political Role of Archaeology, in Shennan, S.J. (ed), 1989b, Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, 66, London: Routledge. Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and the Present, London: Routledge, 135. See also: McGuire, R.H., 1992, A Marxist Archaeology, London: Academic Press: 215-218, 247. Hall, M. 1994. Lifting the Veil of Popular History: Archaeology and Politics in Urban Cape Town, in Bond, G.C., and Gilliam, A. (eds), Social Construction of the Past: Representation as Power, London: Routledge: 167-182. Hobsbawm, E.J. 1983. Introduction: Inventing Traditions, In Hobsbawm, E.J. and Ranger, T. (eds), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1-14. Jones, S. op.cit.
As a result of this, archaeology is implicated in the construction of ethnic and national traditions and there is often a problematic slippage between contemporary concepts of group identity and the identification of past ethnic groups. Culture-history has long been the bastion of nationalist representations of the past31 and it continues to used for such purposes to this day. Ethnic and nationalist groups in direct competition for land frequently utilize the same basic culture-historical framework, as in the use of archaeology in support of competing German and Polish territorial claims in the Nazi period.32 The reason why the past is so often used to support nationalist claims is because of the perception about identity which sits at the heart of nationalist doctrine. Expectations of boundedness, homogeneity and continuity, which have been built into ideas about culture and identity since the nineteenth century, are related to nationalism and the emergence of the nation-state. Handler suggests that nations are endowed with the reality of natural things, and are assumed to be bounded, continuous and precisely distinguishable from other analogous entities.33 This has clear relevance in the case of India and the rise of Hindu nationalism. Muslim and other minority groups are constructed as being other, as not belonging to the homogenous and continuous Hindu past and therefore of having no place in the modern world. The idea of cultural diversity and of an ever-changing culture are alien concepts to such a world view. It is culture which distinguishes between nations and it is culture that constitutes the content of national identity.34
31 32 33 34 Ucko, P., 1995b, Introduction: Archaeological Interpretation in a World Context, in Ucko, P. (ed) Theory in Archaeology: A World Perspective, London: Routledge: 11. Jones, S., op.cit., 136. Handler, R., 1988, Nationalism and Politics of Culture in Quebec. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press: 6-15. Diaz-Andreu, M. 1996, Constructing Identities through Culture: The Past in the .orging of Europe, In: Graves-Brown, P, Jones, S., and Gamble, C. (eds), Cultural Identity and Archaeology: The Construction of European Communities, London: Routledge, 1-23.
28
29 30
107
108
Gillian Hawkes
This notion of culture and identity in nationalist ideologies has had an impact on archaeology. Bounded material-culture complexes are assumed to be the manifestation of particular past peoples, who shared a set of prescriptive, learned, norms of behaviour. Archaeological cultures came to be regarded as being synonymous with people. An example of this is the notion of the Celts. Through the material culture which has been identified as belonging to a Celtic tradition, the notion of a people known as the Celts emerged during the nineteenth century and the twentieth century. This was in part driven by nationalist ideologies in Ireland, where Celtic material culture was used to show their otherness to the British. It was also used during the 80s by the European Union to illustrate the historical oneness of Europe. However, many archaeologists have taken the existence of one group of people, acting and behaving in a homogenous fashion and producing one set of material culture as a way of interpreting past peoples. Increasingly, however, the notion of the Celts as a people has been discredited.35 There is an increasing awareness that social knowledge is not intrinsic to material culture. The spread of so-called cultures is largely based on where material culture (ceramics etc) have been discovered, this used to be translated to indicate that these objects were used in the same way and meant the same thing everywhere. This has been discredited through the work of theorists such as Appadurai who instead, indicate that material culture is a tabula rasa or naked slate and is imparted through use with meaning and does not arrive with meaning already attached. The use and meaning of material culture is also multiple and ever-changing. An example from Roman Britain indicates this, an amphora, originally from Southern Spain was excavated near Hadrians Wall, the olive oil had been used (in a variety of ways) and the amphora itself had been used as a urinal for the soldiers on patrol there. A use and meaning a million miles away from that originally intended. These examples are just here to illustrate the dangers of interpreting archaeological remains in a culturehistorical framework and of assuming the past to be like
35 See James, S. 1999. The Celts, London: Routledge.
the present or to try and shape the past and its peoples to conform to modern notions of culture and nation and identity. However some archaeology does still take place within an already established framework of bounded, sociocultural entities, which are assumed to relate to past social or ethnic entities, whether or not this correlation is acknowledged. This type of approach, apart from often being hijacked by nationalist ideologies, also means that the resulting picture has been one of people with a museum culture, uprooted from the deep historical field, devoid of dynamism and meaning.36 The consequences of such an approach are not restricted to academic reports but are also present in public policy, administrative practice, legislation and heritage management. As has been highlighted in Quebec, the preservation of the provinces heritage is an example of the objectification of culture whereby a body of static cultural characteristics becomes reified as an object possessed by the nation.37 Handler demonstrates that the definition, inventory, acquisition and enclosure of what is regarded as authentic Quebecois culture is embedded in a nationalist viewpoint. Only objects and buildings which fit with this view of Quebecois culture are afforded protection and included in museum displays.38 Archaeological remains can be treated as the property of a particular ethnic or national group. .or instance, in Zimbabwe a static, reconstructionist approach to the past has been adopted in some areas, such as at the site of Great Zimbabwe.39 At this site, a particular architectural phase in the highly complex past of the monument is being preserved and reconstructed. Such an approach leads to the reification of the monument as part of the heritage of the nation, and the alienation and denial of contemporary,
36 37 38 39 Devalle, S.B.C., 1992, Discourses of Ethnicity: Culture and Protest in Jharkhand. London: Sage Publications: 234. Handler, op.cit.: 140-58. Handler, op.cit.: 150. Ucko, P. 1994, Museums and Sites: Cultures of the Past within Education - Zimbabwe some Ten Years on, in Stone, P.G. and Molyneux, B.L. (eds), The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums and Education. London: Routledge: 237-82.
109
110
Gillian Hawkes
heterogeneous, beliefs and practices associated with the monument.40 Many other examples abound, including Stonehenge and Australian Aboriginal rock art, where a static, reconstructionist approach has resulted in these monuments being represented as particular, authentic moments in the history of particular sites or material remains, and their extrapolation from ongoing social life. This too is the case with Ayodhya. Rather than accepting the changing social dynamics which functioned as much in the past as in the present, and seeing the Babari Masjid as one extra layer of depth in the history and archaeology of Northern India, politicians and ideologues want to erase the existence of Mughal architecture and culture to provide the Indian people with a true and pure past, devoid of defeats, colonialism and imperialism. The past is a rich tapestry with many different stories, it should be respected as such and not be used to reinforce or rubbish the present populations identity and culture. If it is assumed that there is only one ethnic meaning or association to be gained from a particular monument or a particular style of material culture then it will be impossible to understand the multiple strands of what makes up both identity and belonging in the present as well as in the past. Nationalist groups, such as the RSS and VHP, who attempt to use archaeological reconstructions to make exclusive claims to buildings and territory do so on the assumption that archaeological remains provide evidence for a single, homogenous ethnos at some point in the past to which they can trace their origins. Therefore if archaeological sites and other material remains have been involved in the construction of multiple, fluid and diverse identities in different contexts then the historical justification for any nationalist claim to exclusive rights over a given monument is negated.41 Conclusions Ayodhya is just one case where nationalist agendas have used archaeology to establish claims of power and
40 41 Ucko, op.cit.: 271. Jones, S. op.cit.
hegemony. The decade-long wrangling in courts and parliament has obscured the original premise is that historic monuments should be afforded greater protection from destruction. It also highlights the problems that can arise when archaeology becomes involved with emotive, political and ideological issues. It is not only an issue for Indian archaeologists and historians but for everyone. International codes produced by the ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) and other bodies concerned with conservation of world heritage sites and monuments, are binding and must be invoked in adjudicating cases involving the potential damage or demolition of cultural heritage. The changing nature of political regimes and national boundaries necessitates the need for a code of ethics that overrides the mandates of transient chauvinistic or sectarian regimes. This was suggested by Hassan42 in 1993 in the aftermath of the demolition of the Babari Masjid, however, ten years on and we are no closer to establishing this code of ethics or to providing a means for the enforcement of the current charters. We only need to look back at the destructions of the Buddhas in Afghanistan to see that very little has changed and that cultural heritage is not very high on the agenda of the international community.
42
Hassan, .. 1993, Truth, Morality and Politics in Archaeology: The WAC 3 Ayodhya Case Study, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology Vol.6, 81-86.
111
112
Gillian Hawkes
We wont accept court verdict: Temple trust AYODHYA, MARCH 10, 2002: In a complete U-turn, the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas (RJN) on Sunday asserted it would not accept [the] courts verdict on the disputed site in Ayodhya if it went against religious feelings of HindusNyas President Ramchandra Das Paramhans said, We will maintain status quo on the disputed land till the court judgement. However, if the court judgement goes against our religious feelings, we will not accept it. We will oppose it even if it means shedding bloodParamahans remarks came three days after VHP International President and Nyas managing trustee Ashok Singhal gave a fresh written commitment to the Centre that it will abide by the court verdict on the disputed land. Paramhans insisted that the site in question was the birth place of Lord Ram and Babar had no claim on it as he was a foreigner. Babar was not born here. He was born in [a] foreign land, he said <www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/200203/ 20020310b.htm>
Documents1
Document One Plan to liberate Rama and Krishna Birth-sites at Ayodhya and Mathura, August 1984 A movement for the liberation of the temple of Rama at his birthplace, Ayodha, has been planned. The temple has been lying locked for 35 years. The formation of an organisation known as the Ram Janam Bhumi Mukti Yagya Samiti with Mahant Avaidya Nath of Gorakhpur as its president was announced by its convener, Mr. Daudyal Khanna, a former minister and Mr. Ashok Singhal, general secretary of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. The Samiti will also seek the restoration of land and buildings belonging to the Krishna Janam Bhumi Trust in Mathura and the mosque at Varanasi to the Vishwanath Temple Trust. After a meeting with the organisation they told pressmen that they planned to submit their demands to the U.P. Government in October. They plan to collect 10 lakh signatures for the demands. While pressing the demand for the restoration of Idgah at Mathura to the Krishna Janam Bhumi Trust, the mosque at Varanasi to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust and withdrawal of the attachment order passed against the Ram Janam Bhumi, Ayodha, they offered to get mosques and Igdah constructed for the Muslims in lieu of these places. .rom: Muslim India, August 1984 (courtesy of: Indian Express, New Delhi, 23 July 1984)
1 Note: The documents are placed not in chronological order but in the order they were published in the principal source, Muslim India. The Series Editor thanks Mr. Syed Shahabuddin, the longstanding editor of Muslim India, for permission to reprint these documents.
Documents
113
114
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
Document Two Ultimatum on Babari Masjid, October 1985 The N.D. Tiwari Government had been served with an ultimatum to restore the birthplace of Lord Rama in Ayodha to Hindus by Shivratri Day (8 March 1986) or face the consequences in the shape of massive agitation led by religious leaders of the country. A decision to this effect was taken at a meeting of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mukti Yagna Samiti in a meeting held on 30 June in Allahabad. .ollowing some dispute in 1948, the High Court had allowed worship of Sri Rama idol inside the temple by a Hindu priest and round the clock Kirtan on the gate. Muslims are barred from approaching the spot, till the Munsif Magistrate delivers a judgement over the claim of ownership. But strangely enough, the court is yet to start its proceedings even after the lapse of 37 years. What could be a bigger display of generosity than the offer of the Hindu religious bodies to Muslims to allot them a different land and get a mosque of their choice design constructed through donations raised by Hindus, if they withdraw their claim over forcibly constructing mosques demolishing temples over the birthplaces of Shri Rama in Ayodha, Shri Krishna in Mathura and the Vishwanath temple in Varanasi? Perhaps one such gesture on the part of Muslims would have buried once and for all the ugly memories of subjugation and religious persecution that keep lurking in the minds. But unfortunately, no such response seems forthcoming even after months. It shows the Hindus catholicity that even after thirtyeight years of independence they did not forcibly occupy the hallowed spots. The religious leaders who met in Allahabad were not unjustifiably indignant. Among those present were Shankaracharyas Swami Shantanandji of Badrikashram and Jagatguru Ramanujacharya. A Religious Trust was formed in meeting for reconstruction and management of the Shri Rama temple at Ayodha with Jagatguru Shri Rumanujacharya as its chairman.
If the government locks over the Janam Bhoomi gate are not removed by 8 March 1986, there would be mass defiance led by religious leaders. Already Paramhansa, Ramchandra Das has announced his decision to commit selfimmolation if the government fails to hand over the Janma Bhoomi to the Hindus by the deadline fixed (8 March 1986), though office bearers of the Janma Bhoomi Mukti Yagna Samiti and leaders Shri Dau Dayal Khanna and Shri Ashok Singhal have vainly tried to dissuade him from his resolve. Over a thousand religious leaders belonging to nearly a hundred sects would meet in Udupi in Karnataka on 31 October and 1 November this year This grand Dharma Samsad, second since April 1984, held in Delhi will also discuss the issue of the Janmabhoomis. .rom: Muslim India, October 1985 (Source: Organiser, 25 August 1985). Document Three Letter of Mushawarats Acting President Shahabuddin to P.V. Narasimha Rao, 22 January 1986. You may kindly recall that discussions you and your colleagues had with the delegation of the Mushawarat on the question of Restoration of Namaz in the Protected Mosques on 1 March 1984 and the subsequent correspondence between you and Mr. Ebrahim Sulaiman Sait, Convenor of the Mushawarat Committee to deal with this issue. At the meeting of 1 March 1984 it was agreed in principle that there shall be no prohibition on the performance of Namaz in any Protected Mosque anywhere but care has to be taken that no structural changes which would affect the architectural character of the mosques shall be made. As you know, the then Minister of State for Education did not fulfil her commitment to send us the draft of the Minutes for our confirmation. However, in my letter of 5 March 1984, addressed to you I had recapitulated the consensus arrived at the meeting as follows:
Documents
115
116
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
(i)
In principle there shall be freedom of Namaz in all Protected Mosques everywhere; (ii) Congregational prayers, whether Id, .riday or daily, shall be permitted if there is local demand and there is no alternative, if the mosque is located in a Muslim area, provided it does not call for any amenities or facilities which will require structural change which could affect the architectural or historical structure of the mosque. Such requests as and when received shall be considered sympathetically. (iii) Casual prayer by Muslim jurists or visitors shall be permitted everywhere during working hours. (iv) As far as possible the department of Archaeology shall post Muslim attendants to look after Protected Mosques. (v) The department shall allocate adequate funds from its budget for the maintenance and repair of the Protected Mosques. Since we have not heard from you in reply, we presume that the above is a fair submission of the consensus. Unfortunately, the Archaeological authorities continue to obstruct Namaz in the Protected Mosques even by casual visitors under one pretext or the other. We have received reports of .riday prayers being obstructed, in collusion with anti-social elements of the locality and sometimes with the help of the local Police, even against court orders. Such situations of confrontation are not only unpleasant but fraught with dangerous consequences. It appears to us that the main reason for such an attitude by the Archaeological authorities particularly at the lower level is because of lack of clear instructions from the Government. Thus, this problem continues to be a constant irritant for the Muslim community and which regards such obstructions as a detraction from freedom of religion guaranteed under the Constitution and a violation of the Act itself. We are happy that as the Minister for Human Resource Development you are now directly in charge of the Archaeological Department. As such, we deem it proper to
draw your attention to this unfinished item on your agenda and request you to issue clear instructions to the Archaeological authorities so that the possibility of confrontation is eliminated. The Mushawarat is under strong pressure from the Muslim community to revive the agitation for securing unconditional and unrestricted freedom for performance of Namaz in all Protected Mosques. The Mushawarat is however, bound by the agreement we reached with you on 1 March 1984. The Mushawarat Committee on the subject is to review the situation on 7 .ebruary 1986. The Working Committee and Central Majlis of the Mushawarat shall consider it on 8 and 9 .ebruary. May I request you for a reply to this letter immediately as that would help us in our discussion and in deciding about the future course of action. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Prime Minister. .rom: Muslim India, March 1986 Document .our Hand over Babari Masjid to Hindu Trust; Enact new law if necessary, September 1987 Statement of Mahant Avaidyanath, President Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Mukti Yajna Samiti and Dau Dayal Khanna, General Secretary of the Samiti. The liberation of the Shri Rama Janma Bhumi is a question of prestige and dignity for the entire Hindu Samaj. Hindu society has been insulted in this matter for long and it will not tolerate it any longer. Hence, we demand that the Government should bring legislation in Parliament for the liberation of Sri Rama Janma Bhumi and restore the situation as existed before the invasion of Babur. Otherwise, Shri Rama Janma Bhumi Mukti Yajna Samiti with the cooperation of Vishwa Hindu Parishad and all other Hindu organizations in the country shall be compelled to launch an agitation again in the whole country. News have appeared in some newspapers that riots in Meerut have happened as a result of the agitation by Vishwa
Documents
117
118
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
Hindu Parishad and Shri Rama Janma Bhumi Mukti Yajna Samiti. In this connection, it may be mentioned that 9 Shri RamaJanaki Rathas organized by Vishwa Hindu Parishad visited nearly 3000 places on 105 days in UP and Bihar. .unctions were held in these places and nearly 2 crores of Hindus participated therein. In all these places, there was a Muslim population, but not a single Muslim had any trouble from the devotees of Rama who had participated in these functions in very large numbers. It is clear proof of this fact that the feelings of communal hatred have not arisen on account of Shri Rama Janma Bhumi Liberation movement. Shri Rama Janma Bhumi Mukti Andolan was started in the year 1983. Prior to that a number of communal riots had occurred in Meerut. It is, therefore, entirely wrong and unjust to make an allegation of this nature against Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Maulana Abdullah Bukhari, Imam of Jama Masjid is a learned Maulvi. In accordance with the injunctions of Quran Sharif and Hadis, Maulana Abdullah Bukhari and other Muslims who call Shri Rama Janma Bhumi as a Mosque are committing a great sin. In the reign of Hazrat Mohammed Saheb, his officers, while constructing a Mosque, had used the house of a Jew without his consent. The Jew made a complaint to Hazrat Paighambar Saheb. Hazrat Mohammed issued orders that the Mosque should be dismantled and the land was returned to the said Jew. This particular incident is mentioned in Hadis. The Temple of Shri Rama Janma Bhumi was demolished and a Mosque was constructed thereon. In the light of the above referred injunctions contained in Quran Sharif and Hadis, Maulana Bukhari Saheb should take a decision that Shri Rama Janma Bhumi should be returned to the Hindu Society. Maulana Bukhari Saheb has been delivering lectures and issuing press statements, instigating the Muslims to come out on the road with swords in their hands for jehad, presumably to convert this country into DarulIslam. Shri Shahabuddin has said that Hindus are cowards and the Indian military cannot face the Muslims. Shri Zainul Bashar
Cong (I) MP had said that now the Muslim youth also want to become terrorists like Punjabi Sikhs. The speeches and statements of all the 3 abovementioned leaders are clear proof of this fact that these are the very people who are instigating the Muslims and are instrumental in creating the riots. The Government of India have full knowledge of the speeches and statements of these leaders. This matter has even been discussed in Parliament. Even then no legal action has been taken by the administration against such leaders. The administration cannot, therefore, escape from the charge of their being also responsible for these riots. A number of proposals appear in the newspapers from time to time to solve the controversy over Shri Rama Janma Bhumi. There are thousands of temples of Bhagawan Shri Rama in the country. But his Janma Bhumi is only in Ayodha. Nobody has any right to change that Janma Bhumi. The Government of India has published a survey report in the year 1889. It is written in part 10 thereof In Ayodha Meer Khan had constructed Babari Mosque exactly on that very spot where existed Janmasthan Temple of Rama. In the light of this historical evidence, the Government of India should immediately declare that Janma Bhumi is being returned to the Hindu Society. There is a Mosque in Srinagar (Kashmir) by the name of Hazrat Bal. One hair of Hazrat Mohammed Saheb that was kept in that Mosque was stolen. The administration has recovered that hair, but the Maulvis of that place told the administration that they will not accept this hair, till their senior Maulvis declared that this hair was that of Hazrat Mohammed Saheb. The Government of India, accepting their demand, constituted a committee of Maulvis. Perhaps a Maulvi from Mecca was also in that Committee. After examining the recovered hair the committee declared that that was the hair of Hazrat Mohammed Saheb and then only that hair was restored in the Mosque and the Mohammedans agitation came to an end. In case the Government of India desires any further information, regarding Shri Rama Janma Bhumi, then in accordance with the above example, the Government should find out from Dharma Sansad which is an organization
Documents
119
120
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
consisting of Pujya Shankracharyas and Saints and Mahatmas of all Sampradyas of the country as to what their instructions in this matter [is]. The administration should immediately comply with the decision that Dharma Sansad gives in this matter. The Government of India is aware that there is a similar problem about the Temple of Bhagawan Somnath. During the Prime Ministership of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the Cabinet had taken the decision that after removing the Mosque from there the Temple of Bhagawan Somnath may be reconstructed. The deity was installed in the Temple by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the then Rashtrapati. Shri Rajiv Gandhis Government should follow the example set by the Government of Pt. Nehru with regard to the reconstruction of the Temple of Bhagawan Somnath. We, therefore, demand that the government should without any delay hand over the Temple of Shri Rama Janma Bhumi for the purpose of its reconstruction by Shri Rama Janma Bhumi Trust constituted by Jagadguru Ramanandacharya in his capacity as a representative of Hindu Society. Katha Mandap etc. outside the Temple as well as the entire premises including Sita Rasoi inside the Temple are already in the possession of the Shri Rama Janma Bhumi Trust. Governments to keep a close watch on the communal, fundamentalist and anti-social elements. .rom: Muslim India 57, September 1987 Document .ive RSS: ABKM Resolution on Ayodha Dispute, c. July 1989 The RSS National Executive expresses its considered opinion that the holy birthplace of Shri Ramachandra cannot be made a subject for a judicial probe. Although barbarian invaders might have tried their utmost to demolish the temple of Shri Rama erected there and construct a mosque in its stead, yet the divine sanctity of that spot and the peoples faith in it has remained unshaken and shall so forever. It is but proper, therefore, that all our
patriotic people regard it as their sacred duty to remove every sign of such wanton aggression and construct an imposing temple commensurate with their profound faith and devotion for Shri Rama. It was expected of the Congress Government at the Centre that with a view of honouring the popular sentiment they would follow the example of the reconstruction of the Somnath Temple in the early fifties and take [a] similar initiative in this respect also. But the ABKM regrets to note that the Government, with an eye on electoral arithmetic, has chosen to entangle the issue in the judicial process. It is in this context that it wishes to draw the attention of the people to the double standards indulged in by the Government in such matters. Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi is on record to have said that he was instrumental in withdrawing the case pending in the Calcutta High Court about the Holy Koran with the observation that the courts cannot have jurisdiction over the holy book. He also remarked that he amended the law to neutralize the effect of the Supreme Court judgement in the Shahbano case (thereby trampling upon the legitimate rights of the Muslim women) and that he did this to assuage the ruffled religious feelings of the Muslims. But in the matter of the Rama Janma Bhumi the same Prime Minister and the Central Government are bent upon making it a debatable issue for the courts to decide. The ABKM strongly resents this discriminatory policy of the government which parades itself as being secular. The ABKM would like to warn the government that if it persists in its policy of appeasement of fanatic Muslims, the Hindu society would be left no other alternative but to resort to peaceful struggle and would feel no sacrifice too great for its success. ABKM appreciates the proposal of some Muslim organizations of the socalled mosque on the Rama Janma Bhumisthan and vacate if for the proposed temple of Lord Shri Rama. The ABKM appeals to other Muslims also to follow their example and thus demonstrate their brotherly feelings towards the Hindus. The ABKM appeals to all our Hindu brethren to extend
Documents
121
122
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
generous help and support and participate actively in every activity starting from the Shri Rama Shila Poojan to the laying of the foundation stone and eventually construction of the temple .rom: Muslim India, September 1989 (source: Organiser, 30 July 1989) Document Six All India Babari Masjid Conference, New Delhi, 2627 November 1988 A deliberate exercise in disruption and sabotage 1. Press release The All India Babari Masjid Conference held at Park Jama Masjid, Delhi, on 26 and 27 November 1988 has decided to constitute an All India Babari Masjid Action Committee in order to carry on the movement for restoration of Babari Masjid at the All India level The Conference (drew upon) programme of holding seminars and symposia etc. of Non-Muslim intellectuals, politicians and journalists etc. The conference (also) chalked out the future agitational programme and in this respect a Token Dharma by the leaders of the Movement (including District Representatives) will be staged at the Prime Ministers Residence on 22 December 1988 and a Token Demonstration/Courtarrest programme will be held at Lucknow on 1 .ebruary 1989. It has been decided to hold State Level Conference during 1989 in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar, AP, Karnataka, Rajastan and Maharashtra The Conference was inaugurated by Syed Abdullah Bukhari and different sessions were presided over by Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi, MP, Syed Muzaffar Hussain Kachhochhwi, G.M. Shah (.ormer Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir) and Mohd. Azam Khan, M.L.A. 2. Resolution on talks with the Home Minister We are not satisfied with the talks so far held by the
Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee with the Central Home Minister, Mr. Buta Singh We stick to the demand that the matter should be referred to a special bench of three judges of a High Court of South India, with no judge, being a Hindu or a Muslim and the status quo as on 31 January 1986 being restored in the meantime The announcement of expediting the judicial proceedings is nothing more than delaying tactics and we do not consider such an assurance conducive to the settlement of the matter. Nor can we withdraw our movement on this basis .urther, the Home Minister has said nothing so far about our demand for legislation to protect the status and character of all places of worship. 3. Resolution on Ayodhya March The way the dates of the Ayodhya March have been extended and finally indefinitely postponed has created differences in the leadership and frustration among the masses and gave the communalists an opportunity to indulge in provocations and violence We leave the matter to the Convenor of the Coordination Committee and his supporters and are unable to say anything decisive about the Ayodhya March We want to make clear that if at any stage we announce any such programme, we will at all costs implement it. 4. Composition of All India Babari Masjid Action Committee 1. Sayed Abdullah Bukhari Patron 2. S.S. Owaisi MP Chairman 3. Syed Ahmed Bukhari (Delhi) Vice-Chairman 4. Zafaryab Jilani (UP) Convenor 5. M. Azam Khan Convenor .rom: Muslim India, January 1989. Document Seven A.B. Vajpayee on Babari Masjid in a letter dated 19 July 1989 to Hiren Mukherji
Documents
123
124
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
Coming to the Babari MasjidRam Janmabhoomi dispute, let me at the outset clarify that the reports that I said that the Mosque should be demolished or that my own Bharat Ki Khoj had convinced me that India can survive only as a Hindu Rashtra, are not correct. I do not know from where you get these reports. I may inform you that about two years back, while speaking at a public meeting in Bombay, I suggested that as a gesture of good will the entire structure known as Ram JanmabhoomiBabri Masjid should be handed to the Hindus and the Hindus, as a reciprocal gesture, should keep the present structure as it is and build a new temple. Nobody cared for this suggestion then. At a meeting of the Opposition leaders in Parliament convened recently by Home Minister Buta Singh to discuss the communal situation in the country, when I referred in passing to this two year old suggestion of mind, Syed Shahabuddin did not react favourably. You will agree with me that the delay in arriving at solution has hardened attitudes on both sides. And I think that the Government should also share the responsibility for this delay and for complicating the matter from the very beginning. May be, the ruling party is interested in the dispute lingering on in order to keep its options open for playing the Ram JanmabhoomiBabri Masjid card in a way which would be most beneficial to it in the forthcoming elections. I am for a peaceful solution of the dispute. When I said that courts cannot decide the issue, what I meant was that in such sensitive matters such as this dispute which has touched the sentiments (and that too religious) of large sections of people, a court decision will be extremely difficult to implement As regards, the suggestion of making the entire complex a National Monument, what will it commemorate if not religious fanaticism destroying a place of worship of one faith and building one of another faith in its place? You have taken an alarmist view of the campaign of carrying consecrated bricks for building a temple at Ayodhya. Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mukti Samiti is headed by a former Congress Minister and consists of responsible
persons including former judges and retired civil servants. I am confident that they will ensure that the campaign remains peaceful. Carrying consecrated bricks is a ritual and rituals have become almost an inseparable part of our life. I may also clarify that the BJP as such is not a party to the campaign though members of the BJP in their individual capacity are associated with it. The situation in Ayodhya is not quite comparable with the situation in Mathura or Varanasi. At the latter two places normal puja is being performed regularly as a result of some sort of settlement. If an amicable settlement of the Babari MasjidRam Janmabhoomi is possible, the organization concerned could be persuaded to delink Mathura and Varanasi from Ayodhya. We cannot go on fighting against history. It is not possible to pinpoint the exact spot where Ram was born. But it is known that Ram, the King of Ayodhya, whom vast masses of Hindus regard an incarnation of God, was born in that historical city and a temple dedicated to him had been [long] in existence. This temple was built and rebuilt over the ages. .rom: Muslim India, November 1989 Document Eight Liberation of Ram Janmabhumi Assertion of Hindu honour, June 1990 Extracts from RSS G.S, H.V. Seshadaris RSS - 'A vision in action' Since the day Babar, the Mughal aggressor, first demolished the temple in 15[2]8 and put up a mosque at the hallowed spot of Shri Rama Janmabhumi, the birth-site of Shri Rama in Ayodhya, its liberation and restoration has been a constant point of struggle in vindication of national honour. Shri Rama is no mere mythological god or a deity for some to worship; he is the maryadapurushottama, the epitome of the highest
Documents
125
126
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
virtues of a fully evolved personality, produced by the holy land of Bharat. Since then, 76 fierce battles have been fought breaking down all barriers of caste, creed, language or region and lakhs have sacrificed their lives in the cause of redeeming that common point of national veneration. In a way, it has symbolised the fight for the countrys freedom from the enemys subjugation. It was in the same spirit that, soon after Bharat became free, Sardar Patel had decided upon renovating the Somnath Temple in Saurashtra. When Patel broached the idea with Gandhiji, he too heartily supported it and the Central Cabinet unanimously resolved to take it up as a governmental project. However, at Gandhijis instance, the project was entrusted to a private trust headed by K. M. Munshi. Rashtrapati Rajendra Prasad himself came to inaugurate the renovated shrine on 11 May 1951. The burden of his speech on that historic day was significant: the Indian people had, by that act, washed off the stigma of an over 1000year old slavery and fulfilled the dreams of generations of freedom fighters. Liberation of Rama Janmabhumi too stands on no less a noble footing. It was natural that soon after the attainment of Independence in 1947, the nation resumed its struggle to liberate the Rama Janmabhumi. As a result, on the night of 2223 December 1949, the place was once again sanctified by the installation of the idol of Shri Rama. However, the political rulers, in tune with their policy of communal appeasement, locket it up, posted a police sentry, and permitted just the daily formal pooja. The common Hindu was denied the right to offer worship to Shri Rama. The VHP decided to pick up the gauntlet. The Dharma Sansad of VHP meeting at New Delhi in April 1984 passed a resolution for the liberation of Shri Rama Janmabhumi, Shri Krishna Janmasthan at Mathura and Shri Vishwanath Temple at Unanvyapi in Varanasi. As a followup measure, the Shri Rama Janmabhumi Mukti Yajna Samiti was formed. The Samiti was a formidable one, comprising Mahant Avaidyanath of Goraksha Peeth as its chairman, and leading mathadhipatis and sannyasins of all sects and creeds as members. A youth front Bajrang Dal also came up to
awaken the masses. Hundreds of public meetings, morchas and processions ensued. Rama Janaki Ratha commencing its journey from Sita Marhi, the birth place of Sita in Bihar, moved all over Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, rousing thousands and lakhs all along the route. There was a virtual sea of humanity at Ayodhya when it reached there. On 7 October 1984, hundreds of dharmacharyas from all corners of the country administered a pledge to the multitude assembled on the banks of the holy Sarayu river: rest they would not till that hallowed spot was liberated. .rom there, the Ratha Yatra proceeded to reach Lucknow on 14 October 1984 to knock at the political citadel and demand justice. Later on, six Rama Janaki Rathas toured throughout Uttar Pradesh for 108 days giving rise to unprecedented Hindu upsurge. Peaceful and constitutional efforts continued with a view to persuading MPs for the removal of the lock. 19 December 1985 proved a historic landmark. Shivanath Katju, Devaki Nandan Agarwal, both retired Justices of the High Court, Srishachandra Dixit, exDirector General of Police of Uttar Pradesh, Jagatambika Sharana Srivastava, former Director of Planning Commission, and other men of repute called on the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and convinced him of the illegality of the locking of the shrine. More than the illegality aspect, the mounting Hindu unrest seemed to have had a salutary effect. The Government was further put in a legal quandary when a fresh suit was filed against it in the district court of .aizabad by an advocate, challenging the Governments action in obstructing his right to unrestricted worship at the temple. The District Commissioner, the City Magistrate and Police Superintendent, on behalf of the Government, had no option except to state that the locking was no longer warranted, and could be removed. As a result, on the same evening, i.e. 1 .ebruary 1986, the temple was completely freed and thrown open to the public. But the Government again refused permission to the trustees to renovate the temple on a grand scale. The Governments vacillation and tendency of succumbing to the pressure of communal Muslim leadership have emboldened the Babari
Documents
127
128
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
Masjid Action Committee to indulge in sound and fury. However, the nation is in no mood to tolerate any further ambivalence in that regard. The unprecedented Uttar Pradesh Bandh on 19 March 1987, the renewal of pledge by over 500,000 devotees on Ramanavami day on 5 April 1987, the release of Rama Janaki Ratha held in the police custody in the face of Statewide school bandh and the threat by sadhus and sannyasins these have only further demonstrated that the issue is no longer debatable or negotiable. The fight is going on; it shall go on till the day when Ayodhya will rise up once again as a symbol of assertion of national pride and honour, just like Somnath. .rom: Muslim India, 90, June 1990. Document Nine BMMCC denounces Advani Yatra as antinational, October 1990 By announcing in his Ayodhya Yatra, Mr. L. K. Advani, President of the BJP, added a new dimension to the Ayodhya dispute. The cat is out of the bag and the nation can now clearly see the ruthless face and the unscrupulous mind of Hindu chauvinism behind the Ram Janmabhumi agitation and its political motivation. The Advani Yatra is a direct challenge to the secular state, to the secular forces and to the political parties, which proclaim secularism as their creed, and a threat to national unity. It is ironical that the party which stands for national integrity is doing its utmost to shatter national unity and integrity. Mr. Advani has nothing new to say but he repeats his wornout arguments with Goebbelsian persistence. He has not come out with one iota of evidence to establish that out of a dozen possible sites in Ayodhya, the Babari Masjid site is the one and the only true birth site of Lord Rama or that a Rama temple, build by Vikramaditya and supposedly standing on the site during Muslim rule from 1192 to 1528, was demolished by Babar in 1528 to build the Babari Masjid. Mr. Advani has once again cited the Shah Bano case. The
Shah Bano case involved a question of law; Babari Masjid dispute involves a question of fact. A question of fact is always susceptible of judicial determination. Mr. Advani has again mentioned the Somnath Mandir case. In the Somnath case, there was no dispute about facts and the matter was not sub judice. In Somnath, no mosque had been forcibly entered into and then sought to be demolished on the basis of specious claims which cannot stand the judicial test. Mr. Advani also repeats his pet thesis on his brand of secularism. Secularism cannot mean Muslimbaiting or putting a premium on belonging to the majority community. Secular state cannot be equated with Hindu Rahstra. Secularism cannot mean appeasement of Hindu chauvinism or surrender to its claims and demands and appeasement cannot promote national integration or communal harmony. Secular India cannot be revanchist or speak in terms of retaliation for the real or supposed wrongs committed by Muslim kings. Mr. Advani has not informed the nation why the Temple must be constructed in 1990 when the year has no special significance either in the history of Lord Rama or of the Babari Masjid. Why could the VHP not wait for a few months, for a few years till the title is judicially determined? The Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee (BMMCC) considers that since incitement to commit an unlawful act amounts to abetment and since the supposed Kar Seva of 30 October 1990 in defiance of the status quo Order of the Court is an unlawful act, the Advani Yatra is equally unlawful. The Government must take due cognisance in accordance with law. The BMMCC calls upon the Central and State Governments as well as the political parties to pick up the gauntlet thrown by Mr. Advani and resolutely resist the march of Hindu fascism, if India is to be saved. The BMMCC calls upon the Muslim community not to lose patience, have faith in Allah and as responsible citizens extend full cooperation to the other secular forces in the struggle against the rising menace of chauvinism.
Documents
129
130
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
New Delhi, 14 September 1990 .rom: Muslim India, 94, October 1990. Document Ten VHP: Joint press statement of Avedyanath, MP, V. H. Dalmia, Ashok Singhal and Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia, New Delhi, 24 August 1990 No independent nation will bear to maintain the signs of slavery and foreign aggression. Babar, a foreign aggressor, attacked India in 1528 A.D., demolished our temples, looted the treasuries and molested the women. His army commander, Mir Baqi, attacked Ayodhya and demolished the birthplace of Lord Rama. The place is a temple and the worship of Lord Rama has continued there, ever since India became independent, in the same old dilapidated building. There is no mosque anywhere in the vicinity. The patriotic Indians have been keen to renovate and reconstruct the temple at the very place in accordance with the glory of the Lord. It is a case identical with that of Sri Somnath Temple which was renovated in 1950 and inaugurated by the then President of India in order to restore national honour. Unfortunately, even today, some people attach more value to the foreign aggressors and express their sympathies for his religion at the cost of national honour. Some see a political game therein. They are more worried about their Muslim vote bank rather than the sentiments of 85 % of the masses, because they think that the Hindus are not united. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad has, however, taken a vow to inspire this 85 % population and realise the national pride. There are about 2.5 million mosques in our country and we honour them all; but the mosques and structures built after demolishing Sri Ram Temple at Ayodhya, the Kashi Vishwanath Temple at Varanasi and the Sri Krishna Janmabhumi Temple at Mathura are places in incarnation of our lord. They are not merely places of worship but object of worship and temples of national pride. The movement of Shri Ram Janmabhumi is a
national movement Sri Ram and his birthplace do not come under the jurisdiction of any court. Moreover, Sri Ramalala, the Deity of Sri Rama Janmabhumi Temple and the VHP, are not parties to any court cases pending in the Allahabad High Court. It is a false and malicious propaganda against the VHP that it is refusing to honour the Court verdict. It is not a paradox that our Prime Minister is advocating to adhere to the decision of the Court in the case of Sri Rama Janmabhumi, whereas he, as a Congressman, openly violated the Supreme Court directive in Shah Bano case (a Muslim widow). In the end, we fervently appeal to the government to cooperate in this historic movement of the Hindus. The Hindus all over the world have decided to renovate the Temple. And it is their fundamental right which they are determined to safeguard. .rom: Muslim India, 94, October 1990. Document 11 View of BJP President L.K. Advani, .ebruary 1991 I have been in the RSS since childhood and my personality has been moulded by it. .or you I am what I am in spite of being in the RSS. .or me I am what I am because I am in the RSS Ayodhya issue was never high on party agenda It was never high in the Indian political debate until 1986. It all began with the Congress governments capitulation on the Shah Bano issue It was because of this that the Babari Masjid Action Committee was formed. Having tasted blood, they felt that since they have undone a Supreme Court judgement, what is this .aizabad district court judgement? They revived the Babari Masjid dispute and held a huge demonstration in front of Parliament and threatened to boycott Republic Day celebrations In 1989, my party decided to pass a resolution on this issue
Documents
131
132
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
Shah Bano episode is a characteristic example of the pseudosecularism practised by other parties. So the Rath Yatra is a crusade against pseudosecularism and minortyism If the political Hindu feels aggrevied and dissatisfied then secularism is in serious jeopardy. In the last 40 years if nationalism has become weak, one reason is that it is losing its inherent content. Its cultural content is provided by Hinduism My objective is not merely the temple I regard the attitude of all political parties and the government to the temple issue as a characteristic example of pseudo secularism. The Rath Yatra did have a political purpose The impact the Rath Yatra has had in obliterating the casteist animosities created by Mandal is remarkable My partys stand is, in the present configuration of the Lok Sabha a stable, viable government in accordance with the mandate is just not possible and therefore, there should be a fresh mandate. All of them feel that the BJP will stand to benefit in a fresh election and therefore they are opposed to it The BJP (will) go it alone in the coming poll is the thinking though a final decision has to be taken We shall fight on our own manifesto. What is in matter of principle is that we maintain our identity and depending on when the elections come, we shall lay out our objectives .rom: Muslim India, 98, .ebruary 1991 (Source: The Times of India, New Delhi, 20 November 1990) Document 12 BJP: President Advani on Ramrath Yatra, .ebruary 1991 (It) is not correct to say (that) the BJP is being guided by religious outfits in carrying forth the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign. The party took up this issue because of its
special significance. Sentiments of Hindus are connected with the issue which no political party bothered to honour in the past Muslims have started realising the importance of an amicable solution. The only viable solution to my mind is the shifting of the Babari Masjid structure to a new place without demolishing it. In fact, the talks have already started with some Muslim leaders in this regard. Many others have expressed their willingness to discuss this issue afresh. Not even a single incident of violence took place all through my Rath Yatra. Neither the Rath Yatra nor my visit to Ayodhya has in any way inflamed communal passions. In fact, we have been able to convey the right signals to the other party .rom: Muslim India, 98, .ebruary 1991 (Source: The Times of India, New Delhi, 22 November 1990) Document 13 BJP: Vajpayee on Babari Masjid, October 1991 I dont know that will happen in the Mandir case. We expect the Congress to adopt a constructive approach. Already they have left out Ayodhya from the purview of the bill. This is an acceptance of a reality and also an appreciation of the intense feelings of the people. The people have given their verdict, at least in UP where we won 50 of the 85 parliamentary seats. And the government has recognised that Ayodhya is a class by itself. We would like the government to assist the UP government in finding an amicable solution. But unfortunately the Congress party is divided. If the Congress party is bent upon a showdown, we cant help it. There is no deadline. Advani has made this clear. All the VHP has said is that they expect the hurdles to be removed by (18 November). This confusion has been created by vested interests. If the UP government needs more time for talks I dont think the VHP will not allow more time.
Documents
133
134
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
.rom: Muslim India, 106, October 1991 (Source: Indian Express Sunday Magazine, 15 September 1991). Document 14 BMMCCs Memorandum to the President, New Delhi, 26 October 1991 A delegation of the Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee (BMMCC) led by Mr. Syed Shahabuddin, Convener, and including Mr. Ebrahim Sulaiman Sait, MP, Mr. Saifuddin Soz, exMP, Mr. S.M. Jafar and Mr. Ejaz Aslam called on the President on 25 October 1991 and submitted a Memorandum to him on the situation in Ayodhya with special reference to the unlawful act of excavations and demolitions by the VHP on the disputed site. The President gave the delegation a sympathetic hearing and promised to speak to the Prime Minister and to do whatever was possible. The text of the Memorandum follows: Since the surreptitious and unlawful introduction of idols in the Babari Masjid, Ayodhya, on 2223 December 1949, the Muslim community have been struggling for the restoration of the Masjid through all legal and peaceful means. In the wake of the agitation for the liberation of the Ram Janmabhumi by the VHP, the unlocking of the Babari Masjid on 1 .ebruary 1986 under the order of the District Judge, .aizabad, converted the Masjid into a de facto temple. The Babari Masjid Movement filled a writ petition against the Order before the Allahabad High Court, but it is still pending. However, a Special Bench of the High Court was established to hear the consolidated title suit. On 14 August 1989 the Special Bench passed an order to maintain the status quo of the property in dispute, namely, the Babari Masjid and the graveyards attached thereto, covering 23 plots. These plots were specified by the Special Bench in its subsequent order of 7 November 1989. The Government of UP, with the approval of the Central Government, permitted the VHP to perform the Shilanyas of the proposed Temple on the disputed plot No. 586 on 10
November 1989 in violation of the injunction. However, the VHP was restrained from performing Kar Seva or commencing the construction of the proposed Temple in accordance with a site plan which situates the Garbha Griha at the Central Mihrab of the Masjid and thus covers the site of the Masjid. On 27 September 1989, the VHP had agreed to maintain the status quo and not to change the nature of the property in question. Despite sustained pressure from the VHP, Prime Minister V.P. Singh and subsequently Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar also prohibited the Kar Seva, even on a symbolic scale, in October 1990 and in December 1990 respectively. Contrary to its commitment to the secular order, the BJP made the construction of the Ram Temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya the major plank of its electoral platform in the General Election of MayJune 1991. Its Manifesto promised to remove all obstacles in the construction of the Temple in accordance with the original siteplan. On 19 August 1991, the BMMCC was assured by the Prime Minister that the Central Government was keeping a close watch on the developments. On 17 August 1991, in view of the repeated threat by the VHP to begin construction, the BMMCC reiterated its view that until the final judicial verdict, the responsibility for the security and the status quo lay squarely on the Central and State Governments and called upon the Central Government to prevent violation of law and fulfil its constitutional responsibility, if the State Government failed to do so. On 28 August 1991, the BMMCC again requested the Prime Minister to caution the State Government against any excavation or acquisition, meant to change the status quo. On 30 August 1991, the BMMCC waited on the Minister of Home Affairs and requested him to take notice of the deteriorating situation by augmenting paramilitary presence in or near Ayodhya and by warning the State Government against any negligence. On 31 August 1991, the Leader of the House made a statement in the Lok Sabha, promising extraordinary measures to meet an extraordinary situation. On 9 September 1991, the BMMCC along with the AIBMAC, held a Dharna in front of the parliament to focus attention
Documents
135
136
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
of the Nation and the Government to the threat to the rule of law in Ayodhya. On 9 September 1991, the Prime Minister again assured the BMMCC of his government keeping the situation under close vigil. On 11 September 1991, the BMMCC waited on the Prime Minister and subsequently submitted an Aide Memoire to him on the subject. On 26 September 1991, the BMMCC drew the attention of the people and the Government to various steps of the Government of UP and the VHP which exposed the property in dispute to a sudden assault and demanded a clear stand by the Central Government on the resumption of Kar Seva by the VHP and on its acquisition by the State Government. The BMMCC suggested an All Party Meeting and a meeting of the National Integration Council (NIC), in order to evolve a national consensus and demanded foolproof arrangements for the defence of the disputed property. The BMMCC also addressed a letter to the Home Minister on that day. On 4 October 1991, the BMMCC once again publicly cautioned the nation and the Central Government against an imminent threat to the rule of law in Ayodhya through forcible violation of the status quo, with the collusion of the State Government, and demanded a public declaration of intent by the Central Government to resist any unilateral action by the VHP, in the form of Kar Seva or otherwise. As expected, the Government of UP issued a Notification on 7 October 1991, acquiring the major part of the property in dispute. The Notification hit the headlines on 11 October 1991. The Notification was condemned by the BMMCC as malafide, arbitrary and illegal and immediate intervention of the Central Government was demanded to force the State Government to withdraw the Notification or to exercise its constitutional responsibility. The BMMCC also waited on the Home Minister on 12 October 1991, and reiterated the suggestion for an All Party Meeting, an urgent meeting of the NIC and an All Parties Delegation visiting Ayodhya, for amending the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for taking over the defence of the property in dispute, including the Babari Masjid.
On 17 October 1991, a writ petition was filed before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court against the Notification. It is being heard by the Special Bench. On 19 October 1991, the BMMCC along with the AIBMAC courted arrest in Lucknow. Subsequently they held a discussion with the UP Chief Minister. It was clear that the commencement of Kar Seva was imminent, even though the VHP had no title to the land and its Temple Plan had not been approved. As expected, the assault began and the VHP began excavating the land on 21 October 1991 a patently illegal act which constitutes contempt of Court and violation of the rule of law, under the benign protection of the State Government. The BMMCC demanded immediate intervention of the Central Government. .aced with apathy, silence and inaction on the part of the Central Government, on 24 October 1991, the BMMCC expressed its deep regret and disappointment and appealed to the secular forces to defend the constitution. Today we approach you, Mr. President, for your immediate intervention to defend the constitution, the rule of law and the secular order and to save the country from the consequent alienation and frustration, if constitution, law, political parties and judiciary fail to protect religious freedom and rule of law. Mr. President, today there is a national consensus that the Babari Masjid must be protected and the Ayodhya dispute should be settled either through negotiations or on the basis of the final judicial verdict. But disregarding all norms, the RSSBJP axis has begun the construction of the Ram Mandir on the disputed site in accordance with a siteplan which presumes the demolition of the Babari Masjid in due course. Mr. President, in law there is no difference between one part and another of the property in dispute and, therefore, a hammerblow on the Babari Masjid and a spadestrike on the land are equally violative of the law. Mr. President, on behalf of the Babari Masjid Movement we
Documents
137
138
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
request you to caution your Government against any encouragement to the forces of chauvinism and fascism, to warn it against the consequence of silence and inaction and to advise it to take all possible steps to stop the unlawful excavation and demolitions by the VHP in Ayodhya and to dismiss the State Government which has violated its oath of office and which is not governing the state in accordance with the constitution. Sd/ Syed Shahabuddin Sd/ Ebrahim Sulaiman Sait Sd/ Saifuddin Soz Sd/ S.M. Jafar Sd/ Ejas Aslam .rom: Muslim India 108, December 1991. Document 15 Order of Civil Judge, .aizabad, 3 March 1951 (Suit 2 of 1950) Shri Gopal Singh Visharad, Appelant vs. Zahur Ahmad and Others, Respondents Order The plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad filed the present suit on 16 January 1950 on the following allegations: He is a Sanatanist Hindu resident of Ayodhya. He has always worshipped, visited the idol of Shri Ram Chandraji installed at Janmabhumi, Ayodhya. On 14 January 1950 he was prevented from entering Janmabhumi and worshipping the idol aforesaid by the officers of deft. No. 6 at the baseless instance and unfounded instigation to worship a Janmabhumi. The defts. 7 and 9 who are the local officers of the deft. No. 6 are exercising undue pressure on the local Hindu public, inducing them to refrain from visiting Janmabhumi. They are actively helped in this direction by the defts. 1 to 5 who are in collusion with defts. 7 to 9. Neither the deft No. 6 has nor defts. 7 to 9 have, any right
to interfere in religious matters or obstruct the plff.s right to worship at Janmabhumi. The reliefs sought by him are: 1. A declaration to the effect that he is entitled to ownership and visit without obstruction or disturbance Shri Bhagwan Ram Chandra and others installed at Asthana Janmabhumi; and 2. A perpetual injunction restraining the defts. .rom removing the idols of Shri Bhagwan Ram Chandra and others installed at Asthana Jamnabhumi aforesaid. He prayed per separate application supported by an affidavit for an interim injunction against the deft. pending the decision of the suit. Notices were issued to the defts. and an interim injunction was granted. In the meanwhile on 16 January 1950 notices were served on defts. 7 to 9, moved on 19 January 1950 seeking clarification or modification of the exparte order of injunction issued by me on 16 January 1950. The parties are hereby restrained by means of a temporary injunction to refrain from removing the idols in question from the site in dispute and from interfering with Pooja etc. as at present carried on. The order dated 16 January 1950 stands notified accordingly. Defts. 1 to 5 (1. Zahur Ahmed; 2. Haji Pheku; 3. Mohammed .aliq; 4. Mohammed Sami; 5. Mohammad Achchan Miyan) filed objection against the interim injunction on 13 .ebruary 1951 challenging it on the grounds that the disputed site was (1) part of the Babari mosque which was built by Emperor Babar; (2) that is has been in the use of the Muslims as a mosque ever since; (3) that the Hindus never worshipped or performed pooja then, and (4) that the idols at present on the site were recently planted. They also pleaded that (5) that suit was defective for want of notice u/s 80 CPC. No further objections were filed by the defts. 6 to 9 (6. Uttar Pradesh State; 7. Deputy Commissioner, .aizabad; 8. City Magistrate, .aizabad; 9. Superintendent of Police, .aizabad) by 25 March 1950. The objections dated 13 .ebruary 1950 and Sir Iqbal Ahmed on behalf of came up for hearing on 2 March 1950, deft. 1 to 5 in his able arguments referred to various features of the building
Documents
139
140
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
and its surroundings to support his contentions, which were controverted on behalf of the plaintiff. This necessitated the issue on a commission to prepare map of the building in question. On the date of the appointment of the commission, deft. 1 to 5 applied for taking a photograph of the building, which was granted. Maps and photographs were accordingly prepared and now form part of the record. The case up for hearing again on 17 .ebruary 1951 when the District Government counsel representing defts. 6 to 9 adopted the contentions of defts. 1 to 5 and further pleaded that the suit was bad for want of notice u/s 80 CPC. He also pressed his objection dated 24 April 1950. Suffice it to say, the plea of section 80 CPC is not open to defts. 6 to 9 who place reliance on the wellknown case of Bhag Chand versus Secretary of State reported in 1927 p.c. 176. On behalf of the plff. It is stenuously urged that Bhag Chands case has no application to the facts of the present case. He bears his argument of Krishna Swari versus Syed Ahmed, reported in 136 I.C. 777 (1932) and other earlier cases. The decision on the point are without doubt conflicting. It will, therefore, be premature to decide it this stage as to whether the suit is liable to be thrown out for want of notice under section 80 CPC. .or the purpose of these proceedings, it has to be seen whether the plff. has a fair question to raise as to the existence of the right alleged, whether he is in danger of losing that right, and whether irreparable injury or inconvenience is likely to result to him, in case the injunction order is withdrawn. It is conceded on all hands that the idols in question were on the disputed site before the filing of the suit. It further appears from the copies of a number of affidavits of certain Muslim residents of Ayodhya that at least from 1936 onwards the Muslims have neither used the site as a mosque nor offered prayers there and that the Hindus have been performing their pooja etc. on the disputed site. Nothing has been pointed to discredit these affidavits which along with the existence of the idols on the disputed site, clearly show that the plff. has got a fair case to go the trial. The defts. 1 to 5 rely on the number of documents to show that the building in dispute has always been a mosque. It is not possible at
this stage to anticipate any decision on this point, because it will have to be decided after considering all the oral and documentary evidence that may be adduced by the parties in this case. The undisputed fact remains that on the date of this suit the idols of Sri Bhagwan Ram Chandra and others did not exist on the site and that worship was being performed by the Hindus including the plff. though under some restrictions put up by the executive authorities. This coupled with the affidavits referred to above does make out a prima facie case of the plaintiff. As to the balance of convenience, it is obvious that the effect of vacating the interim injunction at this stage is likely to deprive the plff. of the right claimed by him in this suit. Moreover, it is a matter of admission between the parties that there are several other mosques in the mohalla in question. The local Muslims will not, therefore, be put to much inconvenience, if the interim injunction remains in force during the pendency of the case. .or these reasons, I hold that the status quo should be maintained. Order The interim injunction order dated 16 January 1950 as modified on 19 January 1950 shall remain in force until the suit is disposed off .rom: Muslim India, 110, .ebruary 1992. Document 16 BMMCCAIBMAC Joint Statement, Lucknow, 4 July 1992 The recent celebration of socalled Parkat Utasav inside the Babari Masjid structure, with the collusion and connivance of State Government and local administration is yet another example of BJP Governments disregard and contemptuous attitude towards the orders of the court There was absolutely no justification for the District administration for granting permission to hold any such celebration inside the mosque and especially so when the
Documents
141
142
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
High Court as well as the Supreme Court had categorically directed the maintenance of status quo Therefore, it was and is expected that no innovation including the celebration of the socalled Parkat Utsav or hoisting saffron flags would be made or allowed to be made in, around or above the disputed building. All these acts, including the proposed legislation to declare the said mosque as the Ram Janmabhumi Mandir, are in clear violation and breach of the undertaking given by the Chief Minister of UP to the National Integration Council on 2 November 1991 (which was made part of the order of the Supreme Court dated 15 November 1991) wherein the Chief Minister had assured that all efforts will be made to find an amicable resolution of the issue and orders and judgement of the court will not be violated. Sd/Syed Shahabuddin Sd/Zafaryab Jilani .rom: Muslim India, 110, .ebruary 1992. Document 17 Order of the Supreme Court, 15 November 1991 (Naveed Yar Khan and Mohammed Aslam had filed writ petitions before the Supreme Court against the acquisition of land in dispute by the government of UP in October 1991. The petitions were heard by C. J. Mishra and Justice S. N. Ray. The relevant extracts from the order follow - Editor). This issue relating to the mosque and the temple has assumed wider significance and has become a national issue for some time As it is, there are two sets of proceedings before the High Court - one relating to the temple - cum mosque and the other relating to acquisition. We are of the view that when the High Court has already entertained the matter, made an interim order and, as stated at the Bar, is taking the case for final disposal some time in December of this year, it may not be necessary and justifiable to transfer the writ petition pending before the
High Court to this Court. On the other hand, appropriate directions regarding interim arrangements may be made and these petitions transferred to the High Court for analogous disposal. We are of the view that even if these constructions may be a part of the acquired land under the disputed acquisition, nothing should be done to interfere with such constructions which are standing. Parikarama facilities to be provided to pilgrims can certainly be done as permitted by the High Court but full care and attention should be devoted to ensure that the standing constructions including the outer wall which are old in character and are claimed to be part of the disputed construction may not be interfered within any manner. This must be the total responsibility of the State of Uttar Pradesh to ensure compliance. In the meantime, as we have been told at the Bar, there was a meeting at the national level of the Integration Council and the Chief Minister of the State as it appears from the affidavit of the Home Secretary of the respondentstate dated 13 November 1991 made certain statements to the council. These have been extracted in paragraph 3 of the affidavit and read thus: The Chief Minister has made several statements at the National Integration Council meeting on 2 November 1991. On the basis of the statements, the resolution of National Integration Council was passed on 2 November 1991. The resolution itself states: The Council noted the following assurances given by the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh: (a) All efforts will be made to find an amicable solution of the issue; (b) Pending a final solution, the Government of Uttar Pradesh will hold itself fully responsible for the protection of the Ram JanmabhumiBabari Masjid structures; (c) Orders of the court in regard to the land acquisition proceedings will be fully implemented; and (d) Judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the cases pending before it will not be violated.
Documents
143
144
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
We shall take it, and Mr. Jaitley has no objection to our doing so, that the State of Uttar Pradesh remains bound by what has been stated in this paragraph and this shall be the obligation of the State of Uttar Pradesh to stand by our order of today which is made after taking into account the stand of the State of Uttar Pradesh as disclosed by the Chief Minister and reiterated in the affidavit of the Home Secretary. It shall, therefore, be taken as a representation to the Court on which we have made this order. Since the matter is before the Court and is being looked into, we hope and trust that the people of India to whichever community they belong need not feel agitated and invite occasions of confrontation leading to an unwarranted commotion. We expect the nation to exhibit due understanding and solidarity on national issues and sincere attempt for resolution of disputes should be undertaken. We are aware of the sensitive character of the matter and, therefore, have not said anything more than necessary. We are sure, every like minded citizen of this country would understand the gravity and conduct himself accordingly for maintaining the peace and amity This order shall remain valid until the writ petitions pending before the Allahabad High Court dealing the land acquisition dispute are decided. These writ petitions shall stand transferred to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court to be taken with the connected proceedings but our order shall remain binding till the disposal of the writ petitions. .rom: Muslim India, 10, 110, .ebruary 1992. Document 18 Prime Minister on Babari Masjid Dispute, Lok Sabha, 27 July 1992 The Ram JanmabhumiBabari Masjid dispute has been agitating the minds of all of those who believe in the values of secularism and governance based upon Constitutional
principles. During the last few weeks, the developments of Ram JanmabhumiBabari Masjid complex have been unfolding rapidly. The order of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 15 July was a watershed in the series of recent developments. The High Court, in its interim order, restrained the parties from undertaking or continuing any construction activity on the 2.77 acres of land which had been notified by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for acquisition. The Court also directed that if it was necessary to do any construction on the land, prior permission from the Court would be obtained. While the government of Uttar Pradesh repeatedly assured the Government of India as also the National Integration Council that they would undertake to have the orders of the High Court implemented, the construction activity at the Ram JanmabhumiBabari Masjid complex continued. This matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a writ petition. During the hearing of the petition on 22 July 1992, the Supreme Court called for suspension of the construction work of any kind of the acquired land. In a further affidavit filed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the Supreme Court on 23 July 1992, the State Government unconditionally undertook to obey the orders passed by the Supreme Court and by the Allahabad High Court at the time of the hearing on 22 July 1992 had given a new dimension to the negotiations which had been going on between the State Government and the religious leaders. The Government of Uttar Pradesh assured the Supreme Court that the State Government was using all means at its command to ensure that an agreement is reached by all parties concerned so that the orders of the Court are effectively implemented. The affidavit, inter alia, referred to the invitation given by me to the leaders of the religious groups to meet me for discussion on 23 July 1992. In the light of the submissions made by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the petition to Monday 27 July 1992. The Supreme Court said, inter alia, that exploring a solution to this problem is in the larger national interest. I am sure all the right thinking people will share the concern
Documents
145
146
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
of the Central Government to find an amicable solution to the problem. The Central Government believes that all avenues of amicable settlement must be sincerely explored in the first instance. Our effort, therefore, has been to defuse the situation, avoid a confrontationist approach, and to bring about reconciliation of views of various concerned parties. While doing so, we have been acutely conscious of the importance of upholding the dignity of the judiciary and respect for the rule of law. It was on this basis that we had repeatedly urged the Government of Uttar Pradesh and all other concerned parties to abide by the directions of the Courts, both in letter and spirit and not to do anything which will undermine the basic principles of the Constitution. As was stated in the Congress manifesto, we are committed to finding a negotiated settlement of this issue which fully respects the sentiments of both communities involved. If such a settlement cannot be reached, all parties must respect the order and verdict of the Court. The Congress is for the construction of the temple without dismantling the mosque. It was the responsibility of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that the orders of the courts are implemented and the construction activity on the acquired land is stopped. However, the situation was allowed to escalate to a point where the State Government expressed its inability to do anything and in fact requested that either the Home Minister or I should persuade the Sants and the Mahants to stop the work. In view of the critical situation which had come about at Ayodhya, I had a meeting with the religious leaders on 23 July 1992. During the discussions, I drew the attention of the delegation to the serious situation created by the noncompliance of the court orders by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. I also informed the delegation that I would be in a position to begin the process of dialogue only after the construction activity comes to a halt. .inally, I requested the religious leaders to see that the work is stopped so that efforts to solve the Ram JanmabhumiBabari Masjid dispute etc. could thereafter be proceeded with, in a timebound manner. I also told
them that once the work is stopped, I would revive the efforts initiated by the previous governments that had remained unfinished plus the preliminary soundings I have been making for some time past. The purpose of this exercise is to bring about an amicable settlement through negotiations. In case it becomes necessary, the litigation pending various courts on the subject could be consolidated and considered by one judicial authority, whose decision will be binding on all parties. This would require a fairly elaborate exercise at government level and appropriate submissions to the courts for their consideration. I expressed my belief that this exercise at government level could be expedited and completed within 4 months time. I found agreement on this approach. The construction activity on the acquired land at the Ram JanmabhumiBabari Masjid complex is reported to have ceased on 26 July. I hope that will pave the way for arriving at an agreed solution of the problem and bring about an amicable settlement of this longstanding issue. I, therefore, appeal to all political parties and all sections of the people to help in strengthening the traditional values of religious tolerance and in maintaining peace, tranquillity and communal harmony. .rom: Muslim India, 10, 117, September 1992. Document 19 Statement of Maulana S. Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi (Hawawith Urdu .ortnightly, Delhi, 20 November 1992) This is totally baseless. Only a person who does not fear God and the Prophet and who does not consider himself accountable on the Day of Judgement can make such a wrong and irresponsible statement. I have not come across such thing in the past. When the Babari Masjid was unlocked I was in Delhi in connection with a meeting of the Muslim Personal Law Board. When I heard that the Masjid has been unlocked I was the first person to protest at this
Documents
147
148
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
development. I met Shri Rajiv Gandhi and told him clearly that the first thing he must do is to ensure that all places of worship would continue to have the same status as before 1947, and no community would be permitted to interfere with them. But this was not acted upon. Since then, I have been associated with most of the organisations which are acting for the restoration of the Masjid and I have been placing my stand before all the successive Prime Ministers. Recently, when we met Prime Minister Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao with a delegation, he wanted that I should speak to him privately but I refused to do so. There were repeated calls from the Prime Ministers Office that I should meet for a few minutes. Then I met him but I told him exactly what I had told him alongwith the delegation. Perhaps the Prime Minister taking advantage of my interpretational position as an Islamic scholar wanted to find a new basis for the negotiations. I was very cautious and I reiterated in clear terms the stand of the Muslim Personal Law Board that a mosque is a mosque and it cannot be sold or demolished or shifted. This is the stand taken by all organisations connected with the Babari Masjid question. .rom: Muslim India, 10, 120, December 1992. Document 20 A.I. Muslim Personal Law Board: Working Committee Resolutions, New Delhi, 9 January 1993 ResolutionI The (Working) Committee is of the opinion that on 6 December, the prestige of the Constitution, the honour of the judiciary, and confidence in the executive and the administration, all were destroyed. The Working Committee feels that the tragedy of 6 December has dealt so strong a blow to the authority of (the Constitution) that the very foundation of secularism and democracy which formed the bedrock of mutual
interaction and relationship for Indian citizenry, has been demolished. The Working Committee, after due consideration, has reached the conclusion that the fascist communal forces destroyed the mosque under the patronage of the Police and the State and Central Governments. After the imposition of the Presidents rule, the Centre allowed illegal construction and reinstallation of the idol of Ram Lalla and further, after a few days, allowed darshan and worship. Now by acquiring Masjid and graveyards and other Wakf lands, the Government of India has terminated the ownership of ALLAH and declared the rights of Muslims null and void which they had held for centuries. This meeting unanimously, condemns all such measures. The Working Committee declares, in accordance with Shariat, that: (a) The demolition of the building of Mosque hurts the sanctity of the place of worship and insults the religious ethos of Islam. (b) The site where in 1528 the foundation of the Babari Masjid was laid, remains a mosque even after demolition, for ever, and the rules of sanctity of mosque, even today, apply on this site. (c) A Mosque does not cease to be a mosque merely because the building has been demolished or idols have been illegally installed or worship of idols had been allowed deceitfully. (d) Also, a mosque does not cease to be a mosque just because for a period of time, howsoever long that period be, namaz has not been offered. (e) No Muslim, under any circumstances, will allow a mosque to be turned into a place of idolatry. (f) The acquisition of the mosques by the government is a blatant act of tyranny, and is null and void under the Shariah. It is also an open interference in the religious freedom, and (g) If the government constructs an alternative Masjid in lieu of Babari Masjid, at some other place, the same will not be a mosque in Shariah, and if for this
Documents
149
150
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
purpose government constitutes a trust a no Muslim can participate in it. The Working Committee recalls the verdict of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board regarding the status of a mosque under Shariah, pronounced in December 1990. In view of above declaration, this meeting considers the move to procure opinion of the Supreme Court on a single point in the Babari Masjid dispute, a conspiracy to deprive the Muslim of their rights and the title and condemns this move strongly The Working Committee impresses upon the government, in view of the above mentioned points that the demolition of the Babari Masjid, the raising of illegal structure on its site, the installations of idols followed by permission for darshan and worship, the acquisition of Masjid and Wakf lands and the reference to the Supreme Court on a single point under Article 143 are part of a deeper conspiracy. As long as the acquisition and move for reference to Supreme Court are not withdrawn and the mosque is not restored to Muslims, it is not possible to restore the confidence of Muslims in this democracy and secularism This meeting addresses every person who calls himself a Muslim, whatever social position he holds whether he is a prince or pauper, a commoner or a minister to close ranks and unambiguously oppose and condemn all these measures of the government. Resolution - II The All India Muslim Personal Law Board Working Committee after considering the serious situation arising out of the demolition of the Babari Masjid resolves to set up a HighPower committee to formulate a plan of action keeping in view the fact of demolition of the Babari Masjid, its aftermath and future apprehensions, for ensuring survival and bright future for the Muslims and Islam in this country and to adopt ways and means to execute the same and to take necessary steps in this direction. The committee will consist of Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, Maulana Mujahidil Islam Qasmi, Mr. Ebrahim Sulaiman Sait, Mr. Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi, Mr. Abdul Rahim Qureshi, Maulana Ubaidullah Khan
Azmi and Maulana Dbul Wahab Khilji. This meeting appeals to Indian Muslims to be prepared to unequivocally accept and to implement the programmes and decisions of the committee. The Committee feels that: Muslims should exercise restraint and avoid confrontation. However, when their life, property and religion and honour are attacked, they should fight to defend these gifts of Allah and employ their moral, spiritual and legal rights to the full for such defence. This meeting calls on Muslims to be prepared to defend themselves against aggression. The Muslims should not get provoked and try to keep peace till the last. In the present situation, the Muslims should react with wisdom and for a long struggle in future, they should be organised and inculcate discipline in their ranks .rom: Muslim India, 11, 122, .ebruary 1993. Document 21 BJP National Executive resolution, New Delhi, 25 December 1992 After the unfortunate incidents of 6 December at Ayodhya, the Congress Party and the Congress Government at the Centre have launched a programme of repression and untruth against all nationalist forces. It is a condemnable attempt to replicate what was done after the foul murder of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. This deliberate programme of misinformation and disinformation, launched by the Government will not succeed. This triple conspiracy of Congress, Communists and communalists to keep the country divided and directionless will not succeed. 1992 is not 1948 The incidents of 6 December could have been easily avoided had the Central Government cooperated with the Government of Uttar Pradesh in trying to obtain an early decision from the Allahabad Bench of the Lucknow High
Documents
151
152
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
Court, in the matter of the acquisition of the 2.77 acres plot. Had this decision been given before 6 December, Kar Seva would have started on this tract of land and no untoward incident would have taken place After giving the assurance of four months to the Sadhu Samaj, the Union Government did not take any action for almost half that period; it attempted to divide the leadership of that Samaj; it sent different proposals through different emissaries and ministers, and when there was a positive response to these, it retracted from them The Central Government arrested Shri L.K. Advani and, hours after the resignation of Shri Kalyan Singh, they announced the dismissal of that government. This is reflective of an extreme pettiness of mind in the face of an event of major proportions The manner in which RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other organisations have been banned, is not only a step riddled with illegality, it is an action born entirely out of the frustration of the weak. The National Executive unequivocally condemns the dismissal of the constitutionally and democratically elected governments of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh and dissolution of these and of UP Y/2state assemblies. This is a step born out of political malice and mendacity The undemocratic and repressive measures are but the first signals of a panicky government attempting the totalitarian method. It is most unfortunate that this government is behaving as it is because it is caught between the pincers of internal party dissensions, discord within the Cabinet and external pressures. On top of all this, to announce that a Masjid will be built at Ram Janmasthan is to betray not just total bankruptcy of thought but also an insensitivity to the present situation The National Executive expresses its fervent hope that even now the Muslim community will recognise the deep commitment of faith and the sentiments of the majority society on this issue. What has happened at Ram
Janmasthan is the reaction to a grave historical wrong and the idea is not to hurt the sentiments of anyone. Indian Muslims should not identify themselves with excesses of the invaders, just because they happened to be Muslim. The BJP neither believes in, nor subscribes to, India ever becoming a theocratic state. The BJP reiterates its commitment to, and conviction about, equal opportunity and equal rights to all citizens of India. It implicitly believes in Justice for all and appeasement of none The National Executive reiterates its firm commitment to judicial independence and dignity The National Executive treats the antidemocratic and lawless measures as organisations We will face this onslaught with courage and conviction. We are confident of victory because today History had made the future of India synonymous with the future of BJP The National Executive demands that: (a) Immediate steps be taken to remove the impediments in the construction of Ram Janmasthan temple in Ayodhya and pooja and darshan of Ram Lalla be allowed as before 6 December; a mosque may be built outside the panch kosi parikrama; (b) Joshi, Advani, Dalmia, Singhal, Katiyar, Uma Bharati and all other leaders and workers who have been arrested be released; (c) Ban on RSS and other organisations be lifted; (d) Elections to the four state assemblies be held without any loss of time. (e) This government must seek a fresh mandate. BJP: Action plan, New Delhi, 25 December 1992 If the restriction of the darshan of Ram Janmasthan temple is not withdrawn immediately, BJP will join the movement of religious saints to have the right of unrestricted darshans which has been allowed by a court order for the last fifty years. In the first phase BJP MPs and former MLAs and MLCs of Uttar Pradesh will proceed to Ayodhya as per the time table with their batches and assert the right to darshan. In the second phase a countrywide movement
Documents
153
154
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
will be launched which will continue till the prohibitory orders are withdrawn. Tens of millions of signatures will be collected on a petition to the President of India to demand that a temple and only a temple be erected at the site of Ram Janmasthan. A mosque be constructed at a site outside the panch kosi parikrama. A rally of at least half a million people from all parts of the country will be held outside the Parliament House on the first day of the Budget Session to demand: (a) Ban on RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal be withdrawn; (b) Arrested leaders be released; (c) Elections to the dissolved State Assemblies be held at the earliest; (d) Lok Sabha be dissolved and midterm poll held; (e) Site of Ram Janmasthan be handed over to Hindus to reconstruct the temple. A satyagraha movement will be launched for the above demands. The date, place and mode of Jail Bharo movement will be announced at the rally. Meetings will be held at panchayat and ward levels on 26 January 1993 in which a pledge to save democracy will be taken Sankalp Saptah from 2531 December will be observed State executives will chalk out intensive plans of meetings, demonstrations. Pad Yatras, black flag demonstrations, against Central Ministers, burning the effigies of repressive measures and enrolment of Satyagrahis for the Jail Bharo movement in their states. The youth wing of the party will undertake demonstrations against radio and television networks and mobilisation of the youth for struggle and Jail Bharo movement. Meetings of intellectuals, including, school and university teachers, advocates, doctors, writers will be held to enlist their support Cells will be established to bring out literature publicity material and audiovideo tapes to educate the masses Action plan councils will be established at all levels
Alternate contingency plans have also been prepared to resist repressive measures of the government. .rom: Muslim India, 11, 122, .ebruary 1993. BJP: Memorandum to President, 29 December 1992 A memorandum (was) submitted to the President of India, by a BJP delegation led by Shri A.B. Vajpayee, MP On 29 December 1992. Relevant extracts follow: The Central Government has no right to partition Ram Janmasthan area. The Ram Janma Mandir must be build at Ram Janmasthan with the Garba Griha on the spot of the Ram idol, and a mosque in Ayodhya can be build anywhere outside the Panch kosi parikrama of that Mandir. Also, it would be singularly inappropriate for the government to appoint either a temple trust or a Masjid trust. The people of India will not accept either Sarkari Sadhus or Sakhari Trustees The Archaeological Survey of the Ramayan sites carried on by Dr. B.B. Lal, at the instance of the then Education Minister, Shri Nurul Hasan, had reported the existence of brick bases of the pillars which once belonged to an 11th Century Hindu temple. And the archaeological finds in the debris of 6 December, particularly the Sanskrit inscription in Nagri script, have only confirmed the existence of a great temple on this spot. In this situation of conclusive evidence, it is pointless to refer an archaeological matter to a law court. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it is not an expert in matters of economy and commerce, art and science We repeat that the Ram Janmasthan Mandir is a Peoples Movement conducted by the Dharma Sansad, assisted by BJP, VHP and RSS. The government cannot decide this matter without their consent and against their will .rom: Muslim India, 11, 122, .ebruary 1993 (source: The Organiser, 17 January 1993)
Documents
155
156
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
Document 22 All India Sant Samiti: President Swami Vamdevs statement, .ebruary 1993 The High Court decision on 2.77 acres of disputed land was ready to be delivered before 4 December 1992. And had it been delivered before 4 December 1992 this mishap could have been averted. But Sri Rao caused that decision to be delivered on 11 December 1992 as his intention was to take the political benefit of the reports given by his confidential sources. These sources had informed him that if somehow the karseva on 6 December is postponed, the karsevaks and Sant Samaj will get isolated from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. And then the Parishad will lose the confidence of enthusiastic Hindu masses. The news of delaying the court decision till 11 December provoked the emotions of karsevaks and sadhus assembled in great numbers in Ayodhya and the entire Hindu community at large. This resulted in the situation in Ayodhya getting beyond the control of the VHP, Bajrang Dal and BJP and even the state and central governments. Afterwards what happened is know to the entire world This process should have been started by our secular Indian government itself after Independence, as it was done in the case of symbols of British rule. After 15 August 1947, the statues of George V and Queen Victoria were removed and the names of parks, roads, hospitals, etc were also changed. But it never resulted in HinduChristian conflict. Similar should have been the case with signs of Mughal aggression. .rom: Muslim India, 11, 122, .ebruary 1993 (source: The Organiser, 17 January 1993) Document 23 A.I. Catholic Union: statement on Babari Masjid, March 1993
The All India Catholic Union (AICU), which represents 14 million Catholics of India in public life, is deeply perturbed at the developments prior and subsequent to what happened in Ayodhya. Every sane Indian is ashamed of what happened on 6 December Every Indian is also in some way responsible for what happened. All of us must share the blame and the shame. .irstly, all politicians are to blame Our entire judicial system also cannot be absolved for its procrastination The media is also largely to blame for often bowing to the demands of sensationalistic reporting, without sufficient objectivity Our religious leaders are also guilty, for mixing religion with politics .inally, each Indian is to blame for having voted for such politicians, for craving sensationalism, for being unable to resolve disputes amicably and for our religious intolerance. The damage has been done It is time for each Indian to sit up and think. What legacy do we want to bestow on our children? Do we want peace, prosperity and progress; or do we opt for violence, hatred and regression? Each one of us must decide where we want to go from Ayodhya. .rom: Muslim India Volume XI, Number 123, March 1993, 109 (Source: The People, 1 January 1993) Document 24 BMMCCs Open Letter to all Secular Parties, .orces and Personalities, April 1993 Secularism Demands United Public Stand in .avour of Reconstruction of Babari Masjid The Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee (BMMCC) appreciates the Resolution adopted by the Mass Rally organised by the Rashtriya Ekta Abhiyan in Delhi on 14 April 1993 as a response to the challenge posed by the RSS-VHP-BJP axis to the national unity, the Constitutional
Documents
157
158
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
order and to the very survival of our country as a civilised polity based on the rule of law. The BMMCC also notes that the Rally has resolved to ensure the preservation of the sanctity of the places of worship and peaceful coexistence of all faiths. However, it has noted with regret that the Resolution does not condemn the destruction of the Babari Masjid and demand its immediate reconstruction. The Resolution creates the impression as if the secular forces have no plan to deal with the aftermath of the act of vandalism which they had so unequivocally endeavoured to forestall. It does not take note of the continuing and shameless pressure of the RSS-VHP-BJP axis for the construction of the proposed temple over the site of the Babari Masjid, law or no law. The Resolution fails to unmask the sordid and immoral strategy of the Congress Government to implement the plan of the VHP under its own auspices and thus take the political credit. The Babari Masjid must be rebuilt on its original site because: l At the time of demolition it was a property in dispute and, therefore, the Muslim community is entitled to its restitution. l It was unlawfully demolished in violation of the orders of the Court. l The Central Government has failed to protect it against the vandals. l The Prime Minister of India has promised to rebuild it. l The site has been unlawfully reoccupied and built upon after demolition. l The temple movement has lost all moral claim to the site. l No one but the Muslims have a legal title to the site. l .reedom of religion bars the acquisition by the State of a place of worship. l Babari Masjid is protected by the law of limitation. l There is no evidence that a standing Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir was destroyed in 1528 to build the Babari Masjid on its site.
Any movement for secularism and against communalism will carry no credibility with the masses and will have no impact on the political environment, unless the political parties, mass organisations, social action groups and personalities involved in the Abhiyan spell out their unambiguous support to the demand for the reconstruction of the Babari Masjid and educate the masses on their stand that reconstruction of the Babari Masjid and educate the masses on their stand secularism. The BMMCC is convinced that the Babari Masjid question has today become the touchstone both for constitutionalism and secularism and the secular forces are duty-bound to take a clear stand on the question. The reconstruction of the Babari Masjid is a constitutional, legal, moral and political imperative. The BMMCC, therefore, requests Coordination Committee of the Rashtriya Ekta Abhiyan to take a collective public stand on this central question today the reconstruction of the Babari Masjid on its original site. New Delhi, 21 April 1993 .rom: Muslim India Volume XI, Number 126, June 93, 251 Document 25 Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas Manchs Memorandum to President New Delhi, 10 May 1993 A delegation of revered saints and holy men as well as VIPs from all corners of the country has called upon you. This is indeed a historic occasion Millions of our countrymen look forth to the renovation of the existing temple on the hallowed Ramjanmabhoomi to make it a grand monument. Countless Hindus residing abroad are also keenly awaiting the auspicious day Certain elements are trying to put up hurdles in their way. The Government of India also, rather than restraining them, has been indirectly patronising them. The People of
Documents
159
160
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
this strongly feel that the Centre should reconsider its attitude and clear the way for the reconstruction of the temple. Thousands of votaries of Ram visited towns and villages and obtained citizens signatures to this memorandum This signature campaign has been the most massive of such ventures. In fact it is a world record The signatories include all sections of society, covering all sects, castes and classes. They represent the sentiments of people from 281,212 villages Among the signatories are 397,388 Muslims and 119,763 Christians. These people have expressed their commitment to Indias cultural legacy and fulfilled their national obligation The very ethos of the town of Ayodhya, particularly around the area called Shri Rama Janmasthan has always been infused with the spirit of Ram it is our constitutional right to preserve the cultural significance of this spot. Therefore, nothing that would be incongruous with the holy atmosphere should be allowed within the precincts of Ramas birthplace. It would be extremely unfortunate if any move to build a mosque at Ramjanmabhoomi or near around comes up under the Centres patronage. In the interest of national unity and also communal amity it is imperative that the Government of India give up any plan of building a mosque at the site. The people of India have, with millions of signatures, implored your honour that, if at all a mosque comes up, it must be beyond the Panchkosi. We request your honour to direct the Government of India and advise them that they should honour the democratically expressed sentiments of the countrys millions of people and as early as possible remove the hurdles in the way of temple construction .rom: Muslim India Volume XI, Number 126, June 1993, 252.
Document 26 Ayodhya in 1937 I had the opportunity to make a pilgrimage to Ayodhya, the sacred birthplace of Bhagwan Shree Ram in the early part of the year 1937, and I stayed on there for two days The most important place of worship at that time in Ayodhya used to be the Hanuman temple. I asked one of the pilgrims there that since Ayodhya being the sacred birthplace of Lord Rama, how is it that there is not an impressive, hallowed place of worship seen built in His name for darshan for devotees. The person then guided me to a place some 300 yards away from the Hanuman temple, towards the river Sarayu and showing me a small place that looked like a shrine by the side of an outer wall of the mosque, told me, that exactly was the birthplace of Bhagwan Shree Ram where a temple existed in the past. I did not find any Muslims there in the vicinity of the mosque or outside, during my two days there .rom: Muslim India Volume XI, Number 128, August 1993, 350 (Source: A Letter, The Indian Express, 21 January 1993) Document 27 BMMCC: Shahabuddins Appeal to Intellectuals for Observance of .irst Anniversary of Demolition of Babari Masjid, 6 December 1993 The Babari Masjid was demolished on 6 December 1992 in violation of the Constitution, Law, morality, norm of human conduct and the traditions of Indian culture. This caused a deep wound in the psyche of the Muslim community in India and immeasurable anguish to the secular forces. A year has elapsed. The wound has not healed. It continues to bleed. The Prime Minister promised to rebuild the Babari Masjid.
Documents
161
162
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
But far from rebuilding it, he permitted the reinstallation of the idols on the debris of the Babari Masjid and the construction of a temporary structure on the site which has been, by stages, converted into a regular temple under official management. In order to obtain a legal cover and a judicial fig-leaf to incorporate the Masjid site in the Mandir plan, the Government subsequently acquired the Babari Masjid site and made a Reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution on a specious historical question of pure fact which has no legal consequence. The Supreme Court is yet to commence hearings on the question of maintainability of the Reference. The Government have rejected the plea of all political parties, with the exception of the Congress and the BJP, to transfer the pending title suits to the Supreme Court under Article 138 (2). The title suits pending with the Allahabad High Court stand abated and the writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the acquisition stand transferred to the Supreme Court. The contempt cases, the second initiated suo moto by the Supreme Court itself, are all but forgotten. The Parliament has discussed the Babari Masjid question on several occasions but has not been able to reverse the course that the Government has chosen. The Shankaracharyas prodded by the Government have all endorsed the demand of the Sangh Parivar that the Garbha Griha of the proposed Mandir should be located on the Babari Masjid site. No political party has launched any campaign to educate the masses about the implications of the demolition or to press the Government to rebuild the Masjid or even to remove the new unlawful structure on its site, or to transfer the title suits to the Supreme Court for final adjudication. On behalf of the Muslim community and the Babari Masjid Movement, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board submitted a Memorandum to the Prime Minister on 5 April 1993. The Prime Minister has not even acknowledged the
Memorandum. On the other hand, the Muslim community is being subjected by all possible means including psychological and media pressure to sign away its claim to the Babari Masjid site and this legitimise the act of vandalism. As a result of it all, the Muslim community is losing its faith and trust in the Constitution, in the Legislature, in the Executive and the Judiciary, in the political process, and in its hope of getting justice at the bar of the Nation. You will agree that in the national interest the second biggest community in the country should not be forced to the wall. Its faith and trust in the Constitution and the political process, its hope of justice, must be restored. The question is: How? The question is: What can we do? Where do we go from here? Rising above all other considerations, you and your party/ organisation have been among those who have shown moral courage as well as deep understanding of the perceptions of the Muslim community and the implications for the secular order. We request you to take note of the .irst Anniversary of the Demolition of the Babari Masjid on 6 December 1993 and educate the people about the constitutional, legal, moral and political significance of the day through a suitable act of remembrance. .rom: Muslim India Volume XII, Number 133, January 1994, 16. Document 28 MHA: Annual Report 1993-94: Ram Janma BhoomiBabari Masjid Issue, May 1994 White Paper on Ayodhya .ollowing the tragic events of 6 December 1992 at Ayodhya, and the various measures announced by the Government of India, a White Paper on Ayodhya was brought out in .ebruary 1993. The White Paper traces the background to the Ayodhya dispute, the chronology of events leading to
Documents
163
164
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
the demolition of the RJB-BM disputed structure at Ayodhya, the developments during the period of the BJP Government in Uttar Pradesh, the varying stands of the BJP Government before the courts and the failure of the BJP Government to honour the assurances and undertakings given to the Supreme Court and the National Integration Council for protecting the RJB-BM structure. It also highlights the steps taken by the Prime Minister to have the negotiations resumed for finding a solution to the dispute and how these negotiations could not succeed due to the unilateral announcement made by the VHP for resuming the Kar Seva from 6 December 1992. The White Paper also describes the measures taken by the Central Government to contain the fall-out of the events of 6 December 1992, on the law and order situation and to bring to book all those responsible for the demolition of the disputed structure. Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance/Act The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance 1993, promulgated on 7 January 1993, has been replaced by an Act of Parliament. An Authorised Person and a Claims Commissioner have been appointed under the provisions of the Act, the acquired property being managed by the Authorised Person. Rules under Section 12 (1) of the Act have also been framed and notified. Special Reference under Article 143 (1) The President made a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution for giving an opinion on the question whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babari Masjid (including the premised of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood. Submissions have been filed before the court on behalf of the Union of India, several States and also private parties. The Supreme Court has taken up the proceedings in respect of this reference as well as in respect of Writ Petitions, filed originally before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court challenging the acquisition of certain area at
Ayodhya ordinance. 1993 (since replaced by an Act of Parliament) but transferred subsequently to the Apex Court on a prayer by the Union Government. Arguments in respect pf the validity of the above act/ordinance and the preliminary issues related to the maintainability of the above reference are being heard by the Supreme Court. Investigations into Incidents of 6 December 1992 at Ayodhya by the CBI The investigation of the offences connected with the demolition of the RJB-BM structure had been entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI has since completed its investigation and a combined chargesheet against 40 persons was filed before a Special Court at Lucknow. The Special Court has taken cognizance of the offences and the proceedings in the case are going on. Commission of Inquiry into Ayodhya Incidents A Commission headed by Justice Shri Manmohan Singh Liberhan was set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, on 16 December 1992 to inquire, inter alia, into the sequence of events leading to, and all the facts and circumstances relating to the occurrences in the RJB-BM complex at Ayodhya on 6 December 1992. The inquiry is in progress. Banning of Communal Organisations After the demolition of the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babari Masjid structure the Central Government declared five associations - Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (RSS), Bajrang Dal (BD), Jamaat-eIslami Hind (JEIH), and the Islamic Sevak Sangh (ISS) as unlawful associations under the Unlawful Associations (Prevention) Act, 1967, by a notification issued on 10 December 1992. Two Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunals, presided over by Mr. Justice P. N. Nag and Mr Justice P. K. Bahri, were set up to adjudicate whether there was sufficient cause for declaring these associations unlawful. The Tribunal presided over by Mr Justice Bahri
Documents
165
166
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
passed the final order on 4 June 1993 and confirmed the notification issued in respect of the VHP. However, it did not conform the notifications issued in respect of RSS and BD. The Tribunal presided over by Mr Justice Nag confirmed the notification issued in respect of ISS. In the case of JEIH, on a petition filed before the Supreme Court, the Court has directed that the Tribunal shall not pass any final order till the Writ Petition/Appeal filed on behalf of JEIH is decided .rom: Muslim India Volume XII, Number 137, May 1994, 207 Document 29 RSS Sarkaryavaha Rajendra Singh on Babari Masjid Question, June 1994 Even as the year 1992 neared its end, the Hindu society had fully plunged into Ramjanmabhoomi movement. Ayodhya Ram Mandir had in fact turned into a symbol of the Nations struggle to affirm its true Hindu identity The confidencetrick sought to be played by the Central Government with the Hindu leaders, the unconscionable delay of the Allahabad High Court in coming out with its decision, the no-holdsbarred vicious propaganda barrage unleashed against the movement by the anti-Hindutva forces led by the Government, the Communists, the pseudo-secular journalists and political groups - all this had provoked the Hindu outburst on 6 December. Although unexpected and never planned by the organisers of kar seva, nevertheless it resulted in the removal of the disputed structure - that blot of foreign slavery on that holy spot. Steps such as the arrest of the BJP and VHP leaders followed by a spontaneous total Bharat-bandh in protest, the undemocratic dismissal of the four BJP governments, the banning of the RSS, the VHP and the Bajrang Dal by the Central Government, the unprecedented repressive steps adopted by it to suppress a legitimate protest rally in Delhi - all this only proved how awfully the government
was shaken at the unprecedented upsurge of Hindu selfassertion in the wake of 6 December. The very fact that they tried to achieve through the power of government rod what they had utterly failed to do through the democratic process, verily amounted to their confession of defeat on the ideological front at the hands of the votaries of Hindutva. The illegality of the governmental measures such as the arrests of the workers of banned organisations and sealing of their karyalayas were soon exposed by the courts declaring them as null and void. I urge the Central Government to hand over the acquired land without delay to the Ramjanmabhoohi Nyas paving the way for the speedy construction of the proposed temple to Shri Rama. It is also high time they realise the utter futility of their tactics to divide the unity of the Hindu sadhus and dharmacharyas on the temple issue, or indulge in such provocative governmental stunts like the somayjna and SAHMAT which can only result in yet another explosive build-up of Hindu emotions on the Ramjanmabhoomi issue. .rom: Muslim India Volume XII, Number 138, June 1994, 253 (Source: The Organizer, 20 March 1994) Document 30 Government Statement on Ayodhya Dispute, December 1994 The Supreme Court of India, vide its judgement dated 24 October 1994, in the proceedings related to the validity of the acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance/Act, 1993 and the maintainability of the Special Reference RJBBM dispute, returned the Reference unanswered. But the Supreme Court upheld all the provisions of the Act except Section 4 (3). It also held that all pending suits and other legal proceedings relating to the disputed area within which the structure (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) stood, stand revived for adjudication of the dispute therein. It also held that vesting of the disputed area in the Central Government is limited
Documents
167
168
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
as a statutory receiver, with the duty for its management and administration, maintaining status-quo therein (according to the provisions of the Act) and to hand over the same in terms of the adjudication made in the suits. In view of the above, the Supreme Court has returned the Special Reference unanswered, finding the same as superfluous and unnecessary. In terms of the provisions of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993, it is not for the Government to constitute a trust. Our interpretation is that two options are available As mentioned by the Supreme Court, one was negotiated settlement. The second was a reference (sic) under Article 138 (ii) could be considered. .rom: Muslim India Volume XIII, Number 146, .ebruary 1995, 59(Source: LSUQ No. 1428, 15 December 1994, by N.S. Chaudhary) Document 31 Justice Hosbet Suresh on the Supreme Court Judgement, 1994 The Supreme Court relied heavily on the White Paper issued by the Government. The White Paper contains several statements which are misleading if not patently false The White Paper says in effect, from December 1949 till 6 December 1992, the structure had not been used as a mosque. This is half-true. The White Paper does not set out how the government failed to prevent the demolition of the mosque. The White Paper then sets out the circumstances leading to the Ordinance of 7 January 1993, which purported to acquire the area. Why should the government acquire the area at all? The proper thing would have been to give full protection to the Sunni Wakf Board which have owned the site and drive away all the miscreants who had done the mischief.
However, the government had a sinister design in promulgating the Ordinance. The Prime Minister had initially announced that the Masjid would be rebuilt at the very place where it existed. Soon he must have realised that in their game plan to compete with the BJP in appeasing the majority, this would not fit in. So, how could he wriggle out of this situation? In this, the make-shift Ram Mandir which was illegally put up with no religious sanctity whatsoever, came in handy for the government. The government brought in the Ordinance on 7 January. The sole object of it was to see that this make-shift Ram Mandir is permanently established, so that with the temple on the site, no mosque would ever be built The Supreme Court upheld this law excepting the provision of Section 3 which purported to abate the suits Between 1949 and 1989 the dispute was confined only to few individuals in Ayodhya. It was only in 1989 that the BJP hijacked the dispute and enlarged it for political gain. Thereafter it was a race between the Congress and the BJP, not for solving the dispute, but to keep it alive. The Supreme Court should have seen through the game. Instead the Supreme Court gave credence to the Act, and thought that instead of the Special Reference, the suits could be revived. If the suits are to be revived, why not the site be restored to the original owners? At no time, was there any dispute as to the legal ownership of the land. They have not committed any unlawful act. The Supreme Court thinks that the status quo has to be maintained till the suits are decided. But the status quo is always as before the alleged event. If a rank trespasser enters the house, and the status quo is ordered, does the trespasser remain in the house while the real owner is thrown out on the street? That is no status quo. In the scheme of things, the government wanted the status quo as of 7 January 1993 to be maintained which means the continuance of the makeshift Ram Mandir. As long as the Ram Mandir is there, how can the site be restored to the lawful owners? The majority judges uphold this vicious
Documents
169
170
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
scheme of the government despite the fact that the temple was illegally constructed and mischievously maintained Where is the right of worship for the Hindu devotees? That too after the demolition of the Masjid and by putting up a patently illegal structure on the site. The whole world knows who were responsible for the demolition of the mosque. Yet the Supreme Court says that the demolition was the act of unidentified miscreants. The Supreme Court has made all those observations, only for the purpose of justifying the status quo. The minority judges have rightly said that the provisions of section 7 (which relate to status quo) indicate that the Act is skewed to favour one religious community and disfavour another' It is this status quo which the majority judges upheld all in fine tune with the diabolical package plan offered by the government .rom: Muslim India Volume XIII, Number 146, .ebruary 1995, 62 Document 32 Round Table on the Babari Masjid Question New Delhi, 9 July 1995 I. Status Paper: On Babari Masjid Dispute Physical Status: Babari Masjid was razed to the ground on 6 December 1992 Darshan and Pooja have been formally permitted since 23 December 1992. The site has been converted into a de facto temple. Disputed land, contiguous to the BM including some graveyards, were excavated and levelled beyond recognition by the Kalvan Singh government in October 1991-April 1992. A concrete platform 20 thick was constructed between the Shila Nyas site and the BM in July 1992. The land was
largely walled in by the Kalvan Singh government by constructing Ram Deewar. Legal Situation: The BM site and the disputed land (plus some other adjacent land) were acquired by the Govt. of India in January 1993; the acquisition was upheld by the Supreme Court in October 1994 but the Central Govt. was designated as Receiver till the final adjudication on the title. The title suit was revived and the Special Bench of Allahabad High Court at Lucknow was instructed to expedite the matter The title suite is pending before the Special Bench but the Bench has not yet begun recording the evidence of witnesses. The Contempt Cases on the unlawful construction of the Platform and on the destruction of the BM are pending before the Supreme Court. The appeal against the Tilhari judgement, permitting Darshan and Pooja of the idols unlawfully installed on the BM site, has been transferred to a Constituent Bench of the Supreme Court and has been pending. Political Aspect: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board submitted a Memorandum to the Prime Minister in June 1993 for the reconstruction of the BM, as promised by him. There has been no response from the Prime Minister. The BMMCC and the AIBMAC have been in touch with the political parties but have not launched any agitation on the question. The Sangh Parivar, particularly the VHP and the BJP, have been agitating for the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir with its Grabha Griha on the BM site. The BJP is likely to use the issue in the coming General Election for the installation of a Hindu Government which alone shall facilitate the construction. The VHP has decided to launch Ekatmata Yatras for the purpose all over the country in October 1995.
Documents
171
172
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
The secular parties have supported the Muslim case and favour the legal approach but have not undertaken any political programme on the subject. Government Action: The Central Government has mobilised and encouraged antiVHP religious personalities to form a Ramalaya Trust but the position taken by the trust is exactly the same as that of the VHP-sponsored Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, i.e. Babari Masjid site is the birthplace of Lord Rama and the Grabh Griha of the proposed temple should be located on BM site and the construction should begin from Grabha Griha and not from the Shila Nyas site (which marked the entrance of the proposed temple). Nyas is ruled out by the Act of 1993 but Ramalaya Trust is pressing the Government to hand over land to it for commencing construction. The criminal cases against VHP/BJP leaders have not made much progress and are pending before the Special Court. The Judicial Commission of Inquiry also has made little progress. The ban on the RSS and the VHP, never enforced, stands lifted. II. Available Options: On the Question of Babari Masjid 1. Muslims sign away their right to the BM site and the disputed land adjacent thereto, presently in the hands of the Central Govt. as Receiver. 2. Muslims overlook and forget the unlawful occupation of the site and any construction thereon. 3. Muslims permit the construction of the proposed Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir on the adjacent site, provided the site plan of the Mandir does not cover the BM site, though it may cover the disputed land whose title is under adjudication. 4. Muslims enter into a formal agreement under which they retain the BM site but transfer the disputed land for the construction of the Mandir. 5. Muslims pursue the legal cases, particularly those relating to the title, construction of the concrete
platform, the destruction of the BM and the construction of the de facto temple over the BM site and seek effective support of secular political parties and request them to take a clear stand on the BM question, particularly to: a. Condemn the illegality of the destruction of the Masjid and the construction on the B.M. site and the occupation and excavation beyond recognition of the adjacent undisputed land; b. Urge amendment to the Acquisition of Some Areas at Ayodhya Act 1993 to relate the status quo ante to 6 December 1992 and not to 7 January 1993; c. Assure restoration of the BM site and attached land, in accordance with the law, if the final verdict is in favour of the Muslim community, whatever the cost; and d. Promise use of state power to protect all other Masjids and shrines in accordance with the law of 1991. 6. Muslims launch a peaceful agitation for the fulfilment of their legal rights. The Consensus of the Round Table was in favour of Option 5 (above). .rom: Muslim India Volume XIII, Number 152, August 1995, 357 Document 33 Home Minister Chavans Statement, 11 March 1996 The Centre would rebuild the Babari mosque at the same spot at Ayodhya if the Supreme Court gave its opinion that there was no temple prior to the disputed structure .rom: Muslim India Volume XIV, Number 161, May 1996, 207 (Source: The Pioneer, 12 March 1996)
Documents
173
174
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
Document 34 Shahabuddins Reply to Chavan, 12 March 1996 The press has attributed the following statement to you on the Babari Masjid question The Centre would rebuild the Babari mosque at the same spot at Ayodhya if the Supreme Court gave its opinion that there was no temple prior to the disputed structure. The Supreme Court has not been asked nor is it called upon to give an opinion on a question of fact which has no legal implication. The Supreme Court has asked the Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court to decide the title. The Government is bound by law to execute the judicial order/ judgement of the Allahabad High Court or of the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction, on the question, of title. Assuming that a temple existed on the site some time in the past before the Babari Masjid was constructed in 1528 or even if a standing temple was demolished in 1528 to build the Babari Masjid on that site, there is no law under which the Babari Masjid can be replaced by a temple. We are, therefore, surprised by your statement which once again as in the case of the misleading reference made to the Supreme Court shows the Government continue to support the reactionary and illegal stand of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and its allies. We, therefore, request you to kindly clarify the stand of the Government in the matter whether it shall be bound unconditionally, by the judicial order/judgement on the question of title to the Babari Masjid, which is called the disputed structure by you, and the site on which it is stood. .rom: Muslim India Volume XIV, Number 161, May 1996, 207 Document 35 Texts Silent on Ayodhya Site Rabisankar Banerjee, Reader in Sanskrit, Jadavpur
University, Calcutta, June 1996 The extant editions of Valmiki Ramayana have not given the slightest hint about the exact position in the city of Ayodhya where Rama was born. Nor do the court epics like Kalidasas Raghuvamsa , Bhattis Ravanavadha, Kumaradasas Janakiharana and Dhananjayas Raghavapandaviya contain any hint as to the exact location of the birthplace of Rama. Bhasa, an ancient Indian playwright, wrote two plays on the Ramayana tale Abhiseka and Pratima; Bhavabhuti added two more, Mahabiracarita and Uttaracarita. Another playwright, Jayadeva, wrote Prasnnaraghava at a later date. All these authors are silent on the question of the exact location of Ramas birth in Ayodhya. BJP has now discovered a place which it has identified as the spot where Rama was born. The middle ages saw the advent of Tulsidas who wrote anecdote after anecdote in Ramacaritamanasa, but did not bother about the exact location of Ramas birthplace. No BJP leader has yet given a cogent argument to substantiate the contention that the mosque built by Babar stands on the very spot where Rama was born. Valmikis great epic seems to have failed as a poem par excellence, since its readers in UP and Bihar try to single out a spot as Ramas place of birth and try to erect a temple there even by committing murderous assault on those who oppose their ideas .rom: Muslim India Volume XIV, Number 162, June 1996, 270 Document 36 Abir Padhy on Collaboration between Hindutva and State The Peoples Reporter, 1-15 December 1996 6 December 1992 saw the barbaric dance of Hindu fascist organizations over the ruins of the Babari Masjid, while the
Documents
175
176
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
state, like an accomplice watched and waited for the destruction to be complete. What followed were some of the most violent and widespread riots ever witnessed in the country since Partition in 1947 in well every two hundred places, in 15 out of our 25 states, killing thousands of people. The recent twelve years will go down in history as the period when communalism took a new and ugly turn The riot became more and more planned and more barbaric, often ending as carnages directed against the minority communities. The Hindu communal organizations grew in strength and influence. The state became increasingly linked to Hindu communalism. Its machinery, especially the police, the paramilitary, the executive and often even the press, playing a covert or overt role .rom the British tactics of divide and rule to the caste and religious arithmetic that our ruling class politicians regularly use, communalism is nothing new for us. But what we have been seeing in recent years is something quite different it is the conscious and systematic attempt to unite the majority community under a common ideological banner. And in the variety of political and pseudo-nationalist organizations that are involved, in the systematic and planned programme against the Muslims, in the deliberate fabrication and propagation of various big lies and distortions of history as well as an economic nationalist rhetoric with a pro-monopoly capitalist position, one cannot fail to see parallels to Hitlerite Germany (despite the obviously vast differences in context). .or, the Hindu communal organizations have a clearly fascistic programme of capturing power and creating a theocratic and fascist state. It is now clear that the present wave of communalism has its roots in a structural response of the ruling classes to their material crisis and in the fact of the patterns of deprivations and frustrations engendered in society by the specific nature of Indias development path. It cannot be identified solely with the BJP and the Sangh Parivar or even minority fundamentalist outfits And the struggle against it, needs, therefore, to be a real struggle - a
struggle to change those social conditions which breed communalism. Therefore, attempts to seek a solution within the present political framework by relying on the supposed secular credentials of one or the other ruling class party like Congress, JD, CPI, CPM will not only be just in vain, but also be positively harmful for the democratic movement. .rom: Muslim India Volume XV, Number 171, March 1997, 116 Document 37 Historians Demand: On Excavations on Babari Masjid Site, April 1997 A recent reported decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court throwing open the site and alleged remains or artefacts attributed to excavations conducted at the site of the Babari Masjid or Ayodhya in 1992 upon and after its destruction has raised great concern once again about the way archaeological evidence is being sought to be produced proving a special case. The destruction of the Babari Masjid on 6 December 1992 was a flagrant violation of law; the unauthorised excavation thereafter was an offence committed against the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Act; and there is no explanation of the presence and activity by unauthorized persons on the site after 6 December 1992 when the site was occupies by security forces. There are, therefore, grounds for the gravest suspicion about the genuineness of the artefacts being shown or the images, etc., having been found at the site in situ. We, therefore, demand that the Government of India should make it clear why the Archaeological Survey of India has not taken action against the unauthorized excavation at the Babari Masjid site and surrounding area both before and after 6 December 1992 in Ayodhya. We feel that the ASI should immediately take possession of the alleged artefacts, inscriptions and sculptured pieces and permit their inspection by bona fide scholars, so that
Documents
177
178
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
the whole matter of their provenance may be thoroughly probed and clarified. .rom: Muslim India Volume XV, Number 172, April 1997, 164 Document 38 Views of RSS Chief Rajendra Singh, .ebruary 1998 Prof. Rajendra Singh called upon the Muslim society to forego its claim on Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura, and maintained, that the issue was not so complicated that it could not be solved through dialogue. He said that the issue was closely connected with the century-old beliefs of Hindus. .rom: Muslim India Volume XVI, Number 182, .ebruary 1998, 77 (Source: The Organiser) Document 39 BJP on Babari Masjid Question - A.B. Vajpayee's Views, December 1997 Regarding Ayodhya, our efforts will be directed at settling the dispute through dialogue and the legal process. Kashi and Mathura are not on our agenda. .ull stop. The BJP and RSS are independent organizations with separate identities. The Sangh does not interfere in political matters. .rom: Muslim India Volume XVI, Number 182, .ebruary 1998, 77 (Source: India Today, 29 December 1997) Document 40 Still Cause for Concern, Editorial, The Hindu, Madurai, 11 June 1998 The assurance by PM Vajpayee will allay fears only if it is
followed by appropriate steps. These steps must aim at ensuring that the various arms of the Sangh Parivar categorically jettison the temple construction project The leaders of the VHP and others in the Sangh Parivar have stated unambiguously that the artisans in the Rajasthan village are engaged in carving stone pillars meant for the proposed temple at the very site where the Babari Masjid stood in Ayodhya. Despite such overwhelming evidence, there was evasiveness on the part of the Government which did not at all clarify whether such construction activity was taking place and if so, for what purpose Assurances such as the one made by the PM have been handed out by the leading lights of the BJP on several occasions. One such occasion was just a couple of days before the horrifying demolition on 6 December 1992 Vajpayees observation that it was a result of the restlessness caused by the inordinate judicial delay in the case involving peoples emotions gave tacit legitimacy to the act of demolition. It also obliquely justified the Sangh Parivars drawn out campaign on Ayodhya. Rather than indulging in laboured and unconvincing explanations about what led to the demolition, Vajpayee would do better to ensure that passions are not whipped once again. The BJP cannot distance itself from its constitutionally mandated responsibility to ensure that Ayodhya is not the focus of another searing and disintegrative campaign. .rom: Muslim India Volume XVI, Number 187, July 1998, 309 (Source: The Hindu, 11 June 1998) Document 41 On Babari Masjid Issue: MHA Annual Report, 1998-99 (Extracts), June 1999 In terms of the Supreme Courts judgement dated 24 October 1994, in the case of Dr Ismail .aruqui vs. Union of India, the title suits relating to the Ram Janma BhoomiBabari Masjid dispute had been revised and hearings are continuing on a day-to-day basis in the Lucknow Bench of
Documents
179
180
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
the Allahabad High Court. The cases are at the stage of recording evidence and examination of plaintiff witnesses the Central Government is maintaining the status quo in the disputed area and would not allow any individual or organization to violate the sanctity of the judicial orders. .rom: Muslim India Volume XVII, Number 198, June 1999, 258 Document 42 Government Statement on Babari Masjid Question, December 1999 In compliance with the Supreme Courts Judgement, dated 24 October 1994, the Central Government, as a statutory receiver is duty bound to maintain status quo on 7 January 1993 in the disputed area. Status quo is being duly maintained and so far there has been no violation of the Court Orders .our title suits in respect of the Disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babari Masjid site are pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The proceedings are continuing. In none of the suits is the Union of India a party. .rom: Muslim India Volume XVIII, Number 206, .ebruary 2000, 72 (Source: LSSQ No. 104, dated 6 December 1999, by G.M. Banatwalla) Document 43 Any Change in Status Quo by Receiver would be Illegal: Shahabuddin Cautions Home Minister Advani, May 2000 Letters of 25 .ebruary 2000 You are aware that the Supreme Court in its Judgement and Order of 24 October 1994 generally upheld the Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993, appointed
the Government of India as the Statutory Receiver and ordered the status quo to be maintained until the title to the disputed areas included, pending before the Allahabad High Court was decided and the Supreme Court itself allotted the land to various parties in the light thereto. The Government of India has appointed the Commissioner of .aizabad to discharge the function of Receiver. The status quo is being maintained since then. We understand from the press report in the Dainik Jagran of 17 .ebruary 2000 that the Commissioner of .aizabad has submitted a proposal to the Central/State Governments to change the status quo within the acquired land, with a view to facilitate the darshan of the deity placed in the make-shift structure unlawfully constructed on the debris of the Babari Masjid, by reducing the distance between the entry and the deity as well as to reopen the other temples which had been acquired under the Act. The proposal would constitute a blatant violation of the Order of the Supreme Court and add to the security risk, particularly when the VHP is threatening to construct the proposed Mandir on the disputed site at a time of its choosing in defiance of the law. We request you to reject the proposal and instruct the Commissioner to maintain the status quo exactly in accordance with the Supreme Court Order. In case the Government wish to make any change, we request that the matter must be placed before the Supreme Court and its order must be obtained to make any change whatsoever to the management of the acquired land and the structure thereon. Letter on 20 April 2000 Please refer to my letter of 25 .ebruary 2000 drawing your attention to the proposal of the Receiver of the Acquired Areas in Ayodhya (the Commissioner of .aizabad) to change the status quo near the Babari Masjid site. I had requested you to reject the proposal and instruct the Commissioner to maintain the status quo in accordance with the Order of the Supreme Court. I have not received
Documents
181
182
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
any reply from you. I would be grateful to be informed where the matter stands. .rom: Muslim India Volume XVIII, Number 209, May 2000, 218 Document 44 On Babari Masjid Question, May 2000 Kalyan Singh, ex-CM, UP The only solution is through negotiation among non-political religious leaders of the two communities. The issue cannot be solved by courts or legislation. A Ram temple should be constructed at the site where the makeshift temple now exists and a mosque should be built outside the Ram temple area R.P. Gupta, CM, UP Kalyan Singh believes in Ramjanmabhoomi. He played a major role in the issue and has remained a hero of the Mandir movement. I will not question Kalyan Singh. Nobody is in disagreement over building of the temple. The question is how and when. I will not even go into the question of whether putting aside the Mandir issue was the reason for the partys defeat in UP. .rom: Muslim India Volume XVIII, Number 209, May 2000, 218 Document 45 BMMCC Statements on Recent Developments: Muslims shall Never Surrender Babari Masjid Site, January 2001 In two successive fatal strokes PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee
has demolished his liberal and secular image and life-long reputation of moderation and commitment to the Constitution. He has not only dropped his mask but revealed his real face. His recent statements on the Babari Masjid Question totally identify him with the hawks of the Sangh Parivar and his position is now its hardline that the proposed Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir must be constructed on the Babari Masjid site and the Muslim community should be given an alternative site for a substitute Masjid. This is the same old demand for shifting the Masjid, which has to be reworded, because the Masjid stands demolished; it is no different from the RSS chief Sudarshans call for voluntary surrender. The PM has spoken as Swayamsevak. Shri Vajpayees attribution of honest motive to L.K. Advani, M.M. Joshi and Uma Bharati not only flies in the face of well-publicized facts but falsifies the charge-sheet prepared by the CBI. Indeed, the people have been forced to question the credibility of their chief executive. By defending his colleagues who stand accused of criminal conspiracy for the demolition of the Masjid, he has tried to pressurise the CBI. By taking the stand that the Mandir shall be built on the Masjid site, he has tried to influence the Supreme Court. Both these statements are unworthy of the high office he holds. The PM has no business to dictate to the CBI or to interfere in the judicial process or anticipate the judicial verdict. Shri Vajpayee is totally off the mark when he attributes to the nation the yearning for the Mandir. They yearn for dignity and for freedom from want, from fear, from the scourge of illiteracy and disease, from corruption in the system and from oppression by its functionaries. Even, in the Sangh Parivar not all yearn for the Mandir. They give priority to good governance and stop to the sell-out of the country to foreign patrons. A handful of fanatics, who have filled their coffers through the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement cannot speak for the nation, not even for the vast majority of the Hindus who want to live in peace and work for the progress of the country. The BMMCC condemns and records its strong protest at
Documents
183
184
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
the PMs statements and reminds him that Muslim community has always been prepared to negotiate an honourable settlement and has never opposed the construction of yet another Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, even on a site adjacent to the Babari Masjid, but shall never surrender the Masjid site. It warns him that the Muslim community shall not take lying down any arbitrary and illegal move by the VHP, or the Government and shall resist it with all its strength. Apprehensive that the PMs statement may give a green signal to the VHP to translate its threats into action, the BMMCC hopes that the secular forces will oppose every move, open or hidden, to begin the construction of the temple anywhere in the disputed area, without or before the final verdict on the question of title to the disputed land and before the allocation of sites for Mandir and Masjid by the Supreme Court in the light thereof. The BMMCC demands that the secular opposition insist on a full-scale debate and extract a clear assurance by the PM that he will not interfere with or anticipate the course of justice and that he will execute the orders of the judiciary and that, in the meantime, his government shall perform in good faith the role of the custodian of the acquired areas assigned to it by the Supreme Court. The BMMCC also feels that the BJPs allies in the NDA must fact the moment of truth and reconsider their support to the Vajpayee Government. .rom: Muslim India Volume XIX, Number 217, January 2001, 12 Document 46 RSS Resolution on Ram Janmabhoomi, Pratinidhi Sabha, Delhi, 18 March 2001 The Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha heartily endorses the decision of the Dharma Sansad called by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad taken at Maha Kumbh, to go ahead with the building of Ram Mandir at Ayodhya The ABPS welcomes the wise
decision of the Dharma Sansad to allow sufficient time for the Government to do away with the hurdles which have been needlessly obstructing the temple construction The ABPS feels the ball is in the governments court and it is up to them to explore every single avenue to respect the deep-felt national sentiment vis--vis Ayodhya Ram Temple ABPS hopes that, in this regard, no communal or obstructionist tactics of interested groups will be allowed to succeed. The ABPS also entreats the enlightened section of Muslims to come forth courageously to lead the coreligionists The ABPS calls upon the general mass of our patriotic Bharatiya population, and Sangh Swayasevaks in particular, to fully participate in the various step-by-step programmes planned by the Dharma Sansad .rom: Muslim India Volume XIX, Number 221, May 2001, 213 (Source: The Organiser, 1 April 2001) Document 47 Sonia Gandhi Presses for Revision of Notification, 14 May 2001 I have learnt to my anguish and disbelief that the Uttar Pradesh Government has brazenly refused to correct a minor technical error and issue a fresh notification, as a consequence of which the CBIs prosecution on Ayodhya issue is getting unceremoniously buried. It may be recalled that the CBI, after painstaking efforts, collected sufficient evidence against all those involved in the crime of demolition of the Babari Masjid. The Allahabad High Court did not fault either the CBIs charge sheet or the interim judgement of the CBIs designated court. The High Court merely drew attention to a technical flaw regarding the charge sheet against some persons including some of the Union ministers. The High Court also hastened to clarify that the Uttar Pradesh Government can remedy this immediately through the simple process of a fresh notification. The BJP, which was
Documents
185
186
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
responsible as a party for the demolition, took a cynical public stand that the UP Government is not obliged to rectify the omission. The UP Government has now formally declared that it would not do anything to facilitate the CBIs prosecution of the accused. Such deliberate and obstinate refusal to comply with the requirements of justice on such an issue cannot be tolerated in any civil society. It is clearly a bid to save the leading lights of the Sangh Parivar from prosecution. The Congress Party unequivocally condemns this conspiratorial inaction on the part of the UP Government. We are determined to expose this dastardly subversion of the Constitution and mobilize public opinion against the attitude of the UP Government until the CBIs charge sheet is revived with full rigour. .rom: Muslim India Volume XIX, Number 222, June 2001, 254 Document 48 On Ram Janmabhoomi-Babari Masjid MHA: Annual Report, 2001-02 (Extracts), July 2002 Consequent upon entry of some VHP members in the disputed complex of RJB-BM on 17 October 2001, the security scheme at Ayodhya has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on security of Ayodhya and remedial steps have been taken to ensure that no such incident recurs in future Prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr. P.C. have also been promulgated. The system of special VIP darshan has been done away with. CBI Cases on Demolition of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babari Masjid Structure on 6 December 1992 The High Court passed an order on 12 .ebruary 2001 in all the revision petitions holding that the notification dated 8 October 1993 which was issued by the State Government without consulting the High Court under Section 11 (1) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 was illegal and all proceedings in respect
of case crime No. 198/92 were without jurisdiction. The judge, however further, observed that it was a curable defect and that the state government could rectify the defect by issuing a fresh notification in consultation with the High Court. Against the above order of the High Court, two SLPs and a Writ Petition have been filed in the Supreme Court praying for issue of direction to the Government of UP to rectify the defect in the Notification issued by it on 8 October 1993 The Supreme Court has issued notices to the concerned parties and the cases are pending in the High Court. The Ayodhya Cell has been created in the Cabinet Secretariat for handling affairs of the RamjanmabhoomiBabari Masjid dispute. .rom: Muslim India Volume XX, Number 235, July 2002, 301 Document 49 Nehrus and Pants Reaction to Occupation of Babari Masjid December 1949 Nehrus Telegram to G.B. Pant 26 December 1949 I am disturbed at developments at Ayodhya. Earnestly hope you will personally interest yourself in this matter. Dangerous example being set there which will have bad consequences Nehrus Letter to Pant, 5 .ebruary 1950 I shall be glad if you will keep me informed of the Ayodhya situation. As you know, I attach great importance to it and to its repercussions on all-India affairs and more especially Kashmir. I suggested to you when you were here last that, if necessary, I would go to Ayodhya. If you think this should be done, I shall try to find the date, although I am terribly busy. Pants Reply, 9 .ebruary 1950 There has been no marked change in the Ayodhya situation
Documents
187
188
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
Muslims want to move the High Court for the transfer of the case from the district many of the local officials had been transferred I would have myself requested you to visit Ayodhya if the time were ripe. Patels Letter to Pant, 9 .ebruary 1950 I feel that the issue is one which should be resolved amicably in a spirit of mutual toleration and goodwill between the two communities. I realize there is a great deal of sentiment behind the move which has taken place. At the same time, such matters can only be resolved peacefully, if we take the willing consent of the Muslim community with us. There can be no question of resolving such dispute by force. In that case, the forces of law and order will have to maintain peace at all costs. If therefore, peaceful and persuasive methods are to be followed, and unilateral action based on an attitude of aggression or coercion cannot be countenanced. I am, therefore, quite convinced that the matter should not be made such a live issue and that the present inopportune controversies should be resolved by peaceful and persuasive means. To that extent, any accomplished facts should not be allowed to stand in the way of any amicable settlement Pants Reply to Patel I have to thank you for your letter about the Ayodhya affair. It will be of great help to us here. Efforts to set matters right in a peaceful manner are still continuing and there is a reasonable chance of success, but things are still in a fluid state and it will hazardous to say more at this stage. Nehrus Letter to Pant, 17 April 1950 These recent occurrences in the UP have greatly distressed me. Or perhaps this was a culmination of what I had been feeling for a long time. People die and the fact of killing, though painful, does not upset me. But what does upset me is the complete degradation of human nature and, even more, the attempt to find justification for this.
I have felt for a long time that the whole atmosphere of the UP has been changing for the worse from the communal point of view I find that communalism has invaded the minds and hearts of those who were the pillars of the Congress in the past. It is a creeping paralysis and the patient does not even realize it. All that occurred in Ayodhya in regard to the Mosque and temples and the hotel in .aizabad was bad enough. But the worse feature of it was that such things should take place and be approved by some of our own people and that they should continue. It seems to me that for some reason or other or perhaps mere political expediency, we have been far too lenient with this disease that has been spreading all over India and in our own province Law and order prevails in the UP and there are no incidents and the exodus has toned down or almost stopped. That is all very good. But the reports I get of the general atmosphere and of petty happenings reveal the true state of affairs even more than major incidents We have tolerated the growth of an atmosphere that permits this kind of thing being done and others look on and approve Pants Reply on 22 April 1950 I am ashamed of the atrocities that have been committed in some places in this Province. Things seem to be gradually returning to normal but the fact that we could not prevent these deplorable happenings continues to oppress me. Statement by Pant in UP Assembly, 14 September 1950 The Babari Masjid - Since the Babari Masjid issue is sub judice it is not proper to say anything about it. The Government has always taken suitable action in all the cases that came to its knowledge. At present the condition in Ayodhya is quite normal. Still, it is necessary to consider all the issues in proper perspectives so that peace can be fully maintained and there is no cause for anyone to feel jittery or get provoked
Documents
189
190
Ayodhya 1992 - 2003
.rom: Muslim India Volume XX, Number 239, October 2002, 349 Document 50 Give up Claim on Ayodhya: BJP to Muslims, April 2003 New Delhi: In a significant development, UP BJP President Vinay Katiyar on Tuesday appealed to the Muslims to give up their claim on the disputed site in Ayodhya claiming that archaeological evidence supporting the existence of a has been temple found during the ongoing excavations and assured them that it would close forever the chapter of disputes. The firebrand founder president of the Bajrang Dal, VHPs youth wing, also announced plans to launch a Jagran Yatra (awakening yatra) from May last to inform the people of Uttar Pradesh about the findings of the recent excavation and prepare them for the construction of a grand temple. The recent discoveries during the excavations including lotus, feet imprints, figurine heads of bull, snake and Hindu deities beneath the disputed 40/60 sq. feet disputed site clearly prove that a grand temple with pillars on four sides existed here, he claimed. I appeal to the Muslims not to wait further for any court verdict and join in the construction of the Ram temple, Katiyar told PTI in an interview here. Katiyar said if the Muslims follow his advice, it would send a message that Hindus and Muslims are united and respect each others sentiments. It would also end their being used as a political vote machine. The goodwill generated thus would also end the chapter of disputes all over the country, he assured. The Sangh Parivar had so far been maintaining that besides Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura were non-negotiable. .rom: Muslim India Volume 21, Number 1-7, January-July 2003, 132 (Source: PTI, 22 April 2003)
Document 51 All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, 25 August 2003 ASIs .inal Report is .lawed, Contradictory to its own Interim Reports Excavation has not Disclosed the Remains of any Temple Just Below the Babari Masjid New Delhi, 25 August, 2003: Shri Syed Shahabuddin, President of the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat (AIMMM), has issued the following Statement: The AIMMM has seen the conclusions of the .inal Report of the ASI to the Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court, on Ayodhya Excavations. The .inal Report contradicts the Interim Reports submitted by the ASI itself and makes irresponsible speculations about what may lie at lower depths in the excavated area which it has not excavated while it disregards the material evidence of continuous Muslim habitation in the area since the 12th Century. The Report disregards the fact that the so-called pillar bases occupy three different levels and cannot be regarded as part of a common structure. The Report does not report the existence of the remains of any temple, in the form of pieces of walls or superstructures or floor or foundation, just below the Babari Masjid and, to that extent, negates the VHP claim that the Masjid was constructed in 1528 after demolishing a standing Ram Temple. In any case, the Special Court has granted time to the parties concerned to the suit to submit their comments and objections. The AIMMM expects that the flaws, fallacies and contractions in the Report shall be fully exposed by eminent archaeologists. Sd/- Syed Shahabuddin .rom: <www.milligazette.com/IndMusStat/2003a/ 040aimmm25aug03.htm>
192
South Asian History Academic Papers
South Asian History Academic Papers ISSN 1475-178X
Enquiries should be sent to: Professor Richard Bonney Director Centre for the History of Religious and Political Pluralism Institute for the Study of Indo-Pakistan Relations (INPAREL) University of Leicester Leicester LE1 7RH United Kingdom
The Institute for the Study of Indo-Pakistan Relations (INPAREL) was established in 2001 in the Centre for the Study of the History of Religious and Political Pluralism, University of Leicester. Its objective is to study the relations of India and Pakistan in South Asia. The two countries have been hostile to each other since their birth in 1947 when British rule ended. It is hoped that the 21st century will bring about peace in South Asia. INPARELs contribution will be to seek peaceful coexistence between these hostile powers. This will be facilitated through the production of knowledge from an academic, pressure-free, platform located at the University of Leicester. Such knowledge will be widely disseminated through lectures, conferences, books and academic papers. The South Asian History Academic Papers series (SAHAPS) is an INPAREL initiative. Papers may be written from a multidisciplinary point of view and are encouraged to discuss and analyze issues from both the Indian and Pakistan viewpoints. All papers should be analytical rather than narrative and well-documented. Once published, the copyright will rest with the author and INPAREL. Pakistan, Indian and non-South Asian academics are encouraged to write for the South Asian Academic Paper series. Proposals for papers should be sent first to the Director of INPAREL. Once approved, the papers should be formatted in house style and sent in an agreed WORD format via a file attached to an e-mail. The views expressed in these papers are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Director, or those of the Institute.

Ayodhya 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ayodhya 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

University of Leicester, UK Centre for the History of Religious and Political Pluralism Institute for the Study of Indo-Pakistan

Ayodhya 1992-2003: The Assertion of Cultural and Religious Hegemony

Jan-Peter Hartung, Gillian Hawkes and Anuradha Bhattacharjee

33 Cartoon of the Mosque Razers: 90

Professor Richard Bonney

Ayodhya 19922003: the Assertion of Cultural and Religious Hegemony Introduction*

Ayodhya 1992 - 2003: Introduction

Professor Richard Bonney

Ayodhya 1992 - 2003: Introduction

Professor Richard Bonney

Ayodhya 1992 2003: Children in the - makingIntroduction

Professor Richard Bonney

He further claimed (Document 12) that

Ayodhya 1992 - 2003: Introduction

Professor Richard Bonney

Ayodhya 1992 - 2003: Introduction

Professor Richard Bonney

Ayodhya 1992 - 2003: Introduction

Professor Richard Bonney

Ayodhya 1992 - 2003: Introduction

Professor Richard Bonney

Ayodhya 1992 - 2003: Introduction

The Land, the Mosque, the Temple

The Land, the Mosque, the Temple

The Land, the Mosque, the Temple

The Land, the Mosque, the Temple

The Land, the Mosque, the Temple

The Land, the Mosque, the Temple

The Land, the Mosque, the Temple

The Land, the Mosque, the Temple

The Land, the Mosque, the Temple

The Land, the Mosque, the Temple

The Land, the Mosque, the Temple

The Land, the Mosque, the Temple

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

Ayodhya: An International Perspective

The Archaeology and Politics of Ayodhya

The Archaeology and Politics of Ayodhya

The Archaeology and Politics of Ayodhya

The Archaeology and Politics of Ayodhya