SUBSCRIPTION RATE

Inland : Life Rs. 1000/Annual 125/Overseas : Life US$ 100 Annual US$ 10 Per copy : 1 $1.50, IRs 20

ADVERTISEMENT TARIFF
Outer Cover Inner Cover Full Page Half Page : : : : Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. 15000/12,000/10,000/5,000/Payable by MO/Bank Draft/Crossed Cheque in the name of

Sanskritik Gaurav Sansthan

3308- Sector-D, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070

G
BI-MONTHLY

Goal post for Hindu awakening

Sri Ram Janma Bhumi Movement At A Glance

The truth about the Babri structure -M.V.Kamath

Ayodhya: The dance of Shiva -Sandhya Jain

Goal post for Hindu awakening

Ayodhya case judgment is round the corner. The general impression is one of apprehension, though the over whelming eighty five percent majority believe that the time has come to rectify that centuries old wrongs inflicted on Hindus. What is painful is that the independent India 63 year old could not address this problem to the satisfaction of majority. Rebuilding of Somnath gave some hope but with thought that thousands of temples demolished in the past will also be freely rebuilt and Indias unique cultural strands will begin to flower once again. But what happened was that we ourselves drifted on to the path of western culture becoming a tool in their grand strategy of power play of their world politics. In case the judgment is favourable it may give us a glimmer of hope once again of reversing the degenerative trends on which we seem to have fallen. The main question is will we get a fair deal in the verdict. Hindus have been taken for granted. Hindus have never bullied their leaders as Vote Bank. They have elected them hoping they will be just and govern with equanimity especially when it comes to defend their roots. But what they got in return was the politics of divisiveness diluting Hindu identity to keep warm their seats of power. Help of muslim vote Bank made them to lord rough shod over the Hindu interests and in the process uprooted the foundations of Bharatiya nationalism. If we have not disintegrated it is because of Hindu Sanskriti, its culture which has made this democracy to work despite demonic proportions of corruption. The nation may show impressive growth indices but will it be powerful enough to save the society and Hindu civilisation? Let us revert to the question. Will we get fair deal in the verdict? we should not forget that verdicts on such matters are more tuned to the political necessities rather than replace injustice inflicted through the centuries with justice. One cannot expect a just solution of the like of the judgment of emperor Vikramaditya especially when one of the parties is Islamic. But if the verdict removes centuries of injustice to Hindus, it will begin a new era of Hindu renaissance defining the contours of Bharatiya nationalism i.e. Hindu nationalism afresh. All major civilisations have their past to refer to in order to weld themselves together as society. This is necessary to be able to present a united front against the enemies. In fact it is the reverence to Ramayana, Mahabharata Hindu Shastras and many more Granths produced in India by different religious belief groups named as Hindu people that has stood for the immortality of Bharatiya civilsiation so that despite aggressions, destruction and subjection, Hindu civilisation has survived braving 1000 years of slavery and now, the rulers preach us a copy cat secularism, a half baked formula from the west which is meant only for the self serving to enjoy and then self destruct. The territorial concept of Bharat is sacred. It will always be piece of heritage for the people who got it from the ancestors since the dawn of vedas. It cant be partitioned on the basis of politics. It is already allocated by the divine to the various cultures and civilisations. The claim of Hindus to Bharat as civilisation is the oldest in the world and Ram Janma Bhoomi is the epitome of this heritage. If this is lost everything is lost. It will be defeat worse than all defeats put together. Ram Mandir is an important post leading to Ram Raj which is our civlisations ideal state, a destiny to strive for, a target for the highest development of mankind. A Ram Mandir, (irrespective of the verdict) is in conformity with the spirit of Indias nationalism which can subsume caste, religious, racial and linguistic differences. It could be a beginning in the direction of a new meaning to eco relations and human dealings with a firm but compassionate regime. Restoration of Ram Mandir can change all this and India can add a moral and spiritual dimension to its already recognised status of a world power. It seems our governing agencies with their system of jurisprudence can not assign just values to the recordings made in our history. It is well documented as well evidenced that Islamic invaders destroyed all Hindu temples at their first sight and first available opportunity. Historical wrongs committed by nations have been recanted by many nations even Churches. But here the atrocities committed on Hindus are justified in the name of Islamic jihad. The greatest genocides committed are being passed on in the name of Islamic jihad and there is no question of retribution or punishment or even a decent repentance for those inhuman actions. Ram Janma Bhumi case is historically impregnable. The intelligent and the wise know very well that the creation of Pakistan was not the whole object of Islam which describes itself as a state and a movement to convert the whole world into Dara-al-Islam one by one. It is still doubtful whether the verdict will give enough weight or value to the historicity and archeological evidence unearthed by the excavations by the order of Supreme Court of India.

An article by Sandhya Jain in the Pioneer News paper of 23 Sept. 2003 provides conclusive archeological evidence yet the justice will have to appear to have been done may come to the fore.

Make Shift

10

11

12

13

vacant

14

15

16

17

18

Sri Ram Janma Bhumi Movement At A Glance

1. Ayodhya founded by Vaivasvata Manu (the progenitor and presiding figure of the current Manvantara, which is the 7th of the 14 that make up the current Kalpa, each Kalpa making up a day of Brahma) on the banks of the holy Sarayu. He saved life on earth from the great deluge with the blessings and help of Bhagwan Matsyavatar. Two of his children Ila and Ikshvaku became the progenitors of the Lunar Dynasty and Solar Dynasty respectively. The Saptarshis (seven sages) in the Ministry of Vaivasvata Manu are Kashyapa, Atri, Vashishtha, Vishvamitra, Gautama, Jamadagni and Bharadvaja. 2. Birth of Sri Ram an Incarnation of Bhagwan Vishnu in the solar dynasty in Ayodhya lakhs of years ago in the Treta Yuga - the second of the four Yugas, or ages of mankind to rescue the world from global terrorism, wickedness and sensuousness and leave it happy, healthy and blessed for future generations. 3. Grand Temple on 84 black touchstone pillars constructed by Sakari Samrat Vikramaditya 2100 years ago at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi (birthplace of Sri Rama), Ayodhya dedicated to Sri Ram to glorify and perpetuate the memory of Sri Rama as a national and global hero and savior. The birthplace was marked by temples of different ages as when the old ones got ruined by vagaries of nature including the Sarayu floods new ones came up to mark the site. According to experts, the pre-Babri temple was from the Gahadwal period.
19

4. Demolition of the said temple by Mir Baqi Commander of the Muslim invader Babar in the year 1528 Common Era (CE) 482 years ago. 5. 1st battle by Sri Ram Bhaktas for 15 days to save the temple from Islamic marauders. The invaders could not overrun the temple and blast it by canons before 176,000 lion-heart Ram devotees had sacrificed their lives to save their most celebrated temple. 6. A Masjid like structure was forcefully superimposed on the demolished temple site reusing the wreckage and remains of the temple, but the invaders could never construct the minarets for Azan (call for prayer) and the mandatory water pool for Wazu. 7. During the period from 1528 CE to 1949 CE there were 76 battles/struggles to reclaim the Ram Janma Bhoomi site to reconstruct the temple. Guru Govind Singhji Maharaj, Maharani Raj Kunwar and many other greats fought to reclaim the holy place. 8. At midnight on 22nd December, 1949, Sri Ram Lala (Shishu Sri Ram) revealed Himself at the birthplace that was under the central dome of the structure. At that time Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru was the Prime Minister of Bharat, Pt. Govind Ballabh Pant was the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and Sri K.K. Nayyar from Kerala was the District Magistrate of Faizabad. 9. To maintain law & order, the City Magistrate attached the structure u/s 145 Cr.PC, appointed Sri Priya Dutt Ram as a Receiver and entrusted the site to his care and ordered to lock the gates, but allowed a Priest to go inside the structure and perform regular worship and rituals twice a day. The devotees were allowed only up to the locked gate. The local people and Sadhus started chanting Sri Ram Jai Ram Jai Jai Ram (Victory to Sri Rama) 24X7 Akhand Naam Sankeertan in front of the locked gate. 10. A veteran Congress leader of Western U.P. Sri Dau Dayal Khanna gave a rousing call to the Hindu society in March 1983 at Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) in a Hindu Conference to reclaim the Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi sites. Sri Gulzari Lal Nanda two times interim Prime Minister of India after demise of PM Nehru and PM Shastri was also present on the dais. 11. The First Dharma Sansad (National Parliament of Sants and Dharmacharyas of various branches of the Himalayan Tradition) organized by VHP at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi in April 1984 resolved to reclaim Ayodhya first and have a Jan Jagaran Yatra (Public Awakening Marathon all over the country) for unlocking the gate of the Janma Bhumi. 12. VHP started Ram-Janaki Rath Yatra from Sitamarhi to Ayodhya to Lucknow to Delhi for mass awakening in October, 1984. The Yatra had, however, to be withdrawn for a year due to unfortunate developments in the country that year. 13. Rath Yatras restarted in October 1985 for mass awakening and with a demand to open the locks. 14. The Hindu society was so charged and exercised by these RathYatras that the District Judge of Faizabad ordered on 1st of February, 1986 to open the locks. Sri Veer Bahadur Singh of Congress was the Chief Minister of U.P. and Late Sri Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister at that time. 15. A sketch for the proposed temple was drawn by Sri Chandrakant Bhai Sompura a well known temple architect of Gujarat whose grandfather Padmashri P.O.
20

Sompura modeled the present Somnath Temple and the family modeled many other Nagar style temples. Sri C.B. Sompuraji also prepared a wooden model of the Sri Rama Janma Bhumi temple. 16. In January 1989, on the holy occasion of Kumbh Mela at Prayagraj, on the banks of the Triveni Sangam, again a Dharma Sansad was organized by VHP and in the auspicious and august presence of Deoraha Baba it was decided to hold the Ramshila Poojan programme at every temple of the country. The first brick was consecrated at Sri Badrinath Dham. 17. About 275,000 consecrated bricks (Ram Shilas) from Bharat and abroad reached Ayodhya safely by the end of October 1989. An estimated 60 million people participated in the programme. 18. On 9th November, 1989 the foundation stone was laid by an SC brother Sri Kameswar Chowpal of Bihar with due permission of the then Government. Sri Narayan Dutt Tiwari was the CM of U.P. and Late Sri Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister. 19. On 24th June of 1990 a declaration was made by Sadhus to start Kar Seva (voluntary service) to start the temple construction from Devotthani Ekadashi (30th Oct., 1990). 20. A Jyoti (light/fire) was ignited by Arani Manthan (creating fire thru the process of friction of wood blocks) at Ayodhya. It was called Ram Jyoti. The Jyoti reached every Hindu home across the country and all celebrated Deepawali with this Jyoti. 21. On 30.10.90 thousands of Ram devotees entered Ayodhya crossing so many hurdles put up by the then U.P. Government headed by Mulayam Singh Yadav and a saffron flag was hoisted atop the disputed structure. 22. CM of UP Mulayam Singh Yadav ordered opening of fire on Kar Sewaks on 2.11.90 in which so many lost their lives including the Kothari Brothers Sri Ram Kothari & Sri Sharad Kothari from Kolkata. 23. Delhi witnessed the grandest ever rally at Boat Club on 4.4.91. CM Mulayam Singh resigned. 24. In September 92, Sri Ram Paduka Pujan was organized in all villages in Bharat and another call was given to Bhaktas to reach Ayodhya on Geeta Jayanti (6th December, 1992). Lakhs of people reached for Kar Seva and the world knows the fate of the Babri structure. 25. A stone slab approx. 5 ft in length and 2.25 ft in width was found from the demolished walls of the Babri structure. The epigraphists deciphered it to be an inscription of 20 lines written in Sanskrit of 12th Century CE. The first line starts with Om Namah Shivaya. The 15th, 17th and the 19th lines speak about the details of the grand temple and the king who built it. The 15th line clearly mentions that the temple was dedicated to Vishnu Hari who killed Dasanan (Ravan). About 250 Hindu artifacts were also found from the rubble, that are presently under the control of the Court. 26. Makeshift temple with Tarpaulins was erected by Kar Sewaks on the same spot where Sri Ram Lala was seated before demolition. Approximately 67 acres of land was acquired by an ordinance by the then Central Government headed by Sri P.V. Narasimha Rao in the name of safeguarding Sri Ram Lala. This ordinance was approved by the Parliament through an Act on January 07, 1993. 27. A lawyer Hari Shankar Jain approached the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court for grant of permission for the regular Sewa-Puja of Sri Ram Lala by devotees.
21

28.

29.

30. 31.

32.

33.

Permission was granted on 1.1.1993. Since then the nonstop Darshan-Pooja has been going on. The then Mahamahim President of India Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma referred a question to the Supreme Court under Article 143-A of the Constitution of India. The question was Whether a Hindu Temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid in the area on which the structure stood? Also the acquisition by the Central Government was challenged by one Sri Ismail Farooqui and a few others. The Supreme Court heard all the above petitions and also the special Presidential reference jointly for about 20 months and delivered its judgment on 24th October, 1994. The Supreme Court said: The Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court would decide the title of the disputed site and answer the special reference made by the President. A three-Judge (two Hindus and one Muslim) Full Bench started hearing the matters in 1995. Issues were reframed. Oral evidences began to be recorded. To find out the direct answer to the Presidential special reference, in August 2002, the said Bench ordered Ground Penetrating Radar Survey (GPRS) of the site which was conducted by the Tojo Vikas International with its expert from Canada. The expert mentioned in his report the existence of a huge structure extending over a large area underneath the demolished structure scientifically proving thereby that the Babri structure was not built on a virgin land as was claimed by Muslims in their civil suit filed in December 1961 before the Civil Judge of Faizabad. The expert also gave his opinion to verify the GPRS report through scientific excavation. In 2003, the High Court ordered the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate the site scientifically and verify the GPRS report. The excavation was conducted in the presence of two observers appointed by the Court (two Additional District Judges of Faizabad). The parties concerned, their counsels, their experts/representatives were permitted to remain present during excavation. To maintain impartiality, it was ordered that 40% of the labour would be Muslims. Minute to minute videography and still photography of excavation were done by the ASI. The excavation was eye-opening. So many walls, floors, two rows of pillar-bases at 50 equidistant places were found. A Shiva temple was also seen. The GPRS report and the ASI report are now part and parcel of the High Court records. The civil procedure of the Court of Law in the matter is now over after an exercise of about 60 years (40 years in the District Court and 20 years in the High Court) and the final verdict is expected by the end of September, 2010. Although all evidence is in favour of the Hindu claim that the Babri structure was superimposed on the Sri Rama Janma Bhumi site after demolishing the temple that marked the site, still nobody can predict about the judgment. It is obvious that the judgment will create unrest in one party and its followers in the populace. This party may challenge the High Court verdict in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, may or may not take notice of it. In any case, every Indian citizen knows the fate of the Supreme Court judgment in Shahbano case. The ball, thus, may finally be in the court of the Parliament of India as we have always been demanding that the Parliament should pass a law and handover the Sri Rama Janma Bhumi to the Hindu society.

22

34. In the original Constitution of India, there are illustrations of factors of Bharatiya national certitude. The third illustration in the said volume is that of Bhagwan Ram and comrades returning to Ayodhya riding the aerial vehicle Pushpak Viman after his victory in Lanka. 35. The double storeyed proposed temple with 108 pillars in each storey will be 270 ft. long, 135 ft. wide and 125 ft. high and the temple ringed by a 10 ft. wide Parikrama Marg (circumambulation path). Wall thickness will be 6 ft and door frames will be made of white Makrana marble. Carving work has been done at 5 workshops [two at Ayodhya (U.P.), one at Makrana (Raj.) and three at Pindwara (Rajasthan)]. 60% of carving work is complete till date. 36. Sants and Dharmacharyas in their meeting held on April 05, 2010 at Haridwar Kumbh Mela-2010 declared to organize Hanuman Chalisha Paath all over the country under the banner of Sri Hanumat Shakti Jagaran Samity from Tulsi Jayanti (16th Aug., 2010) to Akshyay Navami (16th Nov., 2010) and Sri Hanumat Shakti Jagaran Maha Yajna in every Prakhand during the month from Devotthani Ekadasi (17th Nov., 2010) to Geeta Jayanti (16th Dec., 2010). These Yagnas will be organized at approx. 8,000 centres in Bharat. --------For further queries, you may contact the following:Champat Rai, Joint General Secretary, VISHVA HINDU PARISHAD, Sankat Mochan Ashram, Sector-VI, Ramakrishna Puram, New Delhi-110 022, Bharat (India). E-Mails: vhpintlhqs@gmail.com ; vishwahindu@gmail.com ; Mobile: 9811119040; TeleFax: 00-91-11-2610 3495, 2617 8992; Fax: 0091-11-2619 5527; URL: vhp.org ; www.vhpsampark.org

The truth about the Babri structure

- M.V.KamathIt has been common knowledge that there existed a temple dedicated to Sri Rama at the very site where stood the Babri structure, that the temple had been demolished on orders of Baber and a mosque built on it to impress upon Hindus that Islamic rulers were now in power and they had better behave or else. When the Mughal Rule came to an end and the British established their reign at Delhi, Hindus had appealed to the new rulers for justice. One Mahant Raghuvar Das had filed a complaint in the Faizabad District Court, which, sadly was dismissed. The judgement of the Court delivered on 18th March 1886, however makes interesting reading. Noted the British judge:I found that the Masjid built by emperor Babar stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya .... It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the Status Quo. In such a case as the present one, any innovation would cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit. Mark the words. The Judgment did not question the claim that the Masjid was built on Hindu holy ground. The fact was readily conceded. But having just come to power, (hardly a generation had passed since the last Indian revolt was suppressed violently) the British did not want to offend Muslim sentiment, no matter how factually accurate the Hindu argument was. The British approach, having thrown out the last of the Mughal emperors, was one of pacifying the Muslim population, not of enraging it further. Hindu feelings did not matter, they were seldom the rulers; they were invariably the ruled. And the British were in no mood to give them the carrot. The Hindus literally had to lug it. Justice, they knew, they would never get from the British. Came Independence and now though the Government was predominantly Hindu, their aim was to show that in contrast to Pakistan, it was super-secular, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was even unsympathetic to the reconstruction of the Somanatha Temple, and but for the initiative taken by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the ruins of the often sacked temple would have been severely left alone to crumble into dust. The Sardar saved it and restored it. And Nehru- and his fellow

23

secularists - could console themselves that at least no Masjid was involved, as was the case with the structure in Ayodhya. Let it be said that the Nehruvian concept of Secularism has widespread support. The vast public was determined to show that Hindus in India were vastly different from the Muslims in Pakistan, And the Hindu Mahasabha then in existence had a hard time in getting political acceptance. That had to wait. But the Nehruvian Secularism appropriate though it might have been in the immediate post-Independence years, was beginning to wear off. It now seemed to many, more a device to capture the Muslim vote than to respect majority sentiment. Indira Gandhi was quick to notice it. Her frequent visits to temples-even if she gave the excuse that she was only out to admire the architecture-was a reflection of gathering Hindu sentiment that enough was enough. Years of being forced to maintain a low profile, were telling on several steps taken by succeeding Governments - one of the last being restructuring the Constitution to cater to Muslim fundamentalism as in the Shah Banoo case - came to be seen as a challenge that Hindus must face. The time for self-assertion had come. The demand for dismantling the Babri structure was a natural concomitant to that change in the Hindu mind. The demand would have surfaced even if there were no BIP and no L K Advani. About it there was an inevitability that nothing could have stopped. Were there no BJP it would have been necessary to invent one. The so-called Secularists - Advani had appropriately described them as pseudo-secularists - should have noticed that wisdom lay in respecting the gathering anger of the vast majority of the Hindus. They failed to notice the change that was coming over Hindu Society. Instead of advising their Muslim friends to start respecting Hindu sentiments, they took the wrong road. This was due to three reasons: One because of a Hangover from the Secularism of the Nehruvian era, Two, a congenital hatred of the BJP and Three, a habit of self-flagellation that a hundred and fifty years of living under British colonialism had instilled into the Hindu psyche. Self-denigration had become part of the mind-set. It is the mind-set that talks derogatorily of the Hindu rate of Growth. No people professing other religions are so ashamed of theirs as todays Hindu secular intellectual who is indeed a Macaulays child. Only a Jawaharlal Nehru could say that he was born as a Hindu and not that he is a Hindu; as if he always regretted being born in a Hindu family. Other reasons could be adduced for the current defeatist mindset of these intellectuals. One is a disinclination to face the past squarely; another a fear of giving possible offence to a Muslim friend or colleague, lest that friend turn around and accuse him of being a communalist. The attitude is one of wishing to forget an unhappy and painful past, of not wanting to stir up sentiments lest they haunt one; not realising that the only way to come to terms with the past is to face and acknowledge it. The Hindu secular intellectual would rather the dead past bury its dead. In defence of his predicament, the Hindu secular intellectual would rather give the benefit of doubt to tyrants rather than decry their tyranny. He would rather see such positive aspects among those who destroyed temples and raped Hindu women and went on conversion sprees, than see them for what they are; unspeakable beasts. He would rather negate History - and truthful history recorded by the tyrants themselves - than show the slightest anger at the humiliation inflicted on his ancestors. The average secular Hindu intellectual is a psychic case. The amusing part of it all is that the Muslim historian has never hidden his side of the story. The following extract from the Tarikh-I-Firuzshahi by Zia-ud-din Burani (14th Century) illustrates this point: The obligation to be the refuge of the faith cannot be fulfilled until they (the Islamic Rulers) have utterly destroyed infidelity and unbelief, polytheism and idolatry for the sake of God and the protection of the true religion. If they cannot wholly extirpate polytheism, and infidelity because of their large number, it will not be less meritorious, if, for the sake of Islam and of affording refuge to the true faith, they use their efforts to insult and humiliate and to cause grief to and bring ridicule and shame upon the polytheistic and idolatrous Hindus who are the bitterest enemies of God and the Prophet of God ... They should not, for the glory of Islam and the honour of the true faith, permit even a single unbeliever and polytheist to live as a respectable person ... or be set in authority over a community or a group, a province or a district. The Muslim historian has never hidden the truth. He has told the story as it is; and it has been the Hindu secular intellectual who is both frightened and ashamed to face it. Then there is the writings of Abd Al-Quddus Gangohi (1456-1537), a well known Sufi divine of the first half of the sixteenth century who wrote to Babar - yes, Babar - emphasizing that in a Muslim administration and an Islamic polity, a non-Muslim (Kafir) should not be given a Government post or an assignment of revenue. He further added :

24

Non-Muslims should not wield the pen in offices and they should not be commanders or taxgatherers. In the Sharia. the subordination of Kafirs is enjoined. And, in accordance with it, they should be humbled, subordinated and made to pay tax. Kafirs should be forbidden to dress like Muslims, to conceal their unbelief and should be prohibited from practicing heathen observances ostentatiously and publicly. In this manner the light of Islam will be maintained in its full glory. As Bimal Prasad, another historian, has noted, in the early years of the 17th century, a much more famous Sufi saint, Shaikh Ahmed Sirhindi (1564-1624), popularly known as Mujaddid Aif-I-Sani (Reviver of Islam in the second millennium) and a legendary figure in the history of Islam in the Indian sub-continent, gave repeated expression to similar ideas in his letters to various nobles during the reign of Jahangir. He sought to propagate the view that Kufr and Islam were opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other and coexistence between these two contradictory faiths is unthinkable. To honour one amounts to insulting the other. In one of his letters to Shaikh Farid Bukhari, he wrote: The honour of Islam lies in insulting Kufr and Kafirs. One who respects the Kafirs dishonours the Muslims. To respect them does not merely mean honouring them and assigning them a seat of honour in any assembly, but it also implies keeping company with them or showing consideration to them. They should be kept at arms length like dogs ... If some worldly business cannot be performed without them, in that case only a minimum of contact should be established with them but without taking them into confidence ..... Incidentally, just to show that these are not imaginary quotations, it has to be mentioned that they are taken from Bimal Prasads Pathways to Indian Partition - The Foundations of Muslim Nationalism. New Delhi. 1999. Vol I. The distinguished historian R C Majumdar has this to say: The worship of images which forms the most cherished element in the religious beliefs of the Hindus was anathema in the eyes of the Muslims; and the long tradition of ruthless destruction of temples by them for nearly a thousand years formed a wide gulf between the two. The method of congregational prayers among the Muslims was a thing unknown to the Hindus and the ceremonial worship of the Hindus to the accompaniment of music, both vocal and instrumental, was not only alien to the Muslims, but also positively distasteful and irksome to them. After a thousand years the Hindu, finally, is asserting his identity and is facing up to the past honestly and without apologies to anyone, least of all the Muslims. Should the Hindu forget the past in order not to give offence to his Muslim fellow Indians? Should he behave as if the last one thousand years were blank and nothing happened in all those years to hurt his feelings? Should he swallow his pride to show how Secular he is? What have we come to? Nobody has asked the Muslim to face up to what his ancestors had done and to show some concern for the feelings of his fellow Indians of Hindu heritage. No Hindu group has gone on a mosque destroying spree in a spirit of vengefulness. It is far from the thinking of the BJP for example, to seek to wreak vengeance on Muslims. What it has sought to do in seeking restoration of the Rama Janmabhoomi to its original Hindu worshipper; is to restore the Hindus self-respect, long suppressed in the name of Secularism, peace and goodwill. It is sad that the Muslims had not tried to understand the Hindu psyche. Had he shown some grace - grace incidentally is the most beautiful word in the English language - and tne intellect to see the Rama Janmabhoomi issue in its proper perspective, there would have been no communal riots in India. And had the secular Hindu intellectual sought to convince the average Muslim the truth behind the Rama Janmabhoomi issue, he would have done a great service not only to Hindu-Muslim relations but also to the great country at last. Instead of acting as a bridge, he has turned out to be a coward and destroyer. He needs pity. Deliberately he has pitched the fundamentalist Muslims against his sober and greatly hurt Hindu fellow citizens, refusing to face the consequences. There is one thing about History. It cannot be re-lived. It has to be faced in all its nuances. That is true of any country but it is especially true of India, which has been conquered and defaced by invading forces over the centuries. The Hindu worm is now turning. That calls for recognition. Sometimes it is angrily phrased; that merely reflects the Hindu anger. But it does not mince matters. And it shouldnt. All manner of excuses have been trotted out by the secular Hindu intellectual in defence of the Babri structure, One is that a Masjid cannot be destroyed; when as a matter of fact, Masjids are routinely destroyed in Saudi Arabia to make way for roads and pathways. Another is that it is a functioning place of worship. That it isnt. And it has been out of service for decades. Various other silly and stupid arguments have been put forth about the sanctity of the structure. In this connection it is well to remember a few facts. One is that no Muslim ruler had any

25

business to raise a Masjid in a predominantly holy city such as Ayodhya is and has been for centuries, any more than a mythical Hindu conqueror would have a right to build a temple in Mecca. The very thought would have and still would infuriate a Muslim. Building a Masjid in Ayodhya was intended as a deliberate hurt and insult to the Hindu psyche. It has no other purpose. Babar was a barbarian, even if an excuse is made that he was only being true to his time. The Babri structure need not have been demolished. It could have been dismantled brick by brick, which the VHP was willing and ready to do out of a decent respect for the sentiments of fellow Indians. That, the Muslims in their arrogance refused to agree to. And they were aided and abetted in their shortsightedness by political parties such as the Congress and Mulayam Singh Yadavs Samajwadi party. The Muslims showed a most regrettable side of their psyche. They took the defence of the Masjid as a matter of their honour and brought in all sorts of legal technicalities to postpone the day when the truth finally would have had to be faced. Had they shown grace, and understanding of the wounded feelings of the Hindus, it would have been the greatest achievement of our time. The Babri structure would have been rebuilt elsewhere as a Hindu contribution to peace, amity and goodwill. The Muslims, goaded by the secular Hindu intellectuals missed out a great opportunity. But it is never too late. The Muslim community can still come forth with a show of friendship and concede to Hindudom its right to build a temple on a site considered by them as the holiest. It is never too late. How many educated citizens remember what happened in Spain, which once was overrun by Islamic armies, which established a firm foothold in the iberian Peninsula? Muslim rulers - they were called the Moors - raised scores of masjids, which were demolished by the Christians. Only the Al-Hambra was spared though it was left in a mutilated condition in 1493 and restored only after 1828. A decent respect should be shown to the sensibilities of Hindus. No Hindu ruler has been guilty of mass destruction of holy places of other religions. The Hindus have their faults. But destruction of places of worship is not one of them. The Babri structure could have been reverentially dismantled. But thanks to our secular Hindu intellectuals, that was not to be. The Mulayam Singh Yadavs and the Congresswallahs will stick to their tools. Power is more important to them than self-respect, let alone truth. But the hesitant, the uncommitted have something to think over. It is too bad that the Supreme Court did not deliver its Judgement on the issue. One believes that this was largely to avoid worsening of Hindu-Muslim tensions and let tempers on both sides cool down. But patience has its own limits. I still hope and pray that a responsible Muslim community will have the courage and the grace - to concede to the Hindus what to the latter is a matter of profound faith that would redound to Muslim glory. The rebuilding of a Sri Rama Mandir should not be seen as a calculated affront to Muslims or to Islam. That is taking a wholly unwarranted view of the whole situation. Rather in conceding the right of the Hindus to do so, the Muslims must see it as a golden opportunity to come to terms with a turbulent past and healing Hindu - Muslim unity for all time to come. We have to turn over a new leaf. It is possible, it is necessary and it can be done to the greater glory of Islam, of Hinduism and National Unity.

Ayodhya: The dance of Shiva

-Sandhya Jain
According to a popular Puranic story, Shiva once emerged from deep samadhi and uttered the single word Rama. Surprised, Parvati asked what this meant, as she had never heard the word before. Shiva replied that this was hardly surprising, as the time had not come to bring it to the surface of his consciousness. He then tells the bemused goddess the story of the coming avatarhood of Rama. Now that the Ayodhya excavations have yielded evidence of a certifiable Ram temple, Shiva has again come to the fore to rescue Vishnus avatar from Marxist calumny and legal obfuscation. Many Indians will recall the countrys historic battle for the return of a Chola Nataraja bronze that surfaced in London some decades ago. The Government of India filed a case in the London High Court, claiming the Nataraja as a property of a ruined Chola temple at Pattur, Tanjore district, and the murti made a triumphant return during the premiership of late Rajiv Gandhi. An expert involved in recovering the Nataraja, Dr R Nagaswamy, former Director of Archaeology, Tamil Nadu, has suggested that the London High Courts verdict regarding the legal right of a ruined temple has a bearing on the Ayodhya case. This is pertinent, as the Hindu community struggled for the site for centuries and made a valiant

26

attempt through the legal process in the British period as well (discussed in previous articles). The colonial judges upheld the justness of the Hindu claims to the Janmabhoomi, but refused to rule in their favour on grounds of law and order. In the Nataraja case, however, Dr Nagaswamy points out the London High Court upheld that as long as even a single slab belonging to the ancient ruined temple is found in the site, the temple continues to exist in the eye of law and has its right to claim its possession. This temple had remained without worship for a long period, but the keynote of the Indian Governments argument was: Once a temple, it remains always a temple. The London judges conceded the rights of the temple, which was respectively upheld by the Appeal Court in London, the Privy Council and the apex court. Thus, the official view of the Indian Government under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, as argued in the London court, was that the existence of ruins at the original site entitled the temple to be treated as an existing entity in the eyes of the law, regardless of the fact it was not under worship. The implications for Ayodhya are breathtaking. Apart from the discovery of three distinct temples in the recent excavation, the site has a deity under worship (Ram Lalla Virajman), which clearly establishes its status as a temple. What is more, during Muslim rule itself, the Hindus had secured a Ram chabutra and Sita ki Rasoi as token recognition of their original claim to the site. They further managed to install the deity in 1948 and had secured public puja from 1986 onwards. Dr. Nagaswamy says the London High Court accepted the claim that a Hindu temple comprises the temple building and enshrined image, as well as the consecrated space around it. Well, the Ram chabutra and Sita ki Rasoi at Ayodhya fall within the consecrated space of the old temple. Moreover, as temples have often been destroyed by disuse (migration of population), fire, floods, earthquakes or invasions, the London court decided, on examining the ritual and historical position, that any ruined temple could be brought back to worship at any point of time by purificatory rites. Clearly, this sets a valuable precedent for Ayodhya, and claimants to the title suit would do well to apprise the Allahabad High Court of this judgement. Further, the Archaeological Survey of India should end its public silence and facilitate public study of the evidence by publishing the reports of its archaeologists, along with drawings, photographs and stratification plans. It should also seek court permission to combat the dubious scholarship of those casting aspersions on the findings and questioning the personal integrity of its staff. Meanwhile, given the unending savage ferocity with which the ASI report is being vilified in sections of the media, it may be pertinent to look at some preliminary views formulated by reputed but retired archaeologists, who spoke out on behalf of serving colleagues at a public function in the Capital on September 13, 2003. Dr KN Dikshit asserted that the placement of the excavated pillars conclusively established the structure found was a temple. He said the building was consistent with temple plans associated with the Gupta era. Dr Dikshit observed that certain findings, such as amalak (circular stone used in temple shikars) were exclusive to temples and never existed in masjids in any part of the world. Ridiculing the contention that the circular Shiva temple discovered was a tomb, he said the pranala (chute for exit of abhishek water and milk) exists only in a temple and has no place in an Islamic structure. Moreover, no Islamic tomb is round from the base; it is always octagonal and has vertical walls. But the most exciting aspect of the Ayodhya excavations, according to Dr Dikshit, is that they establish human habitation at Ayodhya from 1500 BC, which is 700 years earlier than previously thought. This has settled the controversy about the antiquity of the Ramayan vis-a-vis the Mahabharat. Prior to this, archaeologists had seriously begun to wonder if the Mahabharat was the older epic, in opposition to the Hindu tradition that the Ramayan was older. This is an important vindication of Hindu civilisational memory. Dr Swaraj Gupta, beloved bete noire of Marxist intellectuals, said the temple complex built at the site around the 10th century AD was probably swept away by Saryu floods, and that the controversial round Shiva temple belonged to this period. The grand temple at the site was built in the 12th century, of which 50 pillar bases and a 150 feet-long and six feet-wide wall have been excavated. The distance and alignment of the pillars clearly suggest a temple. Dr Gupta pointed out that, during the apocalyptic events of December 6, 1992, a shilalekha (inscription) was found in the Nagari script, which clearly stated that King Govind Chand of Kanauj had built and dedicated a temple to Vishnu Hari, who had slain Bali and Dashanan (Ravana). This is irrefutable evidence that the temple was a Ram Mandir, as Ram alone killed Ravana.

27

Dr Jagatpati Joshi, former Director General of the ASI, said the excavations showed that the materials of the old temple that was flooded were reused in the new 12th century temple, along with niches and the retaining wall. Rejecting the Marxist claim that the red surkhi floor indicated an Islamic structure (the mosque-over-mosque theory mentioned in my last article), he said the practice of crushing bricks for road materials existed in India from the time of Mohenjodaro, and was found at several sites since then. More pertinently, the stratification clearly showed that the Babri mosque cut into the pillar bases of the earlier temple. Dr Joshi averred that nowhere in the world had evidence surfaced of a mosque being erected over a mosque, though there were several instances of a mosque being built over a temple.

28