by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
By Saurabh Katkurwar,
Ayodhya : This is a town held sacred for its association with Hindu religious lore, which in latter days acquired the unflattering reputation of being a hotbed of Hindu-Muslim antagonism and religio-political conflict whose reverberations are felt both nationally and internationally. But what is little known, and may be even difficult to believe, is that Ayodhya has traditionally been known for its inter-faith harmony where it is not out of the ordinary for a Muslim tailor to stitch clothes for the idol of Ram or for a Hindu priest to help renovate an old mosque.
As India approaches 25 years of the apocalyptic demolition of the 16th century Babri Masjid on December 6, citizens of Ayodhya take pains to talk about their age-old heritage of cultural collaboration and free participation in inter-religious activities which has kept the secular fabric of the twin intact — despite the dragging temple-mosque politico-legal dispute over 2.7 acres of prime land whose ownership is contested by both Hindus and Muslims.
Locals, both Hindus and Muslims, say they were “outsiders” who came to Ayodhya in 1992 and stirred trouble while locals were busy saving each other — irrespective of their religious faiths — from the brunt of the riots that ensued. Out of the town’s total population of around 60,000, Muslims account for only six per cent. But they never felt any discrimination from Hindus, says Mohammed Chand Qaziana, priest at the Dargah of Sayyed Mohammad Ibrahim.
Qaziana said that the dargah was protected by local Hindus when the kar sevaks, or Hindu religious activists who came from outside the town, demolished the Babri mosque on December 6, 1992, on the ground that it was erected there by invading Mughal emperor Babar after razing a temple dedicated to Ram, the revered warrior-god of Hindus.
“This 900-year-old dargah has followers from the Hindu community as well, many of whom regularly pay a visit here. It is a symbol of our centuries-old harmonious existence. When it was attacked, our Hindu brothers formed a human shield around it and saved it,” Qaziana recalled to IANS.
Faizabad district, in which Ayodhya falls, has about 30 per cent Muslim population. Qaziana said there is an unannounced understanding among the people here not to fall prey to hate speeches of politicians and outsiders.
What makes communal harmony special here is the participation in inter-faith events and rituals — Muslims stitching clothes for Hindu deities, participating in Ramleela (religious theatre based on the life of Ram) or doing namaz (prayers) in Hindu religious places; and Hindus similarly contributing to mosque renovation or helping Muslim fellow townspeople in times of need.
Echoing Qaziana’s views, Barfi Maharaj, who identifies himself as a Hindu social worker, said the Masjid was razed on December 6 by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) hotheads and locals had no role in it.
“We were neither influenced by hate speeches nor did we participate in the demolition drive. It was VHP that brought outsiders to demolish the Masjid. How can people from the birthplace of Ram, who is known for his secular teachings, commit such a sinful act?” asked Barfi Maharaj.
Giving examples of inter-faith harmony in the town, he said that a mosque near Hanumangadhi in Ayodhya was being renovated by a Hindu mahant (priest) while a Muslim tailor had been stitching clothes for the idol of Ram that is installed in the makeshift temple at the disputed site of Babri Masjid.
Sadik Ali, alias Babu Khan, said he had stitched seven to eight sets of clothes for the Hindu gods so far. Sadik, who is said to be a stakeholder in the negotiations in the issue, called Babri Masjid demolition “unfortunate” but said he had no problem in the construction of Ram Mandir on the disputed land.
“We do have faith in Ram. We had offered namaz at Hanuman Gadhi. If Hindus want big temples for their beloved god, we do not have a problem. We just want a piece of land nearby for a mosque,” Ali said.
Mohammed Salim has been making ‘khadav’ (wooden sandal), which were traditionally used by sadhus and priests but are now largely used in temples.
Salim said his family had been selling khadavs since generations which are usually bought by temple priests. “I have never witnessed any tension between the two communities here. We depend on each other for our needs and we respect each other,” he said.
The mutual understanding and respect for Hindus and Muslims here — revealing to an outsider — figure prominently in the region as one talks to the locals who, irrespective of their religion, slammed political leaders for vitiating the issue in an attempt to get electoral mileage.
A local contractor, Shailendra Pandey, said the people of Ayodhya were hardly consulted on what has come to be known as the Mandir-Masjid issue and politicians used Ram and the temple issue for their personal gains.
“You go anywhere in the city and talk to anyone. You will not find an iota of communal hatred among them. The unholy politics by outsiders has given our city a negative image,” Pandey said.
Mohammed Naeem, who is the president of Naugaja Dargah, said politicians were now creating hurdles in the way of the temple construction.
“This town is a perfect example of religious harmony and secularism, thanks to its rich culture and history. Everyone would be happy if the contentious issue is resolved amicably. However, we feel the politicians have kept this issue pending for their selfish motives,” Naeem said.
Whatever be the difficulties and complexities in the Mandir-Masjid issue, there will not be any negative impact in the socio-religious fabric of the city, feel the people of Ayodhya, once the kingdom of Ram, known for being a model of good governance in that era.
(This feature is part of a special series that seeks to bring unique and extraordinary stories of ordinary people, groups and communities from across a diverse, plural and inclusive India, and has been made possible by a collaboration between IANS and the Frank Islam Foundation. Saurabh Katkurwar can be contacted at saurabh.k@ians.in)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Interviews
Mahant Satyendra Das
By Saurabh Katkurwar,
Ayodhya : Politics over the Babri dispute, including the hate campaign by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), has only complicated a possible amicable solution, contends Mahant Satyendra Das of the makeshift Ram Mandir at the disputed site here, saying there was no enmity here between the two communities over the issue.
He said the apex court’s verdict was likely to be in favour of constructing the Ram Mandir at the disputed site — where once stood the 16th century Babri Masjid that was demolished by Hindu fundamentalists in 1992 — as evidence “clearly showed” the existence of a temple at the spot in the past.
Satyendra Das said the court’s decision was expected soon, thus facilitating the construction of the “long-cherished” grand mandir at the birthplace of Lord Ram in a year’s time.
“The court’s decision is expected soon. All things are in place and all evidence has been presented by the Hindu side to prove that the Ram Mandir existed before it was demolished to build the Babri Masjid,” Das told IANS in an interview.
“On other hand, Muslims could not produce any evidence. They have sought time from the court till December for translation of some documents into English. So, the decision is expected early next year,” he said.
Citing good relations among people from both communities, he said they would sit together and try to find a solution in case the court’s decision was not acceptable to both sides. “We will find a solution through mutual understanding and talks, but no political party will be allowed to interfere as they have their political motives,” he said.
Satyendra Das slammed the VHP for spreading hatred by using foul language against Muslims when it started its agitation for the temple.
“The VHP used the language that made Muslims sad, angry and distressed. Slogans were like ‘Hindi Hindu Hindustan, Mullah Bhago Pakistan (Hindi Hindu India, Muslims go to Pakistan) or ‘Jo kahega Babri, usko samjho akhri (Whoever says Babri will meet his end). It only worsened the matter,” he said.
At the same time, he said such campaigns did not have any adverse impact on the communal harmony in the city.
“There was not such feeling of hatred towards Muslims among local Hindus. Politicians from both sides abused each other. However, common people did not harbour any such hatred.
“I have been the priest of the temple for 26 years, even during the period of demolition. Despite the pressure from the government, I declined any kind of personal security. I never felt scared of Muslims. There is no feeling of enmity between the people over Mandir-Masjid issues,” he said.
Also, if they fight, it will have negative repercussions on tourism and business here, he added.
Holding that the Allahabad High Court had erred in its order to divide the disputed land into three parts when no one had asked for this, he said: “It is clear that there will not be any division of land (by the Supreme Court).”
The priest said many Muslims had understood that the Ram Mandir once existed at the disputed site and they now had no problem with the construction of the temple, provided land was given for the masjid.
“Many Muslims understand that the masjid was built by demolishing the Ram Mandir in the past. It is proven now. Muslims have started thinking that it (the dispute) should be left in such circumstances. We have asked them to get land for a masjid anywhere they want. The size of the land is a point of contention,” he said.
Satyendra Das said the opponents of Ram Mandir have become less aggressive after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power at the Centre and in Uttar Pradesh.
However, the saffron party would not play a proactive role in the matter such as bringing legislation for the temple to avoid any blot on its image and damage to its electoral calculations, he asserted.
“If the BJP takes up the issue, it will meet with opposition from other parties. They will be called being against Muslims. So the BJP government will never attempt to bring legislation under any circumstances,” he said.
“So the best way to solve the issue is through the court. It would be more suitable,” Satyendra Das concluded.
(Saurabh Katkurwar can be contacted at saurabh.k@ians.in)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions, Uncategorized
By Muddassir Ahmad Qasmi for Maeeshat
It was not merely a communal insurgency, which claimed hundreds of innocent Muslim lives across India; rather it was a big blow to Muslims’ religious identity. It was also a blatant attack on the secular ethos of the country and the two communities have been at loggerheads ever since the masjid was brought down. About 24 years back on 6 December 1992, evil forces demolished the historical Babri Masjid for political gain, and in doing so they broke the hearts of about 200 million Muslims which always beat for Indian democracy. It fissured and ruptured the uneasy calm and harmony between the two communities and gave rise to animosities that are still to be doused.
And now after 24 years of waiting, the Supreme Court of India has called for a consensus to end the dispute. The Supreme Court, offering its mediation to arrive at an amicable settlement, said “These are issues of religion and sentiments. These are issues where all the parties can sit together and arrive at a consensual decision to end the dispute. All of you may sit together and hold a cordial meeting,” The observations came after controversial BJP leader Subramanian Swamy raised the matter, as it is his wont, seeking urgent hearing of the issue.
No doubt it is a sincere effort from the apex court, but in reality it is impractical owing to the several failed attempts of the past. Long experience shows that whenever an effort is made for reconciliation, the Hindu parties (in the dispute) tried their best to persuade Muslims to leave the Babri Masjid land for Ram Mandir and construct a Masjid in another place. How ridiculous it is that they talk of reconciliation but force Muslims to hand over them the controversial land. If this is their intention then surely such kind of attempt is useless.
Muslims have made it clear, time and again, that the High Court verdict of September 30, 2010, was not acceptable to them as it was based on faith and not on evidence. Judgement upholds the faith of one community over the other while ignoring evidence. The observation of Indian Muslims was that the HC judgement suffered from a number of infirmities and, therefore, it was the obligation of the Muslims to challenge it in the apex court, which they did.
Though the legal battle over the ownership of the Babri Masjid will continue, it needs to be noted that the concern of the Muslims with regard to the Babri Masjid stems from their desire to protect their places of worship in accordance with the rules of the Shariah, and not from any identification with or support for Babar or from association with a particular bit of land. That is why Muslims cannot surrender their claim on Babri Masjid, because the commandments of the Shariah cannot be ignored. The Shariah has clearly stipulated that as soon as a place becomes a Masjid its ownership is wholly transferred from out of the hands of human beings. Once a place becomes a Masjid, it remains so forever, even though it might become dilapidated or is no longer prayed in or even if no Muslims live any longer in its vicinity. Even in such conditions, it cannot cease to be a Masjid, and no one can change its status.
The last and the final question in this issue is that if the Supreme Court gives a verdict against Muslims, will it be acceptable for them? The answer is quite clear that after going through the concrete evidence in support of Muslim claims, most hopefully, the verdict will come in the favour of Muslims but in the case it is otherwise, Muslims will accept it, though actually it will be a mere compromise.
However, the sorry legacy of the Babri Masjid demolition cannot be wished away even on the insistence of the well meaning statements by some members of the majority community for it has ripped apart the social and cultural cohesion that had bound the two communities and it will, unfortunately, continue to bedevil the peaceful co-operation and relations between the two communities. Therefore, we appeal to the Supreme Court of India for a speedy judgement so that political mafia would not continue to play their political games with the sentiments of the people in the name of religion.
The writer is assistant editor of Eastern Crescent, Mumbai.
