The Ram Mandir movement & the Babri Masjid

JEDDAH, 19 April — The Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir controversy returned to center-stage and created an uproar in the winter session of the Indian Parliament. Atal Behari Vajpayee, the Indian Prime Minister, not only defended the three charge-sheeted ministers of his cabinet, who were implicated by the country’s investigating agency in the demolition of the mosque but also said that the construction of the Ram temple on the site of the demolished Babri Masjid was a “national sentiment” and an “unfinished task.” This has created uneasiness not only among the Muslim community but also among the country’s secular forces.

The real cause of the present controversy is the dispute over the Babri Masjid built in 1528 during the reign of the Mughal emperor, Zaheeruddin Muhammad Babar, in commemoration of his victory over Afghan rebels in 1526. The mosque was built on a vacant plot of land, in Ayodhya, near the city of Faizabad in present-day Uttar Pradesh. A section of the majority community suddenly discovered that the site of the Mosque happened to be the “Ram Janambhoomi” — i.e. the birthplace of their deity, Ram. The militant group planned to start building a new temple within the bounds of the mosque’s outer praying area in November 1989.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The government under Rajiv Gandhi allowed Hindu extremists to lay the foundation stone of the new temple next to the mosque. From the unlocking of the gates by Rajiv Gandhi and allowing Hindu worship inside to the demolition of the mosque was a period of some years and saw the governments of three Prime ministers. But no government took any steps to check the destructive activities of the Hindu zealots.

After repeated assurances given by the then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, the Babri Masjid was demolished on 6 December 1992 by a Hindu mob. The destruction of the mosque sparked nationwide Hindu-Muslim riots in which more than 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed. The Hindus built a makeshift temple and placed Hindu idols at the site which, they say was Ram’s birthplace. A Ram Mandir movement was launched to construct a grand temple at the site.

The VHP has announced plans to recruit a nationwide army of volunteers to construct a temple at Ayodhya.  Its President Ashok Singhal said the temple, will be constructed by force alone. “Every village, town and city in the country will have a committee,” Singhal said and asked each committee to be prepared to make any sacrifice at short notice. He recalled that in answer to an appeal from Hindu leaders, the Babri Masjid was demolished in five hours. He said a similar action was needed to construct a temple on the site.

Under the circumstances, Indian Muslims want the government to silence the VHP, suspend its mobilization campaign to build the temple and request the judiciary to expedite the judicial process. They firmly believe that 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 judicial verdict on the question of title to the disputed land and before the allocation of sites by the Supreme Court.

They have always been prepared to negotiate an honorable settlement and have never opposed the construction of a temple in Ayodhya, even adjacent to the Babri Masjid but are against surrendering the site.

Syed Shahabuddin wrote a letter to BJP’s President saying that Muslims have no objection if another Ram Mandir were built in Ayodhya. They object only if it were to be built on the site of the Babri Masjid. “He added, “The Muslims offered that the proposed Mandir be constructed to the east and south of Babri Masjid on a part of the disputed land, if the Babri Masjid, which occupies only 80’X80’, is left intact. This offer was not accepted. To me, this is still the only way out — restore the site of the Babri Masjid to the Muslim community and build a temple next to it.”

Reason and logic should prevail. It is natural to rebuild the Mosque where it was. Rajeev Dhavan wrote in The Hindu, “It would be a supreme act of grace to re-build the Mosque. If anything has to be built on this site, it has to be the Mosque.” Similarly, Akshay Brahamchari wrote a letter to Prime Minister Vajpayee, saying,” It appears appropriate that the historic monument — Babri Masjid — which was demolished in Ayodhya, on 6 December, 1992, be reconstructed by the Government on the same site as it was, if necessary, with the permission of the Court. And the status-quo of 5 December 1992 be restored.”

To sum up, all mosques occupy a space consecrated for worship and should therefore be respected. Any encroachment upon or damage to a place of worship is a crime and in such cases, the law must take its course. The Babri Masjid Movement Coordination Committee and the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee, therefore, have always rejected pressure to ‘relocate the Masjid.’

The destruction of the Babri Masjid was not a “freedom movement,” but a shameful act. It was a wanton act of constitutional sacrilege. It must be rectified by a negotiated settlement in a non-coercive atmosphere, by free and willing parties anxious to do justice to each other. Two earlier attempts at negotiations were made. For genuine negotiations, certain parameters have to be set.

If the government or other parties are serious about constructing the temple by force, it will have an adverse effect. Syed Shahabuddin expressed the Muslim viewpoint: “Swayamsevak Vajpayee should not think that Muslim Indians will march silently to concentration camps and gas chambers, that the world will not take notice, that the Indian people will accept the vicious tyranny lying down, that the vast majority of Hindus will not rise in sheer disgust. To begin with, Muslim Indians will not surrender their right to the Babri Masjid site.”(Muslim India, January 2001).

It is shameful that the international community remained completely silent eight years ago when the 16th century Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindu fundamentalists under the gaze of the Indian government.  At the same time, its voice was heard loudly and clearly condemning the destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.

To desecrate and demolish any religious place of worship calls for condemnation and denunciation, but to be partisan and selective in one’s condemnation is disgusting.