Revisiting Ram Janmabhoomi – Part II
Readers would remember that in Part – I of this series, I had promised to share some notes on this issue and a summary of historical/ archaeological evidence.
In this Part (Part – II), I have made an attempt at explaining the backdrop to a very complex situation in an easy-to-understand and hopefully well articulated, manner citing historical and archaeological evidence. Most of what I have noted below is extracted from various arguments that have been put forward in support of reclaiming the Janmabhoomi.
In the following part (Part III), I will try and summarise the arguments put forward by the AIBMAC (All India Babri Masjid Action Commitee) and the documents of evidence and rejoinder by VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad).
Most of you may not remember this but in a post on my blog more than four years ago, I wrote:
I see the Ayodhya movement as inseparably linked to a revival of Hindu pride. Lord Shri Ram’s character can be an ideal template to bring together the disparate elements within present day Hindu religion. Being an earlier epic than Mahabharata, the Ramayana has strong elements that support a cohesive society, much before the degradation of the varna-ashram dharma into the jati-pratha system (e.g. the characters of Valmiki, Shabri, Jatav, Shri Hanuman etc). These need to be highlighted and woven together to win mass support for reclamation of Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya.
To this I would add:
I also see this as a great opportunity to bring to a close a painful chapter in contemporary Indian history and to give everyone an opportunity to move beyond historical grievances & injustices of the past.
Before we delve into the history of the Janmabhoomi, it may be helpful to recollect what Gandhi-ji said about mosques built after destroying temples:
“Mosques built after destroying temples are the sign of slavery and Muslims should hand over the same to Hindu Society”
Source: Mahatma Gandhi in ‘Navjeevan’ dated July 17, 1937 [ quoted here ].
Below, a glimpse into the historical and archaeological evidence supporting the case of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi.
.
My first historical reference comes from Ayodhya Movement – Facts and the Debate which mentions that there were numerous armed conflicts and attempts made by Hindus over the past centuries to regain control of the Janmasthaan.Some extracts below (emphasis mine):
As per historians, since 1528 there have been at least 76 armed conflict in which over 300,000 Hindus sacrificed their lives to restore the Ram Janma Bhoomi temple.
…the only conflict free periods were when they were allowed to worship inside the disputed structure. For example, in order to avoid further conflict, during the latter part of his reign Akbar allowed Hindus to build a platform known as ‘Ram Chabutra’, and to install and worship images of Ram Parivar in the so called Babri compound. This practice was later opposed by Aurungzeb which resulted in most battles for the control of the shrine during his reign.
In 1751 A.D. Maratha Sardar Malhar Rao Holkar after defeating the Pathans in the plains of Ganga and Yamuna, asked Nawab Safderjang to hand over Ayodhya, Kashi and Prayag to the Peshwas. In a letter dated February 23, 1756, Nanasaheb Peshwa asked Sardar Scindia to annex Ayodhya and Kashi as the handover of these holy places was already promised to Raghoba Dada by Suja-uddoula.
Later in 1789 A.D. Sardar MahadJi Scindia did annex Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi, but due to his untimely demise was not able to restore the temples of Ram Janma Bhoomi, Krishna Janma Bhoomi and Kashi Vishweshwar back to Hindus.
…According to the British records by Thornton (1854 A.D.) and Carnegie (1870 A.D.) till 1855 A.D. Hindus continued to worship Ram in the 3 domed structure. During the First War of Independence of 1857 the local Muslim leader Amir Ali persuaded the Muslims to finally hand over the disputed place to Hindus and jointly fight with the British. However the British won the War of 1857 and Amir Ali and Hindu leader Baba Ram Charan Das were publicly hanged from a tree near the Ram Janma Bhoomi.
The British subsequently put a railing wall between Babri structure and the courtyard and separated the Muslim worshipers who got the Babri structure and Hindus had no choice but to do puja outside in the courtyard.
…In 1934, during the armed conflict between Hindus and Muslims the Babri structure was damaged. Since 1936, the Babri structure was an abandoned building and did not function as a community mosque for local muslims. There is no evidence of any Mutawalli or Imam or Muazzin or Khatib or Khadim having functioned as the mosque management as such for the up keep and maintenance of the ‘mosque’.
…
On December 23, 1949 the image of ‘Ramalalla’ appeared in the disputed structure and Hindus resumed prayers and worship inside. On December 29, 1949 Additional Magistrate Markandey Singh confiscated the building and handed over the posession to Priya Dutta Ram as Receiver, who assumed charge of the same on January 5, 1950.
After almost 12 years, on December 18, 1961 the Sunni Waqf Board filed the law suit seeking the possession of the disputed structure. This law suit was liable to be dismissed since the then prevalent statute of limitation for property takeover of 6 years had already passed.
Since December 23, 1949 there have been daily Hindu prayers and worship at the Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple…Babri was not a functional Mosque, and it has been a functional temple for atleast 42 years.
*** End of Extracts ***
Next, let us look at evidence from archeology. Past excavations and studies suggest that a temple did exist at the same site (as) and underneath, the disputed structure. This has also been corroborated by the report of the ASI – which was submitted to the court on Augist 25, ’03. From Proof of temple found at Ayodhya: ASI report, some excerpts (emphasis added):
In what could be a turning point in the Ayodhya dispute, the Archaeological Survey of India has reported to the high court that its excavations found distinctive features of a 10th century temple beneath the Babri Mosque site.
The 574-page ASI report consisting of written opinions and maps and drawings was opened before the full Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Monday morning.
The report said there was archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural activities from the 10th century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure (Babri Mosque).
…The archaeological evidence and other discoveries from the site were indicative of remains that are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India, the ASI report said.
The ASI report said there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50×30 metres in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure.
…In a significant observation the report said towards east of this central point, a circular depression with projection on the west, cut into the large sized brick pavement, signifying the place where some important object was placed.
…The report said the human activity at the site dates back to 13th century BC on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the site.
…The report said during the early medieval period (11-12th century AD) a huge structure of nearly 50 metres north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived as only four of the 50 pillar bases exposed during the excavation belonged to this level with a brick crush floor…The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century that the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it.
Next, some excerpts from Harsh Narain’s Rama-Janmabhumi Temple: Muslim Testimony that summarises the evidence (based on contemporary records by Muslim scholars) and makes the following points (emphasis added):
The forgoing four-fold documentary evidence leads us to certain incontrovertible conclusions, which can be stated as under…
2. That there did exist a temple called the temple of Janmasthan at Ayodhya, where Rama is believed to have incarnated and that adjacent to it was what is called Sîta kî Rasoî, which might originally have been part of it.
3. That, like Muslim rulers who desecrated Mathura, Vrindavana, etc., Babar chose Ayodhya for spread of Islam and replacement of temples by mosques, thanks to its supreme importance as a holy place of the Hindus, and in 1528, under the patronage of Sayyid Mir Ashiqan, got the so called Babari mosque erected in isplacement of the Rama-Janmasthan temple, certain relics of which appear to have persisted at least till 1855.
4. That the Babari mosque was also called ‘masjid-i Janmasthan’ and ‘masjid-i Sîta kî Rasoî’ from long before 1855.
I would like to conclude this post with a few quotes/ citations. First a brief extract from Koenraad Elst‘s seminal work, “Ayodhya and After” (emphasis added):
…the facts pertinent for the Hindu case:
one, there was a temple there since at least the eleventh century, attested by archaeology;
two, the use of temple materials in the Babri Masjid entirely fulfills a set pattern of temple destruction followed by replacement with a mosque;
three, Hindus continued to worship on the spot to the extent possible, as witnessed by travelers and locals, something they would never have done except on a specially sacred spot and in continuation of a pre-Masjid tradition.
In the words of Sir V. S. Naipaul, Nobel laureate and author of “India: A Wounded Civilization”:
…The people who say that there was no temple there are missing the point.
Babar, you must understand, had contempt for the country (that) he had conquered. And his building of that mosque was an act of contempt for the country. In Turkey, they turned the Church of Santa Sophia into a mosque. In Nicosia churches were converted into mosques too. The Spaniards spent many centuries re-conquering their land from Muslim invaders. So these things have happened before and elsewhere.
In Ayodhya the construction of a mosque on a spot regarded as sacred by the conquered population was meant as an insult. It was meant as an insult to an ancient idea, the idea of Rama, which was two or three thousand years old.
I will end this post with a heartfelt plea to all Muslims in India:
Please consider that the Ram Janmabhoomi issue is not really a matter of discussion, debate, archeology or law.
It is a matter of faith.
And if you genuinely feel for the inhabitants of this land of Bharatvarsha – amongst whom were your ancestors; If you genuinely feel for its culture, for its past, for its glorius heritage, the rich literature and the epics – for the sake of all that, please cooperate with Hindus in building a grand temple – not just in Ayodhya but also in Kashi and Mathura.
That is the way to close this painful chapter. That is the way towards reconciliation.
That is the path to peace.
.
Parting Thought: From an open letter to Justice Liberhan by Dr S Kalyanaraman:
…Unfortunately, Liberman(sic), you have missed the central point.
You may have known and may possibly also have mentioned in your Commission’s report after 17 years of inquiry that people called Sri Rama, vigrahavan dharmah (quote from Valmiki) meaning: personification of dharma.
It is too deep for tears, Liberman that you have been roped in by the politicos to indulge in quasi-judicing in a situation which cannot be remedied through Law.
Law and Revolution are antithetical, in a way. It is impossible to revolt under law as it has evolved. Revolution by its very nature has to be outside of the judicial system.
…A spiritual movement cannot be compiled as an evidence dossier, Liberman. It has only to be experienced. It is your good fortune that you got immersed for 17 years in many facets of this spiritual movement. I am sure you have grasped the essence of what it was all about. It was a desire by many people to have a shrine for their beloved Sri Rama who had given them their identity, Liberman. You might also have read an article which appeared in Marathi by Prof. Mehendale who cited evidence from an 8th century puranam which gave three routes from three different directions, to reach the janmabhoomi, Ayodhya, of Sri Rama.
Sure, law books will be thrown at me to say that the movement should have been ‘legally’ conducted. But, the problem is, legality is a papal canon and not a spiritual understanding of Hindusthan. I don’t want so far as to say that ‘law is an ass’ which can only bray and is incapable of the cry of revolt. But I will say this. This revolt will NOT go away.
Related Posts:
Revisiting Ram Janmabhoomi – Part I
Excellent post.
Please try to bring out the role of the All India Babri Masjid Action Commitee, especially MJ aAkbar and the types.
Gandhi, being the magnanimous man he was, thought that there would be reciprocity in Hindu Muslim relations during and post independence. But we know that it was not to be. During the Amarnath protests of 2008, we saw the true face of Islam when Omar Abdullah in Parliment said (as Duryodhana did in a previous era) that they would not give any land–even though the land was asked as a temporary measure.
The fact that Hindu India did not protest en masse shows how emasculated we have become.
Perhaps, instead of begging with the Muslim community, we should be more assertive.
None of this matters.
History is written by winners.
By voting nehruvian stalinists and anti-hindus into power for 60+ years, hindus have comprehensively demonstrated that they’e losers.
Unlike the buddhists (who are also under semitic attack), we’ve taken it upon ourselves to demonise hindu dharma.
Now, coupled with fraudulent EVM’s and a puppet EC, the likelihood of hindus returning to power in the near future is slim.
The only temples that may survive the next 20 years will be those outside india. Or those in books.
Dear Shantanu
What, in your opinion, is the relationship between property rights and this historical issue? Is the Indian state that came into effect on 15 August 1947 the same as the state/s that existed prior to that date? Does the Constitution of a nation change things? If so, in what way?
I believe the issue should be clinically analysed.
I fully understand that there was injustice done in the past in this case. That cannot be denied. But what, in your view, is the purpose of statute of limitations? Should I now wage war with Pakistan to get back my ancestral properties that were left behind? Should I retrace my steps all the way back to North Africa from where all of humanity emerged about 60,000 years ago and set right everyone one the way (only to find one common mother of all my enemies!)?
I’d like you to consider carefully the principles of justice; and matters relating to the social contract. The entire concept of a free society is premised on people complying with the social contract.
What about market solutions? IF this disputed land belongs to someone from whom it can be purchased; IF this land belongs to the government then it should auction it to the highest bidder… And so on.
In my view a government has NO business to own any land. While unowned properties may pass on to the Government after the death of someone who has no will, the Government should immediately auction these things and let people manage them on their own. Let this matter therefore be resolved through the market, by Hindus putting in Rs.10 each and buying up the land.
Regards
Sanjeev Sabhlok
http://bfn.sabhlokcity.com/
@ Shantanu –
I am completely in disagreement with the form and nature of your appeal, starting with this:
“It is a matter of faith.”
So, are the Muslim and Christian personal laws, and the Sharia and the infallibility of the pope doctrine, etc
I do not think that you even want to start a debate on these lines.
And, in general, I agree with Sanjeev – the statute of limitations was created for a reason. Either we accept it, in toto, or reject it, in toto. If you reject it, are you prepared to face a lawsuit by a dalit descendant and be punished for some injustice that may have been committed by your great-great-great-grandfather?
And, finally, I think any appeal to the muslim community of India has to start with an apology – that we are sorry for the anti-muslim riots that followed the Babri Masjid demolition, in which hundreds of innocent and blameless muslims died. (I saw the savagery unleashed by alleged shiv sena forces in Mumbai and I can never forget those images.) And, that we are sorry for the illegal demolition of the masjid. (The rule of the law is the rule of the law, and you do yourself no favours by publishing that horrible letter by Kalyanaraman – that way lies anarchy. I wonder what “Dr” Kalyanaraman would have said, if a muslim had extracted revenge on him and his family, for being a hindu, and hence connected to the riots? That is a *crap* letter and piece of logic).
Cheers
Also, given the nature of Ram, as depicted in the Ramayana, does anyone think that he would have been even one iota in favour of the Ram Sevaks? And, the way the ram sevaks want to build the temple? To honour him? He would stand bathed in shame.
What irony.
Cheers
K, Harapriya, AG and Sanjeev, Patriot: Thanks for your comments. Will respond soon.
@Patriot,
“The rule of the law is the rule of the law..” What next, you are going to say that you have never broken a single law, broken stop light or gotten a black ticket?
Please don’t get into legal absolutism. Laws are written by humans and like humans don’t cover all practical scenarios.
So following your logic, slavery was a law at on point in most nations, hence slaves should not fight for their freedoms?
@Sanjeev,
While I like the idea of Hindus purchasing the land from the Government, your absolutism is scary –
“a government has NO business to own any land.”
There are a lot of practical reasons why Government will and should own land. Defense, civil infrastructure, natural resource management etc. would top that list.
*** COMMENT EDITED ***
Excellent write up.
@ K: Thanks…AIBMAC’s role is Part III of the series…will hopefully get around to writing/posting it soon.
***
@ Harapriya: I think you are right…Gandhi-ji did make an error of judgement…and yes, the statement of Omar Abdullah (which was widely praised for its style and delivery) revealed that…Sadly, most analysts missed the real content and were taken in by the oratory and emotion.
***
AG: History is written by winners. So true.
***
@ Sanjeev: Good question(s) re. property rights and Indian state/constitution. I do not have a ready answer. But since the issue involves faith (and emotions and politics), it is hardly ever going to be “clinically analysed”.
It is interesting that you raise the statute of limitations.
As far as I understand, “On December 29, 1949 Additional Magistrate Markandey Singh confiscated the building and handed over the posession to Priya Dutta Ram as Receiver, who assumed charge of the same on January 5, 1950.
After almost 12 years, on December 18, 1961 the Sunni Waqf Board filed the law suit seeking the possession of the disputed structure. This law suit was liable to be dismissed since the then prevalent statute of limitation for property takeover of 6 years had already passed.
As for market solutions, it is an interesting idea…do you think it will be accepted by all parties?
***
@ Patriot: I am completely in disagreement with the form and nature of your appeal
What would your form (and nature) of appeal be?
As for apologies, where do you begin and where do you end? And does it all boil down to a discussion on statute of limitations?
***
@ DD: Please don’t get into legal absolutism. Laws are written by humans and like humans don’t cover all practical scenarios.
Good point.
***
@ P Mulay: I have slightly edited your comment. I am sure you realise why. Pl. be restrained in your choice of words.
P.S: Stumbled on this:
…secular laws like the Statute of Limitations, the laws regarding acquisition of property by the State etc., do not apply at all to either a mosque or the site on which it was once built, it was argued on behalf of Muslims.
And here is a bit of history:
“Arey Bhai, Masjid Hai Hi Kahaan?” by Arun Shourie.
It may be hard to guess who said this. Click on the link to find out more.
Courtesy Sanjay, this link and extract from “Babri mosque dispute: A spiritual response” by Sultan Shahin (Originally published in The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, on 13 Jan 1995):
@Shantanu,
Thanks for providing the link to Arun Shourie’s article.
Interesting to read the political machinations behind the scenes during those turbulent times. Wonder what was VP’s response to the article?
@ DD: I would love to know too…will try and dig around to see if I can find something.
Who decided the statute of limitations? Was there a consensus? Did our founding “fathers” get a referendum from the population. Before we start throwing around words, let us examine exactly what happened at the time of independence. A few men, educated in the west, with little or no knowledge, understanding or empathy for the Hindu population made concessions on our behalf without asking us. We as Hindus have every right to legally demand that important religious sites which were destroyed by Islamic terrorists of the past, be restored to us. Constitutions can be changed, and ours, as we all know, has been changed at the whim of every ignorant politician around who seeks some privilege for his vote banks.
It probably is high time for Hindus to finally cast off the symbols of slavery as we finally did cast off actual slavery 60 years back. The independence was not only from the British, it was also from the 800 years of Islamic terror that existed on the Indian subcontinent.
Holy Lands
==========
“What makes a holy land holy?†he asked.
“Well, usually it’s because some important religious event took place there.â€
“What does it mean to say that something took place in a particular location when we know that the earth is constantly in motion, rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun? And we’re in a moving galaxy that is part of an expanding universe. Even if you had a spaceship and could fly anywhere, you can never return to the location of a past event. There would be no equivalent of the past location because location depends on your distance from other objects, and all objects in the universe would have moved considerably by then.â€
“I see your point, but on Earth the holy places keep their relationship to other things on Earth, and those things don’t move much,†I said.
“Let’s say you dug up all the dirt and rocks and vegetation of a holy place and moved it someplace else, leaving nothing but a hole that is one mile deep in the original location. Would the holy land now be the new location where you put the dirt and rocks and vegetation, or the old location with the hole?â€
“I think both would be considered holy,†I said, hedging my bets.
“Suppose you took only the very top layer of soil and vegetation from the holy place, the newer stuff that blew in or grew after the religious event occurred thousands of years ago. Would the place you dumped the topsoil and vegetation be holy?â€
“That’s a little trickier,†I said. “I’ll say the new location isn’t holy because the topsoil that you moved there isn’t itself holy, it was only in contact with holy land. If holy land could turn anything that touched it into more holy land, then the whole planet would be holy.â€
The old man smiled. “The concept of location is a useful delusion when applied to real estate ownership, or when giving someone directions to the store. But when it is viewed through the eyes of an omnipotent God, the concept of location is absurd.
“While we speak, nations are arming themselves to fight holy lands for control of lands they consider holy. They are trapped in the delusion that locations are real things, not just fictions of the mind. Many will die.â€
———–
From God’s Debris by Scott Adms
@ Harapriya:
“It probably is high time for Hindus to finally cast off the symbols of slavery as we finally did cast off actual slavery 60 years back. The independence was not only from the British, it was also from the 800 years of Islamic terror that existed on the Indian subcontinent.”
Are you then prepared to wage a civil war to get India to become a more homegenous land in terms of policies and thought processes? It did take a civil war for the final unification of America. And, Europe fought so many wars over religion. Are we really doomed to repeat this cycle?
@ Holy Lands –
Thanks for that extract. BTW, to all: God’s Debris is a free e-book. It is a wonderful read, if you do want to consider alternate theories.
@ Shantanu –
You base your appeal on “faith”. Heck, if we start doing things based on various “faiths”, then the muslims would be in their rights to demand sharia, the catholic church the abololition of all birth control, some hindu communities would demand the reinstatement of Sati – is that really the path that we want to traverse as modern India?
@ DD –
I am not being an absolutionist (?) on legal matters – but, there are two ways usually to solve a conflict (short of war) – one is arbitration (which is what I put into all my business contracts) and the other is a lawsuit in a court of law. Both require acceptance of the verdict by the losing party. Here both the parties are saying that they will not aceept an adverse verdict. How can you arrive at a solution then?
And, since you think that the rule of the law is not above human practicalities, I assume that you are on the side of the Naxalites, who share this same philosophy of yours?
Cheers
@ Patriot: So what would your solution be? Insist on a “legal settlement”? – even when both parties have already declared their stance against it?
How would you solve this issue – in today’s context, in the real-world, not in a hypohetical text-book environment)?
And the situation we have here cannot really be compared with anything else…I see this as a unique challenge that we are faced with.
P.S. By the way, which “Hindu community” would demand re-instatement of “Sati”?
@Patriot. Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that Hindus asking for equal rights to their religious places would entail civil war? Why? And how about Hindus asking for equal treatment within the constitutional framework to run their own religious and educational institutions? If fighting for equality means that it comes to civil war, so be it. Maybe if India had had the stomach for it at the time of independence as the U.S. did during the civil war, we would have a stronger union as the U.S. does.
Even today, we have people in the USA who talk of war to win the peace. On the surface it seems silly; but actually it is the truth. Sometimes one has to wage war to win peace.
Ultimately the question to all Hindus is whether their religion is worth fighting for, worth protecting and worth propogating. If we think that the dharma will exist without the dharmi (one who practices dharma) we are mistaken. For dharma (Sanatana Dharma) to exist, the dharmi must have faith in his dharma and be prepared to defend it.
Mahatma Gandhi is credited with saying that there are many causes he was prepared to die for but not one he was prepared to kill for. That is the cowards way. It was the same statement that Arjuna made in the Gita. And the response is always the same. One need not seek to fight, but if a fight comes, one better be prepared to defend oneself.
@ Shantanu –
Before I answer your question (or rather attempt to do so), let me ask you this question again:
Do you think that Ram, given his character in the Ramayana, would have been even one iota in favour of the Ram Sevaks? And, the way the ram sevaks want to build the temple? Would he even accept such a temple in “memory/worship” of his name?
Cheers
@ Harapriya –
“Are you suggesting that Hindus asking for equal rights to their religious places would entail civil war? Why?”
If the “religious places” are not disputed, No. If they are “disputed”, may be Yes.
What is “equal rights” here? Your view is different from the opposing party. Neither is willing to accept the “due process of law” if the verdict goes against them. Then, what is left?
Force. Acts of force.
“And how about Hindus asking for equal treatment within the constitutional framework to run their own religious and educational institutions?”
While I fully agree with your above statement, in general, you are confusing issues here. The administration of other temples/schools is not the issue here. We are talking about a place, which has been put into a question of conflicted ownership.
“Maybe if India had had the stomach for it at the time of independence as the U.S. did during the civil war, we would have a stronger union as the U.S. does.”
The US went through its civil war nearly a hundred years after its independence. And, the battle was about similar topics – “our way of life” vs “their way of life”, etc.
My view is that as India gets richer, and the average person starts thinking about topics beyond roti, kapda, makan, these issues will come to a head and will have to be sorted.
Either through a civil war.
Or, through the spread of (secular) Education.
Either way, half baked approaches will probably not work.
“One need not seek to fight, but if a fight comes, one better be prepared to defend oneself.”
In complete agreement with this statement.
Cheers
@ Shantanu –
Reply to PS – Even as late as the 1980’s, certain communities in Rajasthan were out in support of a particular sati incident, preventing the police from arresting the perps. There is a “sati temple” at the site now, I believe.
Cheers
@ Patriot (#23): The “Sati Temple” you mention is at Jhunjhunu. And as far as I know, contrary to popular belief, there is actually a notice board at the entrance saying something like “…we are strongly opposed to the practise of Sati”.
In 2002, The Rajasthan High Court gave permission for prayers to be held at the Rani Sati temple in Jhunjhunu. The temple trust had moved the court after the State Government tried to ban prayers there, saying it amounted to glorifying sati. The trustees argued that the puja was for the Mother Goddess and not for sati worship.
Just to be clear, I am mentioning this for the sake of completeness. Pl. do not mis-understand this as support for the practice of “Sati” (I am also thinking of writing a post on this topic at some point; there is a question-mark over whether this was really a “practice”/ “pratha” in India)
***
Re. your point (@ #21), I will reserve my comment on this for now (I am waiting for some information that will have a bearing on your question).
Nevertheless, keen to hear your views and any practical suggestions you may have, given today’s context, environment and the overall situation…
***
As an aside, I was not aware of this Sati Temple
=>
[..]
“While we speak, nations are arming themselves to fight holy lands for control of lands they consider holy. They are trapped in the delusion that locations are real things, not just fictions of the mind. Many will die.â€
=>
Ah, I absolutely get a kick out of reading such post-modernist drivel which applies logic very selectively, for example, to holy lands, but not to countries and nations and their boundaries which are fictions of the mind too. While “Imagine” is a nice song, it’s not quite – yet – a manual on how to conduct affairs of this world.
@Patriot,
Thanks for your response, but you still are dodging my original question. Your entire premise is based upon the assumption that what is set in stone is set in stone for eternity and no one should challenge it. This works directly against the principles of democratic society where people’s lifestyles, social circumstances, knowledge are all evolving. Hence how can you assume that the laws of the land can never be modified?
In a sense you probably support Islamic fundamentalists because they blindly follow what the Sharia (Islamic) law states which was written a thousand years ago.
Also the argument, “…Ram, given his character in the Ramayana, would have been even one iota in favour of the Ram Sevaks?” makes little sense as it ignores the why and when of the situation for the sensibilities of Ram.
Who by the way had a grand coronation ceremony as per the same epics and was treated like God by his subjects and did not have any significant objections.
I do agree with you that this process of arbitration will find the two sides unwilling to accept any solution.
But apologizing is something Hindus have done for every incident from the Bombay riots to Godhra and Orissa. What has it earned the Hindus from the opposing sides who see it as a weakness or the media who is quick to paint Hindus are violent nationalists? I’m not sure that is a good starting move to reclaim anything.
Startling stat from Allah’s Left The Building by Saba Naqvi, published in Sep 21 2009 issue of Outlook
Excerps from Return to Ayodhya by Tarun Vijay:
…The fact is no power can now shift the temple built on Ram Janma Bhumi. Daily puja is going on uninterruptedly, notwithstanding a terrorist attack on it. The chargesheets and the case etc. have lost their relevance. Those who took up the cause politically are a divided house, some converting to the neo-‘secularism’ and have lost all credibility in the public eye.
…It’s a city of Ram and India would be less than a nation if Ram is taken away or left isolated like a post-Columbus American-Indian village.
Turn Ayodhya into an international city of grandeur like Thailand has done to its own Ayutthaya. It’s a city defining India, the heritage, the immortal literature woven around it, the dreams and aspirations of people sung keeping it in the centre, the river Sarayu and the dust turned holier because Ram had played in it. It’s incredibly Indian and unbelievably divine. It will earn spiritual solace. Those who think in terms of euros and dollars won’t be disappointed. That would come with a political mileage for all times without ruffling any feathers or denting a vote bank.
After all, Rajiv Gandhi had started his election campaign from there, promising Ram Rajya. For a devout Sikh Manmohan Singh, Guru Granth Saheb has most adorable references to Ram. And for others, Ram is India, which has given them so much of respect and power without bothering about their religion or origin. Mohammad Iqbal, the famous poet had said: Ram is Imame Hind – the greatest icon of India. They all owe a great deal to repay a debt to this land’s civilisational power that has been soothing and compassionate to all coming from diverse backgrounds and having different ideas.
Don’t deny Ayodhya this time. Die unsung but be honest once to your conscience. Ayodhya has been ditched immeasurably by her own small-time courtiers.
Ayodhya deserves to be developed as an international city of Ram, the Prince of Ayodhya, who fought the devils and gave us reason to celebrate Diwali, now the global festival of lights. And his return to Ayodhya makes us enact Ram Lilas and burn effigies of an unrepentant wicked demon. That’s why we have a Vijaya Dashami, the Dushehra. Ayodhya is unquestioningly intertwined into the lives of billions of Hindus who would prefer a Ram Ram or Jai Siyaram as a salutation than a Namaste. The joys and sorrows of Sita, the Janaki, the Van-gaman, exile to the forest, the Luv and Kush episodes. And the ultimate JalSamadhi, self-immersion by Ram in Sarayu. It’s all Ayodhya. Later Luv established Lahore and even the Pakistan government feels proud about this fact in its travel literature and Kush established Bedi clan, to which belonged Guru Goovind Singh Saheb as per his Bani, the holy words.
That’s us put together. That’s Ayodhya’s legacy.
…Ayodhya is more than Ang Kor Wat, because from Korean princes to the builders of Ang Kor, they all took inspiration from this city on the banks of the Sarayu.
Excellent Post !
From http://dharmaveer.blogspot.in/2009/02/muslim-accounts-gloating-over.html
The muslim writers unanimously describe the following:
1. The temple complex comprised of the Janmasthan of Shri Ram at Kot Ram Chander, the private apartments (mahal sarai) of King Dashrath and Shri Ram, and a temple and a kitchen popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi, where tradition held that Sita (wife of Shri Ram) lived.
2. All three were demolished and a mosque constructed thereupon in 1528 A.D. under orders of Babur’s commander Mir Baqi, and the religious guidance of a Muslim cleric named Sayed Musa Ashikan.
The earliest of such authors is none other than the granddaughter of the Mughal (Mogul) emperor Aurangzeb. Many of these Muslim writers were residents of Ayodhya (Awadh) and some were eye-witness to or participants in the Hindu-Muslim clashes that resulted from the numerous (77 recorded) attempts by Hindus to regain control of their holy site. Muslim records state that over 100,000 Hindus, over the centuries, perished in attempts to regain the temple.
Let us now see what the Muslim writers have said:
1) Abul Fazl (late sixteeth century)
Abul Fazl, the author of Akbar Nama and Ain-i-Akbari is an eminent writer of the Moghul age who describes Ayodhya as the residential place (banga) of Sri Ram Chandra who during the Treta age was the embodiment of both the spiritual sovereign supremacy as well as the mundane kingly office. Abul Fazl also testifies that Awadh (Ayodhya) was esteemed as one of the holiest places of antiquity. He reports that Ram-Navami festival, marking the birthday of Rama continues to be celebrated in a big way.
2) Safiha-i Chahal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, written by the daughter of Bahadur Shah Alamgir during the early 18th century.
Out of the above Chahal Nasaih (“Forty Advices”), twenty-five instructions were copied and incorporated in the manuscript entitled Nasihat-i Bist-o-Panjam Az Chahal Nisaih Bahadur Shahi in 1816 AD, which is the oldest known account of the destruction of Ram Janmabhoomi for construction of the Babri Mosque, and its author is none other than Aurangzeb’s grand daughter.
Mirza Jan, the author of Hadiqa-i-Shahda, 1856, Lucknow, has reproduced the above text in Persian on pp.4-7 of his book. The text runs as follows:
“… the mosques built on the basis of the king’s orders (ba farman-i Badshahi) have not been exempted from the offering of the namaz and the reading of the Khutba [therein]. The places of worship of the Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh, etc., in which the Hindus (kufar) have great faith – the place of the birthplace of Kanhaiya, the place of Rasoi Sita, the place of Hanuman, who, according to the Hindus, was seated by Ram Chandra over there after the conquest of Lanka – were all demolished for the strength of Islam, and at all these places mosques have been constructed. These mosques have not been exempted from juma and jamiat (Friday prayers). Rather it is obligatory that no idol worship should be performed over there and the sound of the conch shell should not reach the ear of the Muslims …”
3) Hadiqa-i-Shahada by Mirza Jan (1856), pages 4-7.
The author was an eye-witness and an active participant in the jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi during Wazid Ali Shah’s rule in 1855 for recapture of Hanumangarhi from the Hindus. His book was ready just after the failure of the jihad due to stout Hindu resistance, and was published the following year (1856) in Lucknow. In Chapter IX of his book, entitled Wazid Ali Shah Aur Unka Ahd (“Wazid Ali Ahah and His Regime”), we find his account of construction of the Babri mosque.
Mirza Jan who claims to have gone through various old sources says in his own account as follows:
“The past Sultans encouraged the propagation and glorification of Islam and crushed the forces of the unbelievers (kufar), the Hindus. Similarly, Faizabad and Awadh(Ayodhya) were also purged of this mean practice [of kufr]. This [Awadh] was a great worshipping centre and the capital of [the kingdom of] Rama’s father. Where there was a large temple, a big mosque was constructed and where there was a small mandaf, there a small kanati masjid was constructed. The temple of Janmasthan was the original birthplace (masqat) of Ram, adjacent to which is Sita Ki Rasoi, Sita being the name of his wife. Hence at that site, a lofty (sarbaland) mosque has been built by Babar Badshah under the guidance of Musa Ashikan… That mosque is till date popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi…”
(see Annexure 3)
4) Fasana-i Ibrat by the Urdu novelist Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur.
Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has appended an excerpt from this book by Surur (1787-1867) in his work. The excerpt reads as follows :
“During the reign of Babar Badshah, a magnificent mosque was constructed in Awadh at a place which is associated with Sita ki Rasoi. This was the Babari mosque. As during this period the Hindus could not dare to offer any resistance, the mosque was constructed under the benign guidance of Saiyed Mir Ashikan. Its date of construction could be reckoned from [the words] Khair-Baqi. And in the Ram Darbar, a mosque was constructed by Fidai Khan, the subedar.”
5) Zia-i Akhtar by Haji Muhammed Hasan (Lucknow 1878), p.38-39.
The author states :
“The mosque which had been built by Saiyid Musa Ashikan in 923 AH in compliance with the order of Zahiruddin Badshah, Delhi, after demolishing the private apartments (mahal sarai) of Raja Ram Chander and the kitchen of Sita, as well as the second mosque built by Muiuddin Aurangzeb, Alamgir Badshah, [in fact] both these mosques have developed cracks at various places because of the ageing character. Both these mosques have been gradually mitigated by the Bairagis and this very fact accounts for the riot. The Hindus have great hatred for the Muslims…”
6) Gumgashte Halat-i Ajudhya Awadh (“Forgotten Events of Ayodhya”), i.e. Tarikh-i Parnia Madina Alwaliya (in Persian) (Lucknow 1885), by Maulvi Abdul Karim.
The author, who was then the imam of the Babri Masjid, while giving a description of the dargah of Hazrat Shah Jamal Gojjri states :
“To the east of this dargah is mahalla Akbarpur, whose second name is also Kot Raja Ram Chander Ji. In this Kot, there were few burjs [towery big halls]. Towards the side of the western burj, there was the house of birthplace (makan-i paidaish) and the kitchen (bawarchi khana) of the above-mentioned Raja. And now, this premises is known as Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji. After the demolition and mitigation of these houses [viz. Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji], Babar Badshah got a magnificent mosque constructed thereon.”
7) Tarikh-i Awadh(“History of Ayodhya”) by Alama Muhammad Najamulghani Khan Rampuri (1909).
Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has brought out an abridged edition of this book. An excerpt from vol.II (pp.570-575) of this edition runs as follows :
“Babar built a magnificent mosque at the spot where the temple of Janmasthan of Ramchandra was situated in Ayodhya, under the patronage of Saiyid Ashikan, and Sita ki Rasoi is situated adjacent to it. The date of construction of the mosque is Khair Baqi (923 AH). Till date, it is known as Sita ki Rasoi. By its side stands that temple. It is said that at the time of the conquest of Islam there were still three temples, viz. Janmasthan, which was the birthplace of Ram Chanderji, Swargadwar alias Ram Darbar, and the Treta ka Thakur. Babar built the mosque after having demolished Janmasthan.”
8) Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein (“India is under Islamic rule”) by Maulana Hakim Sayid Abdul Hai.
The book contained a chapter on “The Mosques of Hindusthan” (Hindustan ki Masjidein), giving at least six instances of the construction of the mosques on the very sites of the Hindu temples demolished by the Indian Muslim rulers during the 12th-17th centuries. As regards Babri Masjid, he writes :
“This mosque was constructed by Babar at Ajodhya which the Hindus call the birthplace of Ram Chanderji. There is a famous story about his wife Sita. It is said that Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked for her husband. On that very site Babar constructed this mosque…”
It is this Babri mosque, built as a symbol of the subjugation and humiliation of Hindus at a spot they venerated so highly, that was damaged by a crowd of Hindus in 1992 at the height of the nationalist movement to rebuild a temple for Shri Ram at the site which had been venerated as his birthplace by Hindus for millenia.