By Dr Mookhi Amir Ali,
In an open letter, Naeem Akhtar, the spokesperson of PDP (J&K), has boldly suggested to Zafaryab Jilani not to have more confrontation with Hindus and not to go to Supreme court. I have a feeling that it reflects the view of Muslims on the street.
It is difficult to understand the working of the minds of the leaders who are handling such a delicate issue on behalf of the community. No wonder, Justice Liberhan in his report has not given them too many marks.
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan explains why Mir Baqi should not have built the Babri masjid adjacent to the Ram chabutra, held sacred by the Hindus.
“This was a clear deviation from the Islamic principle. According to Islam, the places of worship of two religions should be built at a considerable distance from each other,” says the scholar.
The question which should arise is why he had to build a mosque in the town of temples. The British judge who visited the mosque in March 1886 before giving the decision on the very first litigation over Babri Masjid reported that he found the mosque in an uninhabited area. If the place was so devoid of population in 1886 it must have had a still thinner population in 1528, the
year the mosque was built. The Muslim population must have been too sparse to warrant a mosque of such magnificence.
So why was the Babri mosque built? If we are kind to Mir Baqi, we may say that he wanted to make it a symbol of Hindu Muslim unity and communal harmony. If we are nasty to him we will say he wanted to spite the vanquished Hindu population of Ayodhya.
The history suggests that Hindus did not see the Babri masjid as a symbol of communal harmony. They took it as affront right in front of their place of worship. History suggests that soon afterwards Hindus started their efforts to regain the land by warfare. History suggests that numerous battles were fought by Hindus. In one of the battles which Hindus fought with the help of Nawab of Audh they almost wrested Ayodhya. However the crushing defeat in
the Panipat battle of 1761 broke their back.
The history chronicles a lawsuit in 1885 by Mahant Raghubir Das claiming the right to build a temple at the Ramjanmbhoomi. In March 1886 the British district judge of Faizabad Col JEA Chambier made this observation in his ruling: “it is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on the land Hindus consider sacred but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to agree with the grievances.”
It is being made out that the Babri Masjid- Ram Janmabhoomi dispute was created by the BJP to gain a political advantage out of it.
Apparently the dispute is as old as the Babri Masjid itself.
The British rule succeeded in keeping it uneventful. On India becoming independent the movement to “liberate” Ram Janmasthan gathered momentum. 1949 saw the law of the land being given short shift.
In the night of 22-23 December 1949, idols were surreptitiously placed in the mosque by miscreants. It was a clear case of trespass, mischief and sacrilege. The perpetrators should have been arrested put on trial and punished. Idols should have been removed from the mosque.
The then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru instructed GB Pant, the then Chief Minister of UP to get the idols removed forthwith. GB Pant pleaded great possibility of uncontrollable violence if the idols were removed. The law failed. Lawlessness prevailed.
The mosque was converted into a temple. Muslims were banned away to a distance of 300 meters by a magistrate who later became an MP on Jan Sangh ticket. This was the time Nehru should have foreseen that the situation would take a sinister turn. This was the time Nehru could have convinced Muslims of the need to conciliate. He should have brought the communities together and resolved the issue. Nehru did not do it. Muslim leaders preferred litigation to urgent dialogue and closure of the issue.
It was inevitable that a political advantage of the situation would be taken. !980s saw “Mandir wahin banayenge” slogan and the rath-yatra. Two ends of the yatra were cleverly selected to whip up the religious frenzy. Begin at Somnath temple and end at Ayodhya. The only good thing –of which Muslims should have taken advantage-, was the BJP’s offer to shift the mosque brick by brick to a little distance. If Muslims leaders had agreed, the Babri would have been standing in all its glory a little distance from where it stood in the morning of 6th December 1992.
The early years of the 21st century saw a flurry of efforts from Hindu religious personalities to open dialogue with Muslim groups. The highlight of these efforts was the visit of the Shankaracharya to Delhi.
The good Shankaracharya asked Muslims to consider giving the Babri land as “bhikhsha” to Hindus which Muslim leaders were in no mood to consider. Muslims decided to put the shutters down to all dialogues till Allahabad High court judgment. In the meantime Muslim leaders went on reiterating their faith in the Indian judiciary and declared their intention to abide by the court verdict even if it goes against them.
The judgment of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court not only robbed Muslims of the sanctum sanctorum of Babri Masjid but it gave a perception of legalizing the demolition of the mosque. As a consolation they are given the one third of the disputed land, which even if they agree to accept, and the other side is vowing not to let them.
The sigh of relief which the Muslim community had on the day of Allahabad court verdict has proved to be short-lived. Muslim leaders, after declaring that the court verdict will be acceptable to them even if it goes against them have now decided to go to Supreme Court.
One member of the Babri Masji Action Committee was asked in 2003 why we are not trying to resolve the dispute through dialogue. His answer was, “Not now. We will talk only after Allahabad court judgment.”
After the 30th September verdict in an interview the same leader has said that we will negotiate after the Supreme Court judgment. Perhaps he wants the negotiations from the position of strength.
The tall leader forgets that we look for the position of strength when we are talking with an enemy. An ordinary Muslim sees what the leaders fail to see. That for Muslims it is a lose-lose situation. If Supreme Court verdict goes in Muslims’ favor who will implement it? The UPA government has opined that rebuilding the mosque will be a remedy worse than the disease.
What do Muslim leaders expect if they win at the Supreme Court? Build the Babri under army protection? Inaugurate it under army protection and pray there under army protection? If VHP and others fail to get the entire land through courts they have declared their plans to mobilize the masses and come on the street. Ordinary Muslims have understood the implications. The Muslim leadership does not seem concerned. A very prominent Muslim leader was warned about the possibility of Gujarat like situation developing out of this dispute. The Muslim leader proclaimed,”Muslims can take more Gujarat. That is not the problem.”
According to Maulana Wahiduddin there is only one solution. It is for the Muslims to decide to put a full stop to this issue. If they put a comma, then there will be no end to it.
We have lost 60 years by putting comma after comma and now this is the last chance to bring closure to the issue so that the relationship between the Hindus and the Muslims may be normalized. And this full stop means either leaving it to the government to implement the verdict or agreeing to the relocation/relocation of the Babri mosque.
There is, in reality, no third option. Muslim leaders must pay heed because the alternative is bloodshed.