People's Democracy

The BJP chief minister of Uttar Pradesh assured the NIC and the Supreme Court that he would protect the disputed structure. However, after the destruction of Babri Masjid it became abundantly clear that his allegiance to the Constitution and the affidavit he filed with the Supreme Court were only a sham.

 Ten Years since Babri Masjid Destruction

Sheetla Singh

TEN years have passed since the demolition of Babri Masjid, the so-called disputed structure in Ayodhya.  Over these years the position taken by the VHP, BJP and their leaders who have been associated with that movement has been changing constantly and this requires a careful analysis. In 1991, when the BJP government was formed in UP, all the ministers who had pledged their allegiance to the constitution had gone to Ayodhya the very next day and took the vow in the name of Ram at the disputed site that they would construct Ram temple on the disputed land only. After this pledge the BJP chief minister of Uttar Pradesh assured the National Integration Council that he would protect the disputed structure. Also in his affidavit filed with the Supreme Court he made the commitment that he would discharge his responsibilities in this regard. However, after the destruction of Babri Masjid it became abundantly clear that allegiance to the constitution and the affidavit filed with the Supreme Court were only a sham. For the VHP and BJP the real thing was the pledge to construct Ram Temple at the disputed site. If this was not so, then why during the mid-term elections in UP after the dismissal of the government, the BJP claimed in its posters that the party did all that it had promised. It is a different matter that the Supreme Court is yet to deliver its judgement but the people of the state have sidelined this party. Their votes and seats in the assembly elections have decreased.  Over the past ten years the BJP has failed to come to power in Uttar Pradesh entirely on  its own strength.

As far as Ayodhya is concerned, it has always been a symbol of human values rather than communal animosity. If we recognise the authority of the twelfth century saint Swami Bhagwadacharya who utilised Ram to integrate the whole society then we should take note of his views that Vedas, Puranas, Upanishads and the Brahamanical philosophy would destroy the society under given circumstances.  Hence departing from all these he evoked Ram for societal integration and allowed Dadu, Kabir, Ravidas and Fifa among others to join his group of disciples. Valmiki’s Ram is a symbol of rectitude and thus he is virtuous. In Tulsi’s Ramacharitmannas  Ram’s depiction is such that no distinction is to be made between the people in terms of religion, caste, community or faith. However in politics of this country a new element has emerged which arbitrarily depicts Ram in the form which is acceptable only to some and not to all. Skand Puran and Ayodhya Mahatmya do not refer to any dispute about Ramjanmabhoomi. It is this reason the people who talk of dispute ignore the authority of these classics. Interestingly in these books the site of Ramjanm is not the same as the one which is presently disputed.

If we consider the history of ancient Ayodhya, then we learn that four Tirthakkaras of Jains were born here. Gautam Buddha lived for 16 years in Ayodhya. Gurudwara Brahmakund in Ayodhya is the place where Gurunanak Dev had once stayed.  The mausoleum of Sheesh Pegambar is located in the vicinity of Maniparvat.  Grave of Hazrat Nooh  is also in this city. Besides Babri Masjid (which has been demolished) two other mosques, without minarets are at variance from the traditional architecture.  One of these mosque as old as the Babri Masjid is located behind Maharaja Inter College and the second one is in the vicinity of Police Kotwali.  Now some people fearing demolition of these mosques are trying to construct minarets on them.

In this context the document of land grant which is still preserved in Achariji Temple is quite relevant. The document states that the 500 bigha land was granted by the ruler for the rituals of the deity. The British also endorsed this land grant with one condition that in case the temple priest and other employees were found to be participating in any rebellion against the British, the land grant would be withdrawn. The Achariji temple is located adjoining to Dantdhawankund.  The Chinese travellors Fa-Hien and Hsuan Tsang have referred to these temples in their travelogues. Tulsi had began writing  Ramcharitamanas on this land only.  The priest of Hanumangarhi asserts that the construction of this temple was supervised by Tiket Rai, a minister of Nawab Mansoor Ali and the finances had come from the Nawab’s treasury. There is a reference in History that when Amir Ali decided to go to Ayodhya to demolish this temple, Nawab Vajid Ali Shah wrote to the Kotwal of Ayodhya that whenever Amir Ali reached Ayodhya to do the destructive work, he must be beheaded. Even now there are 13 temples located on the land granted by the Muslim landowners.

It is well known that there is a temple known as ‘Satyar Temple’ in Ayodhya. In this temple Ram, Krishna, Sarswati, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Karan etc. are placed on the same platform. No one till today has ever protested against it or has made an attempt to destroy it.  It thus reflects mutual tolerance and accommodation. Now this has received extensive coverage in newspapers and electronic media. In Ayodhya, there is a temple known as Sundar Bhawan. It has a idol of Ram and Janki. One Mr Chunne Mian was the manager of this temple until 5 years before the demolition of Babri Masjid. Saints in Ayodhya respected him like any other Mahant and never attempted to remove him from the position he held.  Chunne Mian was completely devoted to the temple. For him there is just one god and thus there could not be any distinction between one god and another. The flowers which Ayodhya temples receive daily, are produced mostly by the Muslim gardeners of Shulhatti mohalla. Muslims are engaged in producing Roli-sandal which are used  for making kanthimala. These people also join Ram’s Barat with their well decorated horses. It is this reason why people associated with the temples and pooja consider all of them as a part of Ayodhya. It is important to note that when 13 persons were killed and 267 shops and houses were set on fire on December 7, 1992, not a single person from Ayodhya was named as an accused.  There has never been a communal riot in Ayodhya or Faizabad in the past.  In 1934 when Babri Masjid was attacked, the cause was a cow slaughter dispute in village Shahjahanpur. Moreover, the violence was instigated by a ruler from Rajasthan.  According to official inscriptions, there are 26 mosques in Ayodhya. In eight mosques namaz (prayers) are performed on a regular basis. Still on the banks of Saryu there are three mosques in dilapidated condition. These are as old as any temple in Ayodhya.  Ayodhya has thus never been a centre of communal animosity and disharmony.

During the last ten years there has been a change in the policies of the BJP. For being in power it has put the Ayodhya issue on back burner. It is this reason why it is not mentioned in the programme of the NDA. The BJP is contesting Gujarat assembly elections on the resurgence of the Hindutva. Nevertheless deputy prime minister L K Advani asserts in the parliament that India can never be a Hindu Rashtra.  He now looks for the definition of Hindutva in judgements of the Supreme Court rather than Dharmasansad.

The most amusing development is that Mahant Ram Chandra Das, president, Ramjanmabhoomi Trust has revised his earlier position about the idol that appeared on the night of December 22-23, 1949. In his statement on file he has told the court that the idol was planted by him on Ram Chabutra. This is how an attempt has been made to overcome a legal crisis.  He has thought that the idol was not a party in the litigation. The idol can have a legal entity only if its is established with all Hindu rituals. Since courts do not have an example of idol appearing on its own, Ram Chandra Das wanted to assign status of legal entity to the idol by changing his earlier stand.

Now the saints in Ayodhya have realised that this dispute has been created for political gains. It has no religious dimension. People of Ayodhya are also becoming indifferent to this issue precisely for this reason. 697 saints and mahants have written a letter to the prime minister in 1992 criticising the demolition of the Babri Masjid. They had condemned this act as anti-Hindu. Recently “Dharma Sambhav Parishad”  was set up for religious harmony in a meeting of saints, mahants, maulvis and fakirs. They all criticised the VHP and argued that any attempt to make Ayodhya dispute a matter of faith and take it out of the purview of the constitution is anti-democratic.  It would spell anarchy and terrorism in the country. In the tenth year of the Babri Masjid demolition, if we evaluate the BJP and VHP movement on the temple issue taking various aspects into consideration, we feel that the public now aware of the reality is drifting away from the movement.