Ayodhya - a good story from Ram Janambhoomi

This is a good story of communal harmony in Ayodhya, indeed, there are many such stories in a series of article on Ayodhya published at http://MikeGhouseforIndia.blogspot.com . We appreciate Dr. Frank Islam for taking the initiative to promote good stories to uplift people and put them on the pathway to cherish each other’s life.  We hope to open our offices in India soon to give a boost to the ideals of pluralism, i.e, respecting the otherness of other and accepting the God given uniqueness of each one of us.

Mike Ghouse
Center for Pluralism

‘There was never an iota of communal hatred in Ayodhya’

IANS|Economic Times

Updated: Dec 03, 2017, 12.32 PM IST

Courtesy Economic Times –

Locals, both Hindus and Muslims, say “outsiders” who came to Ayodhya in 1992 stirred trouble while locals were busy saving each other — irrespective of their religious faiths.

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 religious-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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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)A

Babri Masjid on 25th Anniversary

Babri Masjid’s 25^th year

There are some extraordinary articles on the issue at this site. in 2003 I did an extended full hour Radio talk show on Ram Janambhoomi and was written up as a lead story on the front page of Dallas Observer. 

I urge the moderate Hindus to take back Hinduism from the extremists among them.  Dekho Ai diwano kaam e na karo, Raam ka Naam Badnaam na karo. Let sanity prevail and lets focus on jobs, peace and prosperity and put this behind.  I suggest we build a place of worship for all religions or build a museum of religions to reach Ram's wisdom and wisdom of all religions.

Kaifi Azmi's poem recited by Vinod Dua
https://www.facebook.com/TheWireUrdu/videos/1932541443665782/

1. LEGACY OF BABRI
 http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2013/12/q-the-legacy-of-babri-masjid.html

2. AYODHYA - THE BATTLE FOR INDIA'S SOUL - 1 of 6
URL: http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2012/12/ayodhya-battle-for-indias-soul.html

3. AYODHYA - THE BATTLE FOR INDIA'S SOUL - 2 OF 6
http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2012/12/ayodhya-battle-for-indias-soul-2.html

4. AYODHYA, THE BATTLE FOR INDIA'S SOUL – 3 OF 6
URL: http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2012/12/ayodhya-battle-for-indias-soul-3.html

5. AYODHYA, THE BATTLE FOR INDIA'S SOUL – 4 OF 6    http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2012/12/ayodhya-battle-for-indias-soul-4.html

6. AYODHYA, THE BATTLE FOR INDIA'S SOUL – 5 of 6
http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2012/12/ayodhya-battle-for-indias-soul-5.html\

7.  AYODHYA, THE BATTLE FOR INDIA'S SOUL  6 of 6

http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2012/12/ayodhya-battle-for-indias-soul-6.html

8. 18^th Anniversary http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2010/12/ayodhya-on-6th-anniversary-and.html

9. http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2010/10/reflections-on-verdict-on-babri-masjid_01.html

Birth of a Hindu Nation

The following paragraphs in quotes is the one of the most important paragraphs of the article - if we understand this, we may proceed further in finding solutions. In 2003 I had a talk show radio in Dallas, and for a full hour we carried the conversation on a similar theme... it is good to see someone put their thumb on the issues. Indeed for believers reason and logic don't mean a thing. Yes, Ayodyha is beyond time and history; faith never looks for evidence.
This site MikeGhouseforIndia.blogspot.com has a many articles on Ayodhya worth reading.

The solution is there, but Muslims are afraid of the extremists among Hindus who will demand a pound of flesh, there will be no end to their demands. Whereas the right among Hindus have an attitude of revenge and punishment against people who did no no harm to anyone. No Muslim in India has anything to do with Babar, just as no Hindu has anything to do with Krishna Deva Raya.  We appreciate their work, but they did not do anything for Muslims or Hindus respectively - they were for themselves like all the kings in the world.  We need to understand this clearly - that the kings were for themselves and it is wrong of us to put a religious label on them.

Here is the paragraph.

"Left secular historians questioned if Ayodhya was the birthplace of Rama and whether present-­day Ayodhya was the Ayodhya of the Ramayana, thus perhaps putting more wind in the sail of the project. Let alone eng­age it, they failed to even grasp the working of the believing Hindu’s mind: for them, Ayodhya was beyond time and history; faith never looked for evidence. Hard-line secular politicians and Muslim leadership failed to anticipate the upheaval. When Advani talked of relocation of the mosque, it could have been an entry point for talk and bargain; however, the secularists relied entirely on the constitutional/legal solution, fearing any dia­logue would privilege the Sangh parivar. Political and electoral calculations, rather than minority interest, were the guiding principles. Once the RSS gauged the mass support behind its project, it showed no interest in rapprochement as it could reap a political windfall only through a violent assertion."

https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/birth-of-a-new-hindu-nation/299581

Birth Of A New Hindu Nation

It can’t be without reason that the RSS now says a mandir alone will come up at the disputed site. The Sangh has been carving a Hindu India since ’92.

PRALAY KANUNGO

A quarter century has passed since the Babri Masjid demolition. Every year, Hindutva forces celebrate this day as ‘Vijay Diwas’ (Victory Day), as a ritual, but perhaps with a sense of guilt and helplessness—for them, Ram, despite being ‘liberated’, rem­ains homeless all these years. In the changing political context, the silver jubilee year marks a watershed as the RSS gears up for what they offer as a grand metaphor—the return of Ram to Ayodhya—by turning into a reality the ‘Mandir wahin bana­yenge’ slogan, once considered merely rhetorical.

Symbols and rituals are embedded in the Hindu nationalist agenda; hence, the first step in this direction has already been initiated with the symbolic return of Ram to Ayodhya this Diwali by lighting almost two lakh lamps on the banks of Sarayu, creating a great spectacle. Now the Sangh parivar is zealously taking up the next step by fast-tracking the temple construction agenda. Thus, without waiting for the Supreme Court decision, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat recently ann­ounced that a mandir will be constructed, asserting that there will only be a mandir, and no other structure at the disputed site.

With this announcement, the RSS has entered a new phase of the Ramjanmabhoomi movement: construction of a temple as a new symbol of a Hindu India. Bhagwat’s confidence needs to be understood in the context of an all-powerful RSS now being in control of the levers of political power at the Centre and in a majority of the states. The hegemonic rise of the RSS owes greatly to the Ayodhya movement, of which demolition was a symbolic as well as a substantive event.

The Sangh has always shown an instinct for survival when chips are down. Of late, it has a flair for expansion and pursuit for power. 

The demolition was not a sudden act, but an outcome of a decade-long mobilisation and agitation under a calibrated strategy by the Sangh-VHP-BJP combine. Though the seed was sown back in 1949 when Ram lalla ‘appeared’ in Babri Masjid on a cold December night, the lord still failed to go beyond the local to capture the nat­ional religious imaginary. The humiliating electoral performance of the BJP in 1984, winning only two seats in Parliament, compelled the RSS to go for a militant religio-political strategy around Ayodhya. The Meenakshipuram conversions of 1981, Shah Bano, the unlocking of the temple doors by the Congress government, all provided ideal fodder for a mammoth pan-Indian Hindu mobilisation, which became the largest mass movement in independent India.

Till then, the ideology of Hindu rashtra was by and large confined to the Sangh cadre. Ayodhya allowed the RSS to spread its worldview among ordinary Hindus by imaginatively projecting Ram not just as a great Hindu god, but also as a symbol of repressed national pride. Thus, Hindu­ism and nationalism were skilfully woven, and this struck a chord with millions who never really related to a vacuous secularism. On the other hand, BJP veteran L.K. Advani’s cogent argume­nts on ‘mino­rity appeasement’ appealed to many.

Left secular historians questioned if Ayodhya was the birthplace of Rama and whether present-­day Ayodhya was the Ayodhya of the Ramayana, thus perhaps putting more wind in the sail of the project. Let alone eng­age it, they failed to even grasp the working of the believing Hindu’s mind: for them, Ayodhya was beyond time and history; faith never looked for evidence. Hard-line secular politicians and Muslim leadership failed to anticipate the upheaval. When Advani talked of relocation of the mosque, it could have been an entry point for talk and bargain; however, the secularists relied entirely on the constitutional/legal solution, fearing any dia­logue would privilege the Sangh parivar. Political and electoral calculations, rather than minority interest, were the guiding principles. Once the RSS gauged the mass support behind its project, it showed no interest in rapprochement as it could reap a political windfall only through a violent assertion.

RSS turned Ram into a symbol of repressed national pride for Hindus, enhancing Advani’s views on minority appeasement. 

Historically, the RSS has always shown the right instinct at the right time for its survival, expansion and pursuit of political power. It kept aloof from the freedom struggle, strategically opting to exp­and quietly. During Partition, it endeared itself to Hindu refugees as their ‘saviour’. During the hard days of its ban after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, it conceived the political front, the Bharatiya Jan Sangh (1951), and then strategically expanded, opening other affiliates, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (1964). In 1975, it took the bold political decision to challenge the Emergency by joining the JP movement, and soon became a dominant player in the Janata Party and in mainstream politics in 1977, acquiring respectability, legitimacy and political power.

The launch of the Ayodhya agitation in the 1980s was perfectly timed as well. By then, the Sangh network had already become pan-Indian, making inroads into new regions and social groups. And yet, the RSS had remained largely a Brahmin-Bania, upper-caste, middle-class organisation of the cow belt, and it desperately needed to break out of this mould. Ayodhya equipped it with the language and symbolic tools required to penetrate rural and semi-urban India, and flow over the caste barrier: for Ram had a big appeal among backward castes and marginalised groups across regions. Thus, mobilising for the mandir became simultaneously a way of building a new social coa­lition, particularly integrating the Dalits, adivasis and backwards into the Hindu fold, not just in a token way as often alleged, but showing willingness to make them partners in power. Thus, the foundation of a ‘Hindu India’ was laid on a large and diverse social base. The BJP’s strength in Parliament surged; the movement brought it to power in key north Indian states; and the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh made way for the demolition with the tacit approval of the Congress government at the Centre.

Surely, the demolition was insane and barbaric for many, and such violent majoritarian assertion was considered anti-democratic and anti-minority. But the supporters gloated over their victory as though it ended the very symbol of historical Muslim domination and Hindu humiliation. But this ‘victory’ had some long-term negative repercussions. Mob frenzy and violence became a new normal for conflict resolution. There came to be a big question mark on the efficacy of the Indian state in protecting the rule of law and minority rights. The lofty ideal of ‘Hindu tolerance’ was once and for all consigned to history. The demolition and mob violence left a permanent scar on Muslims and scared other minorities. Trust in constitutional governance became a casualty, as Kalyan Singh, despite his affidavit as the CM to protect the masjid, became a wilful partner in demolition.

HUDDLE’S ON

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat with Hindu spiritual leaders

PHOTOGRAPH BY PTI

All this had no adverse impact on the RSS, of course. Rather, the riots and subsequent blasts in Bombay, a violent response to the demolition, further enhanced its credentials in a field marked increasingly by Hindu-Muslim polarisation. Its constituency was further consolidated and the momentum finally enabled the party to form coalition governments in Delhi from 1998 to 2004. Some key players of the movement, including some religious leaders, became lawmakers and ministers; thus, religion got legitimacy in the secular domain. The RSS, despite constraints, exercised a sway over the A.B. Vajpayee government: from cabinet formation and policymaking to key appointments.  The moderate Vajpayee, who chose to express remo­rse after the demolition, put the mandir issue in the backburner due to coalition compulsion; and only the VHP periodically continued with its symbolic rituals at Ayodhya.

In 2002, a train coming from Ayodhya was set on fire at Godhra, killing Gujarati kar sevaks, which led to the most horrific anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat. Gujarati society got Hindutvaised to a great extent and the state has been in the firm grip of Hindutva politics ever since. The majoritarian assertion of December 6, 1992 had a logical link to events in Gujarat a decade later. But Narendra Modi chose not to be confined to the mould of Hindutva icon: adding administrative strings to his bow, and deploying development as a slogan, he graduated to become India’s prime minister with RSS support.

With Modi and Yogi at the helm and the RSS hegemony at its peak, why won’t Bhagwat exude high confidence?

The BJP’s massive electoral success in 2014, and later in the 2017 UP assembly elections, could be partly attributed to the base created during the Ayodhya days. The movement’s inclusive social coalition came in handy, though lying dormant and disillusioned with their temple aspi­rations going unrequited, the Sangh successfully brought them back to the fold, promising to address their concerns. Now Yogi Adityanath, directly engaged with the temple issue, poses as an enabler even as Modi stays largely on the dev­elopment plank. Modi is the new navigator of Advani’s rath; Yogi inherits the legacy of his prede­cessor Mahant Avaidyanth, a key figure in the movement. With two stalwarts at the helm, and RSS hegemony at its peak, why will not Bhagwat exude confidence?

Undoubtedly, the Babri Masjid demolition shook the very secular edifice of the country’s Con­stitution, signalling the onset of a Hindu India. The makeshift temple is the foundation for a majoritarian state. Since December 1992, pillars for a temple  are being quietly chiselled, while the RSS has been carving out the structure of a Hindu India—brick by brick.

---

(The writer is ICCR chair for the Study of Contemporary India, Leiden University, the Netherlands.)