From: <DXA4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Meaning of Ayodhya on Dec.6 - by M. V. Kamath
Status: OR
To: ALT-HINDU@cis.ohio-state.edu
Originator: editor@rbhatnagar
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 17:17:36 GMT
Return-Path: <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>


Following article written by Mr. M.V. Kamath, a distinguished and veteran
journalist, an ex-editor of The Illustrated Weekly of India, on the events
of Dec.6 in Ayodhya, in his syndicated column and appeared in several news
papers in India.
Dinesh Agrawal...

**************************

MEENING OF AYODHYA ON DECEMBER 6
BY: Mr. M. V. Kamath

    Every foul word in the English language has been used, in recent times, by
the English language newspapers to describe the demolition of the Babri Mosque.
It is only fair to say that the language has been used by Hindus. No Muslim,
writing in English, has used the kind of language that Hindu editors, clumnists
and reporters have used. The anger of these ladies and gentlemen does them
justice. Their self-image has been deeply hurt. It has been the boast of Hindus
that they have never participated or acquicsed in the destruction of a house
of worship. That is an honorable fact and reflects well on Hindus in general.
So far as they are concerned that sin was attributable only to Muslims. And now
they feel betrayed. It is said that Yudhishtra's chariot never touched ground
because he was the very embodiment of dharma but after he became guilty of
telling a half-truth 'Ashwathama is dead, not the man but the elephant', it
came down to earth with a thud. Similar has been the feeling of many Hindus
after the demolition of the masjid.

   It is always easy to differentiate between a truth and a lie, between
black and white. But how does one differentiate between two truths? In the
case of the Babri Masjid the Hindu psyche was confronted with two 'truths'.
One dealt with the fact of a masjid having been raised over a temple. That
'fact' has been disputed, but more and more evidence is now coming to the fore
to inidcate that a temple did exist over the site where the Babri masjid
existed. If that was true, then the existence of the masjid was a slight to the
self-respect of an entire people. Nobody can gainsay the fact that during a
long period of Muslim rule - and mostly alien rule - Hinduism remained slighted
That thought had turned into a canker. If Hindu sentiments had to be assuaged,
the Babri masjid had to relocated. The issue was as simple as that.

   But the question is often asked: WHY DIDN'T ENTIRE HINDU BODY REVOLT AGAINST
THE BABRI MASJID? HOW COME ONLY A SMALL SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION PARTICIPATED
IN IT? THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE. WHEN THE FIRE STARTS ACCUMULATING WITHIN THE
BOWELS OF THE EARTH, THE ENTIRE EARTH DOES NOT RUPTURE. THE FIRE COMES OUT
THROUGH THE NARROW MOUTH OF A VOLCANO. AYODHYA WAS A VOLCANO AND SHOULD BE
UNDERSTOOD AS SUCH.

   The truth is that nobody ever gave any thought to the fire that was accumu-
lating in the Hindu body politic. The concept of secularism forced on a bewil-
dered people who saw their country partitioned on communal lines prevented
Hindus from coming to terms with their own history. Since partition, successive
Congress governments were seen to be falling over each other to placate Muslims
in order to get their votes and to stay in power. There was the ridiculous
picture of Prime Minister VP SIngh visiting Imam Bukhari and standing almost
at attention while the Imam was seated like a headmaster. The Muslim was seen
as the power behind the throne.

   The feeling grew that Muslims not only got Pakistan where they were free to
have an Islamic State, to the deteriment of non-Muslims, but those who stayed
back in India had become more demanding. As Swapan Dasgupta has said elsewhere
"the Nehruvian consensus had denied and even outlawed legitimate expressions of
Hindu disquiet (and ) had even forbidden Hindus from coming to terms with their
own history". If Hindus expressed their anger or dismay, they were condemned
as 'communalists'. It was a convenient weapon to use. To be 'communal', what-
ever that word meant, was to be anti-national, anti-Islam and anti-modern. An
entire generation was brought up to feel that to be Hindu or think Hindu was
wrong, antedeluvian and shameful. Somewhere, sometime, there had to be an
explosion.

   The BJP was a reaction to this original sin. If the BJP did not, on its own,
come into being, it would have had to be invented. The sorest point to the
Hindu was the Babri masjid. In the first place it has always been seen as
Ramjanambhoomi. The masjid was in consequence seen as a direct insult to all
that the Hindu held sacred. A wise government would have seen to it that the
masjid was relocated. A wiser Muslim leadership would have willingly given
assent to the relocation. Had that happened the entire issue would have been
resolved, peacefully, to the satisfaction of all concerned. The dilly-dallying
of the government over the issue was seen as one more instance of the govern-
ment knuckling down to Muslim pressures. The shrill utterances of the likes
of Bukhari and Shahabuddin merely added fuel to the fire. In such a situation
nothing could have saved the masjid from the ire of Hindus. A point of no
return had been reached.

   It was very unwise on the part of the government to attempt to bring in the
judiciary in the picture. WHEN CATACLYSMIC EVENTS ARE DUE TO HAPPEN, THEY ARE
NOT GOING TO BE STOPPED BY A SUPREME COURT VERDICT. REVOLUTIONS ARE NOT STOPPED
BY A COURT JUDGEMENT. IT IS LIKE KING CANUTE TELLING THE WAVES NOT TO ROLL.
THERE IS AN ANCIENT JAPANESE PROVERB WHICH SAYS THAT THOUGH YOU MAY PLANT A
SIGN IN THE GARDEN TO TELL THE WIND NOT TO BLOW, THE WIND STILL BLOWS BECAUSE
THE WIND CANNOT READ.

   To go round telling the world that fascist forces ignored the Supreme Court
does not take note of ground realities. The press has been and continues to be
full of superficialities. Charges are levied against the RSS, the VHP and the
BJP that they cheated the government and that the prime minister was betrayed,
and that there was no 'spontaneity' in the demolition and that it was pre-plan-
ned act. LET US CONCEDE THAT IT WAS A PREPLANNED ACT. DOES THAT MAKE THE AROUS-
ED ANGER LESS RELEVANT? WHEN A GOVERNMENT IS SEEN TO BE DELIBERATELY DITHERING
AND BENDING BACKWARD TO PLEASE MUSLIMS, THEN AN AROUSED POPULACE IS LEFT WITH
NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CHOOSE ANY DEVICE MOST SUITED TO IT. DEVIOUSNESS, IF IT
EXISTED, WAS IMPOSED ON THOSE WHO HAD BEEN FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT THEY WOULD
NOT GET JUCTICE FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

   The dismay and anguish of most people on 6 December was genuine. Most Hindus
were apologetic and full of remorse because for generations, the collective
memory of Hindus has been one fatalistic acceptance of the destruction of their
own symbols of faith but not of retaliation against their oppressors. Retalia-
tion was unthinkable. But the behavior of their own government, at a time when
India was free - and divided - was seen to be so revolting that something had
to be done to salvage the Hindu self-respect. IT WASN'T INTENDED TO HUMILIATE
MUSLIMS OR OPPOSE THE GOVERNMENT. THAT WOULD BE A WRONG READING OF THE SITUA-
TION AND THE EVENTS. IT WAS A HINDU ATTEMPT TO TEAR ITS OWN VEIL OF COWARDICE
THAT IT HAD BEEN WEARING TO ITS SHAME FOR CENTURIES. INEVITABLY IT HAD TO BE
ACCOMPANIED BY PAIN, SELF-DOUBT AND REMORSE. IT WILL TAKE SOME YEARS FOR THE
PHENOMENON TO BE PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD IN ITS PERSPECTIVE. BUT SELF-FLAGELLATION
IS ONE THING NOT CALLED FOR.

Newsgroups: alt.hindu