From: bhatnagr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Raj Bhatnagar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: III: Conflict: Causes: Babri Masjid
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:04:01 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

In article <gdv2e9200VAwIOk1Bu@andrew.cmu.edu> ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:

>
>Hindu-Muslim Conflict in India: Causes and Remedies
>by Iqbal Ansari (Dept. of English, Aligarh Muslim University)
>

>7.c. To have a visible center of Hindu solidarity . . . . .
> . . . . Babri Masjid was an eyesore reminding the Hindus of
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                    ^^^^^^
>their past national humiliation. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Here is the crux of the whole matter!!!!
 
Babar was an invader who came to conquer India.

He conquered the territory inhabited by the ancestros of
all the present day Indian Hindus and more than 95% of
the present day Indian Muslims.

It was as much a humiliations for the ancestors of todays
Indian Muslims as it was for the ancestors of today's Indian
Hindus.

What feat of black magic is that by which the change of religion
by Indian Hindus to Islam makes them also abandon the humiliation
suffereed by their nation and their ancestors - and moreover 
they start identifying with the humiliator of their nation and 
their ancestors!

Just because the humiliator was a co-religionist?

The explanation, in my view, is that Islam in addition to being
a religion is a political ideology which tries to tear off an 
Islamic nation, consisting of the adherents, from any nation in
which the adherents are won to its fold. The Muslims all over
the world, according to the purist Islamic thought, form one 
nation - and therefore cease to be the nationals of other territorial,
cultural or civilizational entities forming nations.


And the author says so much, when he says

> . . . . Babri Masjid was an eyesore reminding the Hindus of
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>their past national humiliation. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

DIDN'T THE INDIAN MUSLIMS OF 1520s BELONG TO THE SAME INDIAN 
NATION WHICH BABAR HUMILIATED?

The implication by Shriman Siddiqi ji that they didn't, and by 
consequence, that they do not do even today, is the crux of the 
matter. Muslims are NOT a separate nation and polity within the 
nation and polity of India. 

Babri Masjid is a symbol of humiliation of this same Indian nation,
consisting of Hindus, Muslims, and others, by an invader named Babar
(whatever x,y,z, his religion may have been) and deserves the same
treatment that is meted out to any symbol of humiliation and defeat.
That is, whatever had happened to the symbols of German occupation in
Poland and some other European countries and to the statues of Lenin
after the yoke of Soviet occupation was lifted from E. Germany and
other E. European countries. 

Had this been an attack on the right to worship the Islamic way
in India, thousands of other mosques may have witnessed attacks, but
none of that ever happened.

The attempt to save the Babri masjid under the guise of right to worship
and maintain places of worship, is only an attempt to find an excuse
to safeguard the concept of Muslims of INdia forming a separate 
nation and polity - for whom the destruction by Babar was not a humiliation
of their nation and ancestors, but a sign of victory for the Islamic
nation, a concept to which they now have sold their soul and loyalty.

At this level, the dispute is between the perceived Islamic nation 
within India for which Babri Masjid is a VICTORY TOWER, and the
Indian nationalism for which it is a symbol of national defeat and
humiliation, irrespective of any considerations of religion. To phrase 
the issue in terms of rights of religious worship is only 
drawing a smokescreen.

And Shriman Siddiqi ji will have to address the issue of RJB at this
level of nations and polities, instead of rights of worship of
a minority, before he can hope to start communicating on a matchable
wavelength with  the votaries of Indian nationalism.

>Doordarshan on the national network and subsequently by the print media
>which universally designated the building as the Ram Janam Bhoomi
>temple, despite its Islamic architecture, its Qurani engravings and its
>having been continuously used as a mosque for centuries.


Ha! Mr. Siddiqi needs to visit the RJB/BM structure at least once
and see for himself, instead of repeating whatever has appeared in
the propaganda pamphlets published by the JNU-type historians.

I would personally like to see RJB/BM structure remain intact and
a temple constructed at a nearby spot, but that only if the proponants
of Islamic-nation within India see and realize the above argument.
Else, I don't mind the issue pursued along the VHP/BJP lines till
the realization of Indian nationhood, instead of Islam-based nationhood
receives consideration from the other side.

>The conversion of the Babri Masjid into a temple is not perceived by
>Muslim leadership as denial or potential denial of the right to freedom
>of worship, but as a test of whether Muslims would be treated as equal
                                                                  ^^^^^
>citizens in a secular democratic polity governed by the spirit and the
 ^^^^^^^^
>letter of the Constitution irrespective of whatever happened in the
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>past -- mythological, legendary or real past.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It is easy to say "irrespective of whatever happened in the past"
but a nation with diametrically opposed perspectives of past will
keep suffering from the reflections of the conflicting perspectives
on its many decisions that must be made in the context of its past.
A nation is not constituted merely by a constitution, but 
also by a sense of shared past, experiences, and heritage.


>The Hindu masses have been made to believe that the mosque was
>originally a temple and hence its reconversion was justified. They
>would not pay any heed to historical or legal documents in this regard
>or to the prestigious All India History  Congress's unanimous
>resolution urging upon the Govt. of India not to allow any change in
>the character of Babri Masjid.

Arun,

You are aware of all the loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong
debates that have gone on on this topic on sci over the last 2 years.
This perspective that you present in this article, is at one extreme,
and completely ignores many other evidences, reports, facts that are
otherwise available. I am not going to repeat all of them, but hope 
that you will clarify at which point in the entire spectrum of views,
in your view, this particular article and its contents stand.


And one thing I am going to avoid like plague is getting into
long winded, hair-splitting debates on this issue. The above are
my views, and I will read others' views and criticisms of them, but
respond only in very rare case, if at all.


>arun gupta
>ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu


---raj