From: budaraju@cae.wisc.edu (Srinivas Budaraju)
Subject: Babri Mosque - some background - 3/10
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 11 Dec 92 14:45:52 CST

The following are excerpts from an interview of Asghar Ali Engineer by Sridhar
D. Damle, a free-lance reporter for India Tribune (Chicago) and co-author with
Walter K. Anderson of the book "The Brotherhood in Saffron: The Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism", Vistaar Publications, New Delhi,
1987.  Some extraneous or redundant material has been deleted; a few
grammatical errors have been corrected; subheads have been put in for clarity.
 
The interview took place on Dec 2, 1990, in Chicago.
------------------------------------------------------------------
3. NEXT IN VHP'S LIST: KASHI VISHWANATH TEMPLE
 
D: How about the Kashi Vishwanath temple?
 
A: The KV temple, it is a historical fact that a temple was
demolished and a mosque constructed. But, one has to go into
different aspects: Why was the temple demolished? Was it
demolished out of religious bigotry or for some other reasons?
That is a different matter. But the fact is the temple was
demolished and there is historical proof and historical record
for it.
 
D: I asked Shahabuddin the same question. He said that KV was
destroyed by Aurangzeb and it should not be returned to Hindus.
 
A: Well, whether it is to be returned or not again becomes a
political issue. It is not historical. Historical issue is that a
temple was demolished and a mosque constructed. Now, [just] as
there is a record that a temple was demolished, there is also a
record [as to] why it was demolished, and again that does not go
in favor of Hindus.  It was demolished at the request of a Hindu
raja whose wife was raped in the temple. So, he [the raja] felt
that such a temple should not stand - it has already been defiled
and [hence] should be demolished.
 
D: I asked the same question to Pandey. I do my homework better
than anybody, you know. I am familiar with Pandey's research,
[though] I don't know much about his credibility.
 
A: We have to go by historical records, not by the credibility of
Vishwanath Pandey.
 
D: No, I am not talking about Vishwanath Pandey, this research
was done by SN Pandey.
 
A: I am not familiar with SN Pandey. But there are clear
historical documents to this effect, whether SN Pandey does it or
VN Pandey does it.
 
D: Let me finish. I go by facts. I don't know the credibility of
SN Pandey, I don't know the credibility of his research, but I
know the paper - SN Pandey's paper about this Rajput Sardar.  I
asked him the same question. They say, whatever may be the
personal grudge between Hindu sardar and a Hindu temple, is it
justification for Muslims not to return the KV temple to Hindus?
 
A: This depends on one's point of view. If one takes the Hindu
point of view, there may not be any justification. If one takes a
political point of view, there may be justification for it. If
one takes the Muslim point of view, then there may be
justification. You know, facts do not speak by themselves. Facts
are made to speak according to our point of view.
 
D: "Our" means whose?
 
A: "Our" means all people's.  They are divided into different
ideological groups; each ideological group takes some point of
view, and makes facts speak according to that.  If you study E.H.
Carr's book "What is History", he gives a number of instances in
which one set of facts has been interpreted in a particular way,
and the same set of facts has been interpreted in a very
different way by other historians. He gives an example like this,
that four cooks go to buy fish in the market. They buy the same
species of fish but when they cook, the taste is different.
Because, four cooks, they have different arts of cooking, all
that. So, same thing with historians. They take the same set of
facts, and put their own masala and draw conclusions accordingly.
So, there can't be unanimity on that - whether Aurangzeb was
justified or not, whether it ought to have been done or not.
 
You know, hard facts are one thing, that this is what happened;
whether it should have happened or not is a different matter.
Now, take Operation Bluestar for example. Some Hindus justify it,
that yes, there was no other go. Sikhs feel other way. Secular
politicians feel other way. Leftists feel some other way. What do
you do now? This is an event which has happened before our eyes
and yet there is so much disagreement. Here, something happened
400 or 300 years ago, there are bound to be differences.
 
D: I think you are confusing [the issues]. The historical facts
say that Aurangzeb destroyed half the temple and built the
mosque, which was known as the Gyaneshwar mosque. On that
background, is it not that Muslims today, as a good will gesture,
should return the site to Hindus? Second question - because of
what the Hindu raja, actually he was a sardar, did by asking
Aurangzeb to demolish the temple, is that a justification to keep
it continuing today?
 
A: That's what I am saying, that there can't be a single answer
to it. That will depend on one's point of view - whether there is
justification or no justification. I mean, you say that by way of
good will, if it is given, it would be better for our society,
there I can agree with you. But, that should be in *that* spirit
- Hindus & Muslims should sit together and resolve this problem
once and for all. If Hindus say first that we have a list of 300
mosques, then they say they have a list of 3,000 mosques, then
they say they have a list of 30,000 mosques, [then] nobody will
ever agree to hand over sites like that. This is nothing but
bullying. So, in a democracy, you just can't bully a community.
Sit together, have a dialogue and as a measure of good will, if
Muslims agree to hand over, ...
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
-Srinivas				budaraju@cae.wisc.edu