From: ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: ISLAMIC WORLD NEWS (21st)
Date: 22 Jul 92 05:38:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.wePKHEG00VAw0By0pG
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


I'm not sure that anybody takes the ISLAMIC WORLD NEWS seriously;
in case they do, some corrections are in order.

>From: imnet2@max.u.washington.edu
>Subject: ISLAMIC WORLD NEWS (21st)
>Date: 22 Jul 92 05:40:44 GMT

>INDIA
>There is an uproar in the Indian parliament; the Allahabad High Court has
>ordered the fanatic Hindus to stop their construction activity but
>they have ignored all these developments.
>Hindu fanatics, backed by the Bharatiya Janata Party that rules in the
>state of Uttar Pradesh, are proceeding with building their illegal
>temple on the site where the Babri Masjid currently stands.

At the moment the construction is on a adjoining site. If the construction
continues as intended, then it will encroach on the Babri Masjid.

>The Indian high court has ordered that no alterations to the site be
>made  until the court's investigations are complete.

The Indian Supreme Court has ordered that no permanent structure be made
on and around the site.

>The Hindu fanatics have completely ignore the court order. The Central
>government in Delhi has only one choice: it must either use troops to
>enforce the court order or face the prospect of wholesale violations
>of the Indian constitution.

It also has the option of dismissing the state government of Uttar Pradesh,
under article 356 (?) of the Indian Constitution. This presumably will
help bringing the construction to a halt.

>For the estimate 150 million Muslims of India, the message is clear: there
>is no hope for them to get any justice from any institution in India.
>The whole notion of India as a democracy and a secular State lies in
>shambles.

How is that so ? The mosque still stands !

A minor point is that as any Pakistani will insist, Pakistan has more Muslims
than India. The Pakistani population is 120 million. A better estimate for
the number of Muslims in India is 110 million. (The 40 million difference is
greater than the population of many countries.)
>
>BACKGROUND TO THE BABRI MASJID/RAM TEMPLE CONTROVERSY IN INDIA
>
>On July 9, Hindu fanatics started construction work on a Hindu temple
>at the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, UP, India. The Hindus
>are acting in contravention of a High Court order banning any
>alterations to the existing site until an inquiry into the claims and
>couter-claims is complete.
>The Hindus' provocative move has created an uproar in the Indian
>parliament. It has also raised the question that if Hindu fanatics can
>disregard a court order with impunity, how can minorities in India have
>any faith in the government or the judicial system.
>What precisely is the problem?
>The Hindus claim that the site where the 450-year-old Babri Masjid stands
>today, is the birth-place of their mythical god, Rama, and that a temple

Rama is as mythical as Allah.

>once stood there. The Babri Masjid, as its name suggests, was built by
>the Mughal emperor, Babar who ruled India from 1526 to 1530. Clearly, the
>Hindu claim means that the temple must have been destroyed before a masjid
>was built there.
>Is there any evidence to back this claim?

There are two issues here:
(i) was a temple destroyed to build a mosque on the site ?
(ii)was the site an ancient holy site for Hindus ?

The answer to (i) is `maybe'. Dr. Hans Bakker, of the Institute of Advanced
Studies in Netherlands, whose Ph.D. thesis is on the history of Ayodhya,
for example, concludes `yes', (though he does present the arguments against.)

The best argument that a temple existed on the site are some of the
stone pillars in the mosque, that could have come only from a temple.
(There is a long history of mosques being built from the remains of Hindu
temples demolished by Muslim conquerors.)

The answer to (ii) is equally difficult to determine. Dr Bakker, for example,
believes that the temple that existed on the site dates back to the 12th
century. Moreover, the location of the site doesn't quite match with the
assumed location of other sites from the ancient texts of Ayodhya geography.

There is evidence that Hindus were given permission in the Mughal Emperor
Akbar's time (Babur's grandson, 16th century ) to worship at a platform in
the mosque compound, and that there was an annual festival on the day
celebrated as Ram's birthday.

>Four prominent Indian historians reported to the home ministry last year
>that there is no historical or archaeological evidence to suggest that
>any spot in Ayodhya was venerated as the birthplace of the Hindu mythical
>god-king Rama before the 18th century.

So, this is not true.

>The "legend" that a temple on
>the site of Rama's birth had been destroyed was first mooted in the
>second half of the 18th century but was not claimed until the 19th
>century.
>Since the early 1980s, this campaign has been led by the Hindu religious
>group, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. It now has the backing of the Hindu
>fascist party, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), which has as its aim, the
>conversion of all Muslims to Hinduism.
No, the BJP has the aim of declaring India a Hindu nation, just like
Muslim majority countries aspire to be Islamic nations. This doesn't
mean that all citizens must convert to the state religion, any more than
it does in Muslim countries.

>Failing that, it demands their expulsion from India. The BJP currently heads
>the state government in Uttar Pradesh where Ayodhya is located.
>Indian historians, including their two most important professional bodies,
>the Indian History Congress and the Indian Council of Historical Research,
>categorically refute the Rama temple as mere "myth" or that there is any
>historical or scientific evidence to prove that the Babri Masjid stands
>on the site of a demolished temple.

>Rama temple propagandists, however, insist that this is a matter of Hindu
>BELIEF and thus not open to any historical probe or even judicial
>investigation. It is almost like the belief of the Flat-earthers; no
>amount of evidence can convince them that the earth is round.

They have some amount of evidence, not enough to be conclusive.
Moreover, they do not have an answer to: why all the bother ?
Demolishing the mosque, and taking over the site:
(i) does not solve any of India's economic,social or political problems.
(ii)there are sites of equal sacredness to Hindus for which there is
indisputable evidence of having been destroyed by Muslims and having
mosques replace temples. If the aim of the exercise, as claimed is to
get symbolic redress for the wrongs of past Muslim conquerors, then
why not have a less controversial site ?
(iii) is there really any need even for (ii) ?

>Muslims, meanwhile, have reiterated their readiness to accept the
>judgement of the high court looking into the case.
>After the bloody events of October 1990, when Hindu fanatics tried to
>storm and demolish the mosque, then prime minister V P Singh's government
>collapsed because the BJP withdrew its support from him in parliament.
>The new government headed by Chandra Shekhar, endeavoured to mediate
>between Muslim and Hindu leaders in talks convened by the home ministry
>but reached no solution.
>After the last round of talks between the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the
>All-India Masjid Action Committee, the home ministry ordered experts from
>each side to submit reports to the government. That was in January 1991.
>The Muslims sought a six-week period in which to prepare and submit their
>report. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad objected to this time period.
>The Muslims, however, submitted their report, the Hindus have done
>no such thing, insisting instead that their position is based on their
>belief.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad did release a long report on the evidence for
their case. I spent a large amount of time examining the claims made in
that document, from which this note stems.

>The Indian government, too, is not playing it straight. For
>instance, it has refused to make available the full report of professor
>B. B. Lal's excavations in Ayodhya conducted a few years ago. He concluded
>that the present-day Ayodhya is not linked to the legendary pre-historic
>capital of Rama.

Actually, B.B. Lal concluded quite the opposite, and it is his work that
the Vishwa Hindu Parishad uses extensively to support their claim. The VHP
would claim that the govt. doesn't release his excavation-log-notebooks
etc. (his published articles are available to all) because it supports
their case.

>On May 13, 1991, the four prominent Indian historians submitted their
>independent report. The four included: professor R S Sharma, former chairman
>of the Indian Council of Historical Research, professor Suraj Bhan, head
>of archaeology at the University of Kurukshetra, professor Athar Ali,
>formerly of Aligarh Muslim University, and professor D N Jha of
>Delhi University.
>In their 36-page report, these experts pointed out that in A. Fuhrer's
>1891 list of monumental antiquities and inscriptions in the northeast
>province and Oudh [in India], he designated the Babri Masjid as a
>class II monument. He said that it was "in the possession of private
>bodies and individuals" and suggested that it be saved from
>"further decay".
>The Babri Masjid was a protected monument under the Ancient Monument Act
>of 1904, re-legislated in 1958. As such it is part of the country's common
>national heritage which "under law, the government must save and preserve
>as a fully protected monument."

True.

>The historians and archaeologists maintain that the mosque is a
>"significant example of Sharqi architecture."
It has become a "significant" piece of architecture only after the
recent uproar. The older books on Mughal architecture in India only
mention it to give a complete listing of Mughal works; it is not
otherwise noteworthy.

>As it was built nearly
>450 years ago, it is the duty of the government to protect and preserve
>it. They maintain that a country is judged by how it treats its past and
>that if India has any love for its cultural heritage and "if we have
>any respect for historical facts and if we want to uphold the law", the
>monument must be preserved.
This I agree with. Whatever it is that happened back then is over and done
with. No need to mess up today as well.


>The rumour that a temple on the site had been destroyed spread only after
>1890. It became immersed in the progressive reconstruction of "imagined
>history" based on faith rather than facts, the report concludes and asks,
>should the people of India be carried away by "dubious evidence" presented
>by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to support its case?

In the 1850s there was a big outbreak of violence in Ayodhya over another
temple; this time it was Muslims claiming it as the former site of a mosque.
(The British used this as an excuse to depose the ruler of the region.)

Several books were written at that time by Muslims, who in their bid to
humiliate Hindus at that time, wrote a story about how the Babri Masjid
had been built by demolishing a Hindu temple that stood on the site.
Their books claim to be drawing on local tradition and histories now
non-existent. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad uses quotes from these to support
its case !

In any case, its clear that the first sentence is not true. Muslims have
been as responsible for the second as Hindus.
>The historians quote Francis Buchanan who visited Ayodhya in 1810 and
>recorded legends that temples in the area had been destroyed by Mughal
>emperor Aurangzeb. He commented that this was obviously "ill-founded"
>since the inscription on the mosque clearly shows that it was built five
>generations before Aurangzeb's time [Babar ruled India from 1526 to 1530;
>Aurangzeb ruled from 1658 to 1707].

That Aurangzeb did demolish temples and erected mosques on at least two
sites associated with Rama is indisputable.(See Fuhrer, as quoted above.)
The Babri Masjid, of course, does have the inscriptions mentioned, and had
nothing to do with Aurangzeb.
>For a full 220 years after the construction of the Babri Masjid, no
>description of Ayodhya mentioned that it was the precise site of Rama's
>birth or that a holy structure or temple at the spot had been destroyed.
>Both Hindus and Muslims of that period supported this evidence and
>Europeans recorded the same observations.
>Between 1695 and 1696, Sujan Rai Bhandari completed his work titled
>"Khulasatul Tawarikh" in which he concentrated on holy places. When
>referring to Mathura, he mentioned that its temple of Keshav Raj had been
>destroyed by Aurangzeb who had built a mosque in its place. But his
>account of Ayodhya does not refer to any destroyed temple although he
>mentions Rama's legend associated with the city.
>The historians have also pointed out that the "Skanda Purana" mentions
>that Rama's ashes were buried at the spot in Ayodhya known as Swarga Dwara,
>but does not mention the exact spot of his birth.
>Within 50 years of the construction of the Babri Masjid, Tulidas, a famous
>Hindu historian, wrote his celebrated "Rama chartmanas", the story of
>Ramayana, in Hindi. He would surely have grieved over the destruction of
>a temple dedicated to Rama if it had happened barely a generation
>earlier.
>His silence suggests that no such event had ever taken place.
>The report dismissed the various assertions of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad
>and the "imagined history" that black stone columns from the destroyed
>temple were used in building the mosque. Despite several reminders to
>the government, professor Lal's report on the Ayodhya excavations were
>not produced for the historians, who criticized this failure.
>The historians came to four broad conclusions in their report:
>1: No evidence exists in the texts of evidence that before the 16th century
>   (and indeed before the 18th century), any veneration was attached
>   to any spot in Ayodhya for being the birthplace or site of Rama.
>2: There are no grounds for supposing that a Rama temple, or any temple
>   for that matter, existed at the site where the masjid was built in
>   1528-1529.
>3: The "legend" that the Babri Masjid occupied the site of Rama's birth
>   did not arise until the late 18th century; that a temple was destroyed
>   to build a masjid was not asserted until the beginning of the 19th
>   century.
>4: The "full-blown legend" of the destruction of the temple at the site of
>   Rama's birth and "Siti Ki Rasoi" appeared as late as the 1850s.
>
>It is interesting to note that at least a thousand temples in Ayodhya
>are already consecrated to Rama. Three of them even claim to be on the
>site where Rama was allegedly born.
>Surely even a Hindu god cannot be born in three different places all
>at once?
>Tell this to the Hindu fanatics who are bent on destroying the Babri
>Masjid. They want more; they have 3,000 other mosques targeted for
>destruction throughout India.
Having commented on the above points already, I desist.

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu