From: budaraju@cae.wisc.edu (Srinivas Budaraju)
Subject: Babri Mosque - some background - 10/10
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 11 Dec 92 15:27:51 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. VHP'S FORMULA FOR PEACE ?

D: Coming back to the communal situation, if Hindus accepted the
3 sites and not demanded any more mosques, do you think that this
is a good formula for peace in India?
 
A: I don't think we should talk of 3 temples. We should talk of
BM and that also through dialogue and not through threats. I
don't think right now the question of 3 temples arises. Right now
the question is of BM/RJB, because so much passion has been
aroused by that.  I mean, in Krishna Janam Bhoomi and temple in
Kashi, ...
 
D: In Krishna Janam Bhumi (KJB) there is Darga, and no mosque.
 
A: No, there is Eidga.
 
D: What is the difference between Darga and Eidga?
 
A: Eidga is a place where Eid prayers are offered. Darga is a
shrine where some saint is buried. So, as far as KJB is
concerned, Hindus and Muslims of Mathura have said that there
will be a temple and there will be eidga also. VHP is trying to
create a dispute there. Local Hindus and Muslims, they have no
problem with eidga or temple and both sides have reconciled in
brotherly spirit. We should be happy about it instead of trying
to create a dispute there. Right now RJB/BM has aroused passions
really. So, my view is that it should be resolved peacefully. It
may take time. No party should be in a hurry to claim or reclaim.
They should show patience and political wisdom.
 
D: One criticism was that the case was in the courts for 40 years
and the government did not bother to resolve the issue.
 
A: So, fight with the government. Don't fight with other
religious communities.
 
D: And the government took the case to the court regarding the
Title. Last 350 years, the Title was owned by the Muslims.
 
      FAITH VERSUS FACTS
 
A: Allahabad High Court is trying to debate the issues it should
take for judgement.  They resolved this issue or not, I do not
know. But, the Court can resolve only the issue of Title not of
birth of Ram, because according to some historians Ram is a
mythical figure. He may not be a real person in history. So, how
can this issue be resolved? Let Hindus have faith, there is
nothing wrong ..
 
D: Just like Virgin Mary or revelation of Quran?
 
A: Here, you have to make a distinction. See, there is a
difference where you have faith and where you should respect
facts. You may have faith that Ram is God, but ..
 
D: Let me make it clear. Personally, I don't believe Ram is God.
I believe Ram is a national hero.  That is all.
 
A: You may not believe, but I am talking about those who venerate
him as Bhagwan. Now, believing Ram was God is a matter of faith.
But, whether Ram was born there or not is a matter of fact. Now,
belief in the Prophet is a matter of faith, but whether Mohammad
was a historical person or not is a matter of fact.
 
The fact is that Quran is there, whether it is revealed or not is
a matter of faith. But if Quran had not existed at all and you
talked of having faith in Quran, then it is meaningless. That's
what I tell my Hindu brothers, don't say that it is a matter of
faith that Ram was born there. Such a thing can't be a matter of
faith. Ram was God, that is a matter of faith.  But Ram was born
there or not is a matter of fact, which will be decided on
concrete proof.  For that no proof is available. So, you are
saying that Ram was born there, I don't think it is justified.
 
D: Archeological Department, Dr. Lal, conducted the survey from
1975-80 at the RJB site, he didn't go into the mosque, at the
surrounding area, they found some temple structure.
 
A: There is controversy. I have also gone through the report of
the Archeological Survey. I included it in the book I edited on
RJB. I have also gone through other historians' account, and
there is even debate whether Ayodhya ever existed there, let
alone RJB.
 
D: In JNU [report], there are no references, footnotes or page
numbers.
 
A: No, that was a public statement. That statement was based on
their research. In a public statement, you don't mention names of
books and authors. That was not meant for scholars, it was meant
for the public.
 
D: But they haven't published any paper on that.
 
A: They may not have published, that does not mean that the
public statement is wrong.
 
D: In four medieval Muslim books, destruction of temple and
construction of mosque was clearly mentioned.
 
A: I don't think there is any medieval Muslim historian who
mentioned it.  You know, they are citing much later historians,
and that too they are basing on, it was known as RJB mosque; they
are basing more on such things, rather than any serious data
available on those books. I am fully aware of these sources.
 
D: Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-Srinivas				budaraju@cae.wisc.edu