“Whatever be the verdict of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title suit, the matter will not be settled till the collective desire of the Hindus to rebuild the Ram temple is fulfilled.” – R. Balashankar
Sri Ram is not just worshipped as an incarnation, but is widely regarded as the singular identity of Indian culture, an ideal to follow. The Ram Janmabhoomi dispute started in 1528 when invader Babar’s governor Mir Baqi demolished the existing temple there and built the structure named after his master. This act was meant to humiliate the invaded. Since then, for the last 482 years, Hindus have repeatedly tried to liberate the holy land and the struggle continues.
Whatever be the verdict of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title suit, the matter will not be settled till the collective desire of the Hindus to rebuild the Ram temple is fulfilled.
The fact that the fight for the liberation of the janmasthan has continued for nearly 500 years clearly shows that the issue has a life beyond politics. This issue was not the creation of either the Vishwa Hindu Parishad or the Bharatiya Janata Party. The Sangh affiliates entered the fray only after 1984.
Two archaeological excavations on the site by the Archaeological Survey of India have proved the demolition of the temple to build the Babri structure. Since 1949, the place was under the occupation of Rambhakts and no Muslim prayer was offered there. There is, in fact, no Muslim habitation around the area. The site has no religious or sentimental value for Muslims. In the Islamic tradition, a mosque is not built in the name of an individual and since this was a Shia place of worship, the Sunni Waqf Board’s claim is not justifiable because the two communities do not worship at each other’s mosques.
Faith, history, archaeology and logic support the rebuilding of the temple. Ram Janmabhoomi issue will agitate the Hindu devotees till a grand temple is built in Ayodhya where Sri Ram was born. It was the depth of the public sentiment and popular support that forced the Congress government to open the lock in 1984 and later allow the Shilanyas for the temple. We are still discussing the issue because it is relevant and will continue to haunt the mass psyche as long as the idol of Sri Ram remains in a makeshift temple.
The massive security mobilisation and excessive media attention on the court verdict in spite of the contending parties keeping a low profile only demonstrate that the issue is relevant today.
Ayodhya is not a religious, sectarian issue. It is an issue of national pride and conscience. – Deccan Chronicle, Chennai, Sept. 30, 2010
» R. Balashankar is the editor of Organiser Weekly
Related references
- The evidence at Ayodhya – N.S. Rajaram
- The Rediif.com Ayodhya-related articles list
- The Ayodhya evidence debate–1 – Koenraad Elst
- The Ayodhya evidence debate–2 – Koenraad Elst
- Hindu Temples: What happened to them, Vol. 1 – Arun Shourie, Harsh Narain, Jay Debashi, Ram Swarup & Sita Ram Goel
- Hindu Temples: What happened to them: The Islamic evidence, Vol. 2 – Sita Ram Goel
- Jihad: The Islamic doctrine of permanent war – Suhas Majumdar
- The legacy of Muslim rule in India – K.S. Lal
Filed under: india | Tagged: archaeological survey of india, ASI, ayodhya, culture, god, hindu, hinduism, hindutva, history, indian history, muslims, national identity, politics, rama, ramjanmabhumi, sri rama |
Times of India, Mumbai, Oct 9, 2010, 03.07am IST
How Allahabad HC exposed ‘experts’ espousing Masjid cause -Abhinav Garg,
Read more: How Allahabad HC exposed ‘experts’ espousing Masjid cause – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-HC-exposed-experts-espousing-Masjid-cause/articleshow/6716643.cms#ixzz11xsZ1VjK
NEW DELHI: The role played by “independent experts” — historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim — has come in for criticism by one of the Allahabad High Court judges in the Ayodhya verdict.
While the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed objections raised by the experts to the presence of a temple, it was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny.
Most of these experts deposed twice. Before the ASI excavations, they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and, after the site had been dug up, they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa. During lengthy cross-examination spread over several pages and recorded by Justice Agarwal, the historians and experts were subjected to pointed queries about their expertise, background and basis for their opinions.
To the court’s astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, found themselves withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displaying an “ostrich-like attitude” to facts.
He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were all connected — one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.
Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal deposed “whatever knowledge I gained with respect
to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told” (other experts). She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute “after reading newspaper reports and on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department.” Supriya Verma, another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not
read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation. She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar.
Verma and Jaya Menon alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not present at the time the actual excavation took place.
Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the “introduction” to the book of another expert who deposed, Professor Mandal. She admitted she had no field experience.
“Normally, courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not, but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements…” the judge has noted.
He said opinions had been offered without making a proper investigation, research or study in the subject. The judge said he was “startled and puzzled” by contradictory statements. When expert witness Suraj Bhan deposed on the Babri mosque, the weight of his evidence was contradicted by anotherexpert for Muslim parties, Shirin Musavi, who told the court that Bhan “is an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history”.
Justice Agarwal referred to signed statements issued by experts and noted that “instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tends to create more complications, conflict and controversy.” He pointed out that experts carry weight with public opinion. “One cannot say that though I had made a statement but I am not responsible for its authenticity since it is not based on my study or research but what I have learnt from what others have uttered,” Justice Aggarwal has said, emphasising the need for thorough original research before concurring with what someone else has claimed.
Read more: How Allahabad HC exposed ‘experts’ espousing Masjid cause – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-HC-exposed-experts-espousing-Masjid-cause/articleshow/6716643.cms#ixzz11xsDnCDE
LikeLike
Faith, history, archaeology and logic support the rebuilding of the Ram temple ? R. Balashankar…
I found your entry interesting so I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…
LikeLike
Whatever be the court verdict in this regard,the matter is respect of judiciary by people ofsecular& democratic india.my opinion in this concern is that if the site is awarded to muslims they should give it to hindus or vicevdersa to display secular & humanitarian character as a goodwill gesture towards one nation one fraternity.
LikeLike
“There is, in fact, no Muslim habitation around the area. The site has no religious or sentimental value for Muslims.”
This statement by Dr. Balashankar (in the article above) has more value than it is usually given.
Whatever the legalities of the Ayodhya dispute, the fact is that Ayodhya town and the Ramjanmabhumi hillock has no religious, cultural, civilizational, or social value to Muslims at all. Their claim on the disputed site has no moral value whatsoever.
That Muslim representatives have refused to withdraw their claim on the site, exhibits an extremely perverse mentality. They want to fight and will use any excuse to pick a fight with Hindus.
If Muslim leaders had any conscience or ethics, they would not only withdraw their spurious claim on the Ranjanmabhumi site but they would make an abject apology for all the thousands of temples destroyed by their co-religionists over the centuries.
Ayodhya has been a Hindu pilgrimage town for centuries (if not millenia). Muslims have no claim there. None at all.
The so-called Babri Masjid was built by Mir Baqi as a victory monument to intimidate the local Hindu population. It is inconceivable that a proud, independent Indian nation, which is civilizationally a Hindu nation — even if the secularists and other intellectual criminals pretend otherwise — would continue to allow such a provocative and demeaning structure to remain standing.
When I made this argument in late 1992 to N. Ram, the brown sahib who is editor of The Hindu, when he had arrived unannounced on my doorstep (and had refused to identify himself except to say that his name was Ram), he became furiously angry and stomped out of the room. “No use talking to you,” he shouted, and left with his token Muslim companion in tow.
LikeLike