[Prev][Next][Index]
Ayodhya debate on SCI, 5
=========================================================================
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 11:24:58 EST
From: Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <95055.112458DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Ayodhys Temple/Mosque dispute 4
References: <95048.101550DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> <3i77p5$amm@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
<95050.182132DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> <3if31q$852@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
<95054.151431DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> <95054.210158DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Mr Farooq continues:
>To reiterate what I have said
>earlier, I do not consider it unethical to build a mosque on the
>site of a temple in ruins.
Why? Please explain. You have claimed that in Ayodhya there are tons of such
sites (empty sites), then why someone has to build a mosque only on the site
which has been held in high esteem by the local Hindu population. Why didn't he
build a mosque on one of those other 'tons' of empty sites? Why on this parti-
cular one? And please do not quote from Marxist historians' propaganda manuals,
I am interested (to borrow your terminology) the hard evidence. Also do not
bore us from Shahabuddin type logics and perverted interpretations.
And also please quote from the 'reliable' sources to prove that there was a
temple in ruins prior to the construction of the mosque over it. Show us any
evidence! Do not just indulge in surmises, wild conjectures, infantile
interpretations of documentary evidence, etc. I have yet to see in your unend-
ing posts, any sort of evidence to prove that 'the mosque was built on an empty
site which was not held as the Janamsthan of Rama by the Hindus' or that
mosque was built after 'not destroying an existing Hindu temple". I have
in my last two parts of this series have furnished 'tons' of evidence to
prove that a Hindus temple was destroyed at the orders of Babar and a mosque
was built using the temple material, and the site has been held in high esteem
by Hindus as the birth-place of Lord Rama. Now the ball is in your court to
prove otherwise. You can produce any number of paragraphs or long documentary
evidences in support of your views. But do not post the crap coming out from
JNU or Aligarh Muslim university's leftist historians. I have already seen
all that.
>The common man's point of view:
>
>I think that from the common mans point of view, the temple or the
>mosque have very little real significance. I have mentioned
>earlier that the Babri masjid has no particular religious significance for
>the muslims.
Is that right, that the Babri masjid has no prticular religious significance
for Muslims? Please tell this to Shahabuddin and Bukhari, you will be branded
as RSS wala, and why in that case even a proposal of shifting the structure
brick by brick was not accepted? And didn't you in earlier part of your
response wrote 'Babri masjid is the symbol of Muslim history and identity' and
now you are claiming it has no particular religious significance. Which Farooq
we have to believe? Does the religious significance have nothing to do with
'muslim history and identity'?
>Mr. Agrawal and I have
>agreed that most people outside of Ayodhya did'nt even know about
>the Babri masjid until the violence, and the ludicrous rath yatras, etc.
>started.
No, not the Rath Yatras, but most people outside Ayodhya came to know about
the reality of the situation only after the opening of the lock and publicising
of this event on the national print and electronic media, the formation of
babri Action Committee and the call to Muslims for the boycott of Republic day
celebration by Shahabuddin and other Babri leaders, only after this the issue
turned into a national and pan-Islamic one. Rath Yatras etc. came much later.
>The Political aspect:
>
>It is clear that all political parties have played a pernicious role in
>this matter. I personally feel that Shahabuddin started it, though
>people disagree. But the biggest player, and also the biggest winner in
>this whole gambit was the BJP, which for its own petty gains did
>incalculable damage to the communal harmony in India. Now 50 years later,
>when the wounds of partition were beginning to heal this was a fresh
>gash that has definitely sent us back.
>
>The congress which was in power, bears a large share of the blame for
>permitting the destruction of the mosque. I dont know which
>is worse, if it was a willing accomplice to it, or it was so incompetent
>that it could'nt prevent it. I tend to incline towards the former
>explanation.
>
>I think Mr. Agrawal and I both agree that all the political parties
>played a role in this game. However, I hold that the BJP did the
>most damage to the cause of hindu-muslim communal harmony.
I strongly disagree with you. It became a communal issue on national level when
Rajiv Gandhi initiated its politicisation in 1986, though whosoever visited the
place prior to the current phase of the liberation of Ramjanambhoomi in 1983,
had always felt disgust and indignancy after seeing that symbol of Hindus'
humilition and religious intolerance of a foreign invador. Such feelings
were merely lying dormant in the psyche of Hindus for centuries, and these got
manifested as the movement got momentum and all the characters (political part-
ies, communal leaders etc.) only played their roles. I would give the maximum
credit for the success of Ayodhya movement to Mr Shahabuddin, Mulayam Singh
Yadav and VP Singh, and not BJP or VHP.
>Is there a solution?
>
>Before the destruction of the mosque, there were many solutions
>suggested but two of them held particular appeal to me:
>
>1) Someone offered to shift the mosque brick by brick, since it
>was only the site that was precious to the hindus and the muslims
>did'nt care about the site.
Such wisdom is dawning only now when the sructure is gone, earlier the
argument against this proposal was, once a mosque always a mosque, the site
belongs to Allah and is as much sacred for Muslims as the structure. Mr.
Farooq, these are the contributing factors which had vitiated the atmosphere
and caused to aggravate the disharmony between Hindus and Muslims. Don't you
think that for the sake of communal harmony, Muslims could have sacrificed
such an insignificant (to use your own description of the site and structure)
site, when Hindus have been always accomodating and considerate for
almost all their religious whether reasonable or unreasonable, demands?
Even now this can be done, if people really care to live in harmony. Such
a single gesture will go in a long way to establish long lasting communal
harmony and peace.
Dinesh Agrawal...
