HOME
: | SPECIAL NOTE : Please feel free to share and publish any of my articles, and kindly credit the author, thank you.

PROFILES - Google-12 Million | Personal | Interfaith Speaker : OldNew | Muslim Speaker : OldNew | Motivational Speaker | CV

Showing posts with label Ayodhya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ayodhya. Show all posts

Monday, December 16, 2013

Babri Masjid: Lack of leadership among Hindus

By Mike Ghouse

Published at http://twocircles.net/2013dec13/babri_masjid_lack_leadership_among_hindus.html

Twenty one years ago, on December 6, 1992, the hypocrite Indians who call India their mother, ripped her apart. Not only they hurt the other children of that mother but destroyed their historic symbol; Babri Masjid.
Do we have a leader among Indians who considers every Indian to be an Indian, and nothing but an Indian?
In August of 2003, ten years ago, I talked about Ayodhya; here is clip from Mark Donald's Across the Divide in Dallas Observer, a lead story for that week.

“Ayodhya. It is an issue a lot of Indian-Americans shun talking about," Ghouse tells his radio audience. "But we must talk about it. We only know some aspects of the issue. When we learn all aspects, it brings some sort of resolution. It settles the dust in our minds, and when the dust settles, it gives clarity, peace of mind. It gives you freedom from the bondage of your prejudice."

On this issue, however, Ghouse can't resist offering his own opinion. He sees the problem as political rather than religious, exploited by Hindu extremists within the BJP to solidify their power. His idea is to defuse the problem through conciliation. "My suggestion is that Muslims should offer the land to build a temple for Ram. That is what a majority of Muslims in India feel. That is what a majority of Hindus feel. Let's not fight over an issue that is not going to help my children get education or get food on the table.

Quickly, he gulps some water and wipes a thin layer of sweat from his brow. "I will take your calls now. I will take all opinions, no matter how extreme, no matter how calm, no matter how agitated. All opinions are welcome."


The legitimate fear that holds Muslims from putting an end to this conflict is really not the land; it is the bent of the extremist politicians who want to dupe the common Hindus into believing that, to be a Hindu, one has to be anti-Muslim.

Of course India’s pluralistic ethos is deeper and has a solid foundation for the majority of Hindus to fall into the extremist politician’s trap, who want to wipe out everything that is Muslim. Thank God that is not the view of Hindu majority. However, the ones who scream the loudest get the hearing and corrupt the goodness of an average Hindu.

There are millions of Muslims out there who would want to live in harmony with every Indian regardless of his religion, caste or linguistic heritage, and that has been the tradition. Many of us want to be a part of building the Ram Temple and let go of the Mosque, but the blood thirsty politicians will not be satisfied with it, there is no end to their demands, they want more, and more and every pound of flesh from Muslims.
This is what is holding the nation. Do we have a leader among BJP who considers every Indians to be an Indian – no matter what that Indian eats, drinks, wears or believes? Do we have a Hindu leader who can rack up support to put an end to the harassment of Muslims, Christians, Dalits and other minorities in their daily conversations? Do we have a leader whose word is an iron clad guarantee that if Muslims walk away from Babri Masjid, they will not be pushed to give more and more? If there is a mai ka laal son of Bharat Mata, come forward, it will put an end to the conflict and we all can live our own lives and mind our own business.

The Indian Muslims are sick of the blame and the ugly comments hurled at them about India's partition, attacks of Ghazni on Somnath or the cruelties and Massacres of Aurangzeb. Many a parents teach their children to hate, and build biases against Muslims. It is not good for any one.

The Muslims of independent India are not responsible for the Partition, attacks of Ghazni or cruelty of Aurangzeb, just as the present day Hindus are not responsible for the past cruelties towards untouchables and burning of widows. This must be clearly understood and taught to bring Mukti (freedom) to both Hindus and Muslims from the bondage of the past.

Deep down, all humans seek justice and a balance in life, and without it, they are lost in sectarian warfare. As a member of the civilized nations, we need to collectively work towards building a cohesive India, where no Indian has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of the other -- an India where everyone is free to eat, drink, wear and believe whatever suits him/her.

What we need is trust building steps and Indians taking responsibility for their commitments. The Civility of a nation is measured by how she treats her women, children, and the ones in ditches, the minorities and the voiceless. An Australian professor shot back and wanted to know India's record.

Neither Indian, nor Australian or American system will score 100 in civility, but certainly it has the structure to contribute towards that goal, and if the rule of law prevails.

As a solution, India has offered reservations in jobs, and education system to those economically backward and those in the ditches to uplift them, we still have Sachar Report's recommendations to be implemented to uplift Muslims. We have to pull every one up from the ditches to a point from which they will be competitive. Harassment and Oppression of women continues female infanticide is a daily occurrence.

However, India's laws are equitable, the knowledge of which has not permeated into the whole society, nor its implementation occurs. Thanks to the internet and social media, the society will eventually monitor itself. You can be who you want to be in India. It’s a tough battle, but legally, our path is paved.
--
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer. He can be reached at www.TheGhousediary.com.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

India's conflict: Babri Masjid Ram Janambhoomi is a leadership issue, Hai koi Mai ka Lal?

India's conflict: Babri Masjid Ram Janambhoomi is a leadership issue, Hai koi Mai ka Lal? (Is there a true son of Mother Bharat?)

URL - http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/12/indias-conflict-babri-masjid-ram.html

Twenty one years ago today on December 6, 2013, the hypocrite Indians who call India their mother, ripped her apart.  Not only did they hurt the other children of that mother but destroyed their historic symbol; Babri Masjid.   

Do we have a leader among Indians who considers every Indian to be an Indian, and nothing but an Indian?

In August of 2003, ten years ago, I talked about Ayodhya; here is clip from Mark Donald's Across the Divide in Dallas Observer, a lead story for that week.

“Ayodhya. It is an issue a lot of Indian-Americans shun talking about," Ghouse tells his radio audience. "But we must talk about it. We only know some aspects of the issue. When we learn all aspects, it brings some sort of resolution. It settles the dust in our minds, and when the dust settles, it gives clarity, peace of mind. It gives you freedom from the bondage of your prejudice."

On this issue, however, Ghouse can't resist offering his own opinion. He sees the problem as political rather than religious, exploited by Hindu extremists within the BJP to solidify their power. His idea is to defuse the problem through conciliation. "My suggestion is that Muslims should offer the land to build a temple for Ram. That is what a majority of Muslims in India feel. That is what a majority of Hindus feel. Let's not fight over an issue that is not going to help my children get education or get food on the table.

Quickly, he gulps some water and wipes a thin layer of sweat from his brow. "I will take your calls now. I will take all opinions, no matter how extreme, no matter how calm, no matter how agitated. All opinions are welcome."

The legitimate fear that holds Muslims from putting an end to this conflict is really not the land; it is the bent of the extremist politicians who want to dupe the common Hindus into believing that, to be a Hindu, one has to be anti-Muslim.






Of course India’s pluralistic ethos is deeper and has a solid foundation for the majority of Hindus to fall into the extremist politician’s trap, who want to wipe out everything that is Muslim. Thank God that is not the view of Hindu majority. However, the ones who scream the loudest get the hearing and corrupt the goodness of an average Hindu.

There are millions of Muslims out there who would want to live in harmony with every Indian regardless of his religion, caste or linguistic heritage, and that has been the tradition.  Many of us want to be a part of building the Ram Temple and let go of the Mosque, but the blood thirsty politicians will not be satisfied with it, there is no end to their demands, they want more, and more and every pound of flesh from Muslims.

This is what is holding the nation.  Do we have a leader among BJP who considers every Indians to be an Indian – no matter what that Indian eats, drinks, wears or believes? Do we have a Hindu leader who can rack up support to put an end to the harassment of Muslims, Christians, Dalits and other minorities in their daily conversations? Do we have a leader whose word is an iron clad guarantee that if Muslims walk away from Babri Masjid, they will not be pushed to give more and more? If there is a mai ka laal son of Bharat Mata, come forward, it will put an end to the conflict and we all can live our own lives and mind our own business.

The Indian Muslims are sick of the blame and the ugly comments hurled at them about India's partition, attacks of Ghazni on Somnath or the cruelties and Massacres of Aurangzeb. Many a parents teach their children to hate, and build biases against Muslims. It is not good for any one.

The Muslims of independent India are not responsible for the Partition, attacks of Ghazni or cruelty of Aurangzeb, just as the present day Hindus are not responsible for the past cruelties towards untouchables and burning of widows. This must be clearly understood and taught to bring Mukti (freedom) to both Hindus and Muslims from the bondage of the past.

Deep down, all humans seek justice and a balance in life, and without it, they are lost in sectarian warfare. As a member of the civilized nations, we need to collectively work towards building a cohesive India, where no Indian has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of the other -- an India where everyone is free to eat, drink, wear and believe whatever suits him/her.

Indeed, it is the battle for India's soul. I have offered many suggestions over the years and have hosted several radio talk shows including this one on August 29, 2003 at Dallas Observer.

What we need is trust building steps and Indians taking responsibility for their commitments. The Civility of a nation is measured by how she treats her women, children, and the ones in ditches, the minorities and the voiceless. An Australian professor shot back and wanted to know India's record.

Neither Indian, nor Australian or American system will score 100 in civility, but certainly it has the structure to contribute towards that goal, and if the rule of law prevails.

As a solution, India has offered reservations in jobs, and education system to those economically backward and those in the ditches to uplift them, we still have Sachar Report's recommendations to be implemented to uplift Muslims. We have to pull every one up from the ditches to a point from which they will be competitive. Harassment and Oppression of women continues female infanticide is a daily occurrence.

However, India's laws are equitable, the knowledge of which has not permeated into the whole society, nor its implementation occurs.  Thanks to the internet and social media, the society will eventually monitor itself. You can be who you want to be in India. It’s a tough battle, but legally, our path is paved.

We just need an Indian leader with the balls of Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, who can say, “From this day forward, I want all Indians to be with me for a common destiny and common good of every Indian. My fellow Indians who are Muslims are willing to walk away from Babri Masjid provided we will not demand and ask any more from them and change how we educate our children to treat every Indian with dignity.  Let’s put an end to the conflict and we all can live our own lives, take care of our families and be the best citizens we can be by caring for fellow humans.”  Is there an Indian politician who can say this?

 
Jai Hind

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com.
MORE ON THE TOPIC




















6 of 6 - AYODHYA, THE BATTLE FOR INDIA'S SOUL   




HUFFINGTON POST: INDIA’S FUTURE, NARENDRA MODI, MUSLIM AND MOVING FORWARD
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/indias-future-narendra-mo_b_4177079.html



DALLAS OBSERVER’S LEAD STORY – ACROSS THE DIVIDE
http://www.mikeghouse.net/aboutus/dallas-observer-on-mikeghouse.htm

................................................................................................................. .
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism
, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Janambhoomi-Babri Ayodhya - The Battle for India India's soul - 3

AYODHYA, THE BATTLE FOR INDIA'S SOUL - 3
URL: http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2012/12/ayodhya-battle-for-indias-soul-3.html


Thanks to Wall street Journal and Krishna Pokharel and Paul Beckett for writing the series on the topic, it is one of India's unfinished social business and needed to be addressed. The article follows my commentary.

 ......
 Here is Chapter 3 of the 6 on the Battle for India's soul. The authors Mr. Pokharel and Beckett have done a great job of storytelling,  I do hope, most of us Indians are reading this as objectively as it is written, first to understand the full complexity of it, then be ready to find a solution - that is both Hindus and Muslims can live with. Neither should be pushed around, historicity is not the issue; the issue is dealing with flared up emotions.

We are human, and one of the greatest telling in this story is the human spirit; no one wants to be pushed around, and no one wants to be cornered or dumped a decision on them.  Had the Planters of Ram Lallah consulted with Muslims, the outcome would have been different, as opposed to sneaking in the statue in to the Mosque, knowing well that was the wrong thing to do in the name of God.  Think about this, seriously think about this, if parties were called in to discuss with free choices, we probably would have found a solution long time back.  In national dialogues, people are called in to talk without conditions and it makes sense.

On the conversion front, it is a sour subject, it should not be.  We need to seriously think: Shouldn't we have complete freedom in what we drink, eat, wear or believe? What should be regulated is when we we steal, rape, lie,  murder, break the agreements or infringe upon each others right. Every Indian should be free to become a Hindu, Muslim, Christians, Atheist or whatever he or she chooses. Do you subscribe to this? Forget about others, do you subscribe to the idea of freedom?


Both Hindus and Muslims are agitated for lack of acceptable choice, of course, a few on both sides don't care about the other, it is their own feelings, a sense of security they care. Has that produced results? Justness is the only thing that binds and sustains a society in the long haul. We have to take the steps and decide, and hold on to the damned temptations to shove it on the other. We have to bring resolution to this, and cannot pass it on to the generation; lets' leave them to focus on prosperity and living their lives.


 As Patriotic Indians, who care about a better and peaceful India, not an India of harassing each other, we need to find an amicable solution, even if it takes a lot of pain and frustration. Once a decision is made with free and willing parties, the decision will last, and the next generation can focus on better things of life.

At this moment, if you feel like blaming one of the other, than you are the wrong person to be in the decision making process and need to let others do it for the sake of India and the future of next generation.


Jai Hind





Mike Ghouse for India's Pluralistic ethos
http://MikeGhouseforIndia.Blogspot.com

.............................................


Ayodhya, the Battle for India’s Soul: Chapter Three

By Krishna Pokharel and Paul Beckett
Courtesy - http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/12/05/ayodhya-the-battle-for-indias-soul-chapter-three/



Paul Beckett/The Wall Street Journal
A painting on a Muslim house in Meenakshipuram, Tamil Nadu. Click here to view related slideshow.
In the 1980s, the Ayodhya dispute escalated from a local issue to a national one. It fed, and was fed by, other points of tension in Indian politics and society that set Hindus and Muslims on a collision course over the span of the decade.
Each side came to feel that its religion and status in India was under threat – and both sides responded with political pressure and shows of force.
It started in 1981 in Meenakshipuram, an unremarkable village deep in the countryside of the southern state of Tamil Nadu, more than 2,000 kilometers from Ayodhya.


The village hit the national news when its low-caste Hindus – about 400 families, villagers say — converted, en masse, to Islam.


“We became Muslims to become equal,” said 65-year-old N. Hidayathullah, one of the converts, in an interview on the porch of his modest home, as a herd of goats wandered by.

The families had felt ill-treated by local upper-caste Hindus, he said. “Nobody told us to convert; it was our desire to be treated with respect,” he added.

**

Vishwa Hindu Parishad
Sadhus during the 1984 dharma sansad

At stake was more than belief: In India, how you worship defines your community, most likely your marriage and whom you vote for, your approach to life, and your identity.

In 1984, Hindu leaders responded to what they viewed as the threat of Islam emanating from the Meenakshipuram conversion.


About 500 sadhus — Hindu holy men — from across India gathered at Vigyan Bhavan, a government-owned conference center in New Delhi. They comprised a “dharma sansad,” or religious parliament.


The meeting was put together by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a conservative Hindu organization founded in the 1960s. The chief organizer was Ashok Singhal, then the VHP’s joint general secretary.
Krishna Pokharel/The Wall Street Journal
Ashok Singhal today
The son of a government official in Agra, home of the Taj Mahal, Mr. Singhal graduated with a degree in metallurgical engineering from Banaras Hindu University in 1950. Now 86 years old, he has worked to promote Hindu causes ever since. “Our culture is under siege,” he said in an interview at the VHP’s offices in New Delhi.

The religious parliament began with a song by a group of musicians. “This country’s soil is sacred,” they sang, according to a later account of the event published by the VHP. “Every girl is an image of a goddess, every boy is Ram.”


After a sadhu blew a conch shell, speeches began. Among the speakers was Karan Singh, a former minister in Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s cabinet. At the time, he was an independent member of Parliament. Courtly and soft-spoken, he is the son of the last Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir.


Mr. Singh was the founder of an organization to espouse the values of universal brotherhood and human welfare contained in the Vedas and Upanishads, Hindu sacred texts. He formed it in direct response to the events of Meenakshipuram, he said in an interview in the book-lined study of his Delhi mansion.


The mass conversion to Islam “was, first of all, a clear statement that the way Hinduism was functioning is not acceptable to a large number of people,” Mr. Singh said. At the time, the message was: “People are leaving because we are not following our principles.”


At the religious conference, Mr. Singh spoke about the need to reconnect individual life and politics with the tenets of Hinduism, and to rid society of the dowry system and the stigma of “untouchability” that relegated lower-caste Hindus to an underclass, according to the VHP’s account of the event. He also rued the fact that Hindu holy sites had been neglected.

Vishwa Hindu Parishad
Karan Singh, at the center, during 1984 dharma sansad

“We cannot even light a holy lamp” at Ram’s birthplace in Ayodhya, he told the sadhus. “How shameful a matter is it for 80% of this country’s residents who call themselves Hindus?”

The gathering issued a code of conduct for individuals, families and society. Its code for the country’s statesmen included the demand that three important holy sites be “given back to Hindu society.”


The Babri Masjid, the mosque in Ayodhya that many Hindus claimed was Lord Ram’s birthplace – “Ram Janmabhoomi” in Hindi — was top of the list.

Ram appealed to Hindus of all castes: one story recounted in the Ramayan, the text about his life, has him happily eating berries given to him by a lower-caste woman.


A few months after the religious parliament, the VHP followed up with a rally for devotees led by a motorized chariot. Hindu scripture says Ram rode a chariot into battle.


The rally started at Sitamarhi in Bihar in late September 1984. The district is believed by Hindus to be the place where Sita, Ram’s wife, emerged from the earth.

Vishwa Hindu Parishad
The 1984 rally from Sitamarhi to Ayodhya.

Thousands of the faithful joined the procession, which reached Ayodhya 12 days later. There, they descended to the banks of the Sarayu river, cupped its water in their palms and, according to several participants, took an oath.

The crowd totaled about 50,000 that day, according to Mr. Singhal of the VHP, who was among them. Similar oath-taking ceremonies were held at major rivers around the country.


The Hindus at the Sarayu that day wanted to go further than keeping a tiny statue of Ram inside the Babri Masjid. They wanted to build a house of worship where Ram sat: “We will give up everything to build Lord Ram’s temple at his birthplace,” they swore, according to several people who took part.


The organizers say they were surprised by the number of supporters. “People found that this is an agitation which will be successful,” Mr. Singhal said. “Such a large number of people came from small villages to witness and join the movement.”


A day later, the chariot started rolling again. But its journey was interrupted when, on Oct. 31, 1984, Mrs. Gandhi, the prime minister and Jawaharlal Nehru’s daughter, was shot dead at her New Delhi home by two Sikh bodyguards.


Soon, Ayodhya would become a defining issue for the country’s new leader: Mrs. Gandhi’s 40-year-old son, Rajiv.

**

Rajiv Gandhi was a political beginner. Eschewing politics, he worked as a pilot for Indian Airlines and married an Italian, Sonia Maino.

Agence France-Presse/Getty
Click here for an overview of key players in chapter three.

He was elected as a member of Parliament in 1981, following the death of his younger brother, Sanjay, in a plane crash. Soon after Mr. Gandhi succeeded his mother, he called for national elections. His Congress party won the biggest Parliamentary majority in India’s electoral history.

Mr. Gandhi brought the promise of a new kind of Indian leader. He was young and interested in promoting technology. Within months, however, he was deeply embroiled in the historical tussle between Muslims and Hindus and the sense of victimhood that both sides felt.


The catalyst was a case brought by a Muslim woman called Shah Bano. She had been divorced by her husband several years before and was left destitute. She asked the Supreme Court to force her ex-husband to pay maintenance.


In the spring of 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in her favor, citing the provisions against destitution in Indian criminal law that applied to all Indians.


Prominent members of the Muslim clergy viewed the ruling as a threat to Islamic law, which had long governed their personal matters. It does not require the equivalent of alimony. But the justices had ordered a divorced man to pay maintenance.


At first, Rajiv Gandhi backed the verdict. Arif Mohammed Khan, a Muslim and minister in Mr. Gandhi’s government, made a long speech in Parliament in praise of the ruling.

In an interview, Mr. Khan said he did so at the prime minister’s request. Afterward, he received a note from Mr. Gandhi, he said, which congratulated him on a “wonderful performance” and a “great speech.”


But the Muslim clergy protested, heaping pressure on the prime minister. They demanded he counter the verdict through an act of Parliament. “The Muslim clergy found this as an opportunity to mobilize the Muslims and project themselves,” said Mr. Khan.

Mr. Gandhi succumbed and started preparations for a law that would effectively overturn the Supreme Court ruling.


But he also wanted to find a way to mollify Hindu outrage over the Muslim protests and to counter anticipated Hindu claims that Muslims were being appeased by the government, said Mr. Khan.


The prime minister, he said, found his answer in a court case in Faizabad, the city next to Ayodhya.


The case sought to have the lock removed on the main gate of the Babri Masjid, granting greater public access to the idol that had been sitting in seclusion under the central dome for almost four decades.


Mr. Gandhi’s calculation, Mr. Khan said, was that the Hindu focus on the Shah Bano case “will be redirected to Ayodhya.”


**

Krishna Pokharel/The Wall Street Journal
Umesh Chandra Pandey at his residence in Lucknow.

Umesh Chandra Pandey filed the petition to open the lock in late January 1986. He was a 30-year-old lawyer and occasional journalist who then lived in Faizabad.

His interest in the issue had begun three years earlier, when the editor of a local Hindi newspaper asked him to write a feature on the festival commemorating Ram’s birthday, Mr. Pandey and the editor said in interviews.


Mr. Pandey said he also heard leaders from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad claiming that there never had been an official order to lock the Babri Masjid gate.


“I thought, ‘If this is so, then how has this lock been put there?’” he said.


Adding drama and urgency, a prominent sadhu had threatened to set himself ablaze if the lock was not removed, according to Mr. Pandey and other accounts. Other sadhus threatened to get themselves arrested by trying to unlock the gate themselves, according to the VHP’s Mr. Singhal.


Mr. Pandey, a short man who speaks in emphatic phrases, said he spent a couple of weeks examining court papers. He came to the conclusion that there had never been a formal order putting the lock in place, he said. (Priests who cared for the idols in the building entered through a side gate.)


Soon after Mr. Pandey filed his petition, he found out that a copy had been sent to the state agency in charge of internal security, he said.

Paul Beckett/The Wall Street Journal


The petition also attracted the interest of Rajiv Gandhi and Arun Nehru, a cousin of Mr. Gandhi’s and a powerful adviser to the prime minister, according to Arif Mohammed Khan, the government minister at the time.

Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru wanted to ensure that the petition succeeded so Hindus would feel assuaged, Mr. Khan said. The prime minister asked Mr. Nehru to coordinate the government’s participation in the case, including dealing with the state government of Uttar Pradesh, Mr. Khan said.

Other officials from the time say Mr. Nehru, the adviser, was the more influential in seizing on the issue and the prime minister acquiesced. Yet others say Mr. Gandhi was unaware of what was happening.


Either way, said Mr. Khan: “The buck stops at the door of the prime minister” as the head of the government.


When asked about the episode in a brief telephone conversation, Mr. Nehru responded: “That’s none of your damn business.”


The government ensured that two senior local officials appeared – unusually — before the judge, rather than submitting affidavits, Mr. Khan said. They testified that law and order could be maintained if the lock was removed, a key consideration in the judge’s deliberations.

Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui, one of the lawyers representing Muslims in their legal claims to the Babri Masjid site, said he also asked to be heard before the judge.


“You may, there is no hurry,” he said the judge responded. “The matter is continuing for 36 years – you will be allowed sufficient time.” He was referring to the fact that litigation over the site had begun in 1950.


On the afternoon of Feb. 1, 1986, the judge ruled there had been no official order that placed the lock on the mosque’s gate. He ordered the lock opened “forthwith,” according to witnesses. The judge is now deceased.


Within 30 minutes, a senior police officer in Ayodhya broke the lock. A camera crew from Doordarshan, the government-run television channel, was there. The event was broadcast to the nation.


Mr. Pandey, the man who filed the petition, said he couldn’t sleep that night. The next morning, he went to the site.


“I was without words,” he said. “But I was thankful to God that I was able to look and to offer my prayer.”


The gate opening was the first that millions of Hindus had heard of Ayodhya and the battle over Ram’s birthplace. It energized them en masse because Ram was a role model. 


Grandmothers told their grandsons to aspire to be like him: obedient to their parents, faithful to their family, honest in their dealings.

Mani Shankar Aiyer
Rajiv Gandhi, right, in an undated photo with Mani Shankar Aiyer.

Rajiv Gandhi received the news during a visit to the Maldives, according to Mani Shankar Aiyar, his speechwriter at the time.

In the hours before a state banquet, the prime minister was putting the finishing touches on his formal dress and on his speech when he received a telephone call, Mr. Aiyar said in an interview. Mr. Gandhi was told the lock was opened, Mr. Aiyar said.


The lock opening quickly took on a mystical aspect. Mr. Pandey claimed that on the afternoon of the decision, a monkey sat on the roof of the Faizabad court house. A monkey was symbolic because Hanuman, the Hindu monkey god, was a loyal friend of Ram.


The animal, unusually for a monkey, sat still for more than 30 minutes, Mr. Pandey said. Then, when the judge issued his order, the monkey walked to the flagpole on the courthouse roof and touched the Indian flag, according to Mr. Pandey. “I don’t think this can happen without the Almighty’s permission,” he added.

**

The lock opening shocked Muslim elders and lawyers who had been following the Ayodhya dispute because they saw in it a threat to their mosque and to their religion. They gathered the next day in an orphanage in Delhi.


“Today, it appears we have become second-class citizens,” said one elder, close to tears, according to two people who were there.


The leaders worried that the next step would be the Babri Masjid’s destruction.

On Feb. 3, 1986, two days after the lock was opened, a small group of Muslim lawyers petitioned the high court in Lucknow, the capital of Uttar Pradesh, to order that nothing more happen to the site, according to two of the lawyers.


The judge issued a notice that the “status quo” be maintained.

Zafaryab Jilani
Zafaryab Jilani in the mid-1980s

Zafaryab Jilani, one of the lawyers, was then just shy of his 36th birthday. The lock opening would vault him to the forefront of the Muslim movement seeking to retain the Babri Masjid site for Islam.
Born in a town close to Lucknow, Mr. Jilani pursued his legal studies at Aligarh Muslim University.


There, he gained his first experience in organizing protests. He said he was part of a small group that, in 1970, led students in opposing government plans to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the school’s incorporation by an act of Parliament.

The students were angry about previous government measures that stopped Muslims from being the sole administrators of the university. Faced with the protests, the government scrapped the golden jubilee festivities and, ultimately, undid the administrative changes.

After the Babri Masjid lock opening, Mr. Jilani started organizing protests again.


He and a handful of associates called meetings of prominent local Muslims; it included one gathering of about 200 in a hall in Lucknow, Mr. Jilani said in an interview.


They created the Babri Masjid Action Committee to organize public strikes and demonstrations– and to push back against what the leaders viewed as Hindu aggression.

On Feb. 7, 1986, Mr. Jilani said he and about eight others met the then-chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Vir Bahadur Singh. The chief minister denied any involvement in the lock opening, Mr. Jilani said.


“I haven’t done it. Whatever has been done, it is at the behest of some other leaders, top leaders,” Mr. Jilani said the chief minister told them. Mr. Singh died a few years later.

A week after that meeting, the new committee held its first event: a “Black Day,” or state-wide public strike, Mr. Jilani said. Later, tens of thousands protested in Lucknow and other cities.

**

In May 1986, the government used its huge majority in Parliament to push through a law that effectively reversed the Shah Bano ruling and made it clear Muslim personal law would prevail.


Mr. Gandhi’s supporters say the prime minister was only trying to clarify that matters of Muslim personal law would be governed by Islam, as they had been for decades.


The law’s passage cemented the idea among many Hindus that the government was kowtowing to Muslims. Muslim leaders, on the other hand, were angry about the lock opening. The prime minister’s plan to do something to mollify both sides had gone awry.

Arif Mohammed Khan, the minister who had supported the Shah Bano ruling, resigned from the government. He recalled that Mr. Gandhi said to him at the time: “The situation is such that I am feeling very helpless.”


And, as Mr. Gandhi’s grandfather, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, had feared in 1950, the new prominence of the Babri Masjid dispute complicated the delicate political equation in the late 1980s in Kashmir, the Himalayan region fought over by India and Pakistan.


Militants who favored a separate country of Kashmir used the opening of the lock on the mosque to rebuke Indian Muslims who favored embracing India’s secularism and democracy.


The militants said, according to Mr. Jilani: “Your government is not sincere with you, how do you expect that government to be sincere with us?”


Tomorrow: The last chances at a settlement slip away.

Janambhoomi-Babri: Ayodhya - The Battle for India India's soul - 2

AYODHYA - THE BATTLE FOR INDIA'S SOUL - 2 OF 6 :
http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2012/12/ayodhya-battle-for-indias-soul-2.html


Thanks to Wall street Journal and
Krishna Pokharel and Paul Beckett for writing the series on the topic, it is one of India's unfinished social business and needed to be addressed. The article follows my commentary.
 
......

 This is 2nd in a six part series on Ayodhya, "RamTemple-Babri Masjid conflict"  by the Wall Street Journal. It is one of the few unresolved conflict's of India.

Thus far, both the pieces have been objective, causing people think in finding a solution with least conflicts,  and with a least sense of injustice. No one can bulldoze others' sentiments and expect peaceful existence, one may get away temporarily, but the apprehension endures for both sides, unless they live in a bucket.  We have to have a heart-to-heart in a national dialogue to put this behind and move forward. If you have ill-will toward me, and vice-versa, both of us are victims of our own ignorance.

Fox example, many Muslims, including this Muslim continues to condemn the atrocities of Aurangzeb and the plunderer Mahmood Ghazni of Somnath fame. Even though I have nothing to do with them, nothing to gain, I did not even inherit a kaas from their loot,  yet I am looked up as one of them, as if I am responsible for their acts. No,  I am not responsible for any of those acts from the history.

As an Indian, whether I am a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jain, Buddh, Maratha, Pandava, Pallava, Peshwa, Gujarati, Punjabi, Sindhi, Bengali or Malayalee. I am not responsible for the massacres during the partition, yet, you and I, are held responsible in the psyche of many. We all need Mukti from it and cannot continue to live in ill-will and hatred for the other. We have to end this cycle in our Janam and be free. We have to have a real national dialouge where we feel our forgiveness of each other is genuine, and it would be, if it would give us mukti. Are we really free?

What I am responsible for then? 

I am responsible for those acts that have happened during my life time, and where the least I could have done is spoken up against Indira Gandhi's brutal emergency rule, spoken out against communal riots regardless of whom we blame, spoken out against the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits, the massacre of the Sikhs, Gujarat Massacre, burning of Dalit Villages, raping of the Nuns, the suicide of farmers.... and you can list more things here (page is not enough).

Our grand Kids can look up and ask? Dada or Dadee, did you speak out when wrong things were happening? Why did you pass the buck to us? Did you tell Mom and Dad that "the others" were wrong and filled their hearts with hatred for the other? Were you not capable of finding solutions? Did you just blame everyone else than yourselves?

The looting they did was for their own personal gain, that is what those kings did; whether Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist or other kings, they had nothing better to do than loot and annex the next state or next door city. Most of the Kings were just fighting wars, very few had time to encourage education, knowledge, translate book, focus on Music, improve medicine, share knowledge... that benefits the general public for generations to come.  There were good, bad and ugly Mogul, Pallavas, Singhs, Peshawas, Khiljis, Tughlags, British and you can add a whole lot of them to the list.  or any one in the past, with a few exceptions. Are you and I responsible for the acts of those? If not, we should purge the latent ill-will from our hearts, it is for our own individual good.


"This issue will not go away" they said that sixty years ago about Ayodhya. If you and I are irresponsible like them, we will repeat it, or find a solution and not pass this to our next generation. The solution is not easy, we have to listen to each others fears and aspirations, but dialogue, we must.
I do hope, we clean at least our own hearts and minds - for our own peace of mind. I know we can do it, and I know many Indians are doing that now. Clean it up, and see the moksha you find, it is all within you and you can do it.

Enjoy the freedom


Jai Hind






Mike Ghouse for India's Pluralistic ethos
http://MikeGhouseforIndia.Blogspot.com 
 

.............................................


Ayodhya, the Battle for India’s Soul
By Krishna Pokharel And Paul Beckett

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/12/04/the-battle-for-indias-soul-chapter-two/

[This Wall Street Journal investigation is being published in serialized form. A new chapter will be posted each morning this week on India Real Time. Click here to read chapter one and three.]


Paul Beckett/The Wall Street Journal. A replica of the idol of Ram placed in the Babri Masjid on Dec. 22, 1949. Click here to view related slideshow.




Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s prime minister, was greatly perturbed by an idol of Lord Ram being placed in a mosque.


Jawaharlal Nehru, left, with U.S. President Harry Truman.


Polished, intellectual and skeptical of religion, Nehru was trying to propel the nation into an era of modern socialism and scientific thinking. But the events in Ayodhya forced him to grapple anew with the centuries-long friction between Hindus and Muslims – and to try to counter the spreading belief that a deity had materialized in the dead of night.

“I am disturbed at developments at Ayodhya,” Nehru said in a telegram on Dec. 26, 1949, to Govind Ballabh Pant, chief minister of United Provinces, which roughly included what is now the state of Uttar Pradesh. “Earnestly hope you will personally interest yourself in this matter. Dangerous example being set there which will have bad consequences.”


The provincial government wanted the statue removed. K.K. Nayar, the district magistrate in Faizabad, who also oversaw Ayodhya, refused. He wrote to a provincial official that removing the idol was “fraught with the gravest danger to public peace” and would lead to a “conflagration of horror,” according a copy of his correspondence.


Around that time, Guru Dutt Singh, the city magistrate, resigned. His son, Guru Basant Singh, said his father quit because “his work was done” and the idol’s installation, which Mr. Singh helped plan, had succeeded.
Local Hindus added religious items to the mosque: more idols; six black ammonite stones; a small silver throne; brass utensils for worship; and clothes for the deity, according to an official list compiled later.


Muslims weren’t welcome. Mohammad Hashim Ansari, a local tailor, headed to the Babri Masjid with a few others the morning after the idol of Ram was installed, said Mr. Ansari and another local Muslim who was there. The police stopped them at the gate. The Muslims returned home, they said.


Nehru kept pushing. In early January, he wrote again to Mr. Pant. The chief minister called him soon after.


Mr. Pant “intended taking action, but he wanted to get some well-known Hindus to explain the situation to people in Ayodhya first,” Nehru wrote in a separate letter to the governor-general of India dated Jan. 7, 1950.


Weeks passed. The idol stayed.


The Wall Street Journal/Court Files
The idols installed in the Babri Masjid in 1949, shown in a photo taken in 1950.

The discord in Ayodhya threatened Nehru’s desire for India to be a democracy in which all beliefs were equally respected. He also feared that it would have repercussions “on all-India affairs and more especially Kashmir,” the disputed territory between India and the newly-created Pakistan, he wrote to Mr. Pant on Feb. 5, 1950.

Nehru added that he would be willing to make the 600-kilometer trip from Delhi to Ayodhya himself. But, he also noted, “I am terribly busy.”


Nehru didn’t make the trip. By March, he was sounding defeated as local officials continued to balk at removing the idol.


“This event occurred two or three months ago and I have been very gravely perturbed over it,” he wrote in a letter to K.G. Mashruwala, an associate of Mahatma Gandhi.


Nehru lamented that many in his Congress party had become “communal” toward Pakistan and India’s Muslims. “I just do not know what we can do to create a better atmosphere in the country,” he wrote.


In 1952, Nehru visited Uttar Pradesh to campaign for Mr. Pant in an election, according to a person who heard him speak. He told the crowd, in Hindi, “The Ayodhya event has put me to shame,” this person said.

**

In January 1950, a decades-long legal battle began between Ayodhya’s Hindus and Muslims over the site of the Babri Masjid. The first case was filed by a Hindu , Gopal Singh Visharad, in the Victorian Gothic district court building in neighboring Faizabad.


Mr. Singh Visharad – “Visharad” denotes expertise in Hindu scripture — was a lawyer who had moved to Ayodhya because he wanted to live in a Hindu holy place, according to his son, Rajendra. Rajendra was the schoolboy who witnessed Abhiram Das, the sadhu, spreading the word on the morning of Dec. 23, 1949, that Ram had appeared in the mosque.


Krishna Pokharel/The Wall Street Journal
The house where Gopal Singh Visharad lived in Ayodhya.

A stern-looking man with a broad nose and a thick moustache, Mr. Singh Visharad, then 42 years old, was the Ayodhya secretary of the Hindu Mahasabha, a conservative Hindu political party that opposed Nehru’s Congress.  He was close to Mr. Nayar, the district magistrate,  and Guru Dutt Singh, the city magistrate, according to  Rajendra Singh.

Mr. Singh Visharad had celebrated the appearance of the Ram Lalla idol and worshipped at the site for a few days, his son said. But when he went there on  Jan.14, 1950, the police stopped him at the gate.


By then, another local magistrate had already issued an order seizing the building.  A receiver was named and the place was locked for devotees. As an interim arrangement, the receiver appointed a small team of priests to attend daily to the statue of Ram Lalla at the site because it was, after all, a deity that needed feeding, bathing, and clothing, according to Hindu ritual.


In his lawsuit, Mr. Singh claimed the right to worship the deity in the building “without any obstruction whatever” and  asked for a “temporary injunction” to prevent government officials from removing the idols.


The judge granted the injunction but didn’t rule on the question of his right to worship.

The next day, Anisur Rahman, a Muslim about 30 years old, filed a court petition of his own — the first Muslim legal volley in the dispute. Mr. Rahman made tin boxes that he sold from a shop in the local market in Ayodhya. He lived with his family close to the Babri Masjid.

Weeks before the idol was installed, he had sent messages to district officials that he saw “imminent danger” to the mosque from the sadhus gathered around it, according to the official records of Mr. Nayar, the district magistrate.


Mr. Nayar had dismissed Mr. Rahman as an “exception” among Muslims in Ayodhya whom, he wrote, “are far from agitated,” according to the records.


Petitioning the High Court in Allahabad, a major city in the state, Mr. Rahman sought to have any cases claiming title to the site of the Babri Masjid heard by a court outside Ayodhya and Faizabad.


He claimed that “in view of the highly strained relations between the two communities and also district authorities not being free from communal bias,” there was no prospect of a fair hearing around Ayodhya.


He also noted in an affidavit that district authorities had done nothing to help Muslims take back their mosque after the idol was installed. Instead, they had seized the building.

Mr. Rahman’s effort was countered by about 20 Muslims from Ayodhya, who signed identical affidavits in a local courtroom.


They said they had no objection if the Hindus continued to possess the Babri Masjid. “Babri Masjid has been built by demolishing Ram birthplace temple,” they said. “It’s against the Islamic law to pray there,” the affidavits said.


Krishna Pokharel/The Wall Street Journal
Farooq Ahmad, the shopkeeper who remembers Anisur Rahman.

Mr. Rahman’s petition was dismissed. Muslim lawyers today doubt the authenticity of the Muslims’ affidavits.

Mr. Rahman sold his shop. Sometime in the early 1950s, he migrated with his family to Pakistan, according to several local Muslims. His descendants could not be traced.


A Muslim shopkeeper in Ayodhya recalled Mr. Rahman telling him, before leaving: “We don’t get any justice here. Nobody helps us.”


In late 1950, a mercurial sadhu filed a similar court case to Gopal Singh Visharad’s. He was a member of Ayodhya’s famous Digambar Akhara, a group of Hindu holy men devoted to Ram.


Both Hindu suits named five local Muslim men as defendants, alleging they had put pressure on local government officials to remove the idols by making “baseless and dishonest assertions.”


The most prominent among the defendants was Haji Phenku, one of Ayodhya’s biggest property owners at the time.


Paul Beckett/The Wall Street Journal
The Faizabad District Court.

At court, Mr. Phenku, then 65 years old, and the other Muslims refuted the allegations, according to legal papers. They also claimed that the Babri Masjid had been used by the Muslims as a mosque ever since it was built in 1528. They said no Hindu temple existed at the site before the construction of the mosque.

Mr. Phenku boarded a horse cart at his residence at least once a month to travel from Ayodhya to the courthouse, about 10 kilometers away, said his son, Haji Mahboob Ahmad, in an interview.


When Mr. Phenku returned home, he recounted his experience, often with frustration. “The judge again adjourned the hearing and asked us to appear on the next date,” Mr. Phenku said repeatedly, according to his son.


Gopal Singh Visharad, the lead Hindu petitioner, regularly cycled to court. He was resigned to the fact that it would be a prolonged dispute because he believed the government didn’t want to deal with the implications of a verdict, according to his son.


The hearings dragged on, with little progress, for nine years. Then, in 1959, another suit was filed by a sect of sadhus known as the Nirmohi Akhara.


The name means “Group Without Attachment,” a reference to the fact that the 12,000 sadhus it claims as members have abandoned the material world for the company of their deity, Ram. The sect had tried, in the late 19th century, to build a temple near the mosque but had been prevented by the court.


Paul Beckett/The Wall Street Journal
Bhaskar Das.

Bhaskar Das is the head of the sect. Now in his mid-80s, he is a thin man and an imposing sight. His wrinkled head is shaved close with a longer outcropping of hair knotted in a tail at the back. A Y-shaped pattern of white paint, accentuated with vermillion stripes, starts at the bridge of his nose and runs in two lines up his forehead.

Mr. Das came to Ayodhya in 1946 to learn Sanskrit at the age of 18. Soon after, he visited an idol of Ram located on the wooden platform where Hindus worshipped in the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid. The Nirmohi Akhara maintained the platform.


“I felt belongingness with Lord Ram” and decided to lead the life of a sadhu, Mr. Das said in an interview at the sect’s ashram in Faizabad, a collection of four-story white buildings off a street clogged with traffic.


In its 1959 petition, the group claimed that Ram’s birthplace “has been existing before the living memory of man.”


It also claimed that the Babri Masjid building had never been a mosque but had been a temple since ancient times and was rightfully the possession of the Nirmohi Akhara. The suit was added to the others.


Two years later, in December 1961, representatives of the local Muslim community responded.


Leading the case was the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, a body created by Indian law to be responsible for the protection and preservation of “waqfs,” or Muslim religious and cultural sites.


Krishna Pokharel/The Wall Street Journal
Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqfs.

It listed Mohammad Hashim Ansari, the tailor, and other Ayodhya Muslims as co-petitioners.
The board, based in Lucknow, the capital of Uttar Pradesh, claimed that the Babri Masjid was registered with it as a public mosque and is “vested in the Almighty.”


In 1964, the court consolidated all four suits – of Gopal Singh Visharad; the sadhu from the Digambar Akhara; the Nirmohi Akhara, and the waqf board.


The litigants became used to the delays that plague India’s court system today. It took 17 years to settle on the appointment of a new receiver at the Babri Masjid site after the death of the first receiver.


In court, the judge would listen for about 15 minutes, set a date for the next hearing, and adjourn, according to two people involved in the case.


“Many judges came and went but the case was not decided,” said Haji Mahboob Ahmad, 74 years old. He replaced his father, Haji Phenku, as the defendant in one of the Hindu suits after his father died in 1960.

**


Singh family
Guru Dutt Singh, left, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Guru Dutt Singh and K.K. Nayar – the administrators who were instrumental in the idol’s placement — turned to politics. They played no further direct role in the Ayodhya dispute.
Mr. Singh joined the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, a  Hindu nationalist party, within six months of resigning his administrative post. The party was founded by a former president of the Hindu Mahasabha, the first conservative Hindu party in India.


In the 1951 national election, the Jana Sangh won three seats in Parliament, compared with 364 seats won by Nehru’s Congress party. Mr. Singh became the Jana Sangh’s district chief  in Faizabad, said his son.


A photo from the late 1960s in the reception room of the family’s Faizabad residence shows Guru Dutt Singh with a young Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then national president of the Jana Sangh and later prime minister of India.


Mr. Nayar was transferred to another post in early 1950. He took voluntary retirement in 1952.  He settled in Faizabad and joined the Jana Sangh with his wife. In 1967, he was elected to the national Parliament from a constituency near Ayodhya.

**

Among the sadhus of Ayodhya, the idol’s installation was overwhelmingly supported.

Akshaya Brahmachari, the young sadhu who had opposed the move, argued with others that “all Ayodhya is Ram’s birthplace,” according to his disciple, Meera Behen, and others who knew him. He asked: “Why do you diminish His glory by putting him in a mosque?”


He was assaulted and banished from the sadhus’ fraternity. He went to Lucknow and sat on a series of fasts from Jan. 30, 1950, in a bid to press the government to remove the idol. But a state government minister responded that, “Ayodhya’s situation is better now and the case is pending in a court of law at the moment. The final decision can be taken only after a judgment from the court.”


Abhiram Das, the sadhu who championed installing Ram in the mosque, organized festivals to commemorate the event.


Krishna Pokharel/The Wall Street Journal
Mohammad Hashim Ansari.

One pamphlet printed by him in December 1953 exhorted Ayodhya’s residents to participate in a reading of the Ramayan, the Hindu holy text, at the site. Another pamphlet mentions him as the “savior” of Ram’s birthplace.

Hindu control of the site and the lack of action by the courts frustrated Ayodhya’s Muslims.  Mohammad Hashim Ansari, the tailor, said that in 1954 he and about 100 local Muslim men sought permission to offer prayers at the site. It was denied.



When they tried to force themselves into the mosque, they were arrested and spent two months in jail, Mr. Ansari later testified in court.

**

Tomorrow: An incident 2,000 kilometers away catapults the dispute in Ayodhya onto the national stage.