Latest Update – In light of the dissent note that was issued today, the odds have been re-adjusted, see below.
As the High Court prepares to deliver its verdict on the Ayodhya title suit, some armchair punditry from Offstumped on which way the verdict should go, will likely go or will likely not go.
Statutory Warning: As with all armchair speculation take it with a fistful of salt
The Ideal Verdict
Ideally would like to see the High Court spell out the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. The argument on what existed on the disputed site maybe contentious but the historical record is quite incontrovertible if one goes back to British records as far back as the 1850s if not earlier. (The Gazeteer of Oudh 1877 has by far the most extensive historical record).
Ideally Offstumped would like to see that written Historical record recounted by the Court , sifting the truth from hyperbole on the many mutinies that have marked this conflict.
Having set the historical record straight the Court should make it clear that its not for the Court to settle matters of faith or to make on behalf of the people or the government what essentially are political decisions. The Court should then remind us of the perils of compromising the Judiciary by forcing it to take a decision on a partisan issue.
The Court should make this about public interest and foremost about the citizens of Ayodhya/Faizabad. It should put the ball firmly in their court by ordering that a referendum be held and the citizens of Ayodhya/Faizabad vote on how this issue be resolved. In the run up to that vote, all interested parties should feel free to make their proposals to the people of Ayodhya/Faizabad. The court could order a cooling off period during which the citizens reflect, debate on the issue to make up their minds after which the proposals could be put on the ballot. The outcomes of that ballot will be binding on all parties.
Some may say India is a Constitutional democracy and not a majoritarian democracy to question the validity of such a referendum. The counter argument to that is when do you start the clock to honor contracts and how can you reconcile claims in the face of a historical record of competitive violence and less than honest British meddling. The bloody and murky narrative from the 1850s makes it quite clear that this issue cannot be settled legally. Its a political issue and has to be reconciled in the court of public opinion.
A likely verdict and a not so likely verdict
It was highly unlikely the Court will find in favor of one party over the other until the dissent note was issued by one of the Judges. Based on the dissent note the odds of the Court finding in favor of the mosque have gone up as against the odds of the Court finding in favor of the Temple.
The most likely verdict
In all likelihood the Court will likely find a way to wriggle itself out of having to bear the burden of making this judgement.
One scenario could involve citing public interest and using the principle of eminent domain, transfering ownership of the site to the ASI as a heritage site. The intention of the Court being preservation of status quo and putting the conflict in deep freeze till the next century.
Also read
- What the RSS expects
- What the government expects
- Why Nitish Kumar is suffering anxiety attacks
- Interesting connundrum posed by Mazhar in conversation with Sheela Bhatt on Rediff Interesting connundrum posed by Mazhar http://is.gd/ffMdz ”who will evict Ram lalla and how”
Filed under: Offstumped
Ayodhya is not merely a local issue. Also the Mandir movement movement has made it more than that. And let’s not forget scientific findings supporting Mandir existanse. Emminent scholars like Koenraad Elst have examined the matter supporting Mandir existance.
Dosabandit – it doesn’t matter if it’s a national movement. Will all the national movement types put their most where their mouth is and invest in Ayodhya ?
End of the day it’s those who dwell in ayodhya who need to make the call.
Rest of India can make it’s case to them by putting it’s money where it’s mouth is.
Offstumped:
I dont agree with the method of locally deciding on factors – at nyamgiri or at Ayodhya.
Locally, you should have authority to only decide on issues which impact _only_ the locals.
If not, then why be a part of the country.
To stretch your argument – the kashmiris should have the right to decide… or for that matter, any part of india can then decide to become independent!
I dont propose that rest of india should run rough shod over the dongrikondh areas, but should adopt the best possible way of extracting the ore, and suitably compensate the locals. Note: getting the ore out is priority 1, everything else follows.
IMO that the needs of the rest of india far out weigh the tribals. Same in the case of Ayodhya.
As for the sacred mountain – surely something can be worked out (as in saving the mountain and still extracting the ore) – canceling the entire project is certainly an overkill.
Though, I have been thinking a bit on this issue, it never occurred to me that the High Court would do what you have suggested. But now that I have read your post, it seems indeed that is what the High Court would do! You seem to be spot on.
But somehow I do not approve of this stance. In essence, the verdict over this issue will touch upon some of the most fundamental considerations in logic-driven ethics. We will be required to revisit our premises on which base the idea of ‘ownership’ and inheritance. Can a religious community ‘own’ a place, without ever having ‘bought’ it or having acquired it in a way that is generally accepted as legitimate? Can we look back at precedents to decide on matters that are very contemporary? If forceful acquisition was considered legitimate in the past, and then was transferred, can such a transfer be considered legitimate? If forceful acquisition, and transfer of such property rights was recognized legitimate, then why or why not do the same in today’s time?
So, I hope I have been able to point out that the issue is a very complex one, and not ruling on it would be too escapist. I hope the issue is looked at with as much logical consideration as possible.
And Jai71 has a point – the disputed site does not affect anyone living in Ayodhya directly, because hardly anyone seems to be living in its vicinity nor is dependent upon it. If we have an illegal construction in a locality and its demolition is announced by municipality, will we admit an appeal that the people of that locality should be allowed a referendum? Of course, my analogy does not correspond exactly, but I hope I could explain why we cannot always use the “who it affects the most”-argument.
Ketan – how can you say this doesn’t affect them locally. Think of the disruption their lives have sufferEd on account of all the agitations and riots. Think of the intrusion into their personal lives on account of the heavy security presence for last 20 years, not to speak of terror attacks and threats. Of course the issue affects them on a daily basis far more than anyone else.
i believe it is going to be status quo and more legal battle in supreme court.
As far as your suggestion of referendum,why local referendum? let it be national referendum.let all citizens of india participate.
still,i just do not subscribe to this referendum idea as a good one.
But i do agree, as you say to be stake holder in ayodhya.i think you have clearly pointed out about the sad state of ayodhya as a town,infrastructure wise and of the living standard of the people, in one of your earlier blogs.
Let legal battle continue but the town of Ayodhya need to be resurrected and needs support from all hindus.it is just not about that disputed site but the whole place,AYODHYA. .let there be better civic amenities,let there be more facilities for pilgrims.Let there be art theaters where rama katha be played (of different style).let there be museums where ramchandraji’s life is explained.
Can we make Ayodhya in to world class pilgrimage center.it is a challenge to all Hindu organizations and Hindu mutts.
Offstumped,
Thanks! Yes, I’d not thought of curfews & security would have affected people of Ayodhya town, because I had thought that the disputed site is outside it (I’ve never been to Ayodhya, nor have I studied its geography). But even keeping mind that they get affected by the verdict, I don’t think a referendum is the best way to go about it. Because the basic question is – who the disputed site belongs to – the Waqf board, (representatives of) the Hindu community, or the Archeological Survey of India or someone else? This decision cannot be made on the basis of who the people of Ayodhya think it should belong to! Unfortunately, that is what the current framework of Constitution seems to suggest & so do the ideas of ownership & inheritance.
Two examples:
1. Court orders of Madni’s arrest had inspired protests, which had also disrupted the lives of few people in Kerala, but we won’t ask the people of constituency where Madni was as to whether Madni was guilty or not or as to what should be done to him.
2. If there is a dispute between two Ambani brothers over a piece of land, and both plan to do different things with it, affecting people surrounding the land differently, again, we won’t ask people to vote on who it belongs to or what should be done with it.
Of course, in the above two cases based on legal precedents & unambiguous provisions of law, the further course of action is easy to determine. And I also agree that to reach any kind of judgment on Ayodhya disputed site using logic alone is very difficult, but for referendum to become a good idea, the judiciary will have to first admit that “this issue is beyond our mental capacity to solve”!
I have a couple of objections to make.
Firstly, on “The Court should make this about public interest and foremost about the citizens of Ayodhya/Faizabad. It should put the ball firmly in their court by ordering that a referendum be held and the citizens of Ayodhya/Faizabad vote on how this issue be resolved.”
I would like to remind you Yoss about what happened with Kashmir. The word of plebiscite was let out by the then govt and since then plebiscite has been made impossible by Pakistan’s strategical cross border terrorism … today the same Kashmiris are asking for Plebiscite. Why? because today Kashmir is a muslim majority. What is the guarantee that it wont happen with Ayodhya too? UP is definitely filled with good number of our muslims “brothers” and given that the state government is least concerned about hindu religious interests, how good would it be for a common hindu to see that court would like to wash its hands off the issue and leave it to population of Faizabad/Ayodhya?
Secondly, why is it a prerogative of residents or registered voters of Faizabad/Ayodhya to decide? I am an equal stake holder in Ayodhya though I am physically far far far away from Ayodhya. I would also like to decide if Ram temple is to be built. Sri Rama’s life guides me in every aspect. Sri Rama is not just a mythological character for me, but a God who is directing my life. And now as an extension, why should only hindus across India be allowed to decide. Hindus across the world (of course who are citizens of India) should be allowed to decide. And even as a further extension Muslims too (again, who are of course citizens of India) might also be equal in this respect.
I think these two points become the most important flaws in your “ideal solution”. Would you like to re-look at it?
IMHO I find Arun Shourie’s idea of a good solution most acceptable. He said in 1993 that it would do great deal of good to the country and Muslims in the country if Muslim Personal Law Board allows the Hindu Temple to be built. If I remember it right, VHP has been fighting for only 3 out of almost 3000 odd temples that was desecrated by Muslim invaders. Kashi, Mathura and Ayodhya. If Muslims across the country agree with the historical fact that these have been important historical pilgrim centers in the form of temples of Siva, Krishna and Rama since ages and thus, allow these three temples, it would send a great message to the whole world about what India actually stands for: Majority and Minority working hand in hand doing the right thing for peace and each others prosperity. Hindus have already sacrificed a lot for the welfare of Muslims. I guess I am just asking for too much. We would probably need an inception to be done on each Muslim in India with the base message being “Hindus sacrificed a lot for me, so I should respond with equal sacrifice by allowing them take their temples back”. I guess this will never be solved under the ambit of legal or constitutional guidelines.
Orwell said, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”. Courts, on 24th, will decide whether India is ready for revolutionary thinking or it remains captive to sloganeering.
Vivek – you answer your own objections. If fear of demographics troubles Hindus then they must put their money where their mouth is. Invest in Ayodhya change the demographics – who is stopping them from doing so ?
The cold reality is that a majority of the Hindu community but for paying lip service to Ram temple has not bothered about the state of life in Ayodhya.
As far as the second objection goes on Hindus everywhere being a stakeholder – it doesn’t wash because mere faith doesn’t make you a stakeholder. To become a stakeholder you must have skin in the game.
Bottomline: If ayodhya is important to Hindus the worldover they must demonstrate that importance by putting their money where their mouth is. Invest in Ayodhya and earn your right to be a stakeholder.
This is further strengthens why the issue must be settled locally http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/113236/India/ayodhya-bars-itself-from-outsiders-intent-on-trouble.html
Yoss,
To put your phraseology, “I put my skin in the game”. Residing some 500 kms away from Ayoshya, I courted arrest in the movement. There were so many like me who courted arrests, went for the Kar Seva. Besides there were a lot of us who put “their souls without entirely putting their skins”. Ayodhya was a defining moment for the Hindu psyche and to use KE’s words – a milestone in “decolonising the Hindu mind”. It is too much to expect that Mandir sympathisers will continue to vote for BJP to demonstrate that “their money is where their mouth is.” There are a whole lot of reasons for the desertion of Mandir sympathisers from BJP ranks. Hindu is certainly more reassured than he was in the early 90s. The absence of any hysteria preceding the judgement is a sign of their maturity. But it is the Ram Janmabhoomi movement which actually helped them gain a lot of this sense of security and maturity.
Vikas – I can fully appreciate your sentiment. It was highly irresponsible of the BjP to have mounted such an agitation without knowing what the endgame will be. That rathyatra was akin to a phrase Satyam’s Raju used – “mounting a Tiger and not knowing how to get off it”
The responsible thing for Mr Advani to do is to spell out a process by which reconciliation may happen. This local referendum is one such option that can allow all sides to
- set the past aside
- accept the current state as the starting point
- agree to a process who’s outcome is not pre-determined and either side has the opportunity to make it’s case
- no side can claim the outcome was unfair
I have a point over here on this topic. A Hindu, always prefer to live with peace and looks for development in all walks of life. Why the major Indian cities are having “new city” and “old city” areas? The “new cities” are developed by broad-outlook-mind-Hindu-people, with all round development with major facilities, such as the basic amenities of water, electricity, education, health, widen roads etc. Whereas, the old cities are still suffering from the narrow-minded-thinking-Muslim-people who do not look for a change and wish to continue in the same conditions, where those areas are lacking all facilities. If we walk through the streets of old city, we can understand their life and it reflects their attitude and approach towards the civilization.
Since the topic is on the development of Ayodhya, I am a strong believer that Hindus will develop the city of Ayodhya like “Ram’s Ayodhya” with a beautiful temple and wonderful city if the issue is resolved peacefully and to the bet, Hindu will never have the grudge against anyone and once the temple is built, non-Hindus too can visit the temple as a normal Hindu does.
Yoss, by “change demographics”, do you mean Hindus should indulge in activities similar to what Muslims did in Kashmir? The reason why I ask this is, a Hindu would fundamentally be averse to such activities. However, history has its own occasions where things were otherwise.
I agree that faith alone is not a qualifier, but a citizen of India would definitely be affected by whatever is the outcome. Given the divide in the society and this by default gives every citizen a right to be part of such a vote. We are living in a nation where “some feel swiss minaret ban is a threat to indian muslims” and where “quran burning in USA kills 15 in Kashmir”. Do you really think ppl outside Ayodhya/Faizabad are not stake holders?
Vivek – No I mean, create jobs in Ayodhya and develope its suburbs and settle people from other parts of the country in and around Ayodhya. There is no Art370 so whats stoppping anyone with an Enterprising mind and Hindu consciousness from doing so ?
Making the whole nation stakeholders is a recipe for disaster. Keeping it local is the only way to manage the fallout yet find a just method that can lead to reconciliation and closure.
I can’t believe an issue as insane as Ayodhya promises to hold an entire nation hostage in this 21st century.
Grow up people. There are far more important things to do than crib over which delusional character to worship at a certain location!
Ashish,
What do you mean by insane? After 5 years you will say same thing for Kasab? Let’s forget Kasab, he did it 5 years back…lets move on.
Also, okay lets say…forget Ayodhya. What about muslims? Will they forget? No. Even though Hindus forget, Muslims will not forget. Ask any Muslim to forget Babri and move on…and see what answer you get.
I now offer to teach right wing people Constitution 101. Interested people may register.
drummasala, what about kasab? Are you saying you remember him? Why?
@pubchik
I think you will always remember kasab because he is not indian …sorry ugly indian.
@Ashish
What’s the rationale behind saying ‘hey something is justified (or not justified) because we live in the 21st century’? Is there something magical about the 21st century that gives us, its residents, the right to be condescending to all those that existed in the previous centuries and pass unwarranted judgments on the events that took place prior to the 21st century? What sets us apart from the residents from previous centuries is that we have cars and planes and computers and we live in a much more liberal and a seemingly democratic world, our methods of dealing with each other may have had changed, but aren’t we still just ‘people’?, with the same basic fears, attitudes and sentiments?
Point being: people like you need to grow out of the foolish urge to perceive past events through your 21st century ‘understanding’ of things and start looking at the world as it exists.
You further argued “There are far more important things to do than crib over which delusional character to worship at a certain location!
”
Yes, I know… we need to build our infrastucture, improve education, build the industry, etc. Of course we need to do all that good stuff, on a high priority basis, no one is denying that. But then what is all this have to do with not building the mandir?
Do the out of touch people like you even know what the ram mandir restoration means to the common hindu?
Babur and his likes destroyed mandirs because they knew that a mandir is an integral part of the hindu identity, the spirit of which they desired to crush. Babur died centuries ago and so did our ancestors, but the sentiment of injustice been done was passed over to us and is alive within our hearts to this day. You probably don’t care, but there are millions out there who share this sentiment. What right and pretext do you have to deny them that?
The common hindu of the 21st century may not be as devout as his ancestors, but restoration of the ram mandir would restore some pride and certainly give him the moral victory he deserves.
Dear Dr. Deodhar…I have a simple question for you:
Are you really an idiot or you just act like one when you are trolling the blogosphere?
…I ask why ‘coz yours truly has come across your ‘enlightening’ comments on Atanu’s blog too?
Eh? What give?
@Navnath
I have posted this on my blog only today in response to your comment. I have copied it below for your reference. I hope this will answer most of the questions you’ve asked of me.
I was born in a Bramhin rural middle-class family. Most of my family members are devout Hindus and some of my close relations have been karsevaks during 1993. So if there is anyone who is “in touch” with the Hindu sentiments, then it will have to be me too.
I used to believe that the ram mandir was the pride of the Hindu community and a battle-field to save the Hindu identity. That was in 1993. After a decade or so, I left India, hoping to learn from the world. And it is through these exploits that I discovered the world, and paradoxically, Hinduism.
If you look at it from my perspective, you will realize that Ayodhya is not Hinduism’s battlefield – it never was and it never will be. Hinduism is not some cult that could be built or destroyed through places of worship. Isn’t the fact that Hinduism has not only survived but also flourished DESPITE the efforts of Babar and many of his descendants proof enough that the Hindu identity is not defined by some or the other place of worship? Hinduism, as both you and I know, is one of the oldest cultural civilizations that gave to this world among many things, important mathematical, educational, and scientific contributions. That Hinduism, unfortunately, is long dead. India has not produced any such meaningful contributions in the last few centuries.
On the other hand, the tiny island of the UK that ruled almost half of the world prides itself on its wealth of knowledge and scientific contributions to the world. And quite rightly so. This country, over the last 3 centuries, has produced every important scientist worth his salt – from Newton to Darwin to Stephen Hawkings – and every discovery and invention worth a mention – from gravity to electricity to steam engines to DNA. They take pride in their universities, their libraries, their laboratories… They’ve earned the right to call themselves “Great” and we, over the centuries, have lost that right, not only to the British but to the world at large.
Today, as we find ourselves again on the edge with this temple/mosque issue, China has overtaken Japan to be the world’s second largest economy, Russia has hoisted its flag under the deep waters of the Arctic, and the Americans are cruising towards Mars. So, as we move into the second decade of the 21st century, the question is: what constitutes Hindu pride? What should be our real kurukshetra?
I think the battle for the Hindu identity is not to be fought in the fields of Ayodhya. Instead, it should be fought in the fields of science, commerce, politics, and economics. Let’s find the cures for the incurable diseases let’s try to find life in the outer space, let’s build institutes of excellence that could compete with the best universities in the world… Let us take India back to the level of excellence where it was those many centuries ago. That would be the only battle for the Hindu identity worth fighting!
Because I know that many Hindus feel that they owe a tit-for-tat reply to Babar and people who share his faith but let’s be honest folks, we owe a lot more to Aryabhatta, Chanakya, and Kautilya than what we own to Babar!
@Ashish Deodhar
Since you have been so in touch with Hindu sentiments – and have also learnt much about hinduism.
Could you please explain / enlighten us on:
1. while hinduism contributed so much to the world, in the past – but suddenly its contributions stopped – maybe in the past thousand years… why?
(Hindus suddenly became dumb?)
2. “Hinduism has not only survived but also flourished” – can you please justify this by using parameters like # of followers or maybe territory – say over the past thousand years? And also compare it with other competitive faiths over the same period?
Thanks!
Jai71
Ashish,
The points you made regarding the battle for the Hindu identity to be fought in the fields of politics, science, economics etc are all correct. These things are indeed central to our identity, but only partially.
Identity is just not about making progress economically or growth, but also about that intangible, yet very important aspect of your personality – the Hinduness (in our case), which you inherit from your ancestors and would pass down to your descendents. This aspect completes you, it gives you the uniqueness you possess. Believe it or not, but this is how the world perceives you.
You mentioned the great progress and achievements made by Europe and America in various fields. But do you know that despite making such progress, they have maintained that intangible aspect of their identity, I mentioned above, intact for all these years. They still follow and cherish their protestant or catholic or methodist, etc., values and morals and fight tooth and nail if someone infringes on those. Why? Because they know that they are not complete without that.
Point being: Great progress and achievements can be made without relinquishing part of your identity.
To continue the point about India’s progress: Isn’t India progressing, economically, on the science & technology etc., fronts? Haven’t we made considerable progress in last 20-30 years? Aren’t we better off today than we were 50 years ago?
We will make progress in leaps and bounds in the coming decades, I have no doubt about that. But then again, what has all the progress have to do with not ‘preserving’ part of our identity? Isn’t that something we have to do regardless?
But why is preserving Hinduness so important?
…Because it represents the culture and the values that have evolved for centuries and passed down from one generation to another AND there are forces out there set to destroy our culture and our values. These forces have always existed and are still running strong today. Two main forces strong today, the Muslims and the Christians, want to convert you to their faiths. Of the other things they hate about us, they hate most the values of ‘diversity’ and the ‘evolving’ quality of our faith that is central to our culture. They desire to supplant it with ‘uniformity’ and ‘rigidity’- one faith, one god, and “our” way.
Why is Ram Janmabhoomi Movement important?
…But first tell me, do you really think that all those who would feel vindicated by restoration of the mandir are just ‘lumpen proletariat’ that don’t have anything better to do with their lives? That they don’t care about India’s progress? Hell no…they are common people just like you and me – educated / uneducated, engineers, doctors, blue / white collar, middle class / upper class, you name it (unlike jihadists who have only one goal and one ‘job’ in life). The only difference between you and that Hindu is that they are sensitive to that above mentioned ‘intangible’ aspect of their identity. You have grown immune to it.
Unlike your understanding that the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement is the brainchild of a bunch of right winger nut jobs from the 21st century, it actually has been around since the time Babur destroyed the original Mandir. Its a shame that we are still fighting for it in the 21st century, the Mandir should have had been restored a long time back.
Restoration of the Mandir would be a moral victory to all of us who are sensitive to our identity- our Hinduness. It will be our moral victory over those forces that are set to destroy our identities.
We indeed need to take India to the level of excellence that existed millennia ago and we indeed owe a lot to the Chanakyas and Aryabhattas of the golden period, and we will do it. But first we owe big to the Shivajis and Tilaks and the Savarkars who lived and died in hostile environments, protecting the Hinduness, from those that were determined to destroy it.
Navnath
1) It’s a myth that India has progressed over the last 20-30 years. I have written extensively about it. You can find it here: http://www.indianliberals.org/2010/08/the-myth-of-indias-economic-boom/
2) I live here in Europe (UK to be precise) and it might interest you to know that most of the western Europe has grown out of Christianity. Atheists form the largest group in the UK, so in Denmark and Sweden (they happen to be two of the best countries to live in the world). Having said that, I am not advocating that people relinquish their religions; I am merely asking people to get their priorities right.
3) I disagree with your assertion that the temple construction would give a morale boost to the Hindus. It might give some morale boost to the sangh parivaar (their political future depends on it) but most of the country has grown out of it. The Ayodhya issue doesn’t spark the kind of passions it did in 1992 any more. After my blog post, I have many people in their 20s and 30s writing to me saying that the verdict should be delayed till such time that no one would care to know about it!
4) Yes there are many forces in India that want to assert their supremacy and alter India’s culture. We must not ignore them. But we could tackle them by simply not letting them succeed in their agendas. We don’t have to go to one extreme to tackle another! You can’t create one supremacist group to fight the other simply because these fights never end, and we’ve experienced it.
5) Lastly, the Hindu civilization and culture has lived for centuries before us and will live for centuries after us. It is extremely arrogant of us mere mortals who would live for a few decades to talk of “protecting” it. The best we could do is to keep building on what we already have.
Look, the Hindu identity is not tied to a place of worship. That’s what makes Hinduism great. Let’s not demean it by raking up this issue every now and then. Babar and his descendants destroyed many temples all over India with the hope of finishing off Hinduism. The way I look at it, excelling in the world would be the perfect answer to Babar. In fact, we could then even show the mosque with pride and say “this is what they tried to do to us and failed miserably!”
Think about it!
Ashish,
Let me try one more time.
@ European identity: Let’s not go too deep into it as it would be a mere diversion from the main issue. But since you have mentioned it, here’s my response:
European identity is not just about their religion but also ethnicity and the culture and values derived therefrom (scandinavian, celtic, germanic, romaninan, baltic, slavic etc..)… europe would still be fine even if all people become atheists, but they would never compromise their ethnic culture.
@hindu faith & its strength: The fact that hindu culture and civilization lived for centuries because hindu people “protected” it for centuries. That’s what we need to do too. You are disillusioned, my friend, to think it will protect itself.
@ People in 20s and 30s that wrote to you that the verdict should be delayed as no one cares to know about it: Do you know why they don’t care? Because they cannot relate to the anguish felt by the common hindu.
Forget the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement, its just a proxy war for a bigger issue – the pathos of hinduness.
The people in their 20s and 30s you mentioned above have grown immune to this – that’s why they don’t care. But what concerns me is that if we let this continue, the future generations will be further removed from “hinduness”. And that is why our faith, our great culture needs protection.
Lets do a recap of your “action” plan:
1. On forces that want to alter/destroy India’s culture: “We must not ignore them, but we could tackle them by simply not letting them succeed in their agendas.”
2. On Hindu civilization and culture: “The best we could do is to keep building on what we already have.”
WHAT????
End note: I don’t mean to kill your spirit, but I was seriously shaken by the air of conviction in your opening statement about India’s progress in past 20-30 years…”I have written extensively about it”
what? who do you think you are? amartya sen?
Navnath
Of course I am not Amartya Sen – nowhere near that. When I said extensively, it was implied that it was extensive in relation to my comment on this thread (I couldn’t haven copy pasted the entire blog post!).
Having lived here for some years, I could tell you that you are only partially right about it. I could talk about the UK and people here are extremely proud of their culture. And what culture? – tolerance, a unique sense of humour, judiciousness, and pubs & ales. And as I said in my earlier post, they are very proud of their universities and their products.
Now there are a few who try to define the British culture from a very narrow point of view (try British National Party and the English Defence league! You won’t find much difference between them and the sangh parivaar)but they’ve largely been shunned into oblivion. Because British culture is not about race and ethnicity but about all the above things I mentioned.
Similarly, Hindu(ness) is not about a race or religion. The problem is that the Hindutva brigade would want you to think otherwise. Now I am not advocating that we let go of our culture but that culture is not a temple or a race. It is inclusiveness, compassion, introspection… wherever did we leave that?
So if we really want to “protect” this culture, we are doing a very bad job by destroying others’ places of worship, massacring people and asserting racial/religious supremacy.
The young of today are not disillusioned. They have realized their priorities. It’s high time the 60s and 70s generation realize that too.
And as you rightly said, the Ram janmabhoomi is only a proxy war (I see it more as a political war with religious people used as pawns!). And that takes us back to my original argument – let’s try to fight the battle worth fighting and not get bogged down by these proxy wars – We’ve given this world mathematics; let’s take the world a step further in it. We’ve given this world astronomy; let’s be the first to reach Mars and even beyond. We’ve given this world an initiation in medicine; let’s now give them the cures to incurable diseases…
Let me say this again – by trying to do to muslims or christians what babar tried to do with us is not fighting for Hinduness; it’s becoming just another babar! We are unknowingly becoming what babar wanted us to become – just one of his kind!
Oh btw, just wanted to relate one experience from here in the UK.
I was in a town up north one evening and was looking for a good place to eat. An English friend took me to an “Indian” restaurant (run by Pakistanis!). This restaurant was an old church building converted into a restaurant and I vaguely remember seeing some Urdu or Arabic scriptures on it.
My friend’s response when I asked him about it? –
“this place tastes much better on a Saturday night than on a Sunday morning!”
That’s British culture for you
Tangents….all unnecessary tangents! It is a simple fact. Temple stood there. It was a place of worship. Archeological proof exists and it should be given back to Hindus. As simple as that! Had there been more Ashish and the like earlier, Somnath temple would have never come back to its complete glory. What happens in Europe, UK, Australia, Antarctica or the planet of Magrathia is unnecessary here.
Since in UK, a restro run by Pakistani serves indian food and occupies an old church and ppl have smug feeling that the food there tastes better on Saturday, it doesnt make UK a benchmark on what tolerance is and how a civilization should be built.
The matter is internal to India and there is no need to take any references on what some one else did. I too can tell whole lot of stories on how humanity is beyond religion etc. They can even get me booker prize also. The point still remains. Temple was a Hindu temple and once existed on the very spot!
Temples were not just places of worship. They were community centers, art centers, places where scholars talked to society on questions, counting was introduced in a temple to count number of flowers that were to be used on a given day for worship. It is very very simple. Place belongs to Hindus. It must be given back to them. Mandir wahi banega
Vivek
You will have to look at my UK example in context of the discussion I am having with Navnath. But I agree with you that it doesn’t matter how other countries respond to their own situations and I am certainly not suggesting that we should follow UK as a benchmark for cultural tolerance.
The verdict was deferred because the courts thought it prudent to give a final chance for negotiations and consensus-building. But this ‘Mandir wahi banega’ attitude shows us why this issue could never be resolved!
So you keep saying that. The muslims will keep saying that the mosque should stand there. Further retributions and violence would ensue… China will overtake America as the biggest economy meanwhile and our future generations would be told by the end of the 21st century that the 22nd century belongs to India!
Shame that we will never live up to our potential. We deserve better than what our egos permit today.
Ashish,
What is wrong with the Mandir wahi banayenge attitude. This is the place where Rama was born, the masjid was a sign of Islam’s victory over the Vedic religion and expressing their spitefulness for Idol worshippers. If we reclaim what it central to the HIndu Ethos, is it a sign of intolerance? Even if it is a sign of intolerance, why the hell is the hindu always required to be tolerant? Why do not people ask the Muslims to be tolerant and give up a mosque that they never worshipped in. Giving up a thing which is worthless to the muslims for one that is central to hindus, is is such a big compromise for the muslims?
Measuring everything in economic prosperity is not necessarily the be all and end all. Arth is important if earned in a Dharmik way. Just pursuing Arth without regard to Dharam, is not development. We have to learn to marry economic development with our cultural, religious and spiritual heritage, else we may all end up rich but unhappy.
I hear you but not sure I agree!!!
Venkatesh
Hindus should be tolerant because that’s what differentiates Hinduism from other religions. If Hindus choose to be just as intolerant as other religions then we would have to forego the right to call Hinduism tolerant. And it’s no tolerance if it’s practiced in tolerant times; it only counts against intolerant enemies. So if there’s any better time to show the tolerant face of Hinduism, it is now when the whole world is engulfed in intolerance and hatred. This is the time to really prove the difference.
As for the balance between economic prosperity and spiritual righteousness, my friend, we can’t tell those who live on less than a dollar a day to be spiritual. Economic development need not necessarily be about making loads of money; it’s about ensuring that our people get the opportunities to make a decent living for themselves. With nearly 40% of our population living below the poverty line, I don’t think a temple is high on their priority list!
Dharma is doing the right thing and when such a huge percentage of our fellow countrymen and women live miserable lives, our only dharma must be their upliftment. In fact, it’s adharmik to worship an imaginary Bharatmata when this Bharatmata is nothing more than those people who live lives worse than animals.
I come back again to the same point – let’s get our priorities right. The temple is not the most important issue facing us today. We’ve spent billions of rupees over this Ayodhya issue (litigation, law & order etc.) at a time when we need every single paisa to pay our international debts (we are the 5th most indebted country in the world!). We have a huge population that goes to bed hungry. We have a responsibility towards them too.
I don’t know about you but I would feel a lot more proud of my country if we didn’t have any creditors, if we didn’t have to take international charity and if we could enrich the lives of our fellow citizens than if we reclaimed some temples!
Just 10 years ago the argument was that “no one even knows if a temple existed there”, also that “it was actually a buddha stupa!”, also that “no,no,no it was a jaina stupa!”.
Today there is overwhelming evidence that “it was a hindu temple. specifically a rama temple and that ppl worshipped rama there with regular pooja”.
So, now gear change, eh? Enter another new red herring. The angle of development!
“No but if we build the temple, muslims will feel bad and we will never become a super-power” How long? Enuf is enuf.
This is the nth time argument against the temple has been changed! Seriously? How many new red herrings will ppl create? While from the other side, argument has been strong and stable “it was a temple. we have proof – from archelogy, from literature, from scriptures. it was a rama temple. babur demolished it. we want it back.” Whose side has strength of argument?
India becoming super power has nothing to do with building temple. India will become super power if it has the capability, if citizens are vigilant enough of the need to take care of India’s democratic and economic quality. Sane ppl will bring economic, development and related issues to ballot. We proved we are not sane, twice, back to back! In fact we have been at it for last 60 years and we proved time and again how efficient we are at it! I think an apt punchline for India would be “India, electing ass holes for high posts, since 1947!”
The best part is, NRIs like Ashish who would be the least effected by anything in India come out and give us this GYAAN of super power!
Sir, we live in shit here. Getting into a bus is danger. If you are not vigilant on a train, you dont know if a Maoist will burn it down! You dont know when bridges can come down like shit from heaven! When I find an abandoned bag in public, I am terrified by it, even without knowing why! Each one of “Resident Indians” is doing what we have employed this government for! Super power? Please! Stop day-dreaming! Anyway, these are all tangents created by your lot.
Argument is simple. Place belongs to hindus. Mandir Wahi Banega!
Fair enough. I could only argue so much. Do what you got to do. We’ve lived with unrest for the whole of our lives, we could live with it for the rest of it too!
We’ve could’ve been better but guess it’s not to be. I could do peace with that.
V & V… no matter how clearly and logically you try to put forth your point, Ashish and the likes would never get it.
He has a ‘flatland’ understanding of the world which makes him NAIVE to the core.
Folks with ‘flatland’ understanding don’t perceive the world as it exists (with surface and depth), but as though everything in the world exists on the same plane (surface only)
A few examples-
1. They think all religions of the world basically have the same purpose. They fail to understand that the Abrahmic religions are expansionist and exclusivist while the others are not.
2. They believe jihadi extremism and the so called “saffron” extremism are basically two sides of the same coin. But they fail to realise that the latter is ‘reactive’ and wouldn’t exist if the former wouldn’t in the first place.
3. They disregard the rigidity of other religious groups, but when Hindus assert their rights, they view them as ‘intolerant’
I could go on and on, but the above examples are within the context of our debate.
Ashish:
Tolerance and non-violence and respecting others’ views & perspectives are all virtues, but it would be extremely naive to exercise these if the ‘others’ already have a fixed agenda and don’t share your sentiment.
Time to wake up to REALITY, my friend.
Awesome…simply awesome!
Fellow commentators like Navnath, Venkatesh, Jai, Vivek et al have blown to smithereens the arguments put forward by pseudo-sickular NRI Ashish Deodhar, whose attitude unfortunately is akin to an ostrich’s with its head in the sand, totally oblivious to the, to quote from Navnath’s above comment, ‘expansionist and exclusivist’ of the desert cults, that have and will spell doom for Hindus in India.
Sootradhar,
While I have read substantial part of, but not the entire exchange of others with Ashish Deodhar, I feel the label of ‘pseudo-sickular’ is highly inappropriate for him. I do not agree with all he says, but in a short span of time I have come to know him, at least I find him sincere.
‘Secular’, in essence means keeping the state policies away from religious influence. I don’t think Ashish has endorsed any kind of partisan approach towards different religions with regard to how much should they influence the governance in the country.
At most, he differs with you on the amount of role religion/mythology ought to play in daily lives, given the grave problems India is faced with. He thinks religion (especially, mythology) should play as little role as possible in our day-to-day life, and so by extension, even governance. This would make him genuinely secular in my eyes.
I fundamentally see the issue as a property dispute as far as the Constitution and Judiciary are concerned. But of course, if one is honest in one’s analysis, the undercurrents clearly indicate a conflict between the Hindu and the Muslim communities to assert their identity. (Most, if not all) Hindus certainly find it discomforting to see the status of one of the most important deities of their religion sidelined by a Mosque built by a nondescript army general. One might argue that then the Muslims also feel persecuted that ‘their’ structure was demolished despite legal constraints and that the Hindus are ‘out to get them’. However, I must add that those Muslims who proclaim Islam to be a religion of peace and also at the same time feel emotional connect with a place that was essentially built in celebration of persecution, blood and gore, are following double standards. In my eyes, this substantially weakens the Muslims’ case at least on moral grounds. But then, politics, sectarian divide, and assertion of religious identities are not about morals, are they?
[Projecting as a symbol of secularism, a building built on the ruins of one of the most important deities of the majority Hindus, and treating its demolition as some grave crime against the Muslim community, which some people of the media and the pseudo-liberals (ask me, and I will explain the qualifier 'pseudo' in this context) do, is positively grating on nerves of even an atheist like me.]
I have largely detached myself from such birth-defined group-based identities (though the process is not yet complete, and am not sure if it could ever be completed), but I can entirely understand that not all can detach themselves as such, and perhaps, such detachment would be harmful if members of a ‘certain section of the society’ remain well adhered inspired by their primitive religious zeal and keep on bothering and taunting the divided majority.
The reason I made it a point to object to the accusation of Ashish being a ‘pseudo-secular’ is because I believe sincerity and consistency in one’s stand must be appreciated, even if that stance is opposed to one’s own. For there are, in my opinion, very few sincere people in the world.
Sorry offstumped for this largely off-topic comment.
But to be honest, I also see a needless binary is being constructed here by Ashish – there is nothing that stops a country from making the Ram Temple as well as improve its infrastructure!
Ketan, Good comments and I agree. Ashish seems to have a different perspective, which we may not agree with, but in my opinion not pseudo secular. Most of hindus have been brainwashed into thinking that hinduism should be tolerant irrespective of the gravest provocation. This may be Gandhiji’s interpretation. However, the Dharma taught by Shree krishna is tolerance of Adharma is cowardice and Dharma is contextual not absolute.
Venkatesh, people like Ashish are the losers in their life. These people are the ones who do not have guts to fight and unfortunately are large in numbers. These are the people who watch NDTV and IBN and get brain washed by them. As Navnath has pointed out, whats so special about 21st century. May be Ashish has grown horns. Every century will always be ‘progressive’ (progressive is the matter of perception) then the previous one. That does not mean we should forget our identity and take any shit on our face.
Dear Ketan…we can all indulge in semantics and word play till eternity or till hell freezes over or pig starts flying for that matter
, but the fact remains that, as drummasala above pointed out, folks like Ashish are dime-a-dozen in today’s environment, and by the virtue of being settled abroad think that they can grandstand and pontificate about matters related to Hindus and Hinduism. They, IMO, have nothing but typical coconut mentality – brown on the outside and white on the inside, and while not even giving a damn about Hindus or Hinduism, will go to any extent to prove their ‘tolerance’ and ‘secularism’ to the world and esp. to their White Massahs!
And oh btw, all their sermons and lectures are reserved for Hindus only, they can’t or won’t even offer a pip-squeek to the Musilms, ‘coz they very well know that doing so would have a very detrimental effect on their very existence on this earth!
Drummasala/Sootradhar,
Agree with your thoughts though may not agree with the way you express them. The fact remains is that our education system propounds the myths that Ashish talks about albeit in a sincere way. There are loads of my friends who think like that and are very good hindus otherwise. This is primarily what we learn at school in the past and what we see in the media continually. If the hindu movement has to succeed, we need to get the pacifists to not be so any more. The only way this can happen is through dialogue, by calling them pseudo seculars, all you are doing is driving them away.
The key is to get back “kshatriyata” back in the hindus and I think the rest will follow.
Good to hear that the Supreme Court rejected the deferment petition. The obstacles are gone for the Allahabad high court judgment and let us hope, the day is very near!
Ketan, Venkatesh – Thanks for sticking out for me.
Drummasala, Sutradhar – taking a cue from your comments above, I have written a blog post explaining secularism. I don’t challenge your referring to me as pseudo-sickular etc because those who claim to be secular in India have nothing to do with it. You may want to have a read of that blog post.
As for your personal attacks on me – I have learnt from experience that we could call each other names, mock each other, insult each other and only end up spoiling our day. Trust me, I’ve done that and it doesn’t feel very good. So won’t go down that route again!
http://www.dailypioneer.com/285654/Buddhism-demilitarised-Hindus.html
INteresting read. a bit off topic
I am willing to bet the judgement will go against the hindus.
Whatever limited contract law I know, if the original title is disputed then the successors title is also defective. So if everyone agrees that Babar destroyed a temple and built a mosque, I would think he was only passing title that did not belong to the mosque. Unless of course our courts say that they agree Babar was able to cure defective title.
Of course I would be the first to confess this is very simplistic. Perhaps legal eagles would give their 2 bits. Anyone has access to the petition filed by the akhara and their arguments.
The issue is very simple indeed. There once stood a grand temple there – the worship of Shri Ram is ancient, and it is absolutely unthinkable that there was no grand temple for him at Ayodhya, the way there was for Shri Krishna at Mathura, and Shiva at Kashi. The latter were destroyed (by Ghazni, and Aurangzeb, resp.), and their destroyers recorded this with glee in their memoirs. The demolition of the Janmabhoomi was also perhaps recorded by Babar with equal glee, except that the relevant period of his dairy is missing. In any case, the mosque he built was referred to as “janmabhoomi masjid”, clearly indicating what stood there originally.
So the issue is simple – give us back our temple. That’s it. All other talk is mere smoke, usually indulged in by the leftists, or the secular modernists. As a devout Hindu, I need a Ram temple THERE, and nowhere else. Can the Mecca mosque be moved? Can the Vatican be moved? Can any such symbol (say, the statue of liberty, or Big Ben) be moved? No. Similarly, Shri Ram’s janmabhoomi is a defining icon of our ancient civilization. It cannot be moved either.
Also, the gentleman who quaintly narrates personal experiences (with data size of one) from England in order to “teach us”: Kindly compare apples to apples. The right comparison here would be how the english public, at large, would react if an icon of comparable centrality – say Westminster Abbey, or the main seat of the Church of England – were in question. Then, if the public says things like “tastes better on saturday …” it would have some pertinence to this debate.
Sharda- The fact of the matter here everyone in our heart and mind knows the ruling is not going to be in favour of building a temple. So, its futile to raise a demand for it here. If you are so agitated then go and raise it in the relevant forum.
I was looking into the credentials of DN Jha – the main spokesperson against the evidence presented for the existence of a temple. He says the evidence is “doctored.” His introduction usually reads “a historian of international repute” etc.
Anyways, not surprisingly, he is among the band of marxist historians who have consistently attempted to obfuscate and deny facts about Islamic destruction in India. He is a “chela” of her distinguished eminence Romila Thapar – the queen of all liars and obfuscators. He is also included in the list of Marxist historians in Shourie’s “eminent historians.” So when he opens his mouth, it is Thapar’s obfuscation that flows out.
Here is another link which mentions him in the same connection:
http://occidentalsoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/07/destruction-of-somnath-temple.html
Yossarin: Here is a blog you might find interesting, also discussing Somnath
http://dharmaveer.blogspot.com/2009/02/islams-six-destructions-of-somnath.html
– Sharda G. Bhonsle
[...] The ideal verdict – a Local Referendum [...]