The Allahabad High Court divided the land where the Babri Masjid stood for 500 years into three: two parts to the two Hindu groups and one part to the Muslim group involved in the case, legitimising the demand of the Hindu groups that this was in fact the precise place where Ram was born. Tell me how do they know that and how in the wide world did they prove that in court?!?!
Isn't India secular?!?! How can a court of law base its judgment on a particular faith or belief.
To think that we could destroy a 500 year old mosque on the whim of a belief that materialized out of thin air, to destroy history and a world heritage site because a bunch of saffron clad bigots believe that Ram was born in the exact spot where the mosque stands.
This verdict somehow justifies what happened on December 6th 1992 and I am afraid could seem to many trouble makers as an invitation to rake up other similar issues. For surely in a country with a civilization and history as old and rich as India's there are many other examples of mosques built on ruins of temples and temples built on ruins of mosques.
This verdict somehow justifies what happened on December 6th 1992 and I am afraid could seem to many trouble makers as an invitation to rake up other similar issues. For surely in a country with a civilization and history as old and rich as India's there are many other examples of mosques built on ruins of temples and temples built on ruins of mosques.
How can we justify the hundreds who were killed and raped and burnt alive for the sake of this conflict? Are we going to demolish one house of God now to build another one? And on this soil too that is tainted with the blood of those who died in the riots 18 years back.
If favouring the majority is India's way of protecting its minorities, we need to seriously question our intentions. Does this mean we are doomed to succumb to the demands of the holy saffron in order to ensure communal harmony?
If favouring the majority is India's way of protecting its minorities, we need to seriously question our intentions. Does this mean we are doomed to succumb to the demands of the holy saffron in order to ensure communal harmony?
Sure its calm right now but are we sure its not the calm before the storm!
I don't want any part in this responsibility. I think the Babri Masjid should be restored and protected as a heritage site and India should stop justifying violence and bigotry in the name of God if she wants to really progress in the world and continue calling herself a secular democracy.
Is anyone else with me on this?
10 comments:
I am IN! :)
Love the post.
You voiced every thought in my mind. Imagine a judiciary did that. A Freaking judiciary.
My room mate Mahima.. backs your opinion as her own. :)
If you are okay. I will publish this on my wall on FB. I want people to read the other side. I think too little is being said about how wrong that judgement was.
ummaahh!!
i dont think its a verdict! its a compromise! people were given their share in th land in proportion to the kind of havoc they are capable of creating!!
Love to read your thoughts!! ummaah!!
Hey Misha,
I agree with you in part. I believe any act of violence is unacceptable. The other claimants to the Masjid land could have made their objections known in an honorable and respectful fashion.
I believe we must respect the word of the people who claim that Ram was born on that land. Perhaps it is true. There seems to be archeological proof that there must have been some Hindu site of worship there before the Masjid was constructed. In my opinion, we fail to be a democracy if we fail to consider their faith.
History is written by the Victors of war and plunder. We were governed by Moghuls for 300 years before the British Empire. Be it the crusaders in Europe or the Moghuls in India, suppressing and stripping off of the religious practices of the vanquished nation and enforcing their own is a historically documented fact. Therefore, I don't agree that the claims of there being a religious temple there before the Masjid is a whimsical claim.
It is truly hard for India to be secular in reality. We are too steeped in religion and the politics of religion to ever truly be secular. But the truth also is that in India you will find different religious places in the same lane, often sharing the same boundary wall. To me religious tolerance is the highest mark of practical secularism. Indians have demonstrated that, for the most part, successfully.
Personally, I believe Babri must stand as it is and the others must suck it up. A democracy gives every voice a forum. Unfortunately the saffronites chose violence as their voice. I wish they had not. However, this does not taint my belief that they have valid reasons for having a claim to the Babri land.
As D rightly said, it is a compromise, and in our country that requires a lot of collective emotional maturity to start living up to its constitutional claim of being a secular democracy, it is the best resolution.
Hey Misha,
I agree with you in part. I believe any act of violence is unacceptable. The other claimants to the Masjid land could have made their objections known in an honourable and respectful fashion.
It is truly hard for India to be secular in reality. We are too steeped in religion and the politics of religion to ever truly be secular. But the truth also is that in India you will find different religious places in the same lane, often sharing the same boundary wall. To me religious tolerance is the highest mark of true secularism. Indians have demonstrated that, for the most part, successfully.
Personally, I believe Babri must stand as it is and the others must suck it up. A democracy gives every voice a forum. Unfortunately the saffronites chose violence as their voice. I wish they had not. However, this does not taint my belief that they have valid reasons for having a claim to the Babri land.
As D rightly said, it is a compromise, and in our country that requires a lot of collective emotional maturity to start living up to its constitutional claim of being a secular democracy, it is the best resolution.
Thought provoking piece. Made me finally put a finger on and word what I think of the issue.
Thanks for your comments Gals!
I guess I do believe the people of India have been/are pretty mature about this and other religious issues in general and are definitely religiously tolerant at least the majority.
Its only the right wing Hindu parties that create havoc.
What bothers me is the judiciary ruling based on religious beliefs in a country that constitutionally is secular - that I cannot accept!
Thanks for your opinions.. and Thanks for reading.
Thanks for your comments Gals!
I guess I do believe the people of India have been/are pretty mature about this and other religious issues in general and are definitely religiously tolerant at least the majority.
Its only the right wing Hindu parties that create havoc.
What bothers me is the judiciary ruling based on religious beliefs in a country that constitutionally is secular - that I cannot accept!
Thanks for your opinions.. and Thanks for reading.
Hey Misha,
I agree with you in part. I believe any act of violence is unacceptable. The other claimants to the Masjid land could have made their objections known in an honorable and respectful fashion.
I believe we must respect the word of the people who claim that Ram was born on that land. Perhaps it is true. There seems to be archeological proof that there must have been some Hindu site of worship there before the Masjid was constructed. In my opinion, we fail to be a democracy if we fail to consider their faith.
History is written by the Victors of war and plunder. We were governed by Moghuls for 300 years before the British Empire. Be it the crusaders in Europe or the Moghuls in India, suppressing and stripping off of the religious practices of the vanquished nation and enforcing their own is a historically documented fact. Therefore, I don't agree that the claims of there being a religious temple there before the Masjid is a whimsical claim.
It is truly hard for India to be secular in reality. We are too steeped in religion and the politics of religion to ever truly be secular. But the truth also is that in India you will find different religious places in the same lane, often sharing the same boundary wall. To me religious tolerance is the highest mark of practical secularism. Indians have demonstrated that, for the most part, successfully.
Personally, I believe Babri must stand as it is and the others must suck it up. A democracy gives every voice a forum. Unfortunately the saffronites chose violence as their voice. I wish they had not. However, this does not taint my belief that they have valid reasons for having a claim to the Babri land.
As D rightly said, it is a compromise, and in our country that requires a lot of collective emotional maturity to start living up to its constitutional claim of being a secular democracy, it is the best resolution.
I agree that this seemed to be an attempt to reach a compromise. I did hear the response of those who supported the demolition - some voices did claim this entitled them to start fighting for other such birth places.
I had visited Vrindavan last November and a guide showed us Sri Krishna Janamsthaan, and when I asked (it was an innocent question as a tourist) how we found out that Krishna was born there, he was very upset. He said well known people had said so (took some names, I was unfamiliar with so don't remember) and that it was a matter of faith and he said I sounded like a Journalist!
@ IHM
I have grown up with stories of Hindu mythology over dinner and bedtime. But for me they were always stories. I never thought Ram or Krishna were ever really born somewhere.
Only as an adult did I realise that some people really believed this as part of history. I guess I cannot understand and we cannot agree. That's that!
The reaction of the guide is so typical isn't it! The question you asked is atypical :-)
Post a Comment