AYODHYA - TEMPLE OR MASJID?
The invading marauders from the central Asian plateau and from the north west wastelands left an indelible mark on the country over the centuries they ruled the country. The armies that crossed the Bolan and Khyber mountain passes in the western Himalayas, landed on the plains of Sindhu and Ganga and were enamored by the rich tapestry of the place and the lifestyle of the people inhabiting it. They had never seen such richness in their lives. Their lives had been only in killing each other, eking out a living facing the harsh elements of nature, be it the biting cold of winter or the searing heat of the summer. They had mostly been nomads fearing their lives were permanently in danger. Very few settled down in places and these settlements gave way to cities over a period of time.
These marauding armies when they defeated the local kings in the Sindhu and Ganga plains, set up their own rules over the north and north western part of undivided country. They started calling this part of the land as Hindustan to mean the land of the Hindus, people occupying the land of Sindhu and Ganga plains. Once they got the taste of the land and its riches, they found the life here more comfortable than their nomadic ways of life in the deserts of western Asia and Central Asia. Moreover, the land was protected from the extreme climates by the towering Himalayan range and it gave them a protection from other marauding armies. Thus the kingdoms of various Muslim invaders came up. One of the first acts of barbaric magnitude they undertook was to demolish the temples of the Hindus as they did not believe in idol worship. In those places they constructed their places of worship or mosques. The Hindu places of worship were either totally razed to the ground for building these mosques or partly covered so that the worship in the Hindu temples were stopped leaving the temples to the vagaries of nature. Kashi temple which is reportedly older than the Abrahamic religions, was left without any worship for a few centuries and one of the Shaivite saints from deep south went to the palace of the Muslim ruler in Delhi demanding that the worship be permitted there. In the life history of this saint it is reported that within a day, he could converse with the ruler in his native tongue and was riding a lion to reach the court of the ruler. The ruler, fearing for his life from someone who could ride a lion, gave into the demands of the saint and allowed the worship in the temple but requested that the mosque may be permitted to remain which the saint had agreed upon graciously and we are seeing today that the temple of Lord Vishvanath in Kashi is adjoining the mosque with a wall separating both.
In many other places the temples of Hindus were razed and one such place is Ayodhya where the temple dedicated to Lord Ram was destroyed to build the mosque there. In the excavation undertaken by Archaeological Survey of India under the direction of the Supreme Court of India, the ASI had found remains of a Hindu temple below the mosque which was destroyed by the HIndu nationalists in 1992. Since independence of the country, the place is under dispute between the Hindu nationalists who claim that the place is of Ram temple and the Muslims claiming that the place is of importance to them as the mosque was built by the king Babur. The makeshift temple of Lord Ram was locked up and no worship was permitted; but during the government of Rajiv Gandhi, the makeshift temple was thrown open and the problems became quite acute afterwards culminating in the Hindu nationalists destroying the mosque there in December of 1992. This aggravated further the religious disharmony between Hindus and Muslims; though there had not been much of cordiality between them otherwise. The rulers of the times also did not help matters much either. The matter of dispute of ownership of the land had gone from the lower court to presently to the Supreme Court. It is expected that the case may be decided upon any time soon.
In the meantime, there had been attempts to find a settlement outside the court between the communities by various leaders. The attempts of many including the last head of Kanchi Kamakoti Matam Sri Jayendrasaraswathi Sankaracharya failed to bring the parties to agree to any common ground and a plan. However, there had been frequent attempts at finding a solution outside of the legal remedy through courts. Presently the head of the Art of Living Fondation Sri Sri Ravishankar had been talking to different stake holders to find a solution and arrive at an amicable solution. He was able to persuade a section of the stakeholders; however another section of the stakeholders of the same community had upped the ante and had disowned the amicable understanding arrived at between the Hindu leader and a Maulvi of one of the stakeholders. Broadly the present situation seems that the parties are waiting for the court verdict and no out of court amicable settlement may be possible. In the meanwhile, there are people who are sounding that the state and religion have to be kept apart and there is no need for Rasputins' in India clearly indicating that the attempts of Sri Sri Ravishankar are not welcome. Such innocuous looking articles in the media tend to aggravate the situation especially when such an article is written by a Hindu suggesting that the majority community is not convinced about the role of the spiritual leader. How far fetched from truth such veiled references, with no basis, to derail the attempts is for any one to see and the actual design as to stop the spiritual leader from getting whatever credit that may accrue out of such a settlement.
The final decision of the court may be on the ownership of the land and it may not bring about a truce between the communities as to whether a temple be built or not in the disputed site. In that background, waiting for the verdict of the court may delay the process of a final arbitration acceptable to all the stakeholders. Therefore, it is the duty of all the parties to encourage the out of court talks among all the stakeholders, to arrive at an amicable solution acceptable to all without any one party feeling defeated in the process, and help normalcy restored in the disputed place earliest. Ultimately it is the people who are going to be benefited by such a settlement and no government or political party will be able to take the credit away from the stakeholders concerned. Once a solution is arrived at it would be a monumental victory for all the people and the stakeholders representing different communities. All of them should be able to work without getting unduly influenced by the thought process of self seeking politicians be it from this community or that community. If Sri Sri Ravishankar is able to provide a common ground to discuss and arrive at a solution for this dispute pending for so long a time, it is most welcome. That is not going to make the country marry the religion with the state or for that matter to allow the spiritual leader to become all powerful like the Rasputin of Russia during Tsar's rule.. Peoples' problem are getting solved by participation of the people from different communities; this need not necessarily be only through the elected representatives as most of the times, they tend to vitiate the atmosphere with their vitriolic outpouring to self serve and fish in the troubled waters.
In many other places the temples of Hindus were razed and one such place is Ayodhya where the temple dedicated to Lord Ram was destroyed to build the mosque there. In the excavation undertaken by Archaeological Survey of India under the direction of the Supreme Court of India, the ASI had found remains of a Hindu temple below the mosque which was destroyed by the HIndu nationalists in 1992. Since independence of the country, the place is under dispute between the Hindu nationalists who claim that the place is of Ram temple and the Muslims claiming that the place is of importance to them as the mosque was built by the king Babur. The makeshift temple of Lord Ram was locked up and no worship was permitted; but during the government of Rajiv Gandhi, the makeshift temple was thrown open and the problems became quite acute afterwards culminating in the Hindu nationalists destroying the mosque there in December of 1992. This aggravated further the religious disharmony between Hindus and Muslims; though there had not been much of cordiality between them otherwise. The rulers of the times also did not help matters much either. The matter of dispute of ownership of the land had gone from the lower court to presently to the Supreme Court. It is expected that the case may be decided upon any time soon.
In the meantime, there had been attempts to find a settlement outside the court between the communities by various leaders. The attempts of many including the last head of Kanchi Kamakoti Matam Sri Jayendrasaraswathi Sankaracharya failed to bring the parties to agree to any common ground and a plan. However, there had been frequent attempts at finding a solution outside of the legal remedy through courts. Presently the head of the Art of Living Fondation Sri Sri Ravishankar had been talking to different stake holders to find a solution and arrive at an amicable solution. He was able to persuade a section of the stakeholders; however another section of the stakeholders of the same community had upped the ante and had disowned the amicable understanding arrived at between the Hindu leader and a Maulvi of one of the stakeholders. Broadly the present situation seems that the parties are waiting for the court verdict and no out of court amicable settlement may be possible. In the meanwhile, there are people who are sounding that the state and religion have to be kept apart and there is no need for Rasputins' in India clearly indicating that the attempts of Sri Sri Ravishankar are not welcome. Such innocuous looking articles in the media tend to aggravate the situation especially when such an article is written by a Hindu suggesting that the majority community is not convinced about the role of the spiritual leader. How far fetched from truth such veiled references, with no basis, to derail the attempts is for any one to see and the actual design as to stop the spiritual leader from getting whatever credit that may accrue out of such a settlement.
The final decision of the court may be on the ownership of the land and it may not bring about a truce between the communities as to whether a temple be built or not in the disputed site. In that background, waiting for the verdict of the court may delay the process of a final arbitration acceptable to all the stakeholders. Therefore, it is the duty of all the parties to encourage the out of court talks among all the stakeholders, to arrive at an amicable solution acceptable to all without any one party feeling defeated in the process, and help normalcy restored in the disputed place earliest. Ultimately it is the people who are going to be benefited by such a settlement and no government or political party will be able to take the credit away from the stakeholders concerned. Once a solution is arrived at it would be a monumental victory for all the people and the stakeholders representing different communities. All of them should be able to work without getting unduly influenced by the thought process of self seeking politicians be it from this community or that community. If Sri Sri Ravishankar is able to provide a common ground to discuss and arrive at a solution for this dispute pending for so long a time, it is most welcome. That is not going to make the country marry the religion with the state or for that matter to allow the spiritual leader to become all powerful like the Rasputin of Russia during Tsar's rule.. Peoples' problem are getting solved by participation of the people from different communities; this need not necessarily be only through the elected representatives as most of the times, they tend to vitiate the atmosphere with their vitriolic outpouring to self serve and fish in the troubled waters.
Comments
Post a Comment