THE MEANING OF AYODHYA
We may now look back at the sampling of history presented
so far, including the contrast offered by what Babar had
to say about himself, and what the Secularists beginning
with Nehru would have us believe. The Baburnama, giving
as it does the story of his life and outlook in his own
words, sheds light not only on the true personality of
Babar, but also on the magnitude of the falsification
which the Secularists have indulged in beginning
with Nehru himself. This exemplifies what Koenraad Elst
has called Jihad Negationism.
It is the tragedy of Indian Muslims that it is falsehoods
like this blatant and easily exposed that
their so-called leaders are holding forth as real issues
before them. Had it not been so tragic, it would have
been seen as ridiculous. This is the quality of issues
and leaders on which the Indian Muslim community pins
its hopes, and in which the cynical Secularist brigade
is telling them lies their future.
This distortion of Indian history is probably the most
insidious legacy of India's imperial past. For communal
harmony to prevail in India, her people must come to terms
with history. A privileged group like the Secularist-Islamicist
nexus cannot go on propagating a negationist version of
history that serves its own interests, while heaping abuse
on anyone who challenges them; this will only harden attitudes,
and make an already difficult situation impossible. If
this goes on much longer, it will soon reach a point of
no return. It is to be fervently hoped that we are not
already there.
As far as the Babri Masjid is concerned, by no stretch
of the imagination can it be called a place of worship.
It was not meant as one by Babur, nor seen as such by
the Hindus in more than four centuries. Both sides understood
that it was erected to mark the defeat and humiliation
of the Hindus at the hands this invader with his hostile
ideology.
To sum up: Ayodhya represents a struggle by Indians
to recover their true history from the grip of imperial
surrogates the Islamicists and the Secularists.
These are the residue of defunct imperial movements. They
are now partners in negation trying to preserve their
privileges and positions as representatives of imperialisms
past. Negationism has been their main tactic. It is doomed
to failure, for Ayodhya has called their bluff.
The basic problem is that the parties have avoided such
fundamental issues. Instead of trying to understand what
Ram Janmabhumi and Ayodhya mean to the Hindus, the Babri
Masjid advocates have been trying to present it as a dispute
over a piece of real estate and a structure in brick and
mortar.
Every living nation has national symbols and Ayodhya
is Indias. A young American a former student
of mine once asked me why building the temple at
Ram Janmabhumi was so important. I asked her if Americans
would let stand a mosque built by someone like Osama bin
Laden after demolishing Mount Vernon (George Washingtons
home) or the Statue of Liberty. Similarly, the Westminster
Abbey in
Top
|
London is more than a Church, for it is inseparably
bound with English history and tradition. This is how
the people of India also look at Ram Janmabhumi: it is
a sacred spot for Hindus for historical, cultural and
nationalistic reasons and not just because it is
a place of worship. Many like me who never go to a temple
still hold it sacred
I pointed out at the beginning that other nations have
demolished symbols of humiliation built by invaders. The
French demolished many Nazi structures and the Americans
demolished statues of the British king George III.
Conclusion: "A House Divided"
To summarize what is really at stake for the nation at
Ayodhya, and what it symbolizes, we must ask a basic question:
what gave Babar the right to destroy the temple at Ramjanmabhumi
and build a mosque in its place? The answer is simple:
Babar's ideology gave him that right. It is an ideology
that sees everything outside the pale of Islam as an object
of derision to be humiliated and destroyed. The Babri
Masjid was built at Ayodhya as a memorial to the success
of that ideology. This does not mean that everyone - especially
the victims - should accept it as legitimate and submit
to it.
Accepting the legitimacy of the Babri Masjid at Ram Janmabumi
means acknowledging the superiority of Babar's ideology
over that of the overwhelming majority of the people of
India, and his right to impose it on others by force.
This is imperialism pure and simple. The Babri Masjid
advocates - the Muslim leaders, the Secularists and the
Congress party - must acknowledge this fundamental fact.
Court cases and political postures cannot change it. They
are historically irrelevant.
So here is the plain truth: where Ram Janmabhumi is
a national symbol, the Babri Masjid is a symbol of Babar's
imperialism. Those who support the Babri Masjid either
identify with Babar's imperialism or are willing to live
as its slaves. India must decide whether it wants to be
a nation or an imperial colony - it cannot be both.
I began this volume with a passage by Abraham Lincoln,
and I shall end it with another. In the years before the
American Civil War, when the country was being torn by
the question of slavery, the southern states wanted slavery
to continue, while the northern states wanted it abolished.
At that juncture, Abraham Lincoln said these prophetic
words:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I
believe this government cannot endure permanently half
slave and half free. ... I do not expect the house to
fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It
will become all one thing, or all of the other.
In the context of the struggle for the Indian nation,
which Ayodhya symbolizes, we may rephrase the Great Emancipator's
words as follows:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. ...I
believe this country cannot endure permanently half a
free nation and half a colony. ... I do not expect the
house to fall but I do expect it will cease to
be divided. It will become all one thing, or all of the
other.
It is for the people of India to decide which half they
want their country to be.
|