| 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. |