 about | |
news | | archive | | email | | links | | current issue | |
Bharat
Varsha 1947 : The Voice of the Free Indian
|
“India and the Perversion of History” Author: Unmesh Indians have always been notorious for their poor sense of history. This is not to say they have a poor memory, quite the contrary; the oldest known texts (the Vedas) have been carefully preserved in India through remarkable oral traditions, as have some of the longest works of man (the Mahabharata and the Ramayana); yet when it comes to the day-to-day recording and reporting of events and happenings, there is often no clear and organized system of written documentation. This shortcoming was recognized very early by both the foreign invaders of the country (Islam and the Colonial rulers) and exploited to the full, especially by the British. What is surprising though is that even after the 50 odd years of Independence, not much has changed, especially with regard to the centralized education system. I got a taste of this quite early on, in 8th grade history class, my teacher nonchalantly declared that India was discovered in the 15th Century by Vasco De Gama, a Portugese Jesuit. I clearly remember the utter absurdity I felt seeing this lady from the south of India, part of an ancient heritage, say this without the faintest hint of sarcasm or humor in her voice. Obviously, I challenged her and asked her what she meant, more obviously still, she had never really thought about it, but was just regurgitating material out of the course-book. The course book was assigned by the central (the equivalent of Federal in this country) government to teach Indian history across the country. India became independent from British rule in 1947, this incident happened in the mid 1980's. I state this relatively harmless distortion of history as an example of a much more widespread problem that exists in India, where such distortions are routinely used to deliberately brainwash a large segment of its population; resulting in a class unable to identify and deal with a very real set of problems from the past - problems that cannot be laid to rest unless there are discussions based on a full disclosure of the past. Specifically, I speak of the Ram Janambhoomi/Babri Masjid issue which has recently had some very unfortunate repercussions in India. From these violent responses, it becomes immediately clear that this is not an ordinary issue, but a powerful and symbolic one, deeply intertwined in the historical psyche of the people. One of the reasons that this rage often boils over is because even the easily verified historicity of the Ayodhya site has been distorted, denied or deemed too sensitive to be openly discussed. This of course raises important questions regarding the redressing of historical wounds. How is to be done? How far back in time does one go? And so on. These questions are important and
can be addressed when the time comes. But even to arrive at these
questions both sides have to be aware of the history of the site,
and the larger history of the Islamic invasion of India, both have
to acknowledge that the Islamic invasion of India was one of the
bloodiest in human history and also one of the most widespread and
sustained deliberate destruction of a peoples architecture. This
is not the history that is taught in history books, not even allowed
to be openly discussed by the media (both international and domestic),
but it is history as a vast majority of Indians know, through their
oral traditions and the architectural evidence around them. Ironically,
this deception and suppression of historical facts only adds fuel
to the controversy, breeding mistrust, confusion and communalism;
exactly what the policy is aimed at preventing. As writer and thinker
Sita Ram Goel has pointed out, Astrategies based on self- deception
lie defeated at the very start@ (Goel, ii). Reading about the recent events in India I was struck by how ill informed the reporting on this subject was, not only by the international agencies but even the Indian sources were often quite misleading; both deliberately and out of ignorance. Again, this is part of the problem, the disenfranchised classes created through the leftover colonial system of education, are the English speaking Aintellectuals@ that the international media gets its reporting through. The have definite communist leanings and are therefore anti-Hindu on principle. The masses don’t have such a well organized international voice that can defend them from this relentless anti-propaganda. For this brief paper I wish to be that voice and to present evidence that there really was a temple in Ayodhya much before the Babri Mosque, that this temple was broken and some of its parts used to build the Babri mosque or Mazjid, and that far from being an isolated case, Babri Masjid was part of a deliberate policy of iconoclasm and religious precaution shared by all the Islamic invaders and rulers. The first source of evidence on
temple breaking is archeological. Following are the findings of
the Archeological Survey of India, published after excavations undertaken
between 1975 and 1980 by B. B. Lal, former Director General of the
ASI. The Babri Mosque has 14 pillars of a black stone popularly
known as >ksauti= which are part of the structure, and support
many crucial parts of the dome; therefore they were most likely
placed there during the original construction of the mosque. These
pillars depict mutilated gods and goddesses and use motifs that
are not only clearly Hindu (since Islam does not condone portrayal
of icons) but also allow their style to be identified; stylistically
the pillars have been dated to the 11th century. The black stone
or kasauti, prized since ancient times for temple building due to
its excellent grain and ability to be carved, is only found many
hundred kilometers away while the brick and chuna or limestone used
for the rest of the mosque are of local origin and are unadorned.
In the words of the report: Apart from these pillars, several
>parts= that would have belonged to a Vaishnav or Vishnu temple
(Rama is an avataar of Vishnu) like doorjambs of a similar stone
and style, carved heads etc. were also found by the team in and
around the site. The other damning piece of archeological evidence
was found when a series of excavation trenches were dug around the
site and the layers of habitation in the ancient mound studied.
This produced evidence that the site has been continuously inhabited
since at least the 7th century B.C. and that around the 11th century
layer, a set of rectangular bases were laid out that seemed to be
constructed to accept pillars. The directional alignment of these
bases is the same as the pillars in the Babri mosque (Lal). The
destruction of the ‘mosque’ in 1992 brought to light many
more pieces of Hindu sculpture and architectural elements that are
found in temples, even some inscriptions were found. The stone inscriptions
are in 11-12th century Sanskrit and speak of the act of commissioning
the temple and describe how grand a temple it was. (Lal) Apart from this evidence specific to Ayodhya, I have attached some pictures of sites I have personally visited and documented which are clearly the accumulation of temple pillars and carved stones into the form of a mosque or other Islamic architecture. These structures are quite widespread in Rajasthan and other parts of northern India - I have visited more than a dozen such sites. The usual practice in this case was to reuse as much as possible of the existing temple or temples not only to expedite the mosque construction but also to symbolically reinforce the truth of the new religion - by etching its >victory= over the older religion by using the same physical material and reshaping it. In the words of Amir Khusro: The sultan dispatched Ulugh Khan
to M’abar and Gujrat for the destruction of the idol- temple
of Somnat… He destroyed all the idols and temples of Somnath…
and in that stronghold of idolatory the summons to namaz was pronounced
so lound, that they heard it in Egypt and Iran (Goel, 65) The mode of construction used by Indian temple architecture actually made this process of conversion simpler because the temples were made of large stone pieces, in a kit-of-parts like manner; simple post and beam construction relying on finely carved joints instead of mortar for strength. For the iconoclasts then, it was simply a matter of taking these >parts= and reconfiguring them for the needs of a mosque. These needs were quite different in that a mosque had to cover large public spaces -for the gathering of prayer - quite unlike a temple which is a more private experience. The stone pillars of the temple, or very often temples, were adapted for mosque purposes by re-carving the gods and goddesses, which were not allowed in a mosque, into geometrical figures and patterns. Often, the job was done in such haste that clear remains of Hindu Gods and Goddesses still remain. Sometimes they would just break the noses of the figures because Hindus often do not like to worship a broken idol. Figure1 and 2 are photographs I took of the Adhai din ka Jhopra or the two-and-a-half- day-cottage, so called because the three temples on the site were converted into a mosque over two and a half days. Legend has it that after the second battle of Tarain (1192 AD) in which Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori defeated and killed Prithviraj Chauhan, the victor passed through Ajmer. He was so awed by the three temples that he wanted them destroyed and replaced instantly. He asked Qutubuddin Aibak, his slave general, to have the needful done in 60 hours' time so that he could offer prayers in the new masjid on his way back! Figures 3 and 4 are of the qutab minar complex in Delhi, apart form the towering minar or tower, the 13th century complex has a jami masjid built from the ruins of 27 Hindu temples. The pillars seen here and in figures 1 and 2 can be compared to these from Hindu temples of a similar vintage in Figures 5 and 6; the lineage is quite easily seen. The second source of evidence for Ram Janmasthan is documentary. Safiha i Chahal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, written by the daughter of Bahadur Shah Alamgir during the late 17th century/early 18th century and translated from Persian by Mirza Jan in his book Hadiqa i Shahda: "... the mosques built on the basis of the king's orders (ba farman i Badshahi) have not been exempted from the offering of the namaz and the reading of the Khutba [therein]. The places of worship of the Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh, etc., in which the Hindus (kufar) have great faith the place of the birthplace of Kanhaiya, the place of Rasoi Sita, the place of Hanuman, who, according to the Hindus, was seated by Ram Chandra over there after the conquest of Lanka were all demolished for the strength of Islam, and at all these places mosques have been constructed. These mosques have not been exempted from juma and jamiat (Friday prayers). Rather it is obligatory that no idol worship should be performed over there and the sound of the conch shell should not reach the ear of the Muslims ..." (VHP) Another interesting document is
a petition filed by Muhammad Asghar in 1858 with the British: Muhammad Asghar, caretaker of the Babri Masjid, filed a representation dated 30.11.1858 to the British Government. In this complaint against the Bairagis of Janmasthan, he alleged that the Hindus had occupied the mosque, constructed an earthen mound therein, hoisted a flag on a high pole, installed a deity, started puja, and wrote the name of Rama all over the walls and so on. (Deoki) The caretaker also observes that in the in the courtyard within the walled boundaries of the mosque, there had been Janmasthan (place of birth) lying desolate, where the Hindus had been worshiping for hundreds of years. This confirms the fact that even though the site of Janmasthan had been covered by the Babri Masjid, the Hindus had been worshiping in the open space for hundreds of years, i.e. even during the Moghul and the Nawabi periods, and that they had maintained their claim on the entire Janmasthan area. These are just some of the Muslim writers and historians that mention Ayodhya as the birthplace of Rama and the building of a mosque on the temple site, there are many others, for a complete list refer to ‘Hindu Temples: What happened to them’ volumes I and II. As in the case of the archeological
evidence there is considerable Islamic writing available as well,
singing great praises of idol breaking and taking great pride in
the >sons of Islam= that did this. To quote just a few: Had you seen Muhammad and his troops, Maulana Minhãj us Sirãj,
the thirteenth century historian, sums up the theology of Islam
regarding idols and temples when he comes to Mahmud of Ghazni in
his Tabqãt I Nãsiri. AWhen Sultan Mahmud ascended
the throne of sovereignty his illustrious deeds became manifest
unto all mankind within the pale of Islam when he converted so many
thousands of idol temples into Masjids and captured many of the
cities of Hindustan ... He led an army to Naharwala of Gujarat,
brought away Manat, the idol from Somnath, and had broken into four
parts, one of which was cast before the center of the great Masjid
at Ghaznin, the second before the gateway of the Sultan's palace,
and the third and fourth sent to Makkah and Madinah respectively.@
(VHP) The evidence is quite strong, in fact it would take the dulled reason of a fanatical mind to try and deny it. One of the most common rejections of this evidence, even by some reputable historians is that this kind of plunder was part of the taking over of territory and was politically and economically motivated; therefore, not done on religious grounds, but instead, to show the dominance of the new ruler over the previous one by replacing the symbolic architecture of one by the other. But this argument does not hold water, because it would mean that if the fight was between two Islamic states the winner would replace the mosque of the loser with a new one. There are no accounts of this happening, in fact, the common practice in this case was that the winner would go and pay his respects at the leading mosques of the losing state (Elst). There was clearly a differential treatment for >kafirs= than for other dar-ul-islam or land of Islam. There is also the more recent example, the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, which were the largest statues of their kind. The spirit that this was done in, is not an aberration from true Islam but has rather been the true spirit of Islam for much of the movements life, evidenced by the fact that the Arabic word for idols is buht a bastardization of Budh or Buddha; the land of Afghanistan and all the lands between Afghanistan and India were in fact full of Buddhist monasteries, Buddhist and Hindu temples and universities and Zoroastrian fire temples, yet today few of these remain, the idols or >buht=s= removed through Islamic cleansing. In fact, there are still regular temple and church destructions in the Muslim states of Bangladesh and Pakistan, where minority Hindu and Christian populations precariously survive. In recent years this has become particularly epidemic in Bangladesh, where the increasingly militant nature of Islam has resulted in the killing and abuse of many minorities. This is really ironic because, the Muslim voice and the so called >secular= voice in India (actually one of the last stands of the communists who have formed a dubious alliance with the Muslims in being strongly anti-Hindu) is commonly shouting >foul= when things are going against the Muslims in India, saying the rights of the minorities are being abused. Yet, in Islamic states minorities either flee or are abused and essentially have no rights at all and no voice which can even speak of the wrongs that are done to them. This can be clearly seen through the fact that at the time of partition the Hindu population of Pakistan was about 10 percent of the total, it now stands at less than 1.5 percent; on the other hand, in India the percentage of Muslims since independence has actually increased from 11 percent of the total to 14 percent - Bangladesh presents a similar story of Hindu and Christian population decline. The other most common argument presented
against the Rama Janambhumi movement is this; history is full of
instances of one group of people being very violent to another,
therefore earlier deeds of a people cannot be judged by >modern=
standards since we have started treating each other much better
now. This is a naive misconception. The so called >modern= standards
are but a myth, the last hundred years, and even the last few decades
are as filled with as violent a humanity as any other (if not much
more so). Furthermore, Indians have been judging Islam from standards
of how they themselves have historically treated others. There has
been a long tradition of tolerance in India and all the religions
based in India have perpetuated thorough non-violent means. Many
parallel traditions and ways of life have been allowed to co-exist
here, in a kind of dynamic state, where they have shaped each other
and created a much larger and richer complexity. The Hindu empires
have long provided state money for not only the construction of
Hindu temples but also Buddhist monasteries and stupas or Jain temples
and monasteries, they have accepted communities fleeing from persecution
elsewhere, like the Persian community or Parsi=s of India or the
few thousand Jews who found sanctuary here for many centuries; many
of whom have recently returned to Israel. Due to its central belief
that there are many, equally valid paths to Truth or perhaps many
Truths as well, Hinduism is inherently secular, and India has been
>secular= for much of its history. The religions that have coexisted
with Hinduism for many centuries like the Jains and Buddhists did
not loose their identity but gained more depth and complexity through
a dynamic association with each other. Till the arrival of Islam,
all three had quite a strong following in India. So, there is a
real possibility that if there is a true dialogue within India between
the Muslims and Hindus, they could co-exist. Like all the sub-groups
that exist in India, the Muslims would be absorbed into a larger
whole; while still having their own identity. But at present, there
is too much outside influence, the oil-rich middle-east has been
pumping money into Indian Madarsas for many years now, training
a generation full of hate, and convincing a people to fight their
own, calling it a >freedom= struggle. They still preach the ‘one
nation of Islam’ idea, an idea that calls for the believer
to always place the brotherhood of religion above patriotism for
the nation; under such a belief there can be no peace for Muslims
in a non-Islamic country, till they gain political control and establish
Islamic power. In my mind, the greatest tragedy of the past five hundred years has been the irreparable loss of cultural diversity that has resulted because of aggressive, ‘one and only book one and only God’ religions forcing their way into nations and alienating people from their own land. One of the few places where this ancient diversity still survives is in India, and it has a good possibility of continuing to survive here precisely because of the nature of Hinduism. But for this to happen, Hindus have to come out of their dormant state and become more self-aware and assertive; constantly watchful of forces that are trying to establish ‘one’ truth. The first signs of this ‘revival’ are quite visible and the Ayodhya movement is part of it, though I personally think that some of the energy being spent in Ayodhya might be much better served by other larger issues - starting with a look at the misleading textbooks still being used to teach in Indian schools and at the system of education itself, but the power of architecture as a symbol is very strong and since this revival has come from the masses and not the so called intelligencia, the first demands of Hindu revivalism has been the return of the three largest temples that were destroyed; temples that were once the very center of the life and learning around them, and which since ancient times have been revered and mentioned repeatedly in the oral and written traditions. I don=t think this is a particularly
unreasonable demand. As a recent precedent, the Germans have apologized
for what Nazi Germany did to many other peoples especially the Jews;
even though the generation apologizing was not directly involved
in the persecution at all, it was their ancestors. Even the mighty
Catholic Church has recently said some apologetic words for nearly
wiping out the native cultures of the entire continent of South
America (though it continues to send missionaries there!), so why
should the Hindus not demand the same of the Muslims? Asking for
the return of a very important temple over which a mosque was built,
one that cannot serve as a place for Namaz or prayer because of
the presence of idols or statues in its premises; one that has,
in fact, not functioned as a mosque for many decades and has in
this time actually been functioning instead as a temple (because
Hindus would continue to come here to worship Rama) is quite an
understandable demand (Shourie). The site also has especial significance
for the Hindus, whereas for the Muslims the mosque is not standing
on particularly holy ground. The fact that the Muslims, at least
the ones in power, refuse to return the site, even as a gesture
of goodwill, (when something is stolen the best way to mend the
situation is to return the stolen goods) just goes to show that
the spirit of Islam that caused the destruction is not quite gone
and come to terms with its own history - through a process of self-reflection,
introspection and growth. I say this in a non-communal way, I think
that this misuse of history is as damaging for the thinking Muslims
in India (and elsewhere). This is exactly why the issue is so important
and why the Indians who have been under constant pressure to give
up the struggle should not do so; that would not be in anyone’s
ultimate good. Bibliography Goel, Sita Ram. Hindu Temples: What
happened to them – Part II Shourie, Arun. Ayodhya: The Muslim
argument examined Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The
evidence for the Ram Janambhumi mandir Nandan, Deoki. Shri Ram Janma Bhumi:
A historical and legal perspective B.B. Lal. Facts of History cannot
be altered Elst, Koenraad. Ayodhya & After |
Akhand
Bharat Foundation © 2002 (All Rights Reserved)