The verdict on Ayodhya: a historian's perspective- Romila Thapar
From the Blog pakhistorian - The verdict on Ayodhya: a historian's perspective- Romila Thapar October 27th, 2010 The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to commemorate the birth. The verdict claims that there was a temple of the 12th Century AD at the site which was destroyed to build the mosque — hence the legitimacy of building a new temple. The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law that land can be claimed by declaring it to be the birthplace of a divine or semi-divine being worshipped by a group that defines itself as a community It has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace it with religious faith . The verdict is a political judgment and reflects a decision which could as well have been taken by the state years ago. Its focus is on the possession of land and the building a new temple to replace the destroyed mosque. The problem was entangled in contemporary politics involving religious identities but also claimed to be based on historical evidence. This latter aspect has been invoked but subsequently set aside in the judgment. The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to commemorate the birth. This is in response to an appeal by Hindu faith and belief. Given the absence of evidence in support of the claim, such a verdict is not what one expects from a court of law. Hindus deeply revere Rama as a deity but can this support a legal decision on claims to a birth-place, possession of land and the deliberate destruction of a major historical monument to assist in acquiring the land? The verdict claims that there was a temple of the 12th Century AD at the site which was destroyed to build the mosque — hence the legitimacy of building a new temple. The excavations of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and its readings have been fully accepted even though these have been strongly disputed by other archaeologists and historians. Since this is a matter of professional expertise on which there was a sharp difference of opinion the categorical acceptance of the one point of view, and that too in a simplistic manner, does little to build confidence in the verdict. One judge stated that he did not delve into the historical aspect since he was not a historian but went to say that history and archaeology were not absolutely essential to decide these suits! Yet what are at issue are the historicity of the claims and the historical structures of the past one millennium. A mosque built almost 500 years ago and which was part of our cultural heritage was destroyed wilfully by a mob urged on by a political leadership. There is no mention in the summary of the verdict that this act of wanton destruction, and a crime against our heritage, should be condemned. The new temple will have its sanctum — the presumed birthplace of Rama — in the area of the debris of the mosque. Whereas the destruction of the supposed temple is condemned and becomes the justification for building a new temple, the destruction of the mosque is not, perhaps by placing it conveniently outside the purview of the case. Has created a precedent The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law that land can be claimed by declaring it to be the birthplace of a divine or semi-divine being worshipped by a group that defines itself as a community. There will now be many such janmasthans wherever appropriate property can be found or a required dispute manufactured. Since the deliberate destruction of historical monuments has not been condemned what is to stop people from continuing to destroy others? The legislation of 1993 against changing the status of places of worship has been, as we have seen in recent years, quite ineffective. What happened in history, happened. It cannot be changed. But we can learn to understand what happened in its fuller context and strive to look at it on the basis of reliable evidence. We cannot change the past to justify the politics of the present. The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence. The verdict on Ayodhya: a historian’s perspective Romila Thapar (Romila Thapar is a distinguished historian of Early India .) Keywords: Ayodhya verdict . Read Full Post
'Kashmir has never been an integral part of India' Arundhati Roy reasserts
From the Blog pakistanledger - 'Kashmir has never been an integral part of India' Arundhati Roy reasserts October 27th, 2010 Image by jeanbaptisteparis via Flickr Srinagar : Author Arundhati Roy , who has stirred up a sedition controversy with her remarks on Kashmir – ‘Kashmir was never an integral part of India ‘ – has now reiterated that her words echo what "millions of people say (in Kashmir) every day". In a statement from Srinagar, she said: "I write this from Srinagar, Kashmir. This morning’s papers say that I may be arrested on charges of sedition for what I have said at recent public meetings on Kashmir. I said what millions of people here say every day. I said what I, as well as other commentators have written and said for years. Anybody who cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were fundamentally a call for justice. I spoke about justice for the people of Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the world; for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven out of their homeland; for Dalit soldiers killed in Kashmir whose graves I visited on garbage heaps in their villages in Cuddalore… Yesterday, I traveled to Shopian, the apple-town in South Kashmir which had remained closed for 47 days last year in protest against the brutal rape and murder of Asiya and Nilofer, the young women whose bodies were found in a shallow stream near their homes and whose murderers have still not been brought to justice. I met Shakeel, who is Nilofer’s husband and Asiya’s brother. We sat in a circle of people crazed with grief and anger… In the papers some have accused me of giving ‘hate-speeches’, of wanting India to break up. On the contrary, what I say comes from love and pride. It comes from not wanting people to be killed, raped, imprisoned… It comes from wanting to live in a society that is striving to be a just one. Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. Pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice, while communal killers, mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on the poorest of the poor, roam free." BJP waiting for Centre to take action on Geelani, Arundhati The Bharatiya Janata Party said on Tuesday it was still waiting for Home Minister P Chidambaram to take action against Kashmiri separatists and Naxal sympathisers for making remarks that “threaten” the constitutional integrity of the country. “The language used (by separatists at the seminar) certainly threatens the constitutional integrity of the country and the answer given at that time by the Home Minister was that there was a recording available and he would want to see it and that he would take action, if necessary,” BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman said. “We are waiting to see what action the Home Minister is going to take,” Sitharaman said. At the convention on ‘Azadi – The Only Way’ here last week, hardline Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani had shared the stage with writer Arundhati Roy and pro-Maoist leader Vara Vara Rao among others. Geelani was heckled by the audience with one of them throwing a shoe. The Booker Prize winning author had said, “Kashmir has never been an integral part of India. It is a historical fact. Even the Indian government has accepted this.” BJP had taken strong exception to the remarks, saying freedom of speech did not mean the right to demand secession. It had accused the Centre of “looking the other way” and not taking any legal action. On Roy’s role in the whole event, Sitharaman maintained that such activists were supporting Naxals and separatists in the name of human rights. Pity the nation that has to silence its writers: Arundhati. Agencies Posted online: Tue Oct 26 2010, 18:42 hrs . Read Full Post
0 comments :
Post a Comment