Friday, December 5, 2008

From Mumbai to Ayodhya - Ram janma bhoomi

 

In the wake of Jihad attacks on Mumbai, it is not out of place to do a revisit to the history around Ram janma bhoomi. What Babar and his ilk had done to this country had been redone by these terrorists in Mumbai. If what these terrorists had done is condemnable, equally condemnable is the countless such atrocities done to our ancestors and to our past. – the destruction of Ram janma bhoomi is the notable one among them. The kind of treatment  that the so-called secularists are giving to this issue is like giving legitimacy to Mumbai attacks.

 

The Taj hotel now stands as the symbol of Indian pride that is hurt. Every soul in India wants to see it back in its splendor and vibrancy. But that the same is not acceptable with reference to Ram janma bhoomi is an irony and an hypocrisy as well.  Its reclamation is a symbol of India regaining her history, tradition and culture, just as how the Taj hotel is going to fill the hearts of the Indians with pride when it is re-built!

 

Let us take a brush up down the memory lane through the excerpts on the fact file presented by Dr N.S. Rajaram's on Ram Janma bhoomi issue.

 

-jayasree

 

************************************

 

   "The Ayodhya dispute is over four hundred and fifty years old. It came to head on December 6, 1992 with the demolition of the structure known as the Babri Majid (Babar's Mosque) by Hindu activists. This event has been seen as marking a watershed in modern Indian history. Some like the British writer V.S. Naipaul see it as an event marking the birth of a new historical awareness on the part of the Hindus; while others, calling themselves the 'Secular Forces' — actually little more than a motely mix of Leftist academics and politicians, and right-wing Muslim leaders and the clergy — see it as the beginning of the transformation of India into a Hindu theocratic state…..

 

"A point that I wish to emphasize: any effort aimed at understanding the history leading up to the Ayodhya demolition must be careful not to view the events of December 6, 1992 in isolation, ignoring the thousand year history leading up to it. This would cause one to lose sight of the single most important historical theme in India today: the ongoing struggle between the two versions of history — the nationalistic and the imperialistic. Those calling themselves 'Secularists' in the Ayodhya dispute are representatives of defunct imperialisms — the Islamic and the European. What they fear most is the loss of their privileges following the rise of nationalism. This is the real battle over Ayodhya ..

 

"The negationist version of Indian history means accepting the Islamic view of history — to wit, that the history of any place begins with its Muslim takeover; nothing that happened before is of any account. This is how Muslims view the history of all the conquered lands — from Egypt to Iran and even Pakistan. They have been defeated in their purpose to impose this version of history on India also. The struggle over Ayodhya is but a facet of this larger struggle…..

 

"This is in the interests of all concerned — not just the Hindus. Communal harmony in India is an unattainable goal as long as one side keeps insisting on whitewashing its own record, while blaming the victims for all the problems. And the victims of such propaganda will never rest content until they feel their case has been justly treated. Here is where the Secularists have done immense harm to the cause of communal harmony in the name of 'secularism' — whitewashing Jihad Negationism, while heaping abuse and blame on the victims.

 

"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 India's. A young American — a former student of mine — recently 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 Washington's home) or the Statue of Liberty. Similarly, the Westminster Abbey in 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….

 

"To highlight this point: can the terrorist warlord Osama bin Laden claim the ideological right to demolish the Venkateshwara Temple in Tirupati or the Golden Temple in Amritsar and build something else in their place to mark the triumph of his 'faith'? These, like Ram Janmabhumi, the Westminster Abbey, and the Statue of Liberty, are not pieces of real estate that can be bartered — or forcibly occupied and demolished…

 

"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.

 

 **************************************

 

 

Detailed articles by Dr NS Rajaram in

 

http://ayodhya2000.tripod.com/who_gave_babar_the_right.htm

 

http://ayodhya2000.tripod.com/evidence.htm

 

 

All articles on Ayodhya by Dr NS Rajaram at

 

http://ayodhya2000.tripod.com/table_of_contents.htm

 

by Stephan Knapp at

 

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/ayodhya_and_the_research_on_the_temple_of_Lord_Rama.htm

 

A tour of archeological evidence of Ram temple at Babri masjid site at

 

http://ayodhya2000.tripod.com/evidence.htm#TOUR

 

 

 

*******************************

 

The Islamic agenda in the words of  Aurangazeb:-

"... keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all idolators in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizyah, grant no exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from dancing in attendance on 'Id days and waiting on foot outside mosques till end of prayer ... and 'keep in constant use for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built up after demolishing the temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Avadh."

 

The basis of the continuing agenda :-

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Quran-Hate.htm

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AIVS/message/1118

 

 

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Muslims used Babri Mosque till 1949 and you can still see the pictures here:
http://www.ramjanmabhoomi.com/Ramjanmabhumi-Photo.html

The real travesty is to find the culprits who placed the statues in the mosque and claimed that they appeared "miraculously" - the whole movement is based on lie and it is bound to fail

jayasree said...

What is the real travesty?
Mirza Jan, who participated in the failed Jihad on Hanuman Garhi, situated a few hundred yards from Babri Masjid, wrote in his book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada, published in 1856

“... wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the establishment of Sayyid Salar Mas'ud Ghazi's rule, the Muslim rulers in India built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed mu'azzins, teachers and store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the Kafirs. Likewise they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too from the filth of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a great centre of worship and capital of Rama's father. Where there stood a great temple (of Ramajanmasthan), there they built a big mosque, ... Hence what a lofty mosque was built there by king Babar in 923 A.H. (1528 A.D.), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqqan!”


In another work known as Tarikh-i-Avadhi, one Alama Muhammad Najamulghani Khan Rampuri (1909) tells us:


"Babar built a magnificent mosque at the spot where the temple of Janmasthan of Ramachandra was situated in Ayodhya, under the patronage of Saiyad Ashikhan, and Sita-ki-Rasoi is situated adjascent to it. The date of construction of the mosque is Khair Baqi (923 AH) [or 1528 AD with the correction]. Till date, it is known as Sita ki Rasoi. By its side stands that temple. It is said at the time of the conquest of Islam there were three temples, viz. Janmasthan, which was the birthplace of Ram Chanderji, Swargadwar alias Ram Darbar, and Treta ka Thakur. Babar built the mosque having demolished Janmasthan. "(History versus Casuistry, p 17)


A. Führer in his The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Archaeological Survey of India Report, 1891, pp 296-297 records: 'Mir Khan built a masjid in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name. This old temple must have been a fine one, for many of its columns have been utilized by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar's Masjid.' [This is supported by archaeology]


H.R. Neville in the Barabanki District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 168-169, writes that the Janmasthan temple 'was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a mosque.' Neville, in his Fyzabad District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 172-177 further tells us; 'The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar's mosque. The materials of the old structure [i.e., the temple] were largely employed, and many of the columns were in good preservation.' [Again supported by archaeological finds.]


All relevant British government records followed by District Gazetteer of Faizabad compiled and published by the Congress government in 1960 declare with one voice that the so-called Babri mosque at Ayodhya is standing on the debris of a Ramajanmasthan temple demolished by the order of Babar in 1528. Syed Shahabuddin, JNU historians, and self-styled 'secular' scholars and leaders are hotly contesting the proposition, contending that the existence and demolition of a temple is a myth floated by the British in pursuance of their policy of divide and rule. ...


The Imperial Gazetteer of Faizabad (1881) confirms the construction of three Moghul mosques at Ayodhya on the site of three celebrated shrines: Janmasthan, Swargadwar and Treta-ka-Thakur. Archaeological Survey of India tells us that Mir Khan (on Babar's orders) built the mosque at Janmasthan using many of its columns. Aurangazeb had the other two mosques built. We see therefore that demolition of temples and replacing them with mosques was a systematic practice under Moghuls. It was simply a continuation of earlier policies of all Muslim rulers as both Hindu and Muslim records testify.



More details in
http://ayodhya2000.tripod.com/evidence.htm

mrigank said...

This information should be made avaialble to the irresponsible and ignorant public leaders who are denouncing the high court's verdict , claiming it to be based on mere sentiments and beliefs of the Hindus.

Sheela said...

Recent visit to Ayodhya, understood local muslims do not mind having temple at Ramjanmabhoomi.

Intervention is only from outsiders from Lucknow etc.. blowing out of proportion and have complicated issue.

Vibration in Ayodhya can make any sane person to realise sanctity and truth.

Sheela