Babur was a invader and no one should deny it. He constructed a Mosque at Ayodhya either by demolishing a standing temple or on the ruins of an ancient temple in 1528 or so. Muslim kings of medieval period had a history of demolishing temples, churches or converting them to Mosques, Temple of Mount, Kashi Vishwanath, Hagia Sophia etc. This list is never ending. Now the point is whether we use this modern century to settle scores of the past or to reconcile and make a better world where no one can destroy any temple, church, mosque etc. Historical injustices take the strength of civilization to endure. The monuments erected by invaders are symbols of defeats and will remain our symbols of defeats irrespective of the religious allegiance of the invaders and the monuments destroyed by invaders will remain symbols of broken pride.
Now the point is we live in a Secular Democratic Republic of India and if we call ourselves Indians and enjoy the immense freedom it gives then we should also abide by the law of the land and its constitution. Another thing is if we accept historical injustices meted out to dalits by the upper castes since time immemorial and can easily accept the concept of affirmative action (by making special provision for them) then why do not accept the injustices done by those invaders. Alexander, Seleucus, Babur, Ghori or Gazni can never be heroes for Indians irrespective of the faith practiced by them so we should not define heroes/villains by their faiths. Iran still considers Saudi Arab as its enemy because of the deeds done by Saudi Arabia in 7th century AD although they share the same religion although different sects. The gory side of Pakistan is that Pakistan considers Ghori and Gazni as its national heroes and thats very shameful. The same invaders first pillaged and plundered Pakistan before setting their feet in India. I don't believe the theory that the entire population of Pakistan is descendants from those invaders. It simply can not be true. The population of Pakistan is more than the population of all those invading countries combined together.
If i convert to Islam, will i stop considering Prithviraj Chauhan as a hero of India since he fought against a Muslim invaders? I will definitely not. Can Latin America forgive the Spain for all the crimes committed by Spain during colonial time because Latin American has become Christian? I bet not. These are inconvenient facts but we need to accept them and move forward with out heads high. Do not let them say "India by definition is a myth".
We should accept the judgment of High Court and we all should keep our held high. Its better not to have any monuments associated with invaders in this country. Amen.
We should accept the judgment of High Court and we all should keep our held high. Its better not to have any monuments associated with invaders in this country. Amen.
9 comments:
If Kanishka can be a hero, why not Babur? After all, just like Kanishka, he invaded India and then settled down in India. I guess, Kanishka's following Buddhism (and Shamanism before that) makes him more Indian than Babur, who was but a Muslim (you know, the marauding, pillaging, 'muslim akranta').
As far as your comments on conversions of other's religious places by Muslims are concerned, well, ancient and medieval periods are replete with such incidents not just by the Muslims but everyone else. The destruction of Chaityas and Viharas by the Brahman Shung dynasty or conversion of all religious places to churches in Spain after the Re-Conquista (along with expulsion of all Muslims and Jews) or the atrocities committed by the "holy crusaders" (who, incidentally landed without a provocation) are all well documented. It was a general mind-set of those eras, gone by, where in, desecration of others places was considered as an act of goodness and open for God's bounties.
The problem is an Islamophobic mind-set which is prevalent across the world, nowadays, where in the pogroms against the Muslims are conveniently forgotten whereas the crimes by the fanatical few are always highlighted. I suggest, you go through (if not already) the various covenants which Muslim rulers implemented when they conquered the "Christian lands", notably, the covenant of Jerusalem, by Umar I, the II Caliph of Islam.
If the monuments of the victors have to be destroyed, as per your contention, then I guess, starting from ancient Budhha Viharas (well, Asoka won those places and then spread his religion of choice, by persuasion or coercion), right down to the British monuments, we should probably pull them all, down and claim to be free of the symbols of slavery.
Does it matter that then, we'd have acted as our forefathers, whose hands, as we now freely say, are red with blood?
Why is it that we have to associate religion to invasions? It was the norm, then and they did whatever was prevalent according to time.
Finally, the judgement; well, faith of the majority seems to be the new law, now. Now, we can compare ourselves to some regressive regime like Saudi Arabia, wherein, the faith of the majority can be the only source for framing of polity.
PS: The Jewish golden age occurred when the Muslims took over Spain and a large part of southern Europe and they (the Jews)emigrated, en-masse to these new Muslim kingdoms. Prior to that, they were just hateful persona non-gratia, "killers of Christ" and "abductors of Christian children".
@Mujahid
I dont consider Kanishka as hero, but he played a key role in making India a prosperous nation by consolidating the silk route. Babur did not do anything. He ruled for just 4 years over India. This period is too small to judge him. But i have a problem if some one defends Babur. I will anytime support the then ruler of Delhi i.e. Lodis (also Muslims)who fought against the invaders. About Sunga dynasty is consider, go to Sanchi you will find his great contribution there. Now historians are rejudging the role of Sunga. Read Romila or Basham. I completely agree to the point that Muslim Kings of medieval era were less barbarics then their Christian counterparts. But the point is foreign rule (however benign it can be) remains a foreign rule.
Why you need a Mosque (not associated with any Prophet and not very significant to the Islamic history world wide) on Ram Janma Bhoomi? I am not asking about settling scores of history but glorification of invaders does not suit me.
Golly, when I had posted this comment, it had thrown an error: "too long sir, cut it short"!
Secondly, we are all invaders, sometimes as Aryans, sometimes as Sycthians and sometimes as Afghans/Turks.
The point is, all these so called invaders settled down in this very land and even if some of them had just four years to spare, well, their progeny did indulge in notable contributions for this acquired land of theirs. Surely, many of them were fanatics but well, such were the times. Fanaticism was (is?) considered to be a sure sign of love for God.
In my humble opinion, glorification of invaders might not be correct but let us not get carried away and deny them their achievements (wherever due). My problem is why single out religions...everyone was invading someone else...that was a part of the set-up then (and even now). The concept of India as we know it today wasn't there in those middle ages which we now rubbish (thanks to our misplaced modern sensibilities) so again, every one was an invader. Whom to worship and whom to tarnish?
I'll not comment on the Mandir-Masjid thing...it's a peculiar issue and being an agnostic, I don't even know if the God we are fighting over even exists or not.
Tell me how many mosques were demolished by Hindus in last 1000 years. You can count the numbers, while you will hardly find any pre-Islamic temple in North India. It proves a point.
I'll just quote a few historians here:
1. Vedic society wasn't into temples.
2. Temple building started during the Gupta age when they built temples mostly made up of wood and perishable objects.
3. Post Gupta era, we had a long era in which Buddhism flourished. Their Stupas and Viharas exist to this day but it had a negative effect on temple building.
4. Temple building started with gusto during the Bhakti period (10th century onwards) under the patronage of Rajput tribes and numerous temples exist to this time. Incidentally, the Bhakti period coincided with the flourishing of Muslim Sultanates. The existence of many 10th century temples in North India do disprove the myth that almost all temples were razed. It is true that fanatics have shown their fangs time and again but the rhetoric that they didn't spare even one is nothing but an exaggeration.
I'll not comment on the other part of your post.
Tell me 1000 years temple of North India. Somnath Temple was demolished by Mahmud Gazni about 1020 AD, The famous temple at Mathura was demolished at the same time, Kashi temple was destroyed by Aurangzeb. I do agree temple buildings started with Guptas but i hardly find any 1000 temple in North India. I have been to Kashi Vishwanath and it was very difficult to console after seeing the situation out there. The three most holy places of worship of Hindus were desecrated and destroyed by fanatics and even Ram Ramjanmbhoomi is a disputed site.
I am not denying the atrocities committed by the fanatics. Even Shaivaites and Vaishnavites used to fight in those days. Love for religion was mostly highlighted by acts of extremist zeal. What I am trying to convey here is that the trend to exaggerate the atrocities is dangerous and even unfortunate as it leads us back to those old times by inciting the hatred which we harbour for the "other".
...and an afterthought, lest you might have thought so...I am not justifying those acts of barbarism either.
No exaggeration just writing the facts out here. Frankly speaking i don't find any old temple in north India. The oldest monument in north India i guess is the Qutubminar and complex built from the ruins of Hindu/Jain temples. Just go to that complex if you have not not been there you will find it. Point is we need to accept these and move forward but some people simply don't accept that these were atrocities and in some way or other try to justify those act of fanaticism and that makes me very perturb. Its a global phenomenon, i dont see any temple of ancient era except Hinglaj temple in Baloshistan in Pakistan and few others. Even Buddhist caves are in great danger. There is something very wrong some where. Christians respect Pagan religion and culture of Greeks and Romans, what about Muslims of middle east and Afghan-Pakistan. I dont see any respect for their pre-Islamic past. This worries me.
Post a Comment