The 9th of November was, indeed, a very interesting Saturday. The world celebrated the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall; Sikhs rejoiced their visa-free darshan of holy Kartarpur Sahib Gurudwara within Pakistan; many Muslims prepared for the imminent birthday of Prophet Muhammad; while Kolkata and Mumbai braced for deadly cyclones, even as it rained incessantly. But all eyes were on the Supreme Court in Delhi as it finally delivered its verdict in the epoch-making dispute at Ayodhya, over which thousands had already lost their lives. Interestingly, even those who had orchestrated the orgy of riot, arson and murder, both before and after razing the masjid in 1992, were not prepared to take chances. Armed police and paramilitary forces had been positioned in all sensitive areas. Every sentence that the Chief Justice uttered on behalf of the Bench of five judges was relayed instantly over the mass and social media, as never before.

The primary concern of millions was peace — peace at any cost — and one must compliment the Bench for its Herculean task of giving hearings and examining mountains of evidence. Its mammoth order of 1045 pages  balances conflicting interests quite dextrously. Many heaved a sigh of relief when it awarded the disputed 2.77 acres to Hindus. Majoritarian violence was avoided and many shudder to think of scenes had if it been otherwise. Maintaining law and order is, however, the responsibility of the executive, however unpleasant, dangerous and onerous be it. Delivering justice can often be more difficult and painful, but if the judiciary also considers the law and order aspect, the executive stands to benefit. Only time will tell whether we shall see difficult decisions that cause public uproar like the Sabarimala temple matter, in future.

But justice has also to be seen to be ensured. It is for legal experts to commend or question the highest court’s ultimate decision that “the evidence…….in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to……the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims.”. What tilted the balance was the court’s view that “evidence indicates that despite the existence of a mosque at the site, Hindu worship at the place believed to be the birth-place of Lord Ram was not restricted.” The Sunni Wakf Board’s plea that a mosque had physically occupied the plot from 1526 to 1992 was insufficient to prove continuous occupation and uninterrupted worship. Some Muslims are, therefore, aggrieved that amorphous claims of continued worship finally won. Though the Bench reminded us that “the court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence”, murmurs are already being heard that faith and its continued expression may actually have loomed quite large.

At the same time, the Supreme Court also overruled the earlier decision of Justice DV Sharma of the Allahabad High Court in September 2010, as it had opened the floods-gates of bringing Ayodhya type disputes regarding possession of religious sites to courts for orders. In 2010, it had gladdened sadhus and the Hindu right, but left liberals had severely condemned it. The present verdict negates it and clearly mandates that ‘status quo’ be maintained and “The Places of Worship Act” of 1991 be respected. This may help hold the peace at other volatile religious sites like Kashi and Mathura, but one can no more be certain. At the same time, we may face ticklish problems when archeology proves that some Hindu temples may have been built on existing or ruined Buddhist structures. 

Justice Ashok Ganguly, who retired from the Supreme Court, has recently raised some uncomfortable doubts on the archaeological evidence, as “the structure under the mosque” is not conclusively “that of a temple” which was demolished to build Babri Masjid. As Culture Secretary, I had worked with the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) and was thus exposed to the sensitive and speculative nature of their findings, like those at Ayodhya. Some pillars and figurines were definitely found below the Masjid’s land, any some opine that these are Hindu in style, but without further excavation, the, ASI was not certain that that they were surely part of a Hindu temple. In fact, Dr AK Narain of Benaras who led an early excavation at Ayodhya in 1969-70 was convinced that there was a strong Buddhist presence there. Dr BB Lal who led excavations in 1975-76, as the “Archaeology of Ramayana”, never submitted a full report to ASI. But he wrote in the RSS magazine, Manthan in October 1990 about a Hindu structure. In 2003, the Allahabad High Court ordered ASI to undertake yet another excavation which it did and even used “ground-penetrating radar”. Since this ASI report of August 2003 is with the court, we need to examine it when it becomes public. Newspaper and internet reports, however, indicate that both Arabic and Devanagari inscriptions were found and also that the evidence is yet to prove the existence of any Ram temple there. 

Indian jurisprudence has numerous judgements on how the state should keep its distance from religion, as we are a secular polity. One wonders, thus, whether it was essential for the court to mention that a temple is to be built at the spot. After all, from the Vedic period till the Guptas, i.e, for about 1600 years, we have no proper evidence of Hindus worshipping in temples. It is only in the 5th century that we come across  the first Hindu temple at Sanchi, and the other magnificent temples we know were all built later, between the 7th and 11th centuries. Besides, will one mandir at Ayodhya satisfy restless souls?

The Bench has done a lot of soul searching while examining its evidence and has issued several statements condemning the destruction of the masjid and its desecration in 1949. The Honourable court has set quite a few deadlines for the government to comply. Many Indians also hoped that a firm deadline be set finally, for a decision on the 30 year old cases to punish those who destroyed the masjid. They have wrecked not just a religious structure, but also our pride and faith in India’s  secularism.

The article was published in English edition of Ananda Bazar Patrika and is being published here with Authors acknowledgement
 

The post Ayodhya Verdict: Has Faith Prevailed Over Justice? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: PTI

Interestingly, it was and remains essentially a very vibrant folk festival, like Bhai Dooj, that has no role for the priest and no compulsion to visit temples. Since it yielded no grants to either, Brahmans usually stayed away from this economically unviable festival. It was thus not linked with some convenient legend taken from the vast repertoire of the Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata or Ramayana. Because it was never ‘mainstreamed’ outsiders hardly know much about it.

There is a weak link, however, that not many are aware of and the story goes that Draupadi was advised by the sage, Dhaumya to perform Chhatt puja to Suryadev, to help the Pandavas. There is another legend that Rama and Sita also offered this puja to the sun god during this period of the year when they returned from exile to Ayodhya. Though most Rama worshippers do not perform this puja, Rama may will have listened to his wife, like all of us do. Sita’s origins were in Janakpur of Mithila, which is really the epicentre of this worship. The tradition is, however observed all over in Bihar-Jharkhand and adjoining regions, the Madhesh tract of Nepal, as well as in far off Fiji, West Indies and Mauritius: wherever Biharis went.

Nowadays, however, hordes of priests have started occupying vantage points in the water and worshippers have, willy nilly, to shell out some dakshina for compulsory mantras and short courses in sanskritisation.

It is my submission that Chhatt is the first celebration of bright light and the sun, after the blackest night of the year, ie, Kartik amavasya when Indians light billions of lamps to dispel the dark. But Bengalis, who just have to be different, however welcome this amavasya to worship their dark goddess Kali and her ghoulish companions of the night. Chhatt Puja was originally a women’s festival to thank the sun god for all the munificence and the bounty conferred, but it is interesting to note how the menfolk joined later on. They also worship a goddess called Chhatti Maiya, who is equally important and invoked for her boons. She is sought to be identified with Usha, the Vedic goddess of dawn — but these are just weak attempts to sanskritise a popular utsav.

The unique character of this festival is that it worships both dawn and dusk, the rising sun as well as setting sun. It is actually a four day festival that starts on the fourth lunar day after the dark amavasya of Kartik, namely, Chaturthi, Panchami, Shasthi or Chhatt and finally Saptami. Chhatt Puja is the occasion for the most colourful dresses to come out and there is a lot of folk songs and dancing as well. Even in distant Mauritius, for instance, Chhatt songs and dances are an integral part of the nation’s culture that was brought in by labourers from Bihar. As fasting is mandatory, people take anticipatory steps by consuming a lot of freshly reaped rice, puris, bananas, coconuts and grapefruits before beginning their rituals.

The first day is actually popular as Nahay Khay and the holy dip in water body is taken on this day, preferably in the river Ganga. Womenfolk, who observe this festival, take only a single meal on this day and among many this consists of just lau or lauki boiled with rice. They get into the water upto their knees or waist and pray in the direction of the sun. This is followed by an ancient custom for married women to smear each other’s forehead with ochre vermillion, right along the line of the nose to the tip. It is likely that the sindoor khela among the married women of Bengal on Vijaya Dashami may have originated from this. After all, our sarbajanin Durga pujas are just a century old. The second day of Chhatt is called Kharna, on which total fasting is observed without a drop of water, from sunrise to the sunset. Devotees have their food only after offering it first to the sun god at sunset. This is a rich repast consisting of ‘payasam’ or ‘kheer’ made rice and milk, ‘puris,’ hard baked wheat flour cakes called thekuas and bananas, which are distributed to one and all. On the third and main Chhatt day, fasting without water is again observed and the evening offerings or sandhya arghya is an elaborate ritual when oblations are made to the setting sun. Bamboo trays are held in its direction containing the much favoured thekuas, coconuts, bananas and other fruits. This is followed by the ‘Kosi’ ritual in homes when lamps are lit to honour the sun, but are kept under cover of five cane sticks. The fourth day of Chhatt is considered the most auspicious and worshippers gather in large numbers on the banks of rivers with their family and friends for the final morning ritual of offering ‘arghyas’ to the rising sun. The fast is then broken with a bite of ginger with sugar, thus marking the end of the rituals. A volcano of joy, feasting and merriment then bursts all over.

What benefits does this puja confer? Many believe in it as a fertility rite for both humans and harvests, while other swear by its curative powers. There is also a theory that ancient yogis and rishis obtained energy directly from the sun’s rays by exposing their bodies to the sun, while on fast. When one observes how when other events and pujas damage or destroy the environment with chemical paints and other poisonous substances, that include firecrackers, Chhatt stands out as a really commendable environment-friendly worship that uses only bio degradable items. I hope we now understand the significance of this wonderful celebration by Biharis a little better.

Author is Chairman of Board of Governors, Centre For Studies In Social Sciences, February 2017 to present · Kolkata
 

The post Chhatt Puja: By the People, For the People appeared first on SabrangIndia.