But a careful examination of historical records, religious texts, and legal judgments reveals HAF’s article to be fraught with lies, inaccuracies, deliberate fabrications, and questionable historical narratives.

Lie: The HAF writes that the new Ram temple was “built on an ancient site of Hindu worship. The final Hindu temple on the site was destroyed in the early 16th century by the first Mughal emperor for the construction of a mosque known in modern times as the Babri Masjid. Archaeological evidence proves the mosque had no foundations of its own and was built upon a Hindu temple.”

Truth: This is a brazen lie propagated by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) with no historical or legal proof, nor any corroboration in the ‘Hindu’ narrative of history. There is no mention of the Ram Temple even in the writings of the most prominent Ram worshiper to date, Goswami Tulsidas (1511-1623), who penned the Epic Ramcharitmanas (Lake of the Deeds of Ram) in the Avadhi language in 1575-76. According to the Hindu nationalist (Hindutva) version, Ram’s birthplace temple was destroyed during 1528-1529. It would be surprising indeed if the Ramcharitmanas, written only 48 years after the so-called destruction of Ram’s birthplace temple, did not mention such a momentous event.

According to the RSS, Adi Shankaracharya, Aurobindo Ghosh, Swami Vivekananda, and Swami Dayanand Saraswati were the saints who contributed immensely to the cause of Vedic religion and the growth of the Hindu nation. None of these Vedic saints ever referred to this destruction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya by Mughal King Babar or his agent in any of their writings.

Today, Ayodhya is referred to as one of the oldest holiest places for Hindus. It would be interesting to know that Adi Shankaracharya (788-820), who toured India preaching Vedas for more than a decade, established 5 Peetams [main centers] at Badrinath in the North, Puri in the East, Dwarka in the West and Sringeri and Kanchi in the South for the revival of the Vedic religion but did not consider Ayodhya one.

Moreover, the Indian Supreme Court, in its 1,045-page Ayodhya Judgment (November 9, 2019), nowhere agrees with the claim that the Babri Mosque was constructed after destroying any temple.

Lie: HAF claimed that “As the traditional birthplace of Lord Ram, archeological and documentary evidence shows that the site has been recognized as a place of spiritual importance for Hindus since time immemorial.”

Truth: It is true that traditionally, Hindus believe that Ram was born in the city of Ayodhya, but the issue is whether he was born exactly under the central dome (approximately measuring 150 cm x 150 cm) of the Babri Mosque as is claimed now by Hindutva’s flag-bearers.

But here it is important to note that the Indian Supreme Court, in its 2019 judgment, made two observations on this point without mincing words.

Firstly, it stated: “The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship.” [Supreme Court Judgment dated November 9, 2019, pp. 921-22]

Secondly, on pages 913-14, it states that “On 6 December 1992, the structure of the mosque was brought down and the mosque was destroyed. The destruction of the mosque took place in breach of the order of status quo and an assurance given to this Court. The destruction of the mosque and the obliteration of the Islamic structure was an egregious violation of the rule of law.”

It is worth mentioning here that RSS —which initiated the bloody, violent campaign to build the Ram Temple at the end of the 1980s, never advanced this demand during the period of its founding in 1925, under British rule. Even after Independence, it was only in 1989 that the political appendage of the RSS, the BJP, began to focus on this issue.

The views of two RSS luminaries who initiated the Ram Temple movement reveal the preposterousness of the claim that Ram himself was born under the dome.

Rama Vilas Vedanti, a prominent Hindu clergyman of the Ram Birthplace Trust (an RSS front), stated, “We will build a temple at Ramjanam Bhoomi even if Lord Rama says he was not born there” [Outlook, Delhi, 7 July 2003). Similarly, L. K. Advani, who rode a chariot (Rath Yatra) as part of an aggressive Ram Temple campaign in 1990 said, “It did not matter whether the historical Rama was actually born at the spot in Ayodhya. What mattered was that Hindus believed that he was born there. Faith took precedence over history” [The Hindustan Times, Delhi, 20 July 2003.]

The votaries building the Ram Temple at the place of Babri Mosque must also respond to the query of why only one temple was targeted by Babar and not hundreds of other Hindu temples in Ayodhya.

Lie: According to HAF, the construction of the Ram Temple at the site of the Babri Mosque was essential to seek “restorative justice to re-establish a Hindu temple that had been destroyed as a result of iconoclasm a few hundred years ago.” They allege that the Ram Mandir “has great symbolic and emotional resonance for Hindus in contemporary times” and that “the trauma that this destruction brought has been passed down through generations and continues to impact the psyche of Hindus” and “contributed historically and continues to contribute to Hindu-Muslim tensions in India to this day.”

It is nobody’s argument that Aurangzeb or many other ‘Muslim’ rulers were not religious bigots or tolerant. Aurangzeb did not spare his father, brothers, and many smaller ‘Muslim’ kingdoms of his times. There are also contemporary records that prove that Aurangzeb donated lands, money, and resources to many temples throughout India.

Truth: According to this logic, the rule by rulers with Muslim names in India was the Islamic rule of idol-breakers. This narrative of Muslim history developed only at the beginning of the 19^th century is in absolute contradiction with historical facts and even common sense. To understand the lies behind this fabricated Medieval past, one needs to examine the nature of this ‘Muslim’ rule.

Despite the ‘Muslim’ rule of almost one thousand years, almost 75% of Indians did not convert to Islam, as was made clear by the first Census held by the British in 1871-72 when even ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over. Hindus and Sikhs constituted 73.5 percent of the population, and Muslims numbered 21.5 percent only. Moreover, this rule was also the rule of the Hindu High Castes. According to contemporary ‘Hindu’ narratives, Aurangzeb never faced Shivaji in the battlefield; these were his two Rajput commanders, Jay Singh I and Jai Singh II, who fought against Shivaji on Aurangzeb’s behalf. Akbar personally never fought any battle against Rana Pratap of Mewar; Man Singh, brother-in-law of Akbar fought all battles against Rana. The Deewan Ala (prime minister) of both Shahjahan and Aurangzeb was Raghunath Bahadur, a Kayasth Hindu.

It is nobody’s argument that Aurangzeb or many other ‘Muslim’ rulers were not religious bigots or tolerant. Their religious bigotry was the outcome of their feeling of insecurity. Aurangzeb did not spare his father, brothers, and many smaller ‘Muslim’ kingdoms of his times. There are also contemporary records that prove that Aurangzeb donated lands, money, and resources to many temples throughout India. Anybody who has visited Delhi’s Red Fort must have seen two temples; Jain Lal Mandir [Red Temple] and Gauri Shanker Temple, just across the Fort towards Chandni Chowk side. These temples were built before the rule of Aurangzeb and continued to function during his time and later.

Lie: HAF, parroting the RSS claim, declared that the building of the Ram Temple was “an important event for Hindus of all traditions.”

Truth: HAF did not tell us why 4 Shankaracharyas of the Peetams (out of 5) established by Adi Shankaracharya boycotted the inauguration of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya. The article does not mention that the most revered Hindu saints of the Sanatan Dharm declared Ayodhya’s inauguration to be in contravention of Vedic scriptures, calling it Hinduism done for petty electoral gains.

It is sad to see the HAF run roughshod over the diversity of Hinduism. In its attempt to prove the homogenous character of Hindus, HAF turned a debate on the nature of the Ayodhya inauguration into Hindus versus others. The founder of Arya Samaj, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, is glorified by RSS as a pillar of the Hindu nation. But Swami was an ardent opponent of the Brahmanical ritual of Pran Pratishtha (putting life into a lifeless idol in Ayodhya case by Prime Minister Modi) and did not mince words in decrying this very ritual. He has stated (in Satyarth Prakash or Light of Truth, chapter 11), “The fact of the matter is that the All-pervading Spirit [God] can neither come into an idol, nor, leave it. If your mantras are efficacious that you can summon God, why can you not infuse life into your dead son by the force of the very same mantras? Again why can you not bide the soul depart from the body of your enemy? There is not a single verse in the Vedas to sanction the invocation of the Deity and vitalization of the idol, likewise, there is nothing to indicate that it is right to invoke idols, to bathe them, install them in temples, and apply sandal paste to them.”

HAF should enlighten us as to why a pious Hindu believing Ram to be God, Mahatma Gandhi, was assassinated by Hindutva cadres on January 30, 1948.

Lie: HAF also argued that, “Though sometimes presented as being a recent conflict, the fact is that this site has a long history of Hindus and Sikhs attempting to reclaim it, dating back to the early 19th century. Furthermore, the conflict has been ongoing regardless of the political party in power following India’s independence.”

Truth: Ayodhya being one of the holiest places, and the place under the central dome of the Babri Mosque, being the exact place where Ram was born, are modern ‘constructs’ as we will see in the following.

Ayodhya/Ram Temple never figured in the list of Char Dham, Puri, Rameshwaram, Dwarka, and Badrinath, the four holiest places that must be visited by a Hindu seeking moksha (final salvation).

HAF, despite admitting that reclaiming Babri Mosque as Ram Temple began in the early 19^th century, declared the site to have had a long history of conflict between Hindus and Muslims. If HAF had looked at the history of Ayodhya in the mid-19th century, they would have understood why it started in 1857.

Today, Ayodhya is being presented as a case of perpetual war of Hindus against Muslims. There cannot be a shoddier lie than this. During India’s War of Independence 1857, Ayodhya was the place where Maulvis and Mahants and ordinary Hindus and Muslims stood united in rebelling against the British rule and kissed the hangman’s noose together. Maulana Ameer Ali was a famous Maulvi of Ayodhya, and when Ayodhya’s well-known Hanuman Garhi’s (Hanuman Temple) priest, Baba Ramcharan Das, took the lead in organizing the armed resistance to the British rule. Both of them were captured and hanged together on the same tree. In another instance of the glorious unity of Hindus and Muslims against the colonial rule at Ayodhya, Acchhan Khan and Shambhu Prasad Shukla led the army of Raja Devibaksh Singh in the area. Due to the treachery of Hindu and Muslim lackeys of the British, they were captured and killed together. The British rulers hated this unity and created narratives of perennial Hindu-Muslim conflict not only in Ayodhya but the whole of India.

The flag-bearers of Hindutva working overtime to undo a composite and all-inclusive India are using the Sikh factor as a bluff to legitimize its illegal project. Sikhs who do not believe in idol worship of Ram or any other Hindu God/Goddesses; we are told that On 28 November 1858, a Nihang Sikh [armed Sikh] organized Pooja [worship] and havan [a Brahmanical ritual offering of grains, pure ghee and other such items to fire] in the Babri Mosque. It is unbelievable for a Sikh to perform Brahmanical rituals and would invite immediate ex-communication. Why Hindus at that time did not enter the Mosque is a mystery!

Lie: According to HAF, the mosque replacing the demolished Babri Mosque to be constructed at a distance of 22 km “will become the largest mosque in India. To be named the Masjid Muhammad Bin Abdullah, some 9,000 worshippers will be accommodated at one time”.

Truth: India already has five mosques, which are larger than the to-be-built mosque at Ayodhya. Jamia Masjid Srinagar can accommodate 33,000 worshippers, Jama Masjid Delhi can accommodate more than 25,000 worshippers, Taj-ul Masjid, Bhopal, Mecca Masjid, and Jama Masjid Agra, and all three can accommodate over 10,000 worshippers. Why is it that despite these facts being available in the public domain, the mosque at Ayodhya is being touted as the largest one? The only reason is that  Hindutva apologists, instead of showing any remorse or shame for the demolition of Babri Mosque at Ayodhya, want to be seen as large-hearted people who became instrumental in building ‘the largest mosque’ in India — a fact for which Muslims should apparently be grateful to the Hindutva demolition squad.

Conclusion

Hindu American Foundation (HAF) and its Hindutva tribe must understand that Ram was never the cause of perpetual conflict between Hindus and Muslims till RSS invented it as a convenient tool for religious polarization. Muslims of Ayodhya stopped going to Babri Mosque once the idol of the child Ram was smuggled into the Babri Mosque on the night of 22/23 December 1949. They did not try to break into the usurped Mosque, and there was no bloodshed engineered by Muslims of Ayodhya who were in substantial numbers in Faizabad, now rechristened as Ayodhya Dham despite the Indian Supreme Court declaring that “the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols.”

HAF confessed that on “December 6 [1992], a rally organized by the VHP and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) [both appendages of the RSS] at the site grew to more than 150,000 people. Police had cordoned off the Babri Masjid in an attempt to protect it. By noon, the police cordon was breached, police fled, and within a few hours, the mosque, unused for more than four decades, was demolished”. It happened because, since 1990, RSS and its appendages had organized an aggressive campaign for demolishing the Babri Mosque, targeting Indian Muslims as Baber-zade/Haram-zade (children of Babar/illegitimate children). For more than two years, Hindus in India and abroad were asked to come to Ayodhya to tear down the mosque as kar-sevaks.

Did Muslims call for counter-mobilization to save the mosque or reach the site on December 6 to confront the Hindutva goons? Never! In fact, they trusted the RSS to honor the commitment made to the then-Indian Prime Minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao and the Indian Supreme Court that its appendages and cadres would not harm the mosque. RSS reneged on all commitments shamelessly. Indian State and judiciary remained silent spectators. How brazenly Indian Muslims were cheated would be evident by the fact that Rao promised to rebuild Babri Mosque at its original place, which was reneged too!

The Ram Temple at Ayodhya is nothing but the culmination of an anti-Indian Muslim campaign launched by RSS since its inception in 1925.

Top photo, the demolition of Babri Masjid on Dec. 6, 1992, Photo by T. Narayan, courtesy The Wire)Top photo, the demolition of Babri Masjid on Dec. 6, 1992, Photo by T. Narayan, courtesy The Wire)

Shamsul Islam is a former associate professor of Political Science at Delhi University. He is known for his fundamental research work on the rise of nationalism and its development in India and around the world. He has authored multiple books on Hindu Nationalism, the RSS, and the erosion of secularism in India.

With thanks to American Kahani:

https://americankahani.com/perspectives/debunking-myths-a-critical-analysis-of-hindu-american-foundations-ram-temple-narrative/

The post Debunking Myths: A Critical Analysis of Hindu American Foundation’s Ram Temple Narrative appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to multiple media reports, huge banners and posters have cropped up along the campus showing that a religious procession named “Shriram darbar shobha yatra” will be organised on January 21. In addition to this, an email sent by the institute’s administration to all students and residents on campus on January 17 announced a musical event titled “Ramdhun”, inspired by the Geet Ramayan, is scheduled for January 20 at the IDC auditorium within the campus.

The poster may be seen here.

As per a report of News18, the said email sent by the institute’s public relation office read “It is a pleasure to share the announcement with you of a program, based on the celebrated ‘Geet Ramayan’, on coming Saturday, January 20 at 4:30pm in the IDC auditorium…The program ‘Ramdhun’, will present a selection of songs from ‘Geet Ramayan’ together with some ‘Ram Bhajans’. The performers are from IIT-B community, including the spouses and children of staff and faculty members as well as some students. Hoping to see many of you in the program.” The News18 report also provided that when their team contacted the institute’s spokesperson on the events, they denied holding any event officially.

The email may be viewed here:

The said events end with a gaushala being inaugurated on the campus on the day of the consecration ceremony of the structure in Ayodhya on January 22 by IIT Bombay’s Director, Subhasis Chaudhuri. As per the News18 report, another email approved by the administration addressed to campus residents on January 19 said that IIT-Bombay’s director Subhasis Chaudhuri will be inaugurating a gaushala on January 22. As per the internal event invitation, Ashwini Bhide, additional municipal commissioner, will be the chief guest at the inauguration.

According to News18, “The inauguration ceremony for the new gaushala is scheduled for January 22, 2024 (Monday)… Ashwini Bhide AMC (BMC) and Prof Subhasis Chaudhuri, director, IIT-B will be inaugurating it…”

News 18 is a channel owned by the Ambanis and is one electronic media outlet that has seen aggressive overtones of majoritarian reportage.

An internal invite email by Sudhir Shantaram Bhave, on behalf of the IIT-B cattle management committee stated: “As you all can witness, our campus, streets, grounds, academic, hostel and residential areas and various other activity locations are now free from uncontrolled cattle movement. This has become possible through the dedicated efforts of the committee in collaboration with the Cattle Welfare Group (CWG) and an esteemed NGO. This initiative of the institute, creating dedicated shelters and arrangements, helped in the enhanced management of cattle movement and the mitigation of cattle-human conflict. Since December 2019, gaushala activities have been managed in temporary sheds, albeit with certain limitations. It is with great pleasure that we announce the completion of our new improved gaushala in the picturesque lakeside area behind the Devi Padmavati temple. This milestone project marks a significant step forward in our commitment to the welfare of our campus environment.” According to the email, Gopal Rai, an IIT-B alumnus, and his construction company, Dhirendra Group of Companies (DGC) helped make the gaushala a reality. The said cowshed will a permanent gaushala behind the Padmavati temple near the campus’s lakeside.

The email may be read here:

Notably, in the third email shared on January 19, the institute announced a half-day closure on January 22, as per instructions by central government, till 2:30 PM.

These aforementioned events being organised at campus has attracted severe criticism. In response to these developments, the Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle, a student collective at IIT Bombay, has raised concerns with the increasing alignment of the institute with “Hindutva political forces”, compromising its commitment to the values of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

The group also condemned what they perceive as the institute’s submission to right-wing political forces while suppressing activities of independent student collectives, shedding light on the use of contradicting “apolitical” guidelines to cancel academic talks and gatherings. As per these guidelines, which were issued on November 14, 2023, students and faculty are only allowed to only organise “apolitical” events at the campus.

The guidelines may be read here:

“The institute had very recently declared that it shall ‘remain apolitical in all its endeavours’ and has been using the new guidelines to cancel and censor several academic talks and gatherings on campus. It is shocking that the institute allowed such politically-aligned events to be organised while inviting all campus residents to it. The institute bows down to political forces while on the other hand it continues to suppress any activity by the independent student collectives,” said APPSC on their post on social media.

The guidelines for holding events on campus stated that these may be classified in two categories – “purely non-political’ and “potentially political”. The latter can cause socio-political controversies and must be avoided, it said.

The social media post of APPSC stated the follows:

“A line of events being carried out on campus by the IITB administration shows that it has started crawling in front of Hindutva political forces, giving up on the principle of Secularism in the Indian Constitution.

The institute has reportedly given permission to a procession called “Shriram darbar shobha yatra” happening on 21st January in campus. The Director will be inaugurating a Goshala on 22nd. Another musical event called “Ramdhun” will be happening on 20th.

Very recently though the institute had declared that its shall “remain apolitical in all its endeavors,” and has been using the new guidelines to cancel and censor several academic talks and gatherings on campus.

We condemn the surrender of this institute in front of the right-wing political forces while on the other hand it continues to suppress any activity by the independent student collectives.”

The post may be read here:

A line of events being carried out on campus by the @iitbombay administration shows that it has started crawling in front of Hindutva political forces, giving up on the principle of Secularism in the Indian Constitution. pic.twitter.com/DunAwQ8SEg

— APPSC IIT Bombay (@AppscIITb) January 19, 2024

Another highly regarded educational institute of Mumbai, namely the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) has taken adverse and unconstitutional steps in view of the approaching inauguration ceremony of Uttar Pradesh. As per a report of Maktoob media, a notice has been issued by the registrar of TISS Mumbai restricting their right to freedom of expression and speech, asking the students to not organise or participate in any public program opposing the Ram temple consecration.

The circular, which was published on January 18, stated that the administration had decided to officially prevent any such activities after having heard that a group of students were planning to protest against the Ram temple event as per Maktoob media. Students have been asked to refrain from any gatherings of dissent failing which the “law-enforcing agency” will take action against those who violate the warning.

“We advise all students not to indulge in any such unauthorised activities and we also strictly warn students not to participate in any such activities or demonstrations, failing which the law-enforcing agency will take necessary action against those students found indulging in such activities. Please take urgent note of the same and take care of yourself,” the notice read, as per the Times of India.

Related:

Journalist Aman Chopra casually visits a gaushala with sexual harassment accused Brij Bhushan Singh

Invites to Ayodhya temple inauguration extended to judges who gave the verdict in Babri Masjid demolition-Ram Janmabhoomi case

How and why the Ram Temple is just a political tool for the BJP  

Riddles of Ayodhya Ram Temple: Consecration of Bhagwan Ram’s idol, but which one?

From Ayodhya to Trivandrum, are Dalits still unsafe in India?

Three hundred Ramayans

Babri demolition to Ram Temple: A trajectory of Indian politics

The post Hindutva enters Mumbai college campuses- Gaushala, Shobha Yatra in IIT B, restriction to freedom of speech at TISS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols.”                       

Supreme Court of India (Ayodhya Judgment dated November 9, 2019) [pgs. 921-22]

The idol of Ram Lalla (Ram as child) which was placed under the central dome of in the Babri Mosque (claimed to be the exact spot where Bhagwan Ram took birth) was made of metal and was of nine inches tall. It was the idol which was worshipped that time onwards and continued to be worshipped after the demolition of the Babri Mosque on December 6, 1992 in the make-shift temple made by a section of Hindus.

However, on January 22, 2024 a 51-inch stone idol of Ram Lalla will now be consecrated through a Brahmanical  ritual called as ‘pran-pratishtha’ (putting soul into an idol) ceremony ) in the newly built Ram Temple at Ayodhya. 

“On January 22, 2024, PM Narendra Modi will perform the Pran Pratishtha ceremony under the guidance of Pandit [‘Ayodhya Ram Mandir: Know Pran Pratishtha Ceremony details here’, The Times of India, Delhi, January 05, 2024.]

Since it is the prime minister of a democratic-secular polity of India who is conducting this ritual, not only worshippers of Ram but common Indians too have every right to ask what will happen to the deity which from 1949 onwards worshipped as Bhagwan Ram.

Digvijaya Singh, former chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, a practising Hindus has raised the same issue by asking: “Where is the idol of Ram Lalla over which the conflict happened? Why has the old idol not been consecrated?” [‘Where is old idol of Ram Lala, asks Digvijaya, The Times of India, Delhi, December 04, 2024.]

PM Modi must take the nation in confidence about the status of the already consecrated idol of Ram. Will there be two consecrated idols in the Ram Temple or old idol will be deprived of ‘pran’ or its soul? Is there going to be a ‘pran a-paratishtha’ (depriving the idol of soul) ritual for the discarded idol?

Swami Dayanand Saraswati on idol consecration

Both the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and PM Modi glorify the founder of Arya Samaj, Swami Dayanand Saraswati as harbinger of the Hindu nation. It is interesting to know what Swami said about idol worship and the consecration of idols. All those interested must read chapter 11 of his masterpiece, Satyarth Prakash (Light of Truth).

In this book dealing with this issue he raised following issues which RSS and Modi must need respond:

“If as you say that the God comes into the image when invoked, why does not the idol show signs of consciousness and why does not the image also leave when the God is asked to depart? Whence does it come and here does it go? The fact of the matter is that the All-pervading Spirit can neither come into and idol, nor, leave it. If you mantras are efficacious that you can summon God, why can you not infuse life into your dead son by the force of the very same mantras? Again why can you not bide the soul depart from the body of your enemy?”

“The soul is possessed of consciousness, while idol is dead and inert. Do you mean to say that the soul should also lose its consciousness and become lifeless like the idol? Idol worship is a fraud.”

“Being All-pervading He cannot be imagined to exist in any particular object only. To hold to the contrary would be tantamount to believing that the sovereign Lord of the earth rules over a small cottage to the exclusion of His whole Empire and would be an insult to Him. In like manner, it is a blasphemy against God to imagine Him as existing in one particular object only… If as you say that the God comes into the image when invoked, why does not the idol show signs of consciousness and why does not the image also leave when the God is asked to depart? Whence does it come and here does it go? The fact of the matter is that the All-pervading Spirit can neither come into and idol, nor, leave it. If you mantras are efficacious that you can summon God, why can you not infuse life into your dead son by the force of the very same mantras? Again why can you not bide the soul depart from the body of your enemy?”

“There is not a single verse in the Vedas to sanction invocation of the Deity and vitalization of the idol, likewise there is nothing to indicate that it is right to invoke idols, to bathe them, to install them in temples and apply sandal paste to them.”

“The formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have no material representation, likeness or image.” YAJUR VEDA 32: 3.”

Destruction of Ram Temple by Muslims: A fact not known even to Goswami Tulsidas who lived at the time

It is no ordinary religious inauguration of a grand Ram Temple in Ayodhya that is slated for January 22, 2024. It has clear political and polarising agenda attached to it. Underling this character of the inauguration PM Modi declared that “Ram Bhakts have waited for 550 years” to see it happen.

‘Celebrate Diwali across country on January 22, on the day of Ram temple ceremony:

[PM Modi at Ayodhya’, The Indian Express, Delhi, December 31, 2023]

It is not only in India but almost 60 foreign countries where Hindutva organizations are active amongst Hindus; the January 22 is to be celebrated because “After 500 years of struggle by Hindus, Bhagwan Shri Ram Mandir is being inaugurated.” The thrust of the celebration programmes is that Ram Temple at Ayodhya is finally built after being destroyed by Muslims 500 hundred years back. It has been 500 year long struggle to see it happen, is their politicized belief.

[‘Hindu Americans organise car rally in Washington suburb to celebrate Ram Mandir inauguration’.]

Such claims by an Indian prime minister and his supremacist, Hindutva co-fellows in the world are only spreading hatred against Muslims with this act and thus contributing to the Islamophobic narrative in India and abroad. Sadly, such statements are not only are in contempt of the Supreme Court Judgment on Ayodhya but also contradict the ‘Hindu’ narrative of history.

It may be interesting to note that RSS archives have no document to show that since its inception in 1925, during British rule, has the organisation ever articulated the demand for building of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya.

The Indian Supreme Court — in its 1039 page long judgment — did not conclude that the Babri Mosque was built on the ruins of any Ram Temple. It is sad that while religious poison is being spread openly the Supreme Court remains a mute spectator while its findings are being mis-reported.

So far as the ‘Hindu’ narrative is concerned there is no mention of it in the writings of the most prominent worshipper of Ram to date, Goswami Tulsidas who lived between 1511-1623. He was the person who penned the Epic, Ramacharitmanas (Lake of the Deeds of Ram) in the Avadhi language which angered the local Brahmins as the story of Ram was not written in Sanskrit. It was this work which mesmerized Hindus from all over India and the story of Lord Ram travelled to every Hindu home becoming a household name, especially in northern India. He penned his above mentioned work during the period, 1575-76.

According to the 1980s’ recreated Hindutva version, Babur ‘destroyed the birthplace of Ram’ during this period, 1538-1539. Thus, Ramacharitmanas written almost 37 years after the so called destruction of Ram birth-place temple should have mentioned this destruction. But it has not.

Are Hindutva zealots trying to say that the greatest story-teller and worshipper of Ram and his Court (Darbar), Tulsidas did not speak all the truth in his historic work? Is this not an attempt to question the credibility of Goswami Tulsidas? Are Hindutva zealots trying to say that Goswami Tulsidas kept mum on the issue of the destruction of a temple at Ram’s birth-place due to some ulterior motives?

Ramzade v/s Babarzade

The inauguration of Ram Temple is blatantly being used to denigrate Indian Muslims. The building of the Temple is the defeat of ‘Babarzade’ (children of Babar) by ‘Ramzade’ (children of Ram).

Hence it becomes pertinent, and urgent, to re-visit the nature of ‘Muslim’ rule in India. Hindutva zealots demanding Muslim-free India must know that all ‘Muslim’ rulers survived only because of the alliance of the Hindu privileged caste elites joining hands with the ‘Muslim’ rulers in running their empires. How solid this unity was can be gauged by the fact that after Akbar no Mughal emperor was born of a Muslim mother! Alliances meant marriages of allegiance, across faiths.

Moreover, Hindu privileged castes provided brain and muscle to the ‘Muslim’ rulers faithfully. Likewise, Mughal rule established by Babar who was invited by a section of Hindu kings to seize India was the rule of both Babar and Hindu privileged castes, too.

Aurobindo Ghose who played prominent role in providing Hindu foundation to the Indian nationalism has confessed that Mughal rule continued for over a century due to the fact that Mughal rulers gave Hindus, “positions of power and responsibility, used their brain and arm to preserve” their kingdom.

[Cited in Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 3, Publication Division Government of India, Delhi, 1992, p. 162.]

Renowned historian Tara Chand relying on primary historical source material of the medieval period concluded that the from the end of 16^th century to the middle of 19^th century, “it may reasonably be concluded that in the whole of India, excepting the western Punjab, superior rights in land had come to vest in the hands of Hindus” most of whom happened to be Rajputs.

[Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 1, Publication Division  Government of India, Delhi, 1961, p. 124.]

Contemporary records prove that Aurangzeb rule was also the rule of Rajputs and Kshatriyas [members of the two of the four Hindu Castes in order of precedence after Brahmins]. Aurangzeb never faced Shivaji in the battle-field. It was his commander-in-chief, a Rajput ruler of Amer (Rajasthan), Jay Singh I (1611–1667) who was sent to subjugate Shivaji (1603-1680). Jay Singh II (1681-1743), (nephew of Jay Singh I) was other prominent Rajput commander of the Mughal forces who served Aurangzeb. He was conferred the title of ‘Sawai’ [one and a quarter times superior to his contemporaries] chief by Aurangzeb in 1699 and thus came to be known as Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh. Jai Singh I was also given the title of Mirza Raja [a Persian title for a royal prince] by Aurangzeb. The other titles bestowed on him by other Mughal rulers were ‘Sarmad-i-Rajaha-i-Hind’ [eternal ruler of India], ‘Raj Rajeshvar’ [lord of kings] and ‘Shri Shantanu ji’ [wholesome king]. These titles are displayed by his descendants even today. This Rajput chief also gave his daughter in marriage to the son of Aurangzeb who became Mughal emperor after Aurangzeb.

Rajput commanders fighting for Aurangzeb were no exception. Akbar’s battles against Rana Pratap were led by one of his brothers-in-law, Maan Singh. Maasir al-Umara a biographical dictionary of the officers in the Mughal Empire beginning from 1556 to 1780

[Akbar to Shah Alam is regarded as the most authentic record of the high rank officials employed by the Mughal kings].

According to it Mughal rulers during this period employed around 100 (out of 365) Hindu high-ranking officials most of them being “Rajputs from Rajputana, the midlands, Bundelkhand and Maharashtra”. Brahmins followed Rajputs in manning the Mughal administration so far as the number was concerned.

[Khan, Shah Nawaz, Abdul Hai, Maasir al-Umara [translated by H Beveridge as Mathir-ul-Umra], volumes 1& 2, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 1979.] Interestingly, Kashi Nagri Pracharini Sabha [established in 1893] “committed to the cause of Hindi as official language” published Hindi translation of this book in 1931.

Another crucial fact which is consciously kept under wrap is that despite more than 500 hundreds of effective ‘Muslim’ rule which according to Hindutva historians was nothing but a project of annihilating Hindus or forcibly converting the latter to Islam, India remained a nation with an absolute Hindu majority.

The British colonial rulers held first census in 1871-72. It was the time when even ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over. According to the Census report: “The population of British India is, in round numbers, divided into 140½ million [sic] of Hindoos (including Sikhs), or 73½ per cent., 40¾ millions of Mahomedans, or 21½ per cent.

[Memorandum on the Census Of British India of 1871-72: Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty London, George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office 1875, p. 16.]

A poem by Iqbal, a Babarzada eulogizing Ram

The inauguration of Ram Temple at Ayodhya is being aggressively used to declare Muslims and enemy of Ram. This kind of pervert Hindutva mind-set has little knowledge of India’s past. Mohammad Iqbal penned one of the greatest poems in praise of Ram in Urdu which was titled “Imam-e-Hind” (spiritual leader of India).

Hai Raam ke wajood pe Hindustaan ko naaz
Ahl-e-Nazar samajhte hain us ko Imam-e-Hind
(India is proud of the existence of Ram
Spiritual people consider him prelate of India)

It is quite evident that he does not believe that Ram is leader of Hindus alone, otherwise he would have used the word Ahl-e-Hind (people of India) rather than Ahl-e-Nazar (people with vision). For him, the status of Lord Ram as a spiritual leader is not limited to the Vaishnavas or Hindus only. Lord Ram lives in the ethos of India and its people.

Talwar ka dhani tha, shujaat mai fard tha
Paakeegi mai, josh-e-muhabbat mai fard tha

(He was expert in sword craft, was unique in bravery
Was matchless in piety and in the enthusiasm of love)
Iqbal saw in Ram a perfect role model for the national movement. He is brave, and can fight wars against any wrong.

Iqbal, accords Ram not only the status of philosophical fountain head of India but of the world.
Sab falsafi hain khita-e-maghrib ke Ram-e-Hind
(All philosophers of the west would have acknowledged India and are fans of Ram).

Deepavali for Ram or PM Modi?

Deepavali (Festival of Lights) is the most popular Hindu festival in most parts of India. Deepavali is the celebration of Ram’s return to his kingdom with wife Sita and his brother Lakshman after defeating Ravan of Lanka. It is celebrated as victory of truth over evil.

Now Deepavali for Ram has a competitor which can be named as PM Modi’s Deepavali. Modi declared this plan during a roadshow in Ayodhya on December 31, 2023. According to him,

“The whole world is waiting for the historic moment. With folded hands, I am requesting 140 crore people of the country that on January 22, when the consecration of Ramlalla’s idol takes place, light the Ram Jyoti in your house and celebrate Deepawali. The entire country should sparkle with lights on the evening of January 22.”

[‘Celebrate Diwali across country on January 22, on the day of Ram temple ceremony: PM Modi at Ayodhya’, The Indian Express, Delhi, January 01, 2024]

Thus Deepavali for Ram is being substituted by Deepavali for PM Modi when he appears in the attire of a rishi or Brahmin saint to put soul into the life-less idol of Ram. Interestingly, the Hindutva zealots have taken this call very seriously by calling Hindus to celebrate January 22 as Maha-Deepavali (Great Deepavali); Deepavali for Ram and Maha-Deepavali  for PM Modi!

Who’s Ram? Ordinary Indians banned from participating in the consecration ceremony

Ram is known for protecting his people; upholding righteousness, compassion and kindness. Ram is equated with ordinary mortals, women/men. His rule is described as Ram Rajya or a rule for the benefit of all people. According to Gandhi it essentially meant, “The land of dharma and a realm of peace, harmony and happiness for young and old, high and low, all creatures and the earth itself, in recognition of a shared universal consciousness.”

However, these ordinary Hindus who will not be allowed to join the ceremony on January 22. This was made clear by none other than PM Modi who asked “common worshippers of Ram not to crowd Ayodhya on January 22”. He told them to come later at their convenience because “this time the navya, bhavya, divya (new, grand, divine) temple in Ayodhya is not going anywhere and ‘darshan’ will be available for centuries”.

Sadly, PM Modi did not ask the rich, film actors, industrialists, leading sports persons to postpone their date with Ayodhya. In fact, the January 22 celebratory participation has been restricted to a galaxy of Very-Very-Very Important Persons (VVIPs). PM Modi overlooked the fact that the first invites should have gone to those poor worshippers of Ram who despite a miserable life had contributed to the coffers of VHP for building Ram Temple. It may be relevant here to know that many of the invitees are not only meat-eaters but have been fond of beef.

Supreme Court Ayodhya judgment: Riddles with contradictions

After holding that the destruction of the Babri Masjid in full public view on December 6, 1992 was a “crime”, the Supreme Court of India recognized the “faith” behind this project with clear political overtones, and allowed a to be constructed Temple Trust to pave the way for this temple. Arguably, it was this judgement that has cleared the roadmap to January 2022.

1. “The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship.” [Supreme Court Judgment pp. 921-22]
2. “On December 6, 1992, the structure of the mosque was brought down and the mosque was destroyed. The destruction of the mosque took place in breach of the order of status quo and an assurance given to this The destruction of the mosque and the obliteration of the Islamic structure was an egregious violation of the rule of law.” [Supreme Court Judgment pp. 913-14]
3. The Judgment also nowhere mentioned that Babri Mosque was built after destroying a Ram Temple in the past. Despite these findings which talked of “[The] egregious violation of the rule of law” and done not by a “lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship”, Supreme Court proceeded to –rather inexplicably — handing over the site for Ram Temple building to the same group of Hindutva organisation who had committed the same egregious violation of the rule of law. To ensure that no other organisation is allowed participation in this Ram Temple project, the court disallowed the claim of Nirmohi Akhada, ironically the original claimants of the Ram Temple at the site! [Supreme Court Judgment p. 925].

This is how the current Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud (who was one of the Justices in the Bench which gave unanimous judgment for building Ram Temple) described the judgement, “”The case has a long history of conflict, of diverse viewpoints based on the history of the nation and all those who were part of the bench decided that this will be a judgment of the court.”

[‘A judgment of court’: CJI Chandrachud on why Ayodhya verdict was kept anonymous’ The Week, Delhi, January 1, 2024.

His statement in no way show cased what the judgement stated on the crime of demolition (Babri Masjid) nor what the court itself had stated on the Muslim claims to the site. Made three weeks before the much publicized consecration ceremony, it also in many ways legitimized the actions of both 1949 and 1992!

Conclusion

Today, Ayodhya – a site of rich myth, lore, faith and culture– is tragically being refashioned as a symbol of a perpetual war of (sections of) Hindus against Muslims. There cannot be a more pathetic lie than this.

During India’s War of Independence 1857 Ayodhya it was the same Ayodhya where Maulvis and Mahants and common Hindu-Muslims stood united in rebelling against the British rule and kissed the hangman’s noose together. Maulana Ameer Ali was a famous Maulvi of Ayodhya and when Ayodhya’s well-known Hanuman Garhi’s (Hanuman Temple) priest Baba Ramcharan Das, also took the lead in organizing the armed resistance to the British rule, Maulana also joined the revolutionary army. In one battle with the British and their stooges, both of them were captured and hanged together on a tamarind tree at the Kuber Teela (razed for the new temple) in Ayodhya.

This region also produced two other great friends and compatriots, belonging to different religions that made life hell for the British sponsored armies. Acchhan Khan and Shambhu Prasad Shukla were two such friends who lead the army of Raja Devibaksh Singh in the district of Faizabad. Both of them were able to defeat the Firangee (foreign) army in many battles, inflicting heavy losses on them. It was due to the treachery again that they were captured. In order to desist anyone from such companionships between Hindus and Muslims both these friends were publicly inflicted prolonged torture and their heads were cruelly filed off.

Supremacist Hindutva rulers of India led by PM Modi must understand that the essence and existence of Indian democratic-secular polity must not be sacrificed at the altar of a self-serving politics that seeks to garner votes for narrow gain.

Related:

Sanatan Shankryacharyas’ voice concerns over January 22 Ram Mandir event

Breaking: Religion a personal matter, BJP politicising Ram Temple: Congress declines invite to inauguration

Is the Congress anti-Hindu or anti Hindutva?

The post Riddles of Ayodhya Ram Temple: Consecration of Bhagwan Ram’s idol, but which one? appeared first on SabrangIndia.