For a bold vision - By Indu Jain - Chairperson of Times of India group

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Gareeb ki biwi sab ki Bhabhi

The way well-wishers from all walks of life had been suggesting alternative use of the property of demolished Babri Masjid, one is wondering if the Urdu/Hindi proverb is not operative when it says --- Gareeb ki biwi sab ki Bhabhi.

Muslims are violated and now every one, from high to low, including Ms. Indu Jain, Chairperson of Times of India group ( see her OpEd in TOI), would like to wash their hands in 'behti Ganga'.

There is a deliberate attempt to silence Muslims and Muslim sentiments over the demolition of 500-year Masjid by a very well organised conspiracy where criminals are still out of the hands of law of the land, but everybody is more than eager to share the loot that the hooligans have made available. Muslim belief on the neutrality of TOI in communal matters is still awaiting a more objective and deliberate people's verdict .

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

<http://www.ghulammuhammed.blogspot.com>

----------------------------------

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/For-a-bold-vision/articleshow/6743142.cms

TOP ARTICLE

For a bold vision

INDU JAIN, Oct 14, 2010, 12.00am IST

The nation applauded our politicians and other prominent figures in our public life when they appealed in unison for calm on the eve of the Ayodhya verdict. Our media too earned widespread praise for not speculating on its content. However, what followed immediately after the verdict was delivered left ordinary citizens baffled, confused and not a little disturbed.

It was clear from the beginning that legal experts would have to scrutinise thousands of pages of the judgements with a fine toothcomb before they formed a rounded opinion about their strengths and infirmities. But our opinion makers hastened to air their views, each one contradicting the other with much abandon.

Where do we go from here? It is clear that all the three litigants in the case will challenge the verdict which divided the disputed area equally between them in the Supreme Court. Each one lays claim to the entire area. No one can say how long the apex court will take to give its judgement. It could take months, even years. In the meantime, there is every reason to fear that political interests will exploit the uncertainty for their narrow ends. This portends a danger for our nation.

Even while the apex court deliberates on the case, the concerned parties seem prepared to engage in talks to find a lasting and equitable solution to the Ayodhya dispute. Concerned citizens can only wish them well. But there is reason for worry on this score too for similar efforts have been made in the past without success. The talks floundered because no side was prepared to abandon its maximalist position.

So the question suggests itself: what can inspire them to be flexible, pragmatic and forward-looking? The inspiration must be sought in the abiding value of tolerance that has sustained and nourished our civilisation and culture since times immemorial. This calls for respect for all faiths. It calls for a willingness to acknowledge the spiritual and moral impulses to be found in each one of them. The need of the hour is to bring down the walls that divide people and replace them with bridges that allow the followers of all religions to mix freely with one another.

India, as Amartya Sen has so well explained in his writings, has a rich and ancient history of public reasoning. The Indian Buddhists took the lead to set up councils where disputes between different schools of thought were discussed without acrimony and settled to the satisfaction of all. The first such council was held in Rajagriha shortly after the death of Gautama Buddha. Three others followed in later centuries. But the largest and most impressive council took place under the patronage of Emperor Ashoka in Pataliputra (now Patna) in the third century BCE. Its deliberations were not restricted to theological issues alone. They also focussed on social and civic duties.

Two thousand years later, another great emperor, Akbar, sponsored dialogues between the followers of different faiths in his 'Ibadat Khana' ( House of Worship). They included theologians of Hindu and Muslim sects, Zoroastrians and Jews, Christians and Jains as well as a smattering of atheists. He introduced a solar calendar that sought to combine the calendars of various faiths. This was a prelude to his attempt to forge a new religion, the Din-ilahi, which failed to take off in the face of the stiff opposition of obscurantist elements in the palace.

At the end of the 19th century, this tradition of tolerance received a boost thanks to the teachings of Swami Vivekananda. Speaking at the Parliament of Religions, held in Chicago, on September 27, 1873, the Swami asserted that its deliberations proved how and why holiness, purity and charity cannot be the exclusive possessions of any church in the world. Every system has produced men and women of the most exalted character. It is therefore necessary for each religion to help another, not fight with each other; to assimilate, not destroy; to seek harmony and peace, not dissension.

In the 20th century, this tradition was carried forward by Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore. They drew inspiration not only from our hoary spiritual and philosophical texts but also from our saint poets of medieval times.

The Ayodhya verdict presents us with an absolutely rare opportunity to put the bickering and the violence caused by the dispute firmly behind us and move forward on the strength of our time-tested traditions. Every party involved in the case should agree to renounce its claim to the portion of the area that now legally belongs to it to allow for the construction of a centre to promote interfaith dialogue a grander one than any other in the world.

It would bring together experts of all religions and all spiritual traditions, agnostics, apostates and even atheists from across the globe. They would endeavour to uphold values they share in common without seeking to impose a grey uniformity of belief and practice. The interfaith centre would bear vivid testimony to all that is noble and uplifting in the civilisation that has shaped us from the dawn of history to the present day. And, what is more, it would make eminent political sense too.

The writer is chairman of The Times of India Group.

Observations on Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s article: Babri Masjid Revisited in THE TIMES OF INDIA - By Ghulam Muhammed

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Observations on Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s article: Babri Masjid Revisited in THE TIMES OF INDIA

Post- Allahabad High Court ‘Ayodhya Verdict’, Indian media had a field day in plastering its pages and its colourful screens with what can be divided as a ‘Hindutva Narrative’ and a ‘Left liberal Narrative’. The glaring omission was that of a ‘Muslim Narrative’, which has always been gagged by the non-Muslim owned media and could hardly get any mass audience.

Times of India, that claims to be the leader of the pack in English language media, has finally decided to bring in the Ulama and had strategically selected a writer whose credentials as a peacenik is most admired by the aggressive Hindutva elements while Maulana’s own community by and large has completely sidelined him.

His article is a regurgitation of Maulana’s old stand for Muslims to follow the spirit of Prophet’s Hudaibiya peace agreement with the idol worshipers of Mecca, when he agreed to refrain from any violent engagement for which he had come prepared and preferred to negotiate for a peace treaty, giving him a foot inside a closed door. His stand is sound as a broad guideline, but alas Maulana cannot be a patch on the charisma and leadership of the Prophet while Muslims too are not united and so committed to the Hudaibiya peace initiative, given great differences in time, place and the composition of the adversaries.

In his article, Maulana has cited the case of Caliph Omar, who was offered space by the Church authorities to pray his Salaat in the Church of Resurrection of Jerusalem, when Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim forces and the citizenry insisted that any surrender treaty with rights and responsibilities should be signed by the Caliph Omar himself. Caliph declined, saying that that indiscretion may be become an excuse for future Muslim generations to claim the right to pray in Christian churches.

Maulana writes:

“The Christian bishop told him he could offer his prayers inside that very church. But the caliph refused. He said that he would offer his prayers at a stone's throw from the church. If he offered his prayers right there inside the church, it would create a controversy in the future. The Muslims of later generations would say that they would build a mosque there because their caliph had offered prayers there.

Notwithstanding this historic example, Mir Baqi built a mosque adjoining a Hindu sacred place. This was bound to create problems.”

Maulana is trying to compare the two situations, which are as different as oranges from apples. After Muslim takeover, the Church became a dhimmi of the Muslim state. Muslims in India are full citizens of their country: India and are not dhimmis of a Hindu state.

A small minority of politically motivated and ideologically committed violent group of Hindutvadis are not the ruler of this nation. If they had been the rulers, they would have ruled India for the last 63 years, instead of Indian National Congress. Even after Babri demolition, they could not realize their dream of ruling India on the strength of their own committed vote bank. Some feel, they are surviving on Congress complicity. Muslims should not bow to their aggression. They do not represent the real ethos of Indian society.

It is another matter that Congress party with all its protestation of being secular had been riddled with the presence of highly communalized Hindutva protagonists.

Unlike Omar, these Hindutvadis, who pose as rulers of the country, did not offer to build their proposed Grand Ram temple away from the 500+ year old Babri Masjid.

Their contrived excuse about Ram Janambhoomi, (the place where their Lord Ram was born) being the same spot where the Masjid was, falls through, as in Ayodhya town itself, within stone throw of each other, there are scores of Ram Janambhoomi Temples, all claiming to be the birth place of Lord Ram.

To compound their mischief, they collected hundreds of thousands mobsters, through L. K. Advani’s Rath Yatra all over India and with the connivance of a Congress President and Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, demolished a Mosque in full view of a world audience glued to BBC’s live telecast, with its ace correspondent, Mark Tully as the prime witness to the mob mobilization and the destruction of the Babri Masjid.

L. K. Advani did not act like Caliph Omar, holding a far-sighted vision to avoid trouble in future generations; in fact he was the very anti-thesis of Caliph Omar as he went on to create trouble and division between Hindus and Muslims who had been living in peace for hundreds of years, even in the city of Ayodhya, with Masjid/Mandir as next door neighbors in hundreds of towns, cities and villages.

L. K. Advani had a political agenda and had nothing to do with the religious aspect of the Ram legend. His former daughter-in-law’s affidavit submitted to Liberhan Commission, details how irreligious Advani could have been.

Maulana accuses Muslims of provoking Hindutvadis in demolishing Babri Masjid, by not following Prophet’s example of Hudaibiya and handing over the Babri Masjid to Hindus.

The present context, with L. K. Advani’s political agenda of taking over Indian government by stirring up mob aggression, did not offer Muslims any choice but to resist the political mobilization against their community’s interests. The prophet had means to ensure his victory on the battle field and he chose to sign a treaty out of his magnanimity and his negotiation position of power equation. Muslims are not in power in India, to be offering such generous terms to a group of law-breakers. That would be submitting to blackmail and would be opening Pandora’s Box for further blackmail. Maulana is not into Applied Islamics, as envisioned by Dr. Javed Jamil of Saharanpur, or he would have taken into account all aspects of the imbroglio, before coming out with his facile advice to Muslims and become part of Muslim problem.

Maulana cites the goodwill and sagacity of Congress led by Narasimha Rao, when it passed the legislation called the Places of Worship Act, 1991, binding Government of India to maintain the status quo of all places of worship on the Indian soil as it stood in 1947. However, the sting is in the tail. The status quo ante for Babri Masjid as publicly promised by the same Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister of India was cleverly and exceptionally excluded from the ambit of the Act, with the spacious argument that the case is the courts. Congress has a long history of countermanding courts decisions with instant passing of amending legislation. The only reason that Babri Masjid was kept out of the Places of Worship Act- 1991, was Congress policy of hunting with the hounds and running with the hare. Besides, P. V. Narasimha Rao was an old RSS cadre that got infiltrated into Congress, thanks to his Brahmin identity and had extensive contacts with RSS as well as BJP and could be seen as sabotaging the permanent dynastic rule of Congress, in favour of a Hindutva alternative.

In fact, all the acts of omission and commission by this Congress President and Prime Minister during the Babri Masjid/ Ram Janambhoomi negotiation leading up to demolition of the Masjid, did damage Congress so much that it has never come back to its previous pre-Babri position of ruling India single-handedly, without the crutches of coalition partners. Muslim voters who had tolerated all adverse Congress moves like opening of the lock of the Babri Masjid for Hindu prayers et al. could see the hidden hand of a Congress President behind a blatant attack on their constitutional right of freedom of religion and consequently jilted Congress in droves. It is hard for them to trust Congress again.

Maulana further holds that Muslims subsequently took the very impractical line that the Masjid should be rebuilt on the same spot. Maulana gives the example of the relocation formula in some Arab countries. Maulana is fully aware that the majority of Indian Muslims follow Hanafi school of jurisprudence, which is in many ways different from Ahle-Hadith school of thought. The Gulf countries with Muslim rulers at the helm are influenced by Wahabi doctrines and as such are not acceptable to majority of Indian Muslims. Maulana cannot come out with solutions from one school of jurisprudence and impose it on adherents of other school of thought and that too to appease black-mailing adversaries. Besides, Indian Islam has its own distinct nuances and ethos, reflecting different level of adjustments with their compatriots, who are not Muslims. Such adjustment problems do not exist in Muslim countries and as such their alternatives are irrelevant to Indian context and polity.

Maulana holds that Muslim rejection of Allahabad High Court’s Ayodhya Verdict is an emotional reaction and not well-considered response. He feels that by their own mass mobilization on Shah Bano issue, when they forced the government to overrule a Supreme Court judgment, they have give others a precedent to follow. He poses a hypothetical question and offers a hypothetical answer. He wants to know that even if the Supreme Court gives the verdict in their favour, how the problem will be solved (to their satisfaction).

Maulana again errs when he compares Muslim mobilization on Shah Bano to the Hindutva mobilization on Babri Masjid. Shah Bano mobilization was peaceful and within the limits of India’s democratic tradition. That cannot be said about Babri Masjid/ Ram Janambhoomi mobilization of hundreds of thousands of Kar Sevaks demolition a 500-year old Mosque. They got away as they had an old RSS hand at the head of the Government. That may not be the case, next time around. The deciding factor is not the Court as all realists realize. It is the ground politics. Post Babri, a big change has occurred in Muslim mind, and their right to full empowerment in the affairs of their country, may result in different equation; say a decade or two from now.

Some optimists in Muslim folds, would like to cross the bridge, when they come to it. As long as Muslims consider India their own country, they will be prepared for all sacrifices to legitimize their rightful identity. If only Maulana could realize that this is not merely fight for Babri, it is a struggle to remain an Indian.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

<http://www.ghulammuhammed.blogspot.com>

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Babri-Masjid-Revisited/articleshow/6730622.cms

TOP ARTICLE

Babri Masjid revisited

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, Oct 12, 2010, 12.00am IST

The Babri masjid was built in 1528 at Ayodhya by Mir Baqi, the governor of Ayodhya at the time. He built it adjacent to the Ram chabutra, which is held sacred by the Hindus. This was a clear deviation from the Islamic principle. According to Islam, the places of worship of two religions should be built at a considerable distance from each other.

When Caliph Omar visited Jerusalem in AD 638, he wanted to offer his prayers. At that moment, he happened to be in the Church of the Resurrection of Jerusalem. The Christian bishop told him he could offer his prayers inside that very church. But the caliph refused. He said that he would offer his prayers at a stone's throw from the church. If he offered his prayers right there inside the church, it would create a controversy in the future. The Muslims of later generations would say that they would build a mosque there because their caliph had offered prayers there. Notwithstanding this historic example, Mir Baqi built a mosque adjoining a Hindu sacred place. This was bound to create problems.

In 1949, some Hindus placed three idols inside the Babri mosque. Unable to manage the crisis this created, the Muslims reacted: their failure to adopt the prophetic principle in this regard started an unending controversy between the two communities.

At the time of the Prophet, in the first quarter of the 7th century AD, idol worshippers had placed 360 idols in the premises of the Kabah, Mecca. But the Prophet never reacted. He simply ignored the situation and tried to change people's hearts. And the result was that, within 20 years, Meccans abandoned idol worship and became the followers of the Prophet. Then those Meccans themselves removed the idols from the Kabah without any confrontation or bloodshed.

In 1991, during the prime ministership of Narasimha Rao, the Indian Parliament passed a legislation called the Places of Worship Act, 1991. According to this Act, the government of India was bound to maintain the status quo of all places of worship on the Indian soil as it stood in 1947. But there was an exception that of the Babri masjid of Ayodhya. The Act maintained that the Babri masjid issue was in court, so the government would wait and it would be its duty to implement the verdict of the court when it was given.

This Act was a most reasonable one and Muslims should have accepted it as such. But they rejected it outright and resorted to street demonstrations. The demolition of the Babri masjid on December 6, 1992, was nothing but the culmination of this negative course of action adopted by the Muslims. At that time i said: "Babri Masjid ko Hinduon ne toda aur Musalmano ne usko tudwaya." (The Hindus demolished the Babri masjid but Muslims provoked them to do so.)

The Muslims subsequently took the very impractical line that the masjid should be rebuilt on the same spot. At that time, i said that the rebuilding formula was totally unrealistic; Muslims should accept the alternative formula of the relocation of the mosque.

It is a well-known fact that the relocation formula has been adopted by Arab countries. When these countries wanted to replan their cities, they found that there were many mosques that were obstacles to city planning. They did not hesitate to relocate such mosques. I said at the time that Muslims in India ought to adopt this same formula and accept the relocation of the Babri mosque. But again the Muslims refused.

Now, after the judicial verdict on September 30, 2010, the Muslims are generally saying that this verdict is contrary to their hopes and they will challenge it in the Supreme Court. But this is not going to solve the problem. It is an emotional reaction to the verdict and not a well-considered response.

Suppose the Muslims refer the issue to the Supreme Court and suppose it issues a judgement in their favour. Even then it will not solve the problem. The Muslims themselves set a precedent in 1985, which is enough to predict the situation as it will unfold.

In 1985, the Supreme Court issued a judgement in the Shah Bano case, which ran counter to Muslim aspirations. So the Muslims refused to accept the judgement. They took to the streets and the government was compelled to pass a new Act. The Hindus would certainly say that it was now their turn to refuse the verdict issued by the Supreme Court.

The only solution to this problem is for the Muslims to decide to put a full stop to this issue. If they put a comma, then there will be no end to it. We have lost 60 years by putting comma after comma and now this is the last chance to bring closure to the issue so that the relationship between the Hindus and the Muslims may be normalised. And this full stop means either leaving it to the government to implement the verdict or agreeing to the relocation of the Babri mosque. There is, in reality, no third option.

The writer is an Islamic scholar.

State secularism in the land of religions and mythologies - By Ghulam Muhammed

Monday, October 11, 2010

State secularism in the land of religions and mythologies

Javed Akhtar, the well-known Bollywood lyricist, a self professed atheist with a Muslim name given by his Muslim parents, and a committed ‘secularist’, finds it increasingly difficult to balance himself sitting on his two-legged chair perched on a political tight-rope. His appearances of TV channel debates register his acute dilemma.

‘Lord’ Meghnad Desai in his Sunday Indian Express column quoted Javed Akhtar saying: as a Muslim he cannot be secular. (One wonders why then he is the presiding deity at a 3-man paper organization: Muslim for Secular Democracy (MSD); which is so quotable favorite of India’s English media’s Leftist journos.) To add insult to injury, Lord Desai suggested that Javed Akhtar should have added, it is not for people to prove their secularism, but leaders of political parties.

What comes out of this short exchange of views is that the Indian State should be secular, as per our constitution, though people need not be secular. In Indian context, all citizens may belong to any religion or creed or no creed, as long as in matters of state, they confirm to secularism. (Reminds me of old Henry Ford dictum: People can have Model T car in any color, as long as it is black!) So far so good. But what can be done when a miniscule minority of 3% Macaulay Brahmins, impose their will, their religious symbolism and their so called Hindu culture, on rest of the 97% non-Brahmins and get away with it.

Imagine, though Muslim kings and nawabs ruled all over India, for over 1000 years, they did not impose Islamic Sharia on the non-Muslim masses in any permanent manner or continuity. Some of the Kings may have used ‘Jaziya’ for some of the time, but only as reaction to some rebellious groups’ resistance to their rule. Many of the Muslim rulers were pioneer in creating a multi-cultural ethos widely known as Ganga-Jamni culture, for their adopted country. Except for a few exceptions and that too in the annals of communalized history, nobody can blame them for being Islamicists.

While during the watch of the ‘Macaulay Brahmin’ dominated Indian National Congress, in a short time span of mere 63 years, India has got so entrenched in Hindutva lore and culture, that the State is merely giving lip service to its Constitution, when it comes to observing ‘secularism’ in its governance and guidelines.

Creeping erosion of India’s constitutional secularism has come to such a state that even judiciary has become immune or as some may say, contemptuous to its existence.

The naked example of the erosion of our constitutional secularism is the monumental Allahabad High Court verdict on Babri Masjid title suit, after its state-supported demolition watched live by the entire world.

India must correct its course.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

<http://www.ghulammuhammed.blogspot.com>

KERALA’s Radical Turn - Here Come the Pious By VK SHASHIKUMAR - Tehelka Magazine - Oct 9, 2010

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main47.asp?filename=Ne091010Coverstory.asp

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 7, Issue 40, Dated October 09, 2010

CURRENT AFFAIRS   KERALA

KERALA’s Radical Turn

Here Come the Pious

A new Islamist body, the Popular Front of India, is causing alarm with its religious overdrive in the south. VK SHASHIKUMAR tells us why we should be worried

All ears A mammoth PFI gathering listens to Ebrahim Rasool, then adviser to the South African President, in their first political conference at Kozhikode

ENGINEERING STUDENT Rayana Khasi returned home to north Kerala from Chennai four months ago, charmed and unaware that she was carrying deadly arsenal in her baggage. She had just finished with a course in aeronautical engineering, and was considering a career in the civil services. From Chennai she brought a few of her favourite things. Dreams. Knickknacks. Jeans. In Kasargod, northern Kerala, where she lived, Rayana got the shock of her life. They hated her jeans. They called her at odd times, men she didn’t know, and told her what they would do with her if she didn’t dump the jeans and put on purdah. Each time Rayana stepped out, they stared and said horrible things.

Then, four months later, she wrote to the Women’s Commission asking that she be allowed to wear what she likes. The state posted constables to protect Rayana so she could sport denim. Now, they stalked her. One day Rayana was returning after meeting her lawyer in Ernakulam, a town near the middle of Kerala. The constable got off midway. A group tried to block the car Rayana was in. She drove off. They chased the car and attacked her with stones. She had to drive to a town nearby, where the locals lent a touch of security. All this, because they didn’t like what she wore. Because they thought she was impious.

Hindus and Christians are beginning to feel uncomfortable with this brand of assertive, militant religion-centred politics of the Popular Front of India

THEY SAID they were from the Popular Front of India. Initially it was teasing and harassment. But harassment is worse than a threat to life. The comments and staring each time I ventured out, as if I was a criminal, was intolerable. They wrote to me saying they want me to wear purdah. They said what I did was blasphemy. But I don’t think it is a problem of Islam. This is an issue of the right over one’s body. It is sad that everybody is making it out as a religious problem, even those who support me,” says Rayana. Soon after the stone attack, she met Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan and the DGP. “They promised me they would do their best.”

The Popular Front of India (PFI), with its headquarters in Kozhikode, Kerala, is throwing up a curious test for India’s secularism. In classified central government reports, the PFI is accused of introducing an extremist pan-Islamist movement to India. In submissions to the High Court, the Kerala police claim it is linked to the Al Qaeda. Achuthanandan suggested the PFI has a 20-year plan to Islamicise Kerala. And then, Keralites were jolted out of their secular somnambulism on the first Sunday of July when a bunch of PFI cadres chopped the right palm of a college teacher, TJ Joseph, for setting a question paper that allegedly insulted Prophet Mohammad.

Faux power SDPI’s Abubacker inspects the guard of honour at a ‘freedom parade’

Hindus and Christians are beginning to feel uncomfortable with this brand of assertive, militant religion-centred politics. “They are the Indian Taliban, but they cannot overcome the syncretic culture of Kerala,” says Raveendran, a building contractor in Thrissur. According to him, the PFI is a temporary fad funded by petrodollars from Saudi Arabia. Mathew Nethumpara, a lawyer in Ernakulam, says he is not surprised because “intolerance has been brewing for several years”. Rayana’s struggle is a graphic illustration of the holes in Kerala’s secular net. This young student from Cherkalam in Kasargod has already received two death threats from the PFI for refusing to wear the veil. “I will not succumb to their pressure,” she says.

The PFI is a four-year-old organisation that has thrived on the controversy it generates. It was formed in December 2006, when three organisations, the National Development Front (NDF) of Kerala, the Manitha Neethi Pasarai (MNP) of Tamil Nadu, and the Karnataka Forum for Dignity (KFD) merged to form the new entity. The NDFwas involved in the Marad Beach carnage, Kerala, in May 2003. Its cadres killed eight Hindu fishermen after a scuffle over drinking water at a public tap spiraled into a communal conflict. In 2009, a special court sentenced 65 NDF cadres to life imprisonment for this. The MNP is believed to be the new avatar of Al Umma, accused of attacking an office of the rightwing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in Chennai in November 1993. Eleven RSS cadres were killed here. The PFI considers the members of Hamas, Taliban, and Al Qaeda as freedom fighters. In one of its publications, it says: “We declare solidarity to the freedom fighters in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq.”

The PFI is expanding because there is a feeling among Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis that they have been cheated, says chief Nasrudheen Elamaram

Confidential missives of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the Kerala Police accessed by TEHELKA suggest the PFI is the fastest-growing cadre-based Muslim organisation in India. It held its first political conference in 2009 in Kozhikode, where it came out with its influential Kozhikode Declaration. In it, the PFI said: “The War on Terror is a US agenda. It is a political tactic shaped by hegemonic forces bent upon world domination. The Muslims are the victims of the war on terror. The Indian government supports the WOT and makes available the county’s machinery for implementing the plan hatched by the US-Israel axis. It’s in the wake of this alliance that we witness the increase in bomb blasts in the country.

“The Muslims, on the other hand, have been pushed down by inferiority complex created by peculiar historic developments. They are under the wrong impression that any political move of their own is wrong. While the national secular parties are anxious to use the Muslim votes, they have been reluctant to take them in as equal partners. They have failed to secure the rights of the Muslims as citizens and refused to give even legal protection to them during communal riots which are a byword for collective anti-Muslim attacks. When the administration joined hands with anti-Muslim forces it created fear in Muslim minds. There is strong suspicion that plans are being hatched and implemented deliberately to break the Muslims economically and socially.

“The denial of basic needs and willful negligence of their just demands have imposed social slavery. No political party can shrug off responsibility for creating this situation. So it is imperative that Muslim organisations come to the forefront for the advancement of the community and to create awareness about their rights.”

It is impossible to judge whether the PFI has really sown the seeds of Talibanisation in India. For instance, Kerala’s Director General of Police Jacob Punnose says, “I realise the danger but I don’t want to exaggerate it.” Unnikrishnan, a well-known Malayalam filmmaker and culture critic says educated Muslim youth in Kerala cannot be seen in a monolithic context. “But we cannot deny that the consolidation of pan-Islamism can be seen in Kerala.” He considers the PFI’s militant retaliation for perceived injustices “a dangerously romantic imagery”. He says Muslim radicalisation in Kerala would have a big impact.

Forward march The parade, which was held in 2008 and 09, was banned this year

THE PFI’s Kerala head Nasrudheen Elamaram says his organisation is expanding because there is a feeling among Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis that they have been cheated. The PFI sees the State as the enemy. That there are visible signs of Islamisation is accepted by all. Unnikrishnan describes this as “hybrid Islamisation”. Suddenly, over the past decade, Kerala’s 26 percent Muslims appear to be twice their number. That’s because the dress code of Kerala Muslims has been made Arabic. All across Kerala most Muslim women wear head scarves or purdah or hijab. “It is fashionable to wear hijab,” says Salima, a student of BSc, Applied Statistics, in Kozhikode’s Ferook College. When first-generation educated Muslims went to the Gulf countries, they returned far more conservative than they might have been when they left India. This has been subsequently imbibed by friends, relatives and neighbours. While Elamaram admits “Gulf influence” is a factor, he adds, “Purdah is matter of faith. There is no compulsion.”

Sunil Kumar KK, is an administrator in Calicut University. He has been an anti-communalism activist working primarily among students. “In the past few years I have seen more women, and more educated women, for instance my neighbour who has a Phd, take to the hijab. There is radicalisation but that would be in small pockets. Also, one must not underestimate the role of the mafia in fuelling terror activities or easing recruitment. Go to a remote town and promise jobs or college admissions or just money. Tell people that ‘another community’ has lots of college seats and Muslims don’t. This seems to be what works for groups like the PFI,” he says.

PART OF the PFI’s growth is because it has a separate media company, the Inter Media Private Limited, held by the Thejas Publishing Charitable Trust. Thejas is the name of the PFI’s Malayalam daily that started publishing in January 2006. Since then the PFI has launched four news publications in Malayalam, Tamil and Kannada. It also has four book publishing ventures in the same languages. It has a website and a dedicated web team. It has set up an ‘Empower India Press’ to publish titles in English, Hindi and Urdu. Another organisation, called ‘Media Research and Development’ produces audiovisual products and documentaries. “We see the media as a vehicle for political empowerment,” says NP Chekkutty, Executive Editor of Thejas. “The PFI’s membership is only for Muslims because a cadre-based organisation is important for social mobilisation. So, it is not the Talibanisation or radicalisation in the sense of what is happening in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” he adds. Soon Thejas will start an edition in Saudi Arabia. So far, Thejas has employed more than 400 media professionals and is working on a Saudi Arabia edition.

All this has caught the Centre’s attention. A letter classified as secret issued by the union home ministry on 25 November 2009 states: “Thejas is part of a pan-Islamic publication network catering to the communal agenda of certain organisations. The publication invariably takes anti-establishment views on issues like plight of Muslims, Kashmir, and India’s relations with the US and Israel. Occasionally, it describes the government’s counter-militancy effort as state-sponsored terrorism, thereby endorsing the stance of militant elements. More importantly, contemporary developments and issues are invariably projected with a communal slant.” The Kerala Government took this seriously and withdrew all advertisements from Thejas on 14 May this year. “In the past financial year we got more than Rs 80 lakh as revenue from government advertisements. The decision to withdraw them from Thejas is a political decision aimed at destroying the newspaper,” says Chekkutty. But, in strange twist, the Centre’s Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity revived government advertisements in Thejas. The first one was an appeal by the central government to maintain calm and peace in the aftermath of the Allahabad High Court’s Babri Masjid verdict!

Black rage Activists of the NWF protest in Mysore against the Gaza blockade

In the period after the Babri Masjid verdict, the PFI is gearing up to bring all Muslim groups in India under its banner. At its Kozhikode conference, Zafaryab Jilani, the convener of the Babri Masjid Action Committee, articulated a long-cherished dream. “The Front should make sure that under its banner all the suppressed sections close ranks.” The Kozhikode Declaration also called for the unification and consolidation of Muslims, Dalits and Backwards as a ‘genuine Third Force’ in Indian politics.

The PFI has garnered rapid support within the Muslim community because it has been able to demonstrate its organisational capability. Its ‘Freedom Parade’ is the shining showpiece of its cadrestrength. On 15 August in the past two years, PFI cadres dressed in uniforms similar to paramilitary organisations staged a perfectly synchronised march in cities across Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Muslims in Kozhikode thronged the roads and packed into the city stadium to watch the march. In 2008, the PFI chose to stage the Freedom March in Mangalore, a town known for its Hindutva extremist groups like the Sri Ram Sene. PFI seniors take pains to explain the rationale of the Freedom Parade. “The Muslim community needs to show its strength for political mobilisation. A disciplined cadre-based organisation is necessary for the progress of the community,” says Elamaram.

Some Muslims admire the PFI for its educational, social and public health initiatives. But the biggest inducement for the youth to join the outfit is jobs

This year the Kerala Government banned the parade. Kerala police officers point to a few curious features of the PFI’s show of strength. It was always held in the afternoon or evening after the official Independence Day functions were over. No PFI senior has ever turned up for official I-Day functions. The PFI has consistently refused to furnish the list of names and contact details of its marching cadres to the police so their strength is not precisely known. Police officers claim the cadres have been trained by former police and army personnel. The police claim that within the PFI, there is an Ideology Wing, Intelligence Wing and an Action Group.

SOME SOUTH Indian Muslims admire the PFI for its educational, social and public health initiatives. It offers career counselling, distributes educational aids and study material, and runs motivational programmes like the ‘School Chalo’ campaign every summer. Its medical camps are also popular. But the biggest inducement for Muslim youth to join the PFI is jobs. “We have been fairly successful in building an organisation. There was a change because employment was given to Muslim girls, boys and Dalits,” says Elamaram. The police claim PFI goes beyond providing jobs. “All Muslim youth joining the PFI are given mobile phones, motorcycles and money. The organisation also assists in job recruitments in the Gulf,” says Vinson M Paul, ADGP, Crime.

The PFI says it tapped into the anger of the Indian Muslim community after the release of the Sachar Committee Report. The official admission by the government that the Muslim community is the most backward in India set the ground for the PFI’s spectacular growth. Its assertive, militant brand of politics aimed at acquiring political power at the national level appealed to Muslims who felt powerless. The PFI’s political rationale, that the Indian Muslim community’s absence in the corridors of power is the root cause for genocidal attacks on Muslims, has resonated deeply within the community. This powerlessness leads to systematic killings of Muslims in fake encounters and communal pogroms, the PFI holds.

The Babri Masjid demolition, the riots in its wake and the Gujarat genocide are often cited in PFI literature. The organisation believes the American war on terror and India’s new-found friendship with Israel has furthered weakened Muslim “servility”. They claim that India’s security and strategic establishment have been irreparably influenced by American and Israeli intelligence and security agencies. PFI claims that Indian Muslims are victimised by Hindus for eating beef. The media constantly questions their patriotism and unquestioningly accept the role of Muslims in terrorist activities.

United front PFI leaders in a show of strength during the Kozhikode meeting

Much of this is true and a decision by Indian Muslims to consolidate themselves as a self-confident political force, partaking of democracy as equal players not second-class citizens dependent on “appeasements”, could have been a welcome move. Like the social churn Lalu Prasad and Mayawati brought in their wake, it could bring positive yield: more jobs, more education, more leverage. What makes the growth of the PFI and its associate organisations worrying though is its undertow of violence and Islamic fundamentalism.

Says Hameed Chennamangalur, former Calicut University professor and social commentator, “It’s not just the PFI. There are many other groups that share their Islamist ideology. They are like the Al Qaeda and similar groupings in Egypt, Pakistan or Bangladesh. They oppose America not because it is imperialist but because it is Christian imperialism and they see Islam as the only truth. The PFI, unlike older avatars, is extremely well funded and has been steadily building institutions — newspapers, publishing, schools.

The people who need to worry in Kerala are the liberal Muslims. Those who supported the professor who had his hand chopped off, the pro-Rushdie types...

“Mainstream Muslims in Kerala may not come out and applaud them when they do things like cutting the professor’s hand but they support them inwardly. They have supported them quietly earlier when, as the NDF, they conducted similar moral policing. The question paper incident was a small issue that they blew up because groups like them do not tolerate criticism or perceived criticism of Islam. Just like the Ram Sene or the Shiv Sena they are geared to blowing up tiny incidents.

A MUSLIM school in Kannur that took boys and girls out on a normal school excursion gets attacked. Their bus gets blocked because the NDF does not want boys or girls to mix. Or in Malapurram they tell Muslim owners of restaurants that they cannot open during Ramadan. Or decades ago in the same region the NDF burnt movie theatres they suspected were showing pornographic films. The people who need to worry in Kerala are liberal Muslims. The people who supported the professor who had his hand chopped off, pro-Rushdie people, pro-Taslima Nasreen people ... they are the ones who need to watch out. People like the Chekkanur Moulvi who was a progressive cleric who was kidnapped and killed in 1993 ... those are the kind of people who need to worry.”

There is evidently big following for the PFI even in states other than Kerala. In the past two years the PFI and its political wing, Social Democratic Party of India, have set up committees in 15 states and already have a significant following in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The PFI’s formulations of “total empowerment” for Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis and Backward Castes have connected with other Muslim political groups and parties. The Asom United Democratic Front (AUDF), led by perfume magnate Maulana Badruddin Ajmal, has declared solidarity with the PFI. The AUDF, with 11 MLAs in the 126-member Assam legislature, is a significant player in Assam politics. Political midgets like the Milli Ettehad Parishad in West Bengal and the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhgam (TMMK) have joined the PFI-led national alliance of Muslim groups and parties. Much of this comes from the Kozhikode conference. There, Ebrahim Rasool, then advisor to the South African President, energised the PFI leadership with a simple proposition: “Muslims in South Africa account for 3 percent of its population, but have 15 percent representation in Parliament. If we can do it, why can’t the 13 percent Muslims in India do the same thing?”

Dress code Rayana Khasi has been hounded for wearing jeans in Kasargod

Stuff like this is raising an alarm in New Delhi and Thiruvananthapuram. Achuthanandan said the PFI was trying to make Kerala a “Muslim country.” “How can we convert all the people of Kerala to Islam in 20 years?” rebuts Elamaram. “If this is true, then Achuthanandan and his children too will have to change their religion.”

Taking a cue from the freedom guaranteed in the Indian Constitution to propagate religion, the PFI has set up religious propagation and education centres in Theni and Ervadi in Tamil Nadu. While Kerala police officials allege that these Arivagam centres for men and women are basically conversion centres, the PFI claims these are institutions for teaching the basic tenets of Islam over four months to those who voluntarily accept it as their religion. The course covers “reading Quran, performing salah, learning basic duas and hadiths and also conveys the message of Islam to the people. Accommodation, food and other basic requirements are given free for those who undergo these courses.” The ‘Q’ (intelligence) Branch of the Tamil Nadu Police has despatched several missives to the government alleging that the PFI is conducting a conversion campaign through its Arivagam centres.

The PFI also mobilised the Imams in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka to form the Imams Council “for unity among the ulema”. The eventual aim is to string together a National Imams Council “to undertake (Muslim) social causes more effectively. But this is being viewed suspiciously by central intelligence agencies and the Kerala police because one of the first acts of the Imam Council was to republish a controversial 55-page book, ‘Asavarnarkku Nallathu Islam’ (Islam is Good for Non-Savarnas).

This book was first published by the Thiyya Youth League of Kochi in 1936. It contained essays by well known Ezhava and Thiyya intellectuals like Sahodaran K. Ayyappan, K. Sukumaran, K.C. Vallon and AK Bhaskar. They advocated mass conversion to Islam because of stubborn denial of temple entry rights to backward castes by the rulers of Travancore. The Kerala Police claims that in the present circumstances this book is “highly inflammatory”. The police interrogated the President of the Imam Council, Abdul Rehman Bakhiq, on the grounds that the Council was promoting communal discord. “What I am seeing is not radicalisation in the traditional sense. We understand what we are doing here is very effective. We are giving voice to a segment of people who have been ignored. We are becoming assertive through reasoned argument,” says Chekkutty. “And keeping it within the limits of the Indian Constitution.”

One argument the PFI is making is the implementation of Sharia or Islamic Banking in India. In early September, a team of Islamic scholars assembled by the PFI met RBI officials to present their case on Islamic Banking. According to the PFI, banking in accordance with Sharia laws “is the answer to abolish economic inequality and discrimination”. But RBI officials have already informed the government that under the current banking laws and regulations, Islamic banking cannot be legally implemented. The World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) and the Muslim World League (MWL) or Rabitha, both funded by Saudi Arabia’s royal family are actively engaged in the propagation of Islam and Sharia banking in India.

Muslim politicians from Kerala, like Minister of State for Railways E. Ahmed and PV Wahab have been pushing the agenda of Islamic banking. WAMY’s representative Abdul Rahman and the MWL or Rabitha’s advisor Khalaf Bin Sulaiman Namary have also been in touch with Kerala Government and Muslim politicians for this. “The PFI is one of the beneficiaries of WAMY and Rabitha largesse,” says a police officer involved in investigating the PFI’s alleged terror linkages. For the sake of context, it is instructive to recall that American and European governments have severely curtailed the activities of WAMY and MWL on grounds of “terror financing”.

THE FUNDING requirements are channeled through these representatives, often through the hawala route. Union Home Secretary GK Pillai, during a recent visit to Kollam in Kerala, told journalists that “the funding (for Muslim organisations) seems to be more from outside than from locals.” These funds are then apportioned by WAMY and MWL’s local representatives to mosques and local Muslim community organisations for religious propagation, relief activities and education. More often than not these funds are used for religious indoctrination and radicalisation.

Taking a cue from the freedom guaranteed to propagate religion, the PFI has set up religious education centres in Theni and Ervadi in Tamil Nadu

Remittances to Kerala via legal channels show a 135 percent growth in the past five years. In 2003, remittance from the Gulf was $38 billion. In 2008 it was $90 billion. It is well known that funds transferred through hawala are 300 times the officially documented remittance. The Kerala Government has also come up with a curious nugget on land purchases. In several districts nearly 70 percent land ownership is held by Muslims, of which a considerable chunk is held by Muslim religious institutions and organisations through proxies. “We do not have a mechanism to monitor these activities. India will be taken by surprise,” says Dr Siby Mathew, ADGP Intelligence, Kerala Police. There are 25 lakh Malayali expatriates in the Gulf. More than half are Muslims. A significant amount of funding to fundamentalist and religious organisation is through their donation. A classified home ministry report alleges that rich Muslim businessmen in India and abroad fund PFI activities.

Also, the Internal Security Investigation Team (ISIT) of the Kerala Police is probing PFI activities. They claim to have seized Talibanic material, videos and “highly communal” and subversive literature, in raids conducted across Kerala. In an affidavit submitted to the Kerala High Court by R. Rajashekharan Nair, Deputy Secretary (Home), the government claimed the ISIT found CDs linked to the Al Qaeda. The court was also informed of the PFI’s alleged connections with the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT). The suspected PFI terror links were backed by revelations made the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad when it arrested LeT operatives Mirza Himayat Baig and Shaikh Lal Baba Mohammad Hussain Farid, alias Bilal, for carrying out the German Bakery blast in Pune. According to the Maharashtra ATS, Baig was an active PFI cadre and was involved in arranging recruits for the LeT. None of this has been proved, of course, and PFI leaders rubbish the investigations as a fallout of India’s proximity to the US.

The Indian government believes that Kerala is turning into a cauldron of competing religious and communal interests. “Kerala should be concerned about religious fundamentalism,” warned Home Secretary Pillai in the first week of September. Surely, Kerala’s citizenry are aware of their responsibility. Only they can goad their political representatives to find a power-sharing solution for its large-sized religious minorities. It might become a role model for rest of India.

(With inputs from Shahina KK in Thiruvananthapuram)

---

shashi@tehelka.com

A precedent: Hindu Right has affirmed its faith in courts - By Pratik Kanji Lal - THE FREE PRESS JOURNAL - Mumbai

http://www.freepressjournal.in/

A precedent: Hindu Right has affirmed its faith in courts The Ayodhya issue has set a useful political precedent -for the first time, the Hindu right has drawn back from its absolutist standpoint, affirmed its faith in the courts (which it had earlier rejected) and at least considered acompromise. For the time being, let us read these practical benefits as progress. But for justice to be done in the new Jerusalem, this case obviously has to go to the Supreme Court. By PRATIK KANJILAL With its ruling on the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid title suit, the Allahabad High Court has laid the foundation for a new Jerusalem in Ayodhya, shared by Indias biggest faiths. Six decades ago, it had set out to decide a simple property suit and last week, instead of ruling on who owns the disputed site, its three- judge bench decreed that it should be divided up between the plaintiffs Gopal Singh Visharad, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and the Nimrohi Akhara. Legal luminaries like Rajiv Dhavan and Prashant Bhushan have castigated the court for exceeding its brief and termed its ruling ` astonishing’ and ` absurd’. But others like Soli Sorabjee have praised the judicial statesmanship’ of the Ayodhya bench.(??? -GM) The ruling has satisfied the majority, which wants to close the dispute and move on. It has allowed all parties to the case to emerge with dignity intact, but not with everything they had wanted. And most importantly, by depriving extremist Hindutva groups of an emotive issue, it may actually have laid to rest the temple movement, with its long history of violence and murder. As a political intervention, the ruling is remarkable. It follows the time- tested method of settling a street brawl, encouraging the parties to move on while ensuring that none of them completely loses face. But as a legal document which will no doubt be cited as precedent for decades to come, it leaves much to be desired. The land has been equally divided between the contending parties, but unequally between the religions they represent. Though it appears that there are no winners or losers here, in fact the minority has lost. While none of the parties has been able to establish the commencement of their title and the court has found the disputed site to have been a shared place of worship, by finding simultaneously that it is the birthplace of Rama, the court has effectively denied the Muslims right to title. Strengthening this impression was the fact that the demolition of the Babri Masjid, a turning point in the history of the nation, was not a point of reference in this ruling. This explained the embarrassing triumphalism of the Hindu groups, which will sell the ruling to their constituencies as a victory. The court should have penalised the counsels of the Hindu side, including BJP spokesperson Ravishankar Prasad, for this unseemly one- upmanship. Though it had made scrupulous arrangements to ensure that only the detailed and properly nuanced official ruling reached the public, it was pre- empted by advocates representing the Hindu cause flourishing victory signs in a jubilant press conference engineered to convey the impression that they had won. Perhaps the court could have reduced the effects of lapses in the ruling in two ways. First, its gist could have included a prominent reference to the ongoing criminal case concerning the Babri demolition. It represents a huge chapter of the Ayodhya story and it is impossible to arrive at closure without disposing of the matter. Secondly, the ruling could have included a caveat underscoring the special status of this case, setting it apart from the routine legal literature and discouraging its use as precedent in lesser matters. Much of the criticism of the ruling has come from lawyers who are upset because the court has exceeded its brief of deciding who owns the disputed site. Indeed, none of the parties had pleaded for a three- way split, a solution introduced by the court. But perhaps we are forgetting that if the court exceeded its brief, so did the case exceed its limits. It started as a routine civil matter technically not very different from establishing the ownership of an apartment, where the litigants were clearly defined organisations. It became the icon of a movement by the Hindu right to take control of the Indian polity and legalise majoritarianism based on religion. It is now a political matter between Hindus and Muslims which should have been solved politically or by legislation, and the court should not have been forced to take on a larger role. Unfortunately, in India the courts are routinely called upon to do the work of politicians, legislators and executives. But perhaps never before have they been confronted with such an impossible matter. One of the parties is a god, and we must presume that his representative in court has an invisible, otherworldly power of attorney from Him. The contenders are Hindus, Muslims and the Nimrohi Akhara. The first two are communities which, unlike associations, corporations, cooperatives and so on, do not enjoy the status of legal persons. Strictly speaking, they cannot fight a case. The third party was initially mistaken by the public for a group of wrestlers of unknown affiliation. But since it is a Hindu organisation and the site is being divided between two communities, Muslims can legitimately feel cheated of a half share. And, of course, the case confounds myth and reality so seamlessly that it is a wonder that the court could come to grips with it at all. Even within the realm of history - and prehistory, actually the court has been called upon to rule definitively on matters which are permanently located in the realm of speculation. It is here that legal requirements have won over the imperative of academic caution with disastrous effect. The court may have followed legal procedure in finding that the disputed site is indeed the birthplace of Lord Rama, but academically, the judgement is unsustainable. There is no primary evidence at all and responsible scholars working in the period of remote antiquity never issue unconditional declarations on particulars precisely because the evidence is sparse, inconclusive and often based on hearsay or surmise. The Ayodhya issue cannot be closed without a political solution. Since our politicians have been incapable of forging that, we must lean on the crutch of court judgements. This one has served the immediate, practical purpose of defusing tension and temporarily settling the issue, but it has failed to deliver justice to the minority. However, it has set a useful political precedent - for the first time, the Hindu right has drawn back from its absolutist standpoint, affirmed its faith in the courts ( which it had earlier rejected) and at least considered a compromise. For the time being, let us read these practical benefits as progress. But for justice to be done in the new Jerusalem, this case obviously has to go to the Supreme Court.

Muslims wronged - By A. G. Noorani - FRONTLINE, Chennai

	Volume 27 - Issue 21 :: Oct. 09-22, 2010 INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE from the publishers of THE HINDU • Contents
	COVER STORY Muslims wronged A.G. NOORANI The judgment is a crowning act on consistent judicial injustices to Muslims since December 23, 1949. PTI MUSLIMS OFFER PRAYERS at a mosque in Allahabad on October 1, a day after the verdict. THE judgments delivered by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on September 30 on the Babri Masjid cases not only flagrantly violate the law and the evidence but a binding unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court on the Babri Masjid case itself ( M. Ismail Faruqui and Others vs Union of India and Others (1994) 6 Sec 360). It sanctified the conversion of a historic mosque, which had stood for 500 years, into a temple. The country showed maturity by receiving the judgments with calm and dignity despite an obscene attempt by some members of the Bharatiya Janata Party to demand instant Muslim submission to the wrong, a fact which was noted pointedly by a distinguished political scientist on television where, for the most part, loud ignorant anchors had a field day with guests no better-equipped. Stability is important in nation building. As important is justice to all. On the Babri Masjid, for 60 years from 1950 to 2010, Muslims have been woefully wronged by every single court ruling, including that of the Supreme Court after the demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992. One of the leaders of the Bar remarked more than once that the Bench of the Supreme Court that heard the case split along communal lines. On one point all the three judges of the Lucknow Bench – Justices D.V. Sharma, Sudhir Agarwal and S.U. Khan – were in remarkable and laudatory agreement – idols of Ram were placed inside the mosque on the night of December 22-23, 1949. The Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh's Organiser of March 29, 1987, said they “miraculously appeared there”. The BJP's White Paper on Ayodhya said they had “appeared” there. L.K. Advani used the same expression. The court has confirmed a truth which was known to all and confirmed the Parivar's contempt for the truth. But the three judges do not realise the legal implications of the truth they themselves acknowledged. Here are some incontrovertible and uncontroverted official documents: 1. Two reports dated 10 and 23, December 1948, by the Inspector of Waqfs, Mohammed Ibrahim, after visits to the Babri mosque. He recorded the harassment and stoning of the namazis going to the mosque. Yet prayers continued to be offered just before dawn and on Fridays (Chapter IV, Doc. 5). 2. Official support to an application by Hindus in 1949 to build a Ram temple on the Chabutra near the mosque. The City Magistrate's Report of October 10, 1949, recorded: ‘Mosque and temple are situated side by side and both Hindus and Muslims perform their rights and religious ceremonies…. The Hindu population is very keen to have a nice temple at the place where Bhagwan Rama Chandra Ji was born. The land where the temple is to be erected is of Nazul' (Chapter IV, Doc. 6). 3. The First Information Report on December 23, 1949, lodged by Sub-Inspector Ram Dube, Police Station, Ayodhya, reads thus: According to Mata Prasad (paper no. 7), when I reached to [ sic] Janam Bhumi around 8 o'clock in the morning, I came to know that a group of 50-60 persons had entered the Babri mosque after breaking the compound gate lock of the mosque or through jumping across the walls (of the compound) with a stair and established therein, an idol of Shri Bhagwan and painted Sita, Ram, etc. on the outer and inner walls…. Ram Das, Ram Shakti Das and 50-60 unidentified others entered the mosque surreptitiously and spoiled its sanctity. Government servants on duty and several others are witness to it. Therefore, it is written and filed (Chapter V, Doc. 2). 4. Radio message on December 23, 1949, by District Magistrate K.K. Nayar to the Chief Minister, Chief Secretary and Home Secretary: “A few Hindus entered Babri Masjid at night when the Masjid was deserted and installed a deity there. …Police picket of fifteen persons was on duty at night but did not, apparently, act” (Chapter V, Doc. 3). 5. December 26, 1949, Nayar to Chief Secretary: “Installation of the idol was carried out in the night between 22 and 23 instant” (Chapter V, Doc. 5). 6. Ramchandra Das Paramhansa's admission to The New York Times on December 22, 1991, that he had installed the idol (Chapter V, Doc. 16). 7. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's wire and letters to Chief Minister G.B. Pant (Chapter V, Doc. 18). 8. Deputy Prime Minister Vallabhbhai Patel's letter to Pant on January 9, 1950 (Chapter V, Doc. 19). 9. Akshaya Brahmachari's letters and memorandum to Home Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri (Chapter V, Doc. 21). 10. The Imam of the Babri Masjid, Abdul Ghafar's interview in 1987 (Chapter V, Doc. 11). 11. Written statement in court by the State of Uttar Pradesh, signed by Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad, J.N. Ugra, on April 25, 1950 (Chapter V, Doc.13). Paragraphs 12 and 13 read thus: (12) That the property in suit is known as Babri Mosque and it has for a long period been in use as a mosque for the purpose of worship by the Muslims. It had not been in use as a temple of Shri Rama Chandraji. (13) That on the night of December 22, 1949, the idols of Shri Rama Chandraji were surreptitiously and wrongly put inside it. In The Statesman of October 26, 1986, Chandan Mitra, now eminence grise of the BJP, quoted an official as saying, “Obviously the guard had been bribed heavily.” From July to September 1949, there were efforts to build a Ram temple on the chabutra (platform) outside the mosque but within its complex. The City Magistrate, Faizabad, went to the spot on October 10, 1949, and submitted a favourable report. Abdul Ghafar, the imam of the mosque, testified that until the end “we used to offer namaz inside the mosque and the Hindus prayed on the chabutra” ( Sunday Mail, July 2, 1989). Litigation in the 19th century for permission to build a temple was confined to the chabutra – not the mosque (1883-1886). The Gandhian Akshaya Brahmachari's detailed memorandum to Lal Bahadur Shastri recorded the campaign on the capture of the mosque that was mounted in November 1949: “There is terror in the hearts of the Muslims of Faizabad.” The law is not impotent in such cases. Sections 295 and 297 of the Penal Code make the acts offences in law. Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1898 empowers the magistrate to require the parties to file their claims, not on title to the property, but “as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute”. He decides “which of the parties was” in possession. If a party has been “forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed”, the magistrate may treat it as if it had been in possession. It is then restored in possession, leaving it to the aggressor to file a civil suit to establish his title to the property. In Ayodhya this very Section was used to sanctify the Muslims' dispossession. Markandey Singh, Magistrate First Class, ordered the attachment of the “said buildings” and appointed Priya Dutt Ram, Chairman of the Municipal Board, as “receiver” of the mosque. This was on December 29, 1949. He took charge on January 5, 1950, and submitted a scheme. On January 19, 1950, a Civil Judge, Bir Singh, issued an injunction restraining removal of the idols from the mosque and from interfering with the puja carried on in the mosque since December 23, 1949. On April 26, 1955, the Allahabad High Court confirmed the injunctions. Losing battle The conversion of a mosque into a temple was now complete. The Muslims lost, and were fated to lose, every round in the battles in the courts of justice for correction of the wrong perpetrated on December 22-23, 1949. Contrast this with the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parliament Street, New Delhi, A.G. Cutting, of February 7, 1972, in The State vs Sadiq Ali and Others and S.D. Sharma and Others under Section 145. He ordered restoration of possession of 7 Jantar Mantar Road (Congress House) in New Delhi to Congress (O). Not because it was the ‘real' Congress but because it had been forcibly dispossessed by Congress (R) on November 13, 1971. That order was also made under Section 145 of the CrPC. A similar order should have been made in the Babri Masjid case in 1949. The contrast is glaring. As Magistrate Cutting said, the Congress (O)'s men “were dispossessed. They are therefore entitled to be put back into possession until they are evicted from the said premises by an order of a competent court” (in a regular civil suit on title). PTI MARCH 2002: A caretaker inspecting the bricks with "Shri Ram" inscribed on them piled up at the VHP office near the disputed site. The three lakh bricks, meant for the proposed Ram temple, came from villages across the country. In the Ayodhya case, the Receiver's scheme, predictably, said “the most important item of management is the maintenance of Bhog and Puja in the condition in which it was carried on when I took over charge”. There were to be at least three pujaris who “should be allowed free access” to the installed idols. Under the scheme, Muslims were altogether forbidden to pray in the mosque; Hindus were permitted to offer puja and have darshan of the idols from a side gate and make offering through four pujaris employed by the Receiver who was appointed by the Magistrate. Civil suits on title were filed by the parties which were decided on September 30, 2010. The next round was on January 25, 1986, when a lawyer filed an application for removal of restrictions on the puja. On February 1, 1986, District Judge K.M. Pandey ordered the opening of the locks after 45 minutes' hearing. The Muslims were not impleaded in the application and were not heard by the judge. On January 3, 1986, the Lucknow Bench of the High Court ordered maintenance of the status quo. The next step was the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992. On January 7, 1993, the President promulgated the “Acquisition of Central Area at Ayodhya Ordinance” acquiring the site of the mosque – later enacted as an Act of Parliament and asked the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion on this question: “Whether a Hindu Temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?” Fruit of crime The demolition squad of the so-called kar sevaks had built a temporary structure after the demolition and kept the idols there. On December 9, West Bengal Chief Minister Jyoti Basu asked the Centre to demolish this fruit of crime. The Union Home Secretary Madhav Godbole refused to pray there. “God could not reside in that temple, the construction of which was associated with so much deceit and wanton violence” ( Unfurnished Innings, pages 406-407). Alarmed at the sheer absurdity of the President's query to the Supreme Court, the country's foremost lawyer N.A. Palkhivala wrote a devastating critique in The Times of India. It has acquired added relevance after the judgment of September 30. He wrote: “It is to my mind absurd to suggest that the highest Court in the country should be asked to decide questions of history or archaeology. But the government has now asked the Supreme Court to give its opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution, whether a temple existed centuries ago on the site where the Babri Masjid stood before its demolition. “Historians have expressed widely divergent views on the issue whether there was a pre-existing temple on the site on which the mosque was built by Babur. Much less are they agreed that Rama was born at that place. There is even a greater difference of opinion on the question whether Rama actually lived as a human being or whether he was the supramental ideal created by mythology to represent the perfect man. To ask the Supreme Court or the Allahabad High Court to decide such questions of mythology or history, or mixed questions of mythology and history, is to bear witness to the bankruptcy of our political institutions. “It is a measure of the degradation to which we have reduced our third-rate democracy that we have lost all sense of propriety, and are not only willing but eager to call upon the Courts to decide questions of opinion or belief, history, mythology or political expediency. Never in the history of any country have Courts been approached to deal with the type of questions which are now suggested as fit to be referred to the Courts in connection with the incidents at Ayodhya. “The consequences of asking the Supreme Court or the Allahabad High Court to deal with the type of questions which are suggested for reference would be disastrous in the long run. “It would thrust upon the Court a task for which it is not qualified by training or experience. Courts can deal with questions of law or of fact. They are not qualified to deal with questions in other fields like archaeology or history. A judge can decide only upon documentary evidence or evidence given by a witness as to what he himself saw or heard. It is well established that hearsay evidence is inadmissible in a Court of law under the Indian Evidence Act. “If the Court is pushed into the political arena, it would impair the image and undermine the status of the Court…. “Archaeology is the study of the art, customs and beliefs of ancient times. It can afford a ground for belief or an opinion but never for universal certainty. Cannot two minds come to different conclusions on the same archaeological evidence? How can a conclusion reached by a judge be binding on people whose opinions or beliefs go counter to those of the judge?” Palkhivala was vindicated by the Supreme Court, while his warnings have been proved all too sound now by the Lucknow Bench. Presidential reference A five-member Bench of the Supreme Court – Justices M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.S. Verma and G.N. Ray in the majority – upheld the Act, bar one provision which abated the civil suits in the High Court. Justices A.M. Ahmadi and S.P. Bharucha held the entire Act to be void. All agreed that the Act and the reference for an advisory opinion were an integral whole. But while Justice Verma, who spoke for the majority, belittled the moral and legal significance of the mosque's demolition, an offence in law, and did so as judges tend to do in high-flown rhetoric, Justice Bharucha, who spoke for the minority, reckoned with the crime fully and, unlike the majority, refused to perpetuate the situation it had created. Section 7 (2) of the Act asked the government to “ensure that the position existing before the commencement of this Act … is maintained”. Justice Verma ruled shockingly that this affected both communities equally since the Muslims had “not been offering worship at any place” there after December 1949 – a right they had only lost by deceit and force. Justice Bharucha subjected this logic to deserved and withering scorn. However – and this is very relevant to the Lucknow Bench's ruling – the judges unanimously ruled that Section 4(3), which abated the civil suits, was void. Why? Because it was one-sided and deprived the Muslims of the defence valid in law that a 500-year-old mosque by sheer adverse possession extinguished any claims to title based on history, real or imagined. This is what Justice Verma said: “This also results in extinction of the several defences raised by the Muslim community including that of adverse possession of the disputed area for over 400 years since construction of the mosque there in 1528 A.D. by Mir Baqi. Ostensibly the alternate dispute resolution mechanism adopted is that of a simultaneous Reference made the same day under Article 143(1) of the Constitution to this Court for decision of the question referred. It is clear from the issues framed in those suits that the core question for determination in the suits is not covered by the Reference made, and it also does not include therein the defences raised by the Muslim community. It is also clear that the answer to the question referred, whatever it may be, will not lead to the answer of the core question for determination in the pending suits and it will not, by itself, resolve the long-standing dispute relating to the disputed area. Reference made under Article 143(1) cannot, therefore, be treated as an effective alternate dispute-resolution mechanism in substitution of the pending suits which are abated by Section 4(3) of the Act…. There can be no doubt, in these circumstances, that the Special Reference made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution cannot be construed as an effective alternative dispute-resolution mechanism to permit substitution of the pending suits and legal proceedings by the mode adopted of making this Reference. In our opinion, this fact alone is sufficient to invalidate sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act.” While Justice Bharucha said: “The provisions of Section 4 of the Act, inasmuch as they deprive the Sunni Waqf Board and the Muslim community of the right to plead and establish adverse possession as aforesaid and restrict the redress of their grievance in respect of the disputed site to the answer to the limited question posed by the Reference and to negotiations subsequent thereto, and the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, which vest the whole bundle of property and rights in the Central government to achieve this purpose, offend the principle of secularism, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, being slanted in favour of one religious community as against another.” He added: “The Act and the Reference, as stated hereinabove, favour one community and disfavour another; the purpose of the Reference is, therefore, opposed to secularism and is unconstitutional.” He pointed out another flaw. “The Court being ill-equipped to examine and evaluate such material (on archaeology and history) it would have to appoint experts in the fields to do so, and their evaluation would go unchallenged. Apart from the inherent inadvisability of rendering a judicial opinion on such evaluation, the opinion would be liable to the criticism of one or both sides….” The Supreme Court gave this unanimous ruling on October 24, 1994. On March 5, 2003, the Allahabad High Court ordered excavation of the land and ruled that it did not violate the Supreme Court judgment. Why? Because “one of the important issues in the suit is whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque was constructed on the disputed site”. But this was the very issue which had been referred by the President to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion and the Court declined to answer it because of its irrelevance. The issue was whether adverse possession by the mosque extinguished other titles. The excavation order revived this irrelevant issue in breach of the Supreme Court judgment. The rest followed inexorably until September 30, 2010. The Court's order was criticised by archaeologists of the highest distinction in a statement on March 10, 2003. The task of excavation was assigned to a controversial agency. The Archaeological Survey of India's report has been widely criticised (vide Ayodhya: Archaeology After Excavation by D. Mandal and Shereen Ratnagar, Tulika Books, 2007). In his judgment on the land acquisition case, delivered on December 11, 1992, Justice S.H.A. Raza of the Allahabad High Court rightly said that an “article of faith cannot be stretched to such an extent which threatens the Rule of Law. The contention that faith is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court is centred around the application of theocratic ideas”. Still less can the faith of one community become the law of the land by a judicial ruling because it happens to be the majority community. But what if judges themselves rely on their own religious faith in their judicial orders? Justice D.V. Sharma's remarks on Ram and “the spirit of divine” in this context are eloquent enough. Courts can try only suits of a “civil nature” (Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code) in matters of faith. Remember the Evidence Act permits expert evidence only on a few limited matters (Sections 45 to 50). History and archaeology are not among them. The Act itself is misread by Justice S.U. Khan, who held that “both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title. Hence by virtue of Section 110 of the Evidence Act, both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.” Section 110 says no such thing. It says, on the contrary, that “when the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession of, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner” – in this case, the Sangh Parivar vis-a-vis the Babri Masjid. The Supreme Court has held that “a presumption of an origin in lawful title could be drawn... in order to support possessory rights, long and quietly enjoyed, where no actual proof of title is forthcoming”. The longer the possession, the stronger the presumption. (1991 Supp (2), SCC 228 at pages 243-244). Records of the 19th century litigation disprove Justice Khan's inference of “joint possession”. From such errors flow the bizarre order of a tripartite partition, which the media and others have so readily lapped up as an act of “judicial statesmanship”. The record since December 23, 1949, shows the judgment of September 30, 2010, to be a crowning act on consistent judicial injustices to Muslims in 1950, 1955, 1986 and 1994. In the Shahidganj masjid case, there was incontrovertible proof of a 1722 waqf (trust) to build a mosque. But it came under the possession of Sikhs after 1762. In the 20th century from the District Court, the High Court of Lahore and the Privy Council ruled against the Muslims on the ground of adverse possession. The Premier of Punjab Sikander Hyat Khan rejected pleas for legislation to overturn the verdict. Jinnah supported him fully. The mosque, now a Sikh gurdwara, still stands in Lahore undemolished. Calm has been preserved, creditably, but the pain inflicted on Muslims is not concealed. This is not how a secular edifice is built. It was left to Mohammed Hashim Ansari, the oldest living petitioner, to express the anguish, “ Masjid bahut banegi, lekin desh nahi banenge” (Many more mosques will be built, but the nation will not be built this way). The Supreme Court can prove him wrong. Those who rushed to acclaim the order of September 30 revealed worse than ignorance. Their enthusiasm reflected indifference to right and wrong. We are not an island unto ourselves. What impression of our judiciary will courts elsewhere form?