“It would not be proper to find Shiv Lingams under every mosque.” This is what IndiaTV chairman and senior journalist Rajat Sharma wrote in an article published on his personal website on 26th November. Sharma’s article was in the context of the Islamist violence in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal over a court-ordered survey of Shahi Jama Masjid on the plea of petitioners contending that the disputed site was originally a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Kalki. While the intentions of Sharma may have not been bad, his arguments are flawed on so many levels that even his plea for peace leaves your blood boiling.
In the article titled “Stop Temple Mosque Disputes: Enough Is Enough!”Sharma lamented the “sad and unfortunate” death of four Muslim mobsters. He also asserted that the court ordered the survey of the disputed Shahi Jama Masjid in a “hurried manner” and the survey was started “hurriedly”. One basic question that arises here, is when would have been the most appropriate time for the court to order the survey? Or what exactly would have been the fitting occasion to conduct the survey? Should the police have first sought permission from the Islamists to “allow” them to implement court orders? Should they have imposed a curfew and then brought the survey team to do their job? If that’s what it takes to implement court orders to simply conduct a non-invasive survey, does Mr Sharma really think, the Islamists want peace?
He further attributed the spread of excavation and digging rumours as a trigger for the Islamists to gather at the spot with stones and weapons as if everything happened spontaneously. “…and while photography was being done at the mosque, rumour was spread that excavation has begun. Based on these rumours, a violent mob gathered, armed with stones and weapons. Locals say that several masked persons were brought from outside.”
However, contrary to this assertion that rumours of excavations and digging inside the disputed mosque prompted Muslims to gather and attack the survey team and the police, the investigation by the police so far indicates that it was a pre-planned attack. As reported earlier, police have seized more than 7000 stones from the violence-affected area. How did such a huge number of stones and bricks come in handy to the violent mob if they already were not planning on carrying out the attack? It has been reported that the police interrogation of the 27 arrested accused revealed that the attack was pre-planned. Bricks, stones, and glass bottles were stockpiled on rooftops for the attack. Even Muslim women were on standby mode to protect the rioters. They were assigned with specific tasks including standing in front of the cops and shielding the rioters, hurling glass bottles, stones and other objects on the police force, as revealed in the interrogation of three arrested accused Muslim women Rukaiya, Farmana and Nazrana.
Incidentally, while Sharma is lamenting the death of four mobsters, the father of one of the deceased wants to shoot the policeman who allegedly shot his son, even as the police have confirmed that they only used rubber bullets and the mobsters was not injured in police firing but by bullet from illegal guns carried by elements from within the mob.
Instead of addressing the core issue, Rajat Sharma focused on how politicians are trying to score gains from the Islamist violence in Sambhal. The article’s insinuation that the four deceased were “innocent public” doesn’t hold water as Moradabad Commissioner Anjney Kumar Singh asked if the families accusing police of opening fire at the mob are accepting the fact that their family members were out there pelting stones at the police.
Temple-mosque disputes should end, and Hindus should stop looking for Shivlings under every mosque: Once again Hindus should give up their place of worship to preserve ‘secularism’ and ‘brotherhood’
Sharma then goes on to say that disputes around mosques and temples should stop and solutions should be sought through dialogue. He quoted lines from the poem by noted Hindi poet Harivansh Rai Bachchan which reads “Bair karate mandir masjid..[temple-mosques can cause enimity],” and RSS chief Mohan Bhagvat’s statement that Hindus should stop looking for Shiv Lingam beneath every mosque, to suggest that Hindus should refrain from approaching courts to reclaim their places of worship destroyed or encroached by other community.
“Years ago, the great Hindi poet Harivanshrai Bachchan wrote, “Bair Badhaate Mandir Masjid…” (temples, mosques can lead to enmity). Even the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat had recently said, it would not be proper to find Shiv Lingams under every mosque. Our laws are quite clear. The laws underline the point that there is no need to create fresh disputes about religious shrines that have already been built,” Sharma wrote.
Yes, our laws are very clear and even though the Places of Worship Act (1991), poses a hurdle in the way of legitimate ways for Hindus to reclaim their destroyed or encroached temples, Hindus have the right to seek constitutional remedies. Even the Places of Worship Act (1991) has an exemption. Legal proceedings can be filed under the Places of Worship Act of 1991 if the change of status occurred after the August 15, 1947 deadline. This prevents judicial proceedings, litigation, and appeals over the possibility of status that occurred after the cut-off date. Furthermore, the law exempts any place of worship that is an ancient and historical monument or archaeological site protected by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958. This means that if a place of worship of any religion is designated as an ancient and historical monument or archaeological site, it may be exempt from the Places of Worship Act. Thus, there is no way, the Hindu side trying to reclaim their temples within the bounds of law should be seen as an attempt to create a dispute. OpIndia has reported how historical records of Mughals have it documented that the Jama Masjid was erected after demolishing a Hindu temple.
Sharma asserted that peaceful dialogue should be the way to resolve such temple-mosque disputes. However, the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi case perfectly shows that negotiations and peaceful resolution of disputes are not their best suit. The Islamist mob violence in Sambhal is a clear indicator that Islamists are not willing to even let the truth of temple-beneath-mosque claims come out let alone peacefully resolving disputes.
Suppose, a house constructed by one of Mr Sharma’s ancestors was demolished by someone who then built his place of worship or any other structure over it and decades later, Mr Sharma finds out that his ancestor’s property was encroached by someone. After finding out available records, if Mr Sharma feels that he should reclaim the property of his ancestors currently under the control of the self-declared heir of the original encroacher. Will Mr Sharma at least approach the court to legally try and reclaim the illegally occupied property or will he simply relinquish it because the other party is capable of unleashing violence, even against the police, or just because a new structure stands there, or simply because many decades have passed? Will Mr Sharma give up his legitimate claim over his ancestor’s land for the sake of ‘peace’ [read not offending the perennially offended]? If yes, then he may embrace this cowardice but if no, then he should not misinterpret the law and claim that “there is no need to create fresh disputes about religious shrines that have already been built.” It is like telling the Hindus that “Look, your temples were destroyed by Islamic invaders, their own historical records have documented the truth, but you [Hindus] should forget your temples because now mosques stand over them, and if you try to reclaim your temples, the converted descendants of the Hindu victims of the same Islamic invaders will be offended and forced to do stone pelting and violence. And then we will declare you only as communal, bigoted, Hindutva supremacists.”
True secularism and brotherhood beyond religious lines, although both of these concepts are alien to the Islamists, would only be when the Muslim community voluntarily returns all the Hindu temples destroyed or converted into mosques by Islamic invaders without the need to approach courts. If Bharat has truly broken the shackles of subjugation, why not the temples of Hindus be freed? Why should Hindus always make sacrifices for communal harmony, why can’t the Muslim community peacefully return to Hindu places of worship? Hindus are not randomly claiming ownership of any property or looking for Shiv Lingam beneath the mosques, Hindus do not have a Waqf Board-like body for that, but only are using the legal and constitutional methods at hand to reclaim their lost temples for which they claim to have historical and archaeological evidence.
It is amusing that every ‘peace’ loving person wants Hindus to stop reclaiming their temples and stop looking for Shiv Ling under mosques, but no one tells the Waqf Board to stop looking for Waqf property beneath the houses, colleges, villages or on random land parcels and do not create fresh disputes over already standing structure. Instead of calling on the Muslim community to stop the radicalisation of their youths at the hands of Islamists, the ‘peace’ enthusiasts are casting aspersions on Hindus, police and even the courts.
The ‘peace’ enthusiasts need to understand that a peace that comes at the cost of the Hindu side relinquishing its rights and pandering to Islamist supremacism, is not peace but a truce, a pause that breaks with the Islamists harming the Hindus with double force as even now the Islamists dream of restoring Babri Masjid in Ayodhya one day when the “Nizam” changes. So yes, enough is enough and Islamists should stop using violence, victim cards and propaganda to assert control over their religious structures standing on the remains of destroyed Hindu temples and peacefully end temple-mosque disputes. If they cannot do so, Hindus should and will use legal and constitutional means to find out the truth of their historical temples destroyed and/or encroached by anyone.
