From 1853 onwards, the site has been marred by bitter dispute, first when the British administration fenced the site in 1859, separating the worship places of the Muslims and Hindus, to the placing of idols inside the mosque in 1949 and to the clamour for ownership after the courts pronounced the site closed in the same year
Righting historical wrongs is a dangerous basis for establishing amity and harmony in present-day societyA verdict of historic proportions was delivered by the Allahabad High Court (AHC) on Thursday in a dispute that dates back some 157 years. The Ayodhya holy site in Uttar Pradesh has driven a thorny wedge between Muslims and Hindus in India ever since the first communal clashes were recorded there in 1853. The AHC’s verdict attempts to satisfy all three contending parties by allotting the sacred land to them in equal parts. The Muslims will get one part, one will go towards the construction of the Ram temple, and another part will be given to the Nirmhoi Akhara, devotees of Hanuman. This appears to be an attempt to satisfy all concerned but may just end up satisfying no one as the claim for legitimate, full ownership still casts an ominous shadow.
The history of the Ayodhya site where the Babri Mosque was constructed — and subsequently torn down in 1992 — can be traced back to the phenomenon of extreme Hindu nationalism trying to assert itself in the subcontinent after a thousand year-long Muslim rule. Essentially a political struggle, the long drawn out communal war for Ayodhya became a golden opportunity for Hindu nationalists to retrieve their lost glory from a crumbling Mughal empire. It is no coincidence then that the 1853 clashes came just four years before the 1857 war of independence. This was the beginning of the final end of Muslim rule in the subcontinent. From 1853 onwards, the site has been marred by bitter dispute, first when the British administration fenced the site in 1859, separating the worship places of the Muslims and Hindus, to the placing of idols inside the mosque in 1949 and to the clamour for ownership after the courts pronounced the site closed in the same year. Since then Ayodhya has been a holy site bathed in blood.
By bending myth into fact, Hindu extremists sought to play on the religious/political emotions of their followers by asserting that a sacred Hindu temple situated at the birthplace of Ram had been demolished to accommodate the Babri mosque in 1528. This, in actuality, has been a disputed claim since archaeological surveys have indicated the presence of temple ruins but no verification as to whether they had been demolished for the purpose of building the mosque or were in a state of ruination already. In more contemporary times, leading this incendiary assertion was Lal Krishna Advani who, in 1992 as president of the BJP, rallied some 150,000 Hindus to destroy the mosque. The symbolism of his riding in on a chariot of ancient design was not lost on his followers and strengthened the rioters’ belief that they were on some divine mission. Some 2,000 people were killed in the riots that followed the demolition, the majority of them Muslims, and the BJP positioned itself as the electable political face of Hindu extremism.
The entire issue provided the extreme Hindu right the opportunity to reset the political agenda in India . By pitting themselves against the Muslims in a communal standoff that spans more than a century, the likes of Advani and those before him tried to wipe out any traces of Muslim rule from the country.
The AHC’s decision seems to have brought this matter full circle, with no one party granted exclusive rights. Appeals are set to be launched and tensions remain high. In the light of the longstanding controversy, Ayodhya remains a black mark on India ’s claims of secularism. With religious divides so deep and Hindu nationalism so violent and rampant, secularism seems to be an ideal yet to be achieved or consistently practised in India.
