In an exclusive interview to this scribe, the President of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, discussed at length the perspective of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi controversy.
Maulana Syed Jalaluddin Umari, who is also President of the Board of Islamic Publications, that runs the Radiance Viewsweekly, wondered how far it is true and understandable that no one protested against the alleged dilapidation of the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple for the construction of the Babri Masjid, during the reign of Babar. He also expressed surprise over the prayers that the then Muslims offered in a mosque which, according to the protagonists of a splendid temple, had been built after razing a temple to the ground. The Jamaat Chief, who is also Vice-President of All India Muslim Personal Law Board, failed to understand why the entire controversy remained dormant during the Muslim rule and is now only raising its head. He also responded to other questions like: Would the construction of the Babri Masjid be possible if the Supreme Court says so in its verdict to the appeals being filed against the judgement of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad high Court.
This crisis, said the Jamaat Chief, has its roots in the British period. According to their policy, the Britishers created a situation in which the Hindus and Muslims would be continuously fighting with each other. But even then the court did not accept the claim that the Mosque was constructed after tearing down a temple.
PROPER PERSPECTIVE
If we look at the issue in its proper perspective, said the Maulana, an important question to be satisfactorily answered by the protagonists of a magnificent temple at the debris of the Babri Masjid is: why Tulsi Das, being a contemporary and a witness to the events of the first quarter of the 16th century is virtually silent on the alleged destruction of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple, over which the Babri Masjid was said to have been built by Mir Baqi, a lieutenant of Emperor Babar?
Does the mystifying silence of the author of Ram Charit Manas not speak volumes about the fertile mind of the authors of destruction of the said temple? This question has to be repeatedly asked, and has been asked, in the past why the magnum opus of Tulsi Das is quiet on the issue.
Equally important is the question, said the Maulana, why the Muslims of that period did not refuse to say prayers at a Masjid allegedly built upon the site of a temple? Because it is an undisputed, absolutely settled fact in Islam that prayers cannot be offered at a place usurped or encroached upon.
ALL REMAINED SILENT
Thirdly, true Babar was a king and like all kings, he too might have been a tyrant and despot, although no authentic book of history attributes these qualities to him. The point is: did the entire Hindu population of the kingdom of Ayodhya prefer to remain tight-lipped when the Mughal marauders were allegedly destroying the temple brick by brick? No pious Hindu, asked the Maulana, raised his little finger or his powerful voice at the outrage? Nobody attained martyrdom nor any sufferer received scratches resisting the motivated onslaught?
But after the demise of Babar too, added the savant, one does not come across any reference to any unrest or protest by the Hindus of that period. Incidentally, the Tuzke-Babari also does not refer to any such incident. It is really surprising that during the 800-year rule of Muslims over India, no student of history comes across any incident in which a Masjid had been built after razing a temple. Nor one comes across any protest against any such incident. Similarly, no one during the 180-year rule of the British finds such an incident or protests thereupon.
The scholar-President was asked: suppose the Muslim case, at the end of the day, is vindicated by the Supreme Court, as a result of appeals and interventions that are going to be filed soon against the September 30 verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
Without batting an eyelid, the Jamaat chief quipped: First, one cannot say for sure what exactly would be the Apex-Court verdict and when it would be delivered, and which party or parties would be in power at the Centre at that point of time. But suppose, as you said, the case is decided in favour of the Muslim minority. In a democracy, the Government is duty-bound to implement the court verdict.
Without any moral or legal justification, the Saffron, we are afraid, would oppose it tooth and nail.
Muslims have been repeatedly reiterating that they would accept the Apex-Court judgement. But the other party has not so far made any such announcement. The Government in these circumstances should make its stand clear that it would implement the Supreme Court verdict. The political parties, which have RSS mindset, should also make it abundantly clear that they would honour the Apex-Court verdict, whether it is to their liking or not. Because this is the demand of justice and fair play.
The Congress, added the Maulana, in spite of its ostensible desire to implement it, may not have courage to do so. Because a powerful section of the Congress itself would not permit it.
What matters and what is important is to see whether the government lives up to its word and legal obligations or puts its much talked of secularism and plurality to shame.
[Interview by DR. S. AUSAF SAIED VASFI]