More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
But till Lord Rama ‘manifested’ himself inside the Babri Masjid, all moves had sought to construct the temple at Ramachabutara, an elevated platform outside the inner courtyard of the mosque. Only after the idols were placed inside did the demand for converting the Muslim
Nirvani Akhara is one of the three major militant ascetic camps of the Ramanandi sect, the other two being the Nirmohi and the Digambari akharas, each with its principal centre in Ayodhya.
The first such sect to come to Ayodhya – a place that had always been central in the theology of the Ramanandis – was the Nirmohi Akhara. This is said to have happened in the early eighteenth century. At about the same time, the Nirvani Akhara – led by its mahant, Baba Abhay Ram Das – is also said to have entered this holy town. Gradually, in the course of the eighteenth century, other Ramanandi akharas too established themselves at what they considered the birthplace of their supreme deity Rama. The Dashnamis, who seem
all began after Nawab Safdarjang (1739–54) granted seven bighas of land at Hanuman Tilla to Baba Abhay Ram Das. During the time of Safdarjang’s grandson, Asaf-ud-Daullah (1775–93), funds were raised to construct part of the temple-fortress on this land.9 Soon after the nawabs of Awadh donated lands and helped in its construction, Hanumangarhi
Das expressed his desire to study along with Satyendra Das, but Abhiram Das denied him permission saying, ‘Ninety-eight per cent of Indians are illiterate; only two 2 per cent are intellectuals. Therefore, it is better to lead the majority than to wander among intellectuals like a fool.’
On 27 January 1948, three days before Gandhi was murdered, Digvijai Nath exhorted Hindu militants to kill the Mahatma. This call – the first and only public revelation of the conspiracy ahead of the assassination – is believed to have injected a sense of urgency among those who had to carry out the task. Referring to the mahant’s poisonous speech, the Commission of Inquiry into Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi observed:
The commission took serious note of the mahant’s speech and also the fact that in the meeting, shouts of ‘long live Madanlal’ were raised, besides other slogans, hailing Madanlal Pahwa, a youth from Punjab and an active member of the Hindu Mahasabha, who had made a failed attempt to kill Gandhi just seven days back, on 20 January 1948. Pahwa had accidentally ignited the guncotton slab 75 feet away from the spot where the Mahatma was addressing a prayer meeting. The commission observed that not only should this have been brought immediately to the notice of the government, but that the meeting
...more
Militant communalism, which was preached until only a few months ago by many spokesmen of the Mahasabha, including men like Mahant Digbijoy Nath, Prof. Ram Singh and [V.G.] Deshpande, could not but be regarded as a danger to public security. The same would
apply to the RSS, with the additional danger inherent in an organization run in secret on military or semi-military lines. Nevertheless, we have already decided upon a policy of gradual releases and more than 50 per cent of those originally detained have already been released in accordance with that policy. It could perhaps be safely said now that a large majority of those who continue to be detained, consists of men whose release would be a danger to public security or would lead to a resuscitation of the activities which we have banned […] As regards Mahant Digbijoy Nath, Prof. Ram Singh and
...more
If the Hindu Mahasabha attains power, it would deprive the Muslims of the right to vote for five to ten years, the time that it would take for them to convince the government
that their interests and sentiments are pro-Indian.
It was for the first time in independent India that the Congress – which had denounced the Muslim League for misusing Islam to achieve its political objective – openly exploited the religious sensibilities of Hindus to prevent Narendra Dev from getting re-elected without bringing any substantive issue of national or regional importance into the electoral debate. This shift was crucial and, despite Nehru’s sincere attempts to reverse the trend, the temptation to mix religion with politics never died
Indeed the UP is becoming almost a foreign land for me. I do not fit in there. The UP
Congress Committee, with which I have been associated for thirty-five years, now functions in a manner which amazes me. Its voice is not the voice of the Congress I have known, but something which I have opposed for the greater part of my life […] Communalism has invaded the minds and hearts of those who were pillars of the Congress.42
That was an unusual meeting. A large number of vairagis in their typical white attire, wearing various kinds of Ramanandi tika on their forehead, strode up and down in the courtyard [of Hanumangarhi] chatting among themselves alongside lay devotees who were often in colourful dresses. The meeting was later addressed by leaders like Baba Raghav Das, Mahant Digvijai Nath and Swami Karpatriji. It was decided in the meeting that a similar navah paath would be organized at Ramachabutara on 24 November on the occasion of Rama Vivah [the day marking the marriage of Lord Rama with Goddess Sita] in
...more
female identification very seriously. During worship, they wear feminine clothes and ornaments, even in public. They sometimes observe Hindu taboos associated with the menstruation period. Another matter of esoteric secrecy is the relationship between the sakhis and Rama. Although sakhis consider themselves as mugdha or unmarried girls, in many cases, their initiation as ‘deeply engrossed sakhis’ takes place through a symbolic wedding ceremony between them and Lord Rama. It is believed that sakhis who are initiated this way are ‘taken by the hand’ by Rama, who, although not openly married to
...more
The origin of the Ramachabutara is linked inextricably to the Revolt of 1857. During the revolt, British life and property in Ayodhya and Faizabad were endangered and some landlords offered help to the British and ‘a similar offer was made by the mahants of Hanumangarhi’.14 Once the uprising was suppressed, those who had helped the British were suitably rewarded. All land in Ayodhya was nazul land, and so it was easy for the government to distribute land as reward for services rendered during the revolt.
[any] other place where the owner has got the right to construct any building he likes […] If a temple is constructed on the chabutara at such a place then there will be the sound of bells of the temple and sankh when both Hindus and Muslims pass from the same way and if permission is given to Hindus for constructing a temple then one day or the other a criminal case will be started and thousands of people will be killed.
One man had the moral courage to speak up against the outrage. Akshay Brahmachari, a Gandhian who was then the secretary of the Faizabad District Congress, was opposed to the mobilization right from the beginning. He described the operation thus: On 13 November 1949, I was told that the Muslim graves near the Babri Masjid were being dug out en masse. I personally went and saw that it was actually so; and that in the centre
the graveyard, on the site of what used to be called Kanati Masjid by Muslims, a platform was being built. The Muslims were frightened. They told me that to save the situation they had petitioned the City Magistrate under Section 145 IPC to intervene in the matter, as breach of peace was apprehended. But no action was taken on their petition. I met the District Magistrate personally and talked to him in confidence. On the night of 15 November, three persons entered my house and assaulted me, and to my utter surprise they repeated to me everything that I had spoken to the District Magistrate
Brahmachari in his memorandum to Lal Bahadur Shastri, the home minister of the UP. Mass meetings were held. Loudspeakers fitted in tongas [horse-drawn carts] and cars kept screaming day in and day out, calling upon the people to come for darshan in the mosque where yajna […] was taking place, as the place of Ram’s birth was being reclaimed. People began coming in thousands also from outside the town in cars sent by the organizers of the show. Inflammatory speeches were made and it was openly announced that the Babri Masjid
Akshay Brahmachari was quick to note this point: Developments taking place in Ayodhya and Faizabad and the question of Babri Mosque are neither a simple question of mosque or temple nor a fight between Hindus and Muslims. This is a serious conspiracy by reactionary forces who want to use it to kill the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi and win electoral battle by raising communal passion. Local officials have also participated in this conspiracy.
few Hindus entered [the] Babari Masjid at night when the Masjid was deserted and installed a deity there. DM [District Magistrate] and SP [Superintendent of Police] and force at spot. Situation under control. Police picket of 15 persons was on duty at night but did not apparently act.19
the Babari Masjid the preceding night, and that he had learnt of the incident at 6 a.m. from Sri Bhai Lal and that he had gone to see it. It passes all comprehension as to how Bhai Lal could know of the incident so early that morning and could inform the District Magistrate while the police guards of the mosque did not know about it. The District Magistrate did not even care to know as to how Bhai Lal could know all about it so early in the morning. It has to be particularly remembered that the District Magistrate quoted Bhai Lal for many such informations.
Vishwanath Dayal Tripathi and Raghav Das lost their balance and publicly supported the cause of the reactionaries in their speeches. They said that […] democracy meant the will of the majority, and since the majority of the people obviously do not like the mosque, it could not be restored. If the government interfered in the matter,
In his letter to Pant on 17 April 1950, Nehru was unequivocal in his expression of this frustration: I have not been to the U.P. for a long time. That is partly due to lack of time, but the real reason is that I hesitate to go there. I do not wish to come into conflict with my old colleagues and I feel terribly uncomfortable there, because I find that communalism has invaded the minds
and hearts of those who were the pillars of the Congress in the past. It is a creeping paralysis and the patient does not even realize it. All that occurred in Ayodhya […] was bad enough. But the worst feature of it was that such things should take place and be approved by some of our own people and that they should continue. It seems to me that for some reason or other or perhaps [due to] mere political expediency, we have been far too lenient with this disease that has been spreading all over India and now in our own province. Sometimes I feel that I should leave everything and take up this
...more
clampdown on the Mahasabha following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi] as a bad dream. We harbour no ill feelings against the government […] The Congress, by insisting upon a secular state, wants to convert the Indian nation into irreligion and materialism, the causes of the moral rot. If this rot is to be stopped, the ideology of a secular state must be given up and the ideology of a cultural state must be adopted. Hindus being 85 per cent of the population, their culture would be the culture of the state or Rashtra. Congress leaders say they would not allow the establishment of a Hindu
...more
is my firm belief that to solve the problem of this nation there should be a change of constitution. Muslims should be regarded as second class citizens. They should be allowed freedom of movement everywhere. They should be permitted to enter trade or commerce; practice [sic] their culture; their money, property should be protected. But they should stay away from politics. They should not be permitted any part in the political life of the country. That change should be made in the constitution. Unless that is done, this country cannot progress. This will always be a land of conflict.
telegram was sent to Akshay Brahmachari appealing to him to break his fast because the ‘Muslims in Ayodhya did not have any problems’.11 In order to provide authenticity to the telegram, twenty-one Muslims of Ayodhya were forced to sign it.
The relationship between Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya is as good as it was earlier. As for the Babri Masjid, the issue is being considered by the court, and whatever [the] court decides will be acceptable to both the parties.’12 As in the case of the telegram, the communiqué, too, was published under the signature of ten-odd Muslims of Ayodhya.
I do not see the developments in Ayodhya and Faizabad merely in the context of a religious feud over temple and mosque. I rather see them in the light of citizen’s rights. If a citizen has to live in this country and if he is a believer, then he must have a right to have a place of worship too. If he has the right to live in this country, then, after his death, he must also have the right to have a piece of land for his cremation or burial. No regime can be called democratic if it violates these basic rights of citizens. And if, on historical ground[s], a temple
mosque is converted into a temple, then let the government accept it in principle and form a committee of historians to decide as to which temple was converted into mosque in the past. In that case, we will also have to think where the history should stop. Moreover, those who want to compromise today with the people trying to finish off Muslims should also be ready for the fact that tomorrow these very people, in order to promote their fascist politics, would behave similarly with Harijans and day after tomorrow with Sikhs and four days later the country would get fragmented into Vaishnav
...more
was the threat of this new inter-party equation – between Hindu traditionalists within the Congress who accepted the primacy of Hindu values and the Mahasabhaites and other communalists who championed the cause of a Hindu Rashtra – that appeared more ominous to Nehru than the threat posed by the Hindu communalists per se.24
