The 1980s marked a significant downturn for peace and progress in India. Communal forces weaponized historical narratives tied to ancient holy sites. One prominent example was the Rath Yatra led by Lal Krishna Advani, advocating for a grand Ram temple precisely where the Babri Mosque had stood for over five centuries. Amid the rising tensions, Parliament passed the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibited altering the character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment on the Babri Masjid case, recognized this law as vital to the constitutional fabric, ensuring future peace. It ruled the mosque's demolition a crime, and contrary to claims, found no evidence of a temple beneath it. According to Sabrang, archaeologist Prof. Supriya Varma, who observed the Babri Masjid excavation, stated there was no temple below. Instead, going back to the Gupta period (4th–6th centuries), evidence suggested a Buddhist stupa might have existed.
During the Babri demolition, Hindu right-wing groups chanted: “Yeh to kewal jhanki hai, Kashi Mathura baaki hai” (This is just the beginning; Kashi and Mathura are next). Despite the 1991 Act, surveys have been demanded for Kashi and Mathura, with Justice Chandrachud remarking that the Act doesn't bar such inquiries, allowing Hindus to trace the history of disputed sites. This stance has emboldened the push for claims based on contested historical narratives.
Initially, Hindu right-wing groups promised to end their demands after Ayodhya, Kashi, and Mathura. Yet, over a dozen cases are pending, involving sites like Kamal Maula Mosque, Baba Budan Giri Dargah, and Haji Malang Dargah. Now, the Sambhal Jama Masjid and centuries-old Ajmer Dargah have come under scrutiny, with groups like Hindu Sena demanding more sites be handed over to Hindus.
Often, dubious documents are used to support these claims. British colonial narratives played a role, such as Mrs. Beveridge's Baburnama translation, which unfoundedly suggested a temple beneath Babri Masjid. History distortion has long been a tool—temples were often destroyed for wealth or to humiliate rivals, not solely for religious reasons.
Historically, religious motives underpinned the destruction of Buddhist Viharas. Swami Vivekananda noted that temples like Jagannath were originally Buddhist, later "re-Hinduised." Swami Dayanand Saraswati, in Satyarth Prakash, acknowledged that Shankaracharya refuted Jainism and advocated Vedic practices, leading to the destruction of Jain and Buddhist idols.
The Buddhist account of India's ancient history highlights how Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin general who ended the Mauryan dynasty in 184 BCE, persecuted Buddhists. As noted by historian D.N. Jha, Divyavadana describes Shunga's army destroying stupas, burning monasteries, and offering rewards for killing Buddhist monks.
Jha also pointed out that some present-day Brahminical temples in Mathura, such as Bhuteshwar and Gokarneshwar, were originally Buddhist sites during the Kushana period. However, the communal historiography propagated by Hindu nationalists, rooted in British divide-and-rule policies, paints a one-sided narrative. Muslim rulers are often depicted solely as temple destroyers, while the patronage of Hindu temples by leaders like Aurangzeb and the temple plundering by Hindu kings like Raja Harshdev are ignored.
The selective portrayal of history overlooks the fact that Aurangzeb donated to temples like Kamakhya Devi and Mahakal. Meanwhile, Hindu rulers, such as the Marathas, destroyed temples in Srirangapatna. In contrast, the early post-Mauryan period saw temples destroyed explicitly to suppress Buddhism.
Today, India's political and judicial systems risk deepening religious divides by reopening historical wounds. The critical question is whether we should continue searching for temples beneath mosques or focus on building the "temples of modern India," as envisioned by Jawaharlal Nehru—scientific research institutes, industrial hubs, and infrastructure to propel India's progress. The path India chooses will shape its future.
---
*Political commentator
Comments