Babri demolition: Mumbai Muslims more aware than Delhi and Patna Muslims

By TCN teams in Delhi, Mumbai, Patna,

New Delhi: It has been 16 years since Babri Masjid was demolished on the basis of a plotted controversy by Hindu extremists and then communal riots erupted almost throughout the country. TwoCircles.net tried to know what Muslims in Delhi, Mumbai and Patna think about the issue today and how it has affected the community.

Our teams in the three cities talked to teenagers, youths and people who are in the 30s and found that Mumbai Muslims are more sensitive to and more aware of Babri Masjid demolition issue than Muslims in Delhi and Patna. Unlike teenagers in Mumbai, those in the same age group in Delhi and Patna are not or little aware of the issue. Similarly, 50% of youths we talked in Delhi want to forget the issue and move ahead. Some want to give more focus on recent issues like Gujarat pogrom and serial blasts in Delhi and Mumbai. But youths in Mumbai are more sensitive. The reason lies in the history. Post-demolition, Mumbai was worst affected by consequent communal riots compared to Delhi and Patna.

Delhi

Naqueeb Ahmad, network engineer, age 24: As far as the demolition is concerned it took place 16 years back when I was just 8 an then I had no idea what happened. Now I am 24 and in all these 16 years some Islamist extremists and fundamentalists have been trying every year to provoke and keep the issue alive. We should forget it as this will always harm the communal harmony and relationship between Hindus and Muslims and always increase hatred among the communities.

Nadeem Ahmad: general store owner, age 35: The demolition affected us but now there are more big issues. It is no more an issue to talk about. Why don’t you talk about Gujarat genocide and serial blasts in Delhi and Mumbai? However, he admits that the Muslims will never forget Babri issue the generations will remember it until justice is done.

Nadeem Alam Khan, computer professional, age 35: Muslims should remember December 6 because on this day in 1992 Babri Masjid was demolished. That was a horrific incident which shook the entire community. It was a first case of its kind that a mosque was demolished in such way. We are sad and feel helpless that we could not protect the mosque.

What could be the peaceful solution?

Muslims and Hindus should sit together and find out any solution that could not harm the communal harmony.

Mohammad Jawed, activist, age 30: What happened on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya can never be forgotten. The demolition was an attack on our democracy – an event that never happened in the history. I lost faith in democracy as the mosque was attacked in the full presence of security forces and governments. Muslims can never forget the tragedy.

A class XII student of Jamia Millia Islamia, age 17: The Babri issue is totally political and I don’t want to discuss it. (He, however, does not know the exact date when the mosque was demolished. He said it was demolished on December 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 in 1992)

Waqar Ahmad, class IX student of Jamia Millia Islamia, age 15: Until two years back I did not know about the issue because it was never talked about in the family or my village in Mahua in Vaishali district of Bihar. When I came here I knew about through friends.

Mumbai

It is really pleasing to note that the Muslim teenagers have great interest in the history of their community. When TwoCircles.net talked to two of them they both turned out to be well aware of December 6, 1992 incident. They told that December 6 is a 'black day' for the community.

Siddiqi Akhtar Husain Mazhar Husain, class X, age 16: It is a day of sorrow and sadness. Muslims should take a lesson from the incident. They should try to prevent such tragedies from taking place again.

He told that Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Wajhul Qamar, student of Madani High School, age 15: December 6 is known as 'black day'. It has great importance.'

Being asked when Babri Masjid was demolished he told: Actually it was demolished on December 5 because the riots in Mumbai had erupted on 6th December and it is fact that they took place after the demolition of the Masjid.'

Maulana Rizwan Ahmad Qasmi, 30, was a student of Almiyah in Imdadia Madrasa when the riots in Mumbai erupted after demolition of Babri Masjid. Though he did not point out to anything the effect of which he still feels yet he said:

'We were affected badly. For many days we could not study. Our Madrasa was also attacked by police. They entered the madrasa and killed the teachers and injured students.' Those who lost their dearest and nearest ones during the riots caused by the demolition can never forget the incident. The subsequent incidents which still go on taking place remind people of the incident in which they lost their relatives and friends.'

Haroon Mozawala, general secretary Khair-e-Ummat Trust: At the time Babri Masjid was demolished the structure of democracy was collapsed amidst the slogans of communalism. Even though it had come as a blow to the glory of the country, it is also harmful for the Muslims; for whatever the country faces from, the Muslims are automatically affected by that.

That Muslims had to be jailed and their economy somehow weakened, was a result of their emotional reaction. Had they shown some patience they would have been averted from those losses.

The place where once a mosque is built becomes specific to the mosque. Yet we are ready to accept whatever decision the court issues. In the matter if the court decides on the basis of the solid evidences that the land is that of a temple then we will accept it. This is the opinion of almost all the Muslims.

Patna

Mobbashir Hassan, class 5th student of St. Michael, age (13): I don’t know at all if something really very important happened on December 6. He said no one at his school or home talked about the day.

Imran, class VIII, Al- Hira Public High School, age 15: I don’t know what exactly happened on the day.

When reminded of an incident in which Babri Masjid was demolished on the day in 1992, he said he has heard of the tragedy in his home and school but didn’t know the exact date and year on which it happened.

(Mumtaz Alam Falahi in Delhi, Abdul Hameed in Mumbai and Md. Ali in Patna)

Meher Fatima talks about her book on 150 patriotic Indian Muslims

By Mumtaz Alam Falahi, TwoCircles.net,

The book Celebrating India: Reflections on Eminent Indian Muslims (1857-2007) provides biographical profiles of 150 patriotic Indian Muslims, many of them unsung heroes – those who did not become party to the two-nation theory. Author Meher Fatima Hussain, Lecturer at Jamia Millia Islamia, talks to Mumtaz Alam Falahi of TwoCircles.net on her book.

What inspired you to write this book?

India is celebrating centenaries of 150 years of its first War of Independence and 60 years of Independence. In this moment of celebrations I thought I should also contribute through a book that would highlight the contributions of patriotic Indian Muslims who have contributed in the period from 1857 to 2007 in the 1857 War of Independence, in freedom movement as well as in enhancing India’s glory and prestige in different spheres like art, culture, music, sports, academic and journalism. I thought that through this book I would be paying tribute to the patriotic Indian Muslims and this idea inspired me to write this book.

Mehar Fatima

There are a lot of books on patriotic Indian Muslims. How is this book different?

I would not totally agree that a lot of books have been written on patriotic Indian Muslims because one can hardly find such books in the market. There have been books about Indian Muslims and many on their problems and prospects in pre- and post-Independence era also. But there hasn’t been a book from national integration point of view and one that would be totally focusing on patriotic endeavours of Indian Muslims.

As far as this book is concerned this contains biographical profiles of patriotic Muslims with a message to the society specifically to the younger generation that how they should be inspired by these people who overcame their personal ambitions and rose above their personal motivations and contributed to the society and the nation through sacrifices and their services to the nation. In this respect my book is quite different from other books. My book does not portrait the profiles of those Muslims who have played party to the two-nation theory or who have led to the partition of India.

What were the criteria for selection of personalities in your book?

I have taken a time frame of 1857 to 2007 for selecting 150 patriotic Indian Muslims. For selection of people from around 1857, martyrdom was a criterion as it was the first war of independence. We have selected many patriots from that time including Bahadur Shah Zafar, Hazrat Mahal, Maulvi Ahmadullah and Maulvi Mohammad Baqar who have played part in the freedom movement and many of them were martyrs. Progressing from 1857 I have taken freedom fighters of India’s war of independence. For people from around 1947 being freedom fighter was the criterion. So, I have selected Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Syed Mahmood, Abdul Qaiyyum Ansari and M A Ansari and many others from that time.

It is not that I have selected only martyrs of 1857 or freedom fighters but also those who did not take part in freedom movement but through their contributions in different spheres like art, culture, sport and music, painting, ghazal singing or journalism they have given their best to the nation and furthered the cause of the nation. They won glory and prestige to the country and took India ahead of other countries as far as progress is concerned. In the third category are M F Hussian, Tayyab Mehta, Azharuddin, Syed Nayeemuddin, Ilyas Babar, and Sania Mirza.

Who among the third category inspired you most?

Ilyas Babar was the most inspiring personality as far as patriotism is concerned. He was given Dronacharya Award as government’s recognition of his contribution but it came at the end of his career. He was not made the national athletic coach but despite this fact he gave his best to the national athletic team. He even spent from his pocket on coaching of his athletes. And he never expected anything to come back from the government. He worked beyond his personal ambition.

Three unsung heroes in your book

First is Maulvi Mohammad Baqar, the martyr journalist of 1857 War of Independence. It was only recently during centenary celebrations of 150 years of First War of Independence that his personality has been discussed so much and has been talked about. He was mentioned in dictionary type book but his full fledged personality was missing.

Other is Gama. Hardly anybody knows that he was a Muslim and today in an age when we know the wrestling is such a lucrative business and we find wrestlers amassing huge amount, his personality stands out. Gama was an inspiring hero. He was not only Rustam-e-Hind but also Rustam-e-Zamana (world wrestling champion). He had brought victory to India. He won the title of Rustam-e-Zamana. His full name was Ghulam Mohammad Bakhsh.

Another unsung hero is Rainbow Hadi. He had represented India in seven international sporting events. He was the first cricketer to make a 100 in Ranji Trophy.

Of the 150 patriotic Indian Muslims, who inspired you most?

Of all I am more influenced by Syed Hasan of Kishanganj. He was Assistant Professor in the US. He abandoned the lucrative career there and came back to Bihar’s poverty stricken district of Kishanganj. He did lot on education. He empowered society through education overcoming all his personal ambitions. He worked much for humanitarian causes. His work in the field of education inspired me most.

Message of the book

My message to the young generation through this book is that they should know about the best personalities of India – those who have contributed so much to the nation. They should get inspired by their personal contributions. In this age when consumerism has captured the mind of people we have to bring out contributions of these personalities so that the new generation could get inspired. If I bring a little change in the society by influencing young mind I think that would be the biggest contribution from my side to the society.

Babri Masjid land dispute: Mumbai Muslims have some solutions

By Abdul Hameed, TwoCircles.net,

Mumbai: Who is the owner of the Babri Masjid land is a court case for long time. On the 16th anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition TwoCircles.net talked to common Muslims. Majority of them favour out-of-court solution to the land dispute. Some will accept only court order even if it goes against them.

Ahmad Kamal, a retired professor form Bandra West, Mumbai said, 'Leave it as it is because if either Hindus or Muslims demand a mosque or temple to be built there it can inflame patience and destroy communal harmony.'

'The controversial land can be divided into two parts and each half should be given to both Hindus and Muslims,' says Muhammad Qasim, assistant accountant of Pharos Education Foundation, Millat Nagar, Andheri when asked about the matter.

But Muhammad Asjad, of Vasai Road in Thane says, 'If we leave the mosque and do not try to achieve it may be tomorrow the Hindu elements claim the same thing about our other mosques such as Geyanwapi mosque in Varansi.'

'It is BJP that does not let the matter settle because if it happens it will find itself having no political issue while campaigning for the elections to allure the Hindu voters towards it,' opines Muhammad Akbar, a businessman in Kausa Mumbara, Thane.

Naseemul Haq Ma'roofi, Imam and teacher in Darul Uloom Imdadia, Bhendi Bazar, Mumbai-1 says, 'This is nothing but a political issue. It would be better if the political people make a judgment about it. He also said that in the matter common Muslims should follow their Ulama whatever the decision they make about it.'

There are some others who instead of sharing their suggestions in the matter seem to prefer the judicial verdict. They say that whatever the court decides in the matter will be acceptable to them and should be welcomed by Muslims and Hindus alike. One who goes against it will be punished.

Aftab Alam, a businessman in Kausa Mumbara, said, 'Whatever the court decides Muslims should accept it.

'I will agree with whatever decision the court will issue. If it is proved that the mosque was built after destroying a temple we are ready to let a temple be built on the spot,' says Jamal Husain, an engineer of Mumbara.

But Akbar is afraid that the court verdict may be biased as there are the judges who bear a special kind of mentality. He cited an example of Nanavati report. 'Even if the court decides that the land was once a temple then also I will have a valid reason not to accept the verdict. The land is but of a mosque; a true Muslim cannot build a mosque in place of a temple. See today also even poorer of the poor Muslims if they want to build a mosque they purchase the land first by collecting donations. How it was possible that a pious Muslim emperor could have built a mosque on the place of temple. And suppose that any Muslim emperor had done so and they were interested in this then all the temples in India would have turned into mosques during the long periods of Muslim rule in India,' he says emphasizing.

'The verdict of the court must be acceptable to both the Hindus and the Muslims because the court will issue its verdict in the light of solid evidences. If any one of them does not accept it then a case of insulting the court should be initiated against him. Therefore if the court says that there was a temple on the spot we will give it to Hindus. But Muslims should try their best to provide as many evidences in the case as possible,' says a calm Ateequr Rahman Siddiqi adding 'if the land can be opened for Hindus for Darshan then why it cannot be opened for Muslims for at least offering Juma prayer? Supreme Court should close it for both the Hindus and the Muslims alike.'

Most of the opinions have an appeal to both the government and the court. If the land is that of a mosque, and of course it is, then it should be given back to Muslims. But it requires something like authority that can compel the government to turn its attention towards sincerely finding out a solution to it and not to prolong the matter anymore. 'Muslims must be united politically and then compel the government to fulfill their demands or see the rule collapsed because of them having withdrawn the support' says Muhammad Akbar who finds Aftab Alam and Jamal Husain supporting his view. Jamal adds: 'Agitation on national level should be done so that Muslims can get their mosque built in Ayodhya.'

On the other hand Maulana Jalaludding Faizi believes that Muslims had to see the black day of demolition of Babri Masjid due to their bad deeds and negligence in obeying the commandments of Allah and His messenger. Therefore the solution lies only in turning to Allah completely. 'The demolition of the mosque was the result that Muslims did not practice Islam thoroughly. Though Babri mosque was there they did not attend for the prayers regularly. That is why the Hindus succeeded to dominate the mosque. Although the Eidgah in Mathura and Geyanwapi mosque in Varansi is located in a Hindu dominated area, the Hindus do not dare to do the same with these worship places because the Muslims over there are punctual in attending the mosque in every prayer,' he says adding that one who advises that Muslims should agree on the philosophy of 'half land is for mosque and the remaining half for temple' they should not be counted among true believers. How can a person having faith in Islam say that the land endowed for a mosque should be allotted for a temple?

When TwoCircles.net consulted Qazi Muhammad Zakariya Qamar he had a unique idea. 'The land is endowed (waqf) for a mosque. Therefore, its glory will remain till the Final Day. But since there is no Muslim population near the mosque, prayers cannot be offered over there, the aim for which the mosques are built. Therefore Muslims had better not to insist on re-building the mosque. The government should put a boundary around the particular part of the land and thereby protect it. If it is lying without a mosque on it, it does not matter but there should not be any other building built over there.' Yet it remains to be seen whether it is as per the Islamic shari'ah.

Mufti As'adullah Qasmi, a shari'ah advisor in Parsoli Corporation Limited when asked whether it would be suitable to let the land remain unused with no mosque nor temple on it, he said, 'As per the Shari'ah it is not allowed because the land is that of Waqf, so it should be used for a mosque. As for historical proofs, so in this regard only strong evidences will be acceptable. It is a matter of religion wherein hollow proofs are not considered.'

Recalling the Babri Masjid movement

By Syed Shahabuddin,

Babri masjid was attached in 1949 and Hindus and Muslims were legally barred from offering prayers there. In 1986 doors to the gates were opened by a court order and regular puja started taking place. It was done on the demands of VHP that Babri Masjid was built on the birth place of Rama and it should be handed over to the Hindus.

In February 1986, on the petition of a local advocate, sessions judge at Faizabad without consulting or hearing the Muslims who were party to this case, passed an order opening the locks of the Babri Masjid.

The Muslim Women (Protection of rights on divorce) Act, 1986 was passed in May of 1986 so it is wrong to say that Babri Masjid doors were opened by Rajiv Gandhi to placate Hindus who were angry because of reversal of a Supreme Court judgement. In fact, a case can be made that this bill was introduced because Muslims were angry at the illegal occupation of Babri Masjid by Hindus.

Babri Masjid Movement Coordination Committee was formed in 1986 to fight the case of Babri Masjid at the national level. The major demand was that this dispute between Hindus and Muslims can only be resolved by the judiciary. At no point, Muslim leadership said that we should use force to liberate the mosque. Muslims always believed that the law will uphold the truth and wrong done to the community will be corrected by the courts.

With the death of Rajiv Gandhi, BJP saw an opportunity to grow politically. LK Advani, leader of the BJP adopted the VHP demand as BJP's goal to build the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya in place of Babri Masjid. Advani whipped up the communal passions by leading a modern day rath yatra which was eventually stopped in Bihar by Lalu Prasad Yadav.

In 1992, karsevaks were called to descend to Ayodhya. Congress government at the center did nothing to stop the karsevaks from reaching Ayodhya. I pleaded with the Supreme Court and the Prime Minister to put a curb to this gathering because Sangh Parivar's promise of not touching the masjid structure cannot be believed.

Listen to the interview:

Kalyan Singh, the BJP Chief Minister of UP at that time instructed officers of UP Police that no harm should be done to the karsevaks. Central para-military forces were stationed just outside Ayodhya and none of them moved on that fateful day. At mid-day on December 6, I told the PM that I don't want people to be killed but the least you can do is to fly your forces at low altitude over Ayodhya and that will scatter the karsevaks away.

I recall the immortal statement by VP Singh that it is not the three domes of Babri Masjid that are being demolished but three organs of the state – the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature.

I believe that PV Narsimha Rao had an understanding with the BJP leaders and knew that Babri Masjid will be demolished. He probably thought that once the masjid is demolished the problem will go away.

The masjid has been demolished but in my mind the Babri Masjid still exists because the ground where the masjid structure once stood is still there. We will not allow any construction to go on at the site. And the court case continues as the question remains as to who legally owns the site.

Meanwhile, Narsimha Rao passed a law and took over the entire site and 70 acres around it. We challenged the constitutionality of that bill. The Supreme Court made a very important decision saying to the government that you can take away the rights of the Muslims to litigate on the title. It ordered the Allahabad High Court to constitute a special bench to hear the cases related to the ownership of the site. The ruling added that if it is proved that the site belongs to the Muslims then the masjid will be rebuilt and if it is proved that it belongs to the Hindus then the temple will be built. In either case, the other community should be able to build a prayer house for itself at some distance from the original site.

Regular hearings have taken place by this special bench in cases that until the SC decision were lying dormant. Special bench hearings helped advance the status of the cases. I have followed these proceedings from the beginning and in my view the Hindu case is very weak from the legal point of view. Hearings are almost complete and final arguments are being given by both sides. We expect that the decision be made in our favour.

When we win the case, I fear that many "sympathizers" will come and expect us to give up the site trying to convince us that since the masjid structure is not there and also in the interest of long term Hindu-Muslim relations we should hand over the site to the Hindus. But my question to them is this – where will it end? You will claim another masjid tomorrow by taking it over or demolishing it and expect us to give up our rights in the name of friendship and fraternity but you don't care for these ideals when it comes to claiming masjids as your own and writing false history.

Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb after the capture of Golconda fort destroyed the Jama Masjid there. But same "fanatic" Aurangzeb who lived close to 20 years in Deccan, close to Ajanta and Ellora, never touched those. There was a reason to destroy the Jama Masjid in Golconda and if a temple was destroyed there has to be a political or military reason for its destruction. On the other hand there are many firmaans of Aurangzeb making grants for the upkeep and maintenance of many temples. Texts of some of these firmaans have been published in the journal Muslim India.

Babar probably never visited Ayodhya. An inscription on the Babri Masjid said that it was built by Babar's command by his officer called Meer Baqi. Babar did not conquer India by defeating any Hindu ruler. He defeated Ibrahim Lodhi in the Battle of Panipat. Even Ayodhya was won by battling local Muslim rulers so the question of destroying Ram temple as a consequence of a bitter battle with Hindus does not arise. There is no record of Babar destroying any temple in his autobiographical work Tuzk-e-Babri.

Muslims first came to Ayodhya in the beginning of the eleventh century. So the Ram temple continued under Muslim rule for four hundred years waiting for a Babar to come and destroy it. This argument makes no sense. Excavations in and around the site point to Muslim settlements in the area with evidence of glazed poetry and animal bones. So even prior to the temple building Muslims have been living in that area.

There have been many attempts at negotiations including the Shankracharya but my personal feeling is that all of them have been too close to the Sangh Parviar so no honest negotiation was possible. All their offers were absurd and impossible to accept. Having won over Rajiv Gandhi, who allowed the foundation laying of the gate of the proposed temple and then Narsimha Rao who let them destroy the masjid structure the Sangh Parivar wanted Muslims to simply surrender the site.

Muslims will not surrender and not take up arms. In a democracy your weapon is law, and we shall explore every possible legal means for our rights. We do our best and utilize all legal and democratic means to seek justice, but if the court decides against us, we will accept it as I am not prepared to exhaust all the resources of my community for just one particular masjid.

(As told to Mumtaz Alam Falahi of TwoCircles.net)