Invite you to visit the blog on the topic, containing some important
responses from*  progressive /secular sections of the intelligensia*...just
trying to compile them into one blog, adding from the web either as direct
texts or as links ;kindly help by sending similar texts/links which might
help to take further this important debate  in coming days. This is also
with a view to attempting a consolidation of voices in favour of sanity, as
opposed to those which favour passive surrender to the bullying.
http://venukm.blogspot.com/

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM, ram puniyani <[email protected]>wrote:

>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From:
>
> Mohammad Imran <[email protected]>
>
> *The verdict on Ayodhya: a historian's perspective*
>
>
> Romila Thapar
>
>
>
> *It has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace it with
> religious faith.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> – PHOTO: S.S. KUMAR
>
> *ROMILA THAPAR: We cannot change the past to justify the politics of the
> present.*
>
> The verdict is a political judgment and reflects a decision which could as
> well have been taken by the state years ago. Its focus is on the possession
> of land and the building a new temple to replace the destroyed mosque. The
> problem was entangled in contemporary politics involving religious
> identities but also claimed to be based on historical evidence. This latter
> aspect has been invoked but subsequently set aside in the judgment.
>
> The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or
> semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to
> commemorate the birth. This is in response to an appeal by Hindu faith and
> belief. Given the absence of evidence in support of the claim, such a
> verdict is not what one expects from a court of law. Hindus deeply revere
> Rama as a deity but can this support a legal decision on claims to a
> birth-place, possession of land and the deliberate destruction of a major
> historical monument to assist in acquiring the land?
>
> The verdict claims that there was a temple of the 12th Century AD at the
> site which was destroyed to build the mosque — hence the legitimacy of
> building a new temple.
>
> The excavations of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and its
> readings have been fully accepted even though these have been strongly
> disputed by other archaeologists and historians. Since this is a matter of
> professional expertise on which there was a sharp difference of opinion the
> categorical acceptance of the one point of view, and that too in a
> simplistic manner, does little to build confidence in the verdict. One judge
> stated that he did not delve into the historical aspect since he was not a
> historian but went to say that history and archaeology were not absolutely
> essential to decide these suits! Yet what are at issue are the historicity
> of the claims and the historical structures of the past one millennium.
>
> A mosque built almost 500 years ago and which was part of our cultural
> heritage was destroyed wilfully by a mob urged on by a political leadership.
> There is no mention in the summary of the verdict that this act of wanton
> destruction, and a crime against our heritage, should be condemned. The new
> temple will have its sanctum — the presumed birthplace of Rama — in the area
> of the debris of the mosque. Whereas the destruction of the supposed temple
> is condemned and becomes the justification for building a new temple, the
> destruction of the mosque is not, perhaps by placing it conveniently outside
> the purview of the case.
>
> Has created a precedent
>
> The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law that land can be
> claimed by declaring it to be the birthplace of a divine or semi-divine
> being worshipped by a group that defines itself as a community. There will
> now be many such janmasthans wherever appropriate property can be found or a
> required dispute manufactured. Since the deliberate destruction of
> historical monuments has not been condemned what is to stop people from
> continuing to destroy others? The legislation of 1993 against changing the
> status of places of worship has been, as we have seen in recent years, quite
> ineffective.
>
> What happened in history, happened. It cannot be changed. But we can learn
> to understand what happened in its fuller context and strive to look at it
> on the basis of reliable evidence. We cannot change the past to justify the
> politics of the present. The verdict has annulled respect for history and
> seeks to replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only
> come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not
> just on faith and belief, but on evidence.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *( Romila Thapar is a distinguished historian of Early India.)*
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "The Moderates" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<the-moderates%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/the-moderates?hl=en.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "humanrights movement" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<humanrights-movement%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement?hl=en.
>



-- 


You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You cannot build up a
nation, you cannot build up a morality. Anything that you will build on the
foundations of caste will crack and will never be a whole.
-AMBEDKAR



http://venukm.blogspot.com

http://www.shelfari.com/kmvenuannur

http://kmvenuannur.livejournal.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"humanrights movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement?hl=en.

Reply via email to