It has long been a commonplace that behind the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute looms the question of interpretation of history. But by and large this issue has been discussed in the rather limited terms of whether or not there stood a Hindu temple on the site of the Babri Masjid and whether or not this was wilfully destroyed to make way for the mosque.
The question of the nature of Islam is obviously relevant in this regard. It, however, rarely comes up for discussion, the most recent example being the pretty extended exchange between Arun Shourie and Dr Rafiq Zakaria in the columns of The Observer of Business and Politics.
Secularists normally avoid this aspect of the problem. And when they are not able to do so, they try to confuse the issue by bringing in the extraneous issue of alleged misbehaviour of some Hindu rulers vis-a-vis Buddhists and Jains, for which there is little evidence.
That apart, however, since the critics of Islam emphasise its intolerant and fanatical character on the basis of evidence which is massive, indeed overwhelming and easy to pile up, and its adherents and supporters cite carefully selected quotations from the Koran and Prophet Mohammad’s traditions to spotlight its humane face, this usually becomes a dialogue of the deaf and the dumb. This has been the case between Dr Zakaria and Shourie. I mention this because there has been no other similar exchange in recent years. That makes it a rare event worthy of notice.
This is not to recommend an attempt at some kind of arbitrary synthesis or some equally arbitrary meeting ground. On the contrary, any such effort is to be strongly discouraged. For, that has been the bane of Indian intellectual life and public discourse for over half a century, especially since in his Discovery of India and other writings Nehru popularised the theory of Hindu-Muslim synthesis which he partly retracted later. The urgent need is to root the discussion on the nature of Islam in general, and Indian Islam in particular, firmly in history. Both Shourie and Dr Zakaria indeed do so in respect of Islam in general but they do not push their own arguments to their logical conclusion and, more pertinently, neither applies the theory to Indian Islam.
Shourie, for instance, cites Koranic verses like “Let there be no compulsion in religion” and adds: “…these verses pertain to the earlier period when the Prophet was trying to persuade the various clans in Mecca, including those who made their living off the various idols in Mecca. Once he had to leave for Medina, and specially after he begun wielding the Arabs into a state, Allah commanded him to be harsh in the extreme”.
In plain words, Shourie is saying that Mohammad was one kind of prophet when he was on the defensive in Mecca and another when he had begun to accumulate power in Medina and was ready to go on the offensive. By this reckoning, if Indian Islam was one proposition when its votaries were in power, or even when they could entertain the hope of regaining power in parts of India through partition, if not the whole of it through “parity” with the Hindus, it has of necessity to be quite another since August 15, 1947.
On the face of it, Dr Zakaria disagrees violently with the proposition that the character of Mohammad’s mission and the nature of revelations changed when he shifted from Mecca to Medina and acquired power. But he admits that “because of changed circumstances, his directions appear different” and in fact goes on to add in the same paragraph that “Quranic revelations do reflect the changes that events forced on him (Mohammad)”.
Dr Zakaria justifies the harshness of the Prophet’s utterances and actions on the ground that Jews and Christians betrayed his trust. Thus, in one sense he differs from Shourie only inasmuch as he thinks that the Prophet spoke and acted harshly out of the need to defend his followers while Shourie holds that he so behaved out of arrogance of power.
The tenability or otherwise of these propositions is, however, less significant for our purpose than the acknowledgement by Dr Zakaria that mundane developments on the ground altered the character, if not the purpose, of the revelation.
The change in Indian Islam brought about by change of circumstances will also be seen to be quite impressive if only we examine the evidence carefully. This is especially so in the matter of destruction of temples and therefore of special significance for us in the present context.
Muslim theologians and historians in the medieval period, it is well known, revelled in detailing the destruction of temples (rubbish of Kufr for them) by Muslim rulers. Indeed, most of the evidence cited by Hindu historians such as Sitaram Goel, Harsh Narain and KS Lal on the destruction of Hindu temples and construction of mosques, including the one in question in Ayodhya, comes from Muslim historians and theologians.
Proponents of the other side, including Syed Shahabuddin, reject this evidence and argue in effect either that the historians and theologians in question were liars who invented such activities on the part of their patrons, or that supporters of the Ram temple in Ayodhya have misinterpreted Muslim historians and theologians. Their case is patently weak.
For, Muslim theologians and historians could not possibly have attributed such actions to their patrons if these did not at the very least add to the glory of the latter and reinforce their claim to legitimacy as rulers. Even so, it is a welcome development that they say that they regard it quite wrong for followers of any faith to have destroyed places of worship of other faiths even in the medieval period.
At one level, this is mere evasion. But at another – and indeed deeper – level, it speaks of an important change. This is best illustrated by a redefinition of the concept of jihad to make it appear as if it refers not just primarily but almost exclusively to the need for self-purification. Muslim fundamentalists, of course, still talk of jihad in the traditional and generally accepted sense. But they do so mostly either in relation to fellow Muslims who have allegedly deviated from the true path, or defensively in relation to the West by way of a call to the faithful to reject Western mores, values and institutions. Fundamentalism is more of an invitation to civil war than to a war on the infidels.
The change in the response and by inference, psyche, of Indian Muslims is inevitably a gradual and uneven process. But it is a continuing process. By way of example, two instances may be cited. In 1969 desecration of the A1 Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem by a deranged individual was enough to bring angry crowds into the streets of Ahmedabad and start a massive riot; in 1992 the large-scale massacre of Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina has not provoked a single demonstration in the country, or for that matter in the Islamic republic of Pakistan. Similarly, it is difficult to believe that Prof Bashiruddin Ahmed and Prof Mushirul Hasan could have survived as vice-chancellor or pro vice-chancellor of Jamia Millia the wrath of Syed Shahabuddin, the Imam of Jama Masjid, Delhi, and others of their ilk some years ago.
But this change is the result of defensiveness; it is a product of a dramatic shift in the correlation of forces in 1947 and since; and it is unstable. The correlation of forces is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. So there is no need to be unduly concerned on that score. But the change needs to be stabilised and given a positive orientation.
This calls for a two-pronged approach. The truth about the past has to be faced as the Germans have done in respect of Nazism and the holocaust, the Russians in that of Stalin and his successors and the Japanese about the doings of their militarists. And there has to be symbolic gesture by way of expatiation. Without that the source of poison in Hindu-Muslim relations cannot be eliminated.
The Ram Janmabhoomi issue offers Indian Muslims an opportunity to meet the twin needs of an honest confrontation with the past and a symbolic gesture of expatiation. It is a matter of great fortune for them that so much of our troubled history has got crystallised in one place.
Even common sense points in that direction. If Nehru at the height of his power did not find it discreet to remove the idols, however placed, from the masjid, it is sheer lunacy for anyone to believe that they can be removed now. If the status quo ante cannot be restored, what sense does it make to preserve the status quo? It can only help to keep alive a potent source of conflict.
All kinds of pretexts are being invented to perpetuate the status quo and complicate Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s task of solving the problem. In his own party and government, cynical men are active, trying to vitiate the atmosphere. But, the opportunity is as great as the odds are heavy.
The Sunday Observer, August 9-15, 1992