Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stop False Allegations:Ayodhya In REVERSE!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Stop False Allegations:Ayodhya In REVERSE!!


    ANALYSIS

    Ayodhya in reverse


    The story of the Shahidganj Mosque in Lahore.

    A. G. NOORANI


    WHILE the construction of the Somnath temple bears no relevance to, let
    alone provide justification for, the crime which the Sangh Parivar
    committed on December 6, 1992, by demolishing the Babri Masjid at
    Ayodhya, the case of the Shahidganj Masjid in Lah ore is strikingly
    relevant - as Ayodhya in reverse. Outside the Parivar's ranks, not one
    scholar of repute, Indian or foreign, has bought its theory that Mir
    Baqi, the Governor of Ayodhya appointed by Babar, demolished a temple at
    Ayodhya to construct th e Babari mosque in 1528. There is overwhelming
    evidence that prayers were being said by Muslims till the night of
    December 22-23, 1949 when idols were surreptitiously planted there
    converting a mosque into a temple. The imam who led the prayers survived
    to testify to this. The first information report (FIR) lodged by
    sub-inspector Ram Dube on December 23 recorded this crime (vide the
    writer's essay Legal Aspects to the Issue in S. Gopal (ed.); Anatomy of
    a Confrontation; Viking; 1991; page 70). Chandan Mitra quoted a Faizabad
    official as saying that "obviously the guard had been bribed heavily" (
    The Statesman, October 26, 1986).

    In contrast, three courts upheld Muslims' claim that in 1722 Falak Beg
    Khan created a wakf (trust) and dedicated land to build a mosque,
    appointed Sheikh Din Mohammed and his descendants as muttawalis
    (trustees) of the mosque, a school and an orchard and a well on the
    land. All three courts, however, also held - and rightly so - that by
    adverse possession to Sikhs after 1762 Muslims had lost title to the
    site and the mosque.

    The Shahidganj gurdwara in Lahore.

    This is an apt precedent. It is Ayodhya in reverse, as it were. All the
    elements of the Ayodhya case were present - a mosque in the adverse
    possession of another community, Sikhs, to whom the site was a hallowed
    place; its demolition by Sikhs; frenzied a gitation by Muslims;
    involvement of religious figures; Muslim frustration with the courts and
    determined moves in the Punjab Assembly to enact legislation for the
    takeover of the site. They all failed. But the situation was not
    reversed even after the es tablishment of Pakistan. To this day, when
    there is hardly anyone to visit it, the Gurdwara Shahidganj stands, as
    it did before August 15, 1947. This precedent should shame the Sangh
    Parivar.

    In the Shahidganj case the judiciary acted impartially and speedily. In
    the Ayodhya case, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer angrily remarked: "The
    judiciary will be described as the villain of the piece." In his view it
    lacked the guts to face that issue. (T he Times of India, November 11,
    1989).

    After the Congress split, Indira Gandhi's supporters forcibly ousted her
    rivals from Congress House at 7 Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi, on
    November 13, 1971. But, on February 7, 1972, the Sub-Divisional
    Magistrate, Parliament Street, ordered restoration of possession to the
    oustees, under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is a
    summary remedy designed to protect the party in possession and deter use
    of force to acquire it. Title to the land is irrelevant in these
    proceedings. It is for the c laimant to go to a civil court to establish
    his title and acquire possession. He cannot take the law in his own
    hands. In Ayodhya, Muslims were driven to court to reclaim the
    possession from which they had been forcibly ousted. On December 18,
    1961 the f irst civil suit was filed by Muslims. It is yet to be
    decided.

    This legal issue was faced squarely by the courts in the Shahidganj
    case. Its history was set out authoritatively by the Privy Council, on
    May 2, 1940, in a judgment delivered by Sir George Rankin. The other
    members of the Board were Lord Thankerton, Lor d Russell of Killowen,
    Lord Justice Goddard and Dr. M.R. Jayakar. As a leader of the Hindu
    Mahasabha, Jayakar had wrecked all chances of compromise on the Nehru
    Report at the All Party Conference in 1928 and at the Round Table
    Conference in London later. Yet, such was the legal culture of the times
    that neither the Muslim League nor its president, Mohammed Ali Jinnah,
    raised any objection to his participation in such a case. (Masjid Shahid
    Ganj vs Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee: 67 India n Appeals
    251).

    The facts are set out in the judgment, which is a model of lucidity:

    "Before 1935 there had stood for many years to the south of what is now
    called the Naulakha Bazaar, in the city of Lahore, a structure having
    three domes and five arches, which had been built as a mosque (masjid)
    and which retained, notwithstanding consi derable disrepair, sufficient
    of its original character to suggest, or even to proclaim, its original
    purpose. It had a projecting niche (mehrab) in the centre of the west
    wall such as is used in mosques as the place from which the imam leads
    the prayers. Its dedication is no longer in dispute, having been
    established as of the year A. H. 1134. or A.D. 1722, by the production
    and proof of a deed of dedication executed by one Falak Beg Khan. By
    this deed, Sheikh Din Mohammad and his descendants we re appointed
    muttawalis." The trust deed existed and was on record.

    "No less well established than the dedication is the fact that from
    about A.D. 1762 the building, together with the courtyard, well and
    adjacent land, has been in the occupation and possession of Sikhs. The
    occupation of Lahore by the 'Bhangi Sardars' in 1762 was the
    commencement of Sikh power in this part of India. Sikh rule continued
    under Ranjit Singh, who in 1799 established himself by force of arms as
    the local ruler. It ended only in 1849, ten years after the death of
    Ranjit Singh, when the Punjab , as a result of the second Sikh War,
    became part of British India by annexation. At some time during the Sikh
    domination, land adjacent to the mosque building (but to the north of
    what is now the Naulakha Bazaar) became the site of a Sikh shrine
    (gurdwa ra), and the tomb of a Sikh leader, named Bhai Taru Singh,
    situated thereon was held in reverence. The land, which in 1722 had been
    dedicated to the purposes of a mosque, came to be held and occupied by
    the managers and custodians of the Sikh institution , and the mosque
    building was used by them.

    "The land adjacent to the mosque was regarded by the Sikhs as a place of
    martyrs (Shahid Ganj), it being commonly held among them that Bhai Taru
    Singh had on this spot suffered for his religion at the hands of Muslim
    rulers, and that many others, including women and children, had been
    executed here. Thus communal feelings have long been in a state of
    tension as between Muslims and Sikhs with respect to this masjid
    Shahidganj."

    K.M. CHAUDORY
    Within the Shahidganj gurdwara in Landa Bazar.

    A criminal case brought in 1950 by one Nur Ahmad, claiming to be
    muttawali, and proceedings in the Settlement Department, brought by him
    in 1853, came to nothing, as he had been long out of possession. A civil
    suit with a like object was brought a nd dismissed in 1853. On June 25,
    1855, yet another suit by Nur Ahmad was brought in the court of the
    Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, against Sikhs in possession of the
    property; it was dismissed by that officer on November 14, 1855, by the
    Commissioner on April 9, 1856, and, on further appeal, by the Judicial
    Commissioner on June 17, 1856.

    In Ayodhya there is a similar history of litigation in the 19th century
    in which Muslims won throughout (vide the writer's essay mentioned
    earlier, pp. 64-66). However, in none of them was there any claim to the
    Babri mosque but only to the Chabutra, the platform, outside it. Even
    that was negatived. Before the demolition of the mosque, Muslims were
    agreeable to a Ram temple coming up there by the side of the mosque. The
    Sangh Parivar would have none of it. Mumbai boasts of a traffic islan d
    which houses a temple, a church and a mosque, cheek by jowl.

    In 1925, the Sikh Gurdwaras Act was enacted. On December 22, 1927, a
    notification was made under it listing the old mosque building and
    adjacent land as belonging to the Sikh Gurdwara "Shahid Ganj Bhai Taru
    Singh". Among other objections to this came one by the Anjuman Islamia
    of the Punjab on March 16, 1928. The Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal rejected all
    the claims on January 20, 1930. The Anjuman did not appeal. Other
    claimants did. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeals on October
    19, 1934.

    The judgment records: "In the result the property and building were
    given into the custody of the defendants, and on the night of July 7,
    1935 the building was suddenly demolished by or with the connivance of
    its Sikh custodians under the influence of co mmunal ill-feeling. Riots
    and disorder ensued, and much resentment was felt and expressed by the
    Muslims."

    For the events of those times - and the injection of politics in the
    case - one must turn to K. L. Gauba's narrative "The Shahidganj Case" in
    his book Famous & Historic Trials (Lion Press; Lahore, 1946; pp.
    77-118). For the Sikh view point, vide G anda Singh's History of
    Gurdwara Shahidganj; Lahore, 1935.

    On July 2, 1935, shortly after Sikhs acquired legal possession, a
    deputation of Muslim leaders met Deputy Commissioner S. Partap who
    assured them that the mosque would not be demolished. The Civil &
    Military Gazette of July 3 published his press n ote: "The alleged
    demolition by the Sikhs of a portion of a very old mosque, within the
    precincts of Gurdwara Shahidganj in Landa Bazar has created a good deal
    of excitement among Muslims, many of whom collected outside the Gurdwara
    and made demonstratio ns. Fearing danger to the Gurdwara Jathas of Sikhs
    have started coming to Lahore from outside.

    "Both the mosque and the gurdwara are perfectly safe and the authorities
    have taken all possible measures to protect them, pending a settlement
    of the dispute. Any attempt to rowdyism or hooliganism will be properly
    and effectively suppressed."

    Sikh and Muslim leaders met on July 4 to hammer out an accord. "Muslims
    were represented by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, Editor of the Zamindar, Syed
    Habib, Editor of the Siyasat, Maulana Daud Ghaznavi on behalf of the
    Ahrars and K.S. Amirud-Din , a local grandee. For the Sikhs attended
    Master Tara Singh, leader of his community, Sardar Ishar Singh Majhail,
    Giani Gurmukh Singh and Sardar Mangal Singh, member of the Central
    Legislative Assembly. The meeting was pursued (sic.) in a most cordial
    at mosphere and Muslims were asked to put their demands in writing to be
    forwarded to the Sikh leaders for consideration. The meeting terminated
    in a hopeful atmosphere. In the evening, Muslims met at the Barkat Ali
    Islamia Hall under the chairmanship of a Barrister, Mian Abdul Aziz, to
    formulate their demands. These were specified as the restoration of the
    mosque to the Muslims and a five-foot passage between the Gurdwara and
    the Mosque."

    On July 6, the Governor of Punjab, Sir Herbert Emerson met Sikh and
    Muslim leaders. The government issued a press note denying rumours of
    demolition of "the walls of Shahidganj Mosque". There was none of the
    dishonest prevarication about "the disputed st ructure in Ayodhya"
    popularised by P.V. Narasimha Rao's government which has passed into
    official jargon. The press note appeared in the newspapers of Sunday,
    July 7. By the next morning the mosque was demolished. The Governor
    spoke with a forked tongue. "They (the Government) decided it was not
    possible to prevent the Sikhs from exercising their legal rights and
    that bloodshed be avoided by preventing Muslims from approaching the
    scene of demolition." Another communique said the "government deep ly
    regret that Sikhs should have thought fit to act in this precipitate
    manner, thus ruining all chances of a settlement and creating a very
    critical situation." On July 17, Emerson told the Legislative Council
    that Partap "did not promise that the build ing would not be demolished
    in any circumstances. He promised that he would prevent this until the
    Punjab Government had had time to examine the legal position. He carried
    out this promise."

    Predictably, in the agitation that followed, many a Muslim politician
    tried to promote his career. A new outfit, Blue Shirts, was set up, led
    by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan. There were riots on July 20 and 21 in which
    the police opened fire, killing 12 Muslim s. A civil suit was filed on
    behalf of the mosque. Hearings began before the District Judge at
    Lahore, S. L. Sale, on October 30, 1935.

    The demolition of the mosque was widely condemned. Sir Girja Shankar
    Bajpai wrote in disgust to Sir Fazl-i-Husain on July 29, 1935 in terms
    which proved prophetic. "It bodes ill for the future if one community
    thinks that the best way to assert its legal rights is to wound deeply
    the religious susceptibilities of another" (Waheed Ahmad (Ed.); Letters
    of Mian Fazl-i-Husain; Research Society of Pakistan, University of
    Punjab, Lahore, 1976; p. 420). Together, the Letters and the Diary and
    Notes o f Mian Fazl-i-Husain (Waheed Ahmad (Ed.); R.S.P., Lahore, 1977)
    reflect Fazl-i-Husain's deep disapproval of the tactics of extremist
    Muslim leaders and his efforts for a compromise. They bear on
    contemporary events.

    A Diary entry of July 17, 1935 records (p. 150): "It seems to me that
    H.E. (the Governor) wanted some sort of settlement - the building will
    remain as an archaeological monument, and not put to any use by Sikhs,
    and Muslims will not claim it to serve as a mosque. This would have been
    status quo, and fair. The Muslims however pressed their claim or their
    request for the building to be used as a mosque, and the Sikhs pulled it
    down to put an end to the controversy. The Government, feeling possibly
    that th e building will not be pulled down, used its powers against
    Muslim crowds, and to strengthen the Sikhs, allowed their Jathas to come
    into Lahore. Sikh Jathas demonstrating in Lahore, and Muslims not
    allowed to have a procession, naturally created indigna tion in Muslim
    circles. Govt. is helping Sikhs to demolish mosque. Well, Sikhs actually
    demolished it, warned Govt. that they were doing it, and Government
    could not but protect them with the help of the Police and the Military.
    This was not playing the game, so far as the Muslim side is concerned,
    but the Government's explanation is that the Sikhs have acted unfairly."


    July 19: "What should be done? Deal with Muslim defiance of law and
    bring it under control. If Sikhs want to build, do not allow it. If they
    resort to defiance of law, deal with it strongly; as in the case of
    Muslims. Then the two communities might settl e down as quits. It is
    very unlikely that the Sikhs would agree not to build on it, or in the
    alternative, out of spite put it to uses which will cause annoyance to
    Muslims."

    Sir Fazl-i-Husain received a letter from a co-founder of his National
    Unionist Party, Sir Chhotu Ram, dated July 20, 1935 reporting a formula
    suggested at the Governor's Conference the previous day; "probably" by
    Dr. Gokal Chand Narang: "The question of ownership and possession of the
    Shahidganj having been finally decided by the court as being with Sikhs,
    the members present at this conference should recommend to their
    respective communities that as a solution of the present difficulty the
    site actuall y under the mosque should be surrounded by a wall or a
    fence and should not be built upon for all time. I am quoting from
    memory, but am not far from actual wording.

    "Muslims put forward an amendment that the words 'or used for any
    purpose' should also be added. This was not acceptable to Sikhs. Another
    amendment which was under discussion when we broke up for lunch was that
    the final words should be: 'should be encl osed on all sides by a wall
    nine feet high'. The suggestion is obviously meant to secure the
    substance without fighting for words. The Raja (Narendra Nath) Sahib is
    of opinion that anything excluding use nullifies the rights of Sikhs
    under the decree" (e mphasis added, throughout).

    In the last week of February 1936, Jinnah visited Lahore. Sir Fazl-i
    recorded on February 27: "Government of India seems to have accepted
    Jinnah's offer to help, and asked the Governor to co-operate with him.
    This is all to the good. This trouble stands in the way of the
    communities coming together, and we should all be grateful to Jinnah for
    making the effort, and if he succeeds, Punjab benefits from it.

    Jinnah set up a conciliation board composed of representatives of all
    the communities. He was not out to exploit the crisis for political
    ends. Sir Fazl-i-Husain became impatient with Jinnah as an entry of
    March 8 reveals: "...the site should not be buil t upon, and... its use
    by the Sikhs guarded against. This was almost promised, and yet
    violated, if Jinnah is right. This is adding insult to injury and Jinnah
    still goes on talking of settlement honourable to both" (p. 204).

    On June 13, 1936 Fazl-i-Husain wrote to the Governor expressing his
    opposition to any construction on the site of the demolished mosque
    (Letters; p.584).

    By then, Muslims had lost the case. In a considered judgment, on May 25,
    1936, S. L. Sale, District Judge at Lahore, dismissed the suit which
    Muslims had filed after the demolition.

    (He had served on the Governor-General's Executive Council as well as as
    a Minister in the Punjab. He was in his time one of the most powerful
    politicians in the province. But for his untimely death in 1936 and that
    of his successor, Sir Sikandar Hyatt K han, in December 1942, Jinnah
    would have found it hard to carry the Muslims of Punjab, and there might
    have been no Pakistan).

    The Government of India Act, 1935, which conferred autonomy on the
    Provinces, came into force on All Fool's Day, 1937. The Muslim League
    had fared miserably in the polls, winning only two seats - for Malik
    Barkat Ali and Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan. The Unio nists, led by Sir
    Sikandar Hayat Khan, bagged 88 of the 175 seats. The Congress won only
    18 seats as against 36 won by non-Congress Hindus and Sikhs. The
    separate communal electorates system was in force then.

    Sir Sikandar formed a Unionist Coalition in April 1937 but only to
    conclude a pact with Jinnah in October. However, he became a Muslim
    Leaguer without affecting "the continuance of the present coalition and
    Unionist Party". On November 29, 1937 the High Court began hearing the
    appeal from the District Judge's judgment. Barkat Ali approached Jinnah,
    who was still in active practice in the Bombay High Court, to appear for
    the Muslims. "But he declined because he had been a conciliator between
    the contendi ng parties in February 1936 and did not want to be an
    advocate of one party" (M. Rafique Afzal; Malik Barkat Ali, His Life and
    Writings; R.S.P., Lahore, 1969; p. 44). On Jinnah's advice, F. J.
    Coltman, an English barrister practising in the Bombay High Court, was
    briefed. He joined Barkat Ali and Dr. M. Alam for the appellants. Rai
    Bahadur Badridas and Sardar Harnam Singh appeared for the SGPC. On
    January 26, 1938, the High Court dismissed the appeal (Masjid Shahid
    Ganj vs SGPC AIR 1938 La hore 369). Chief Justice Sir Douglas Young and
    Justice M. V. Bhide held in favour of Sikhs. Justice Din Mohammad
    pronounced in favour of Muslims in a lengthy and erudite judgment on
    Muslim Law. It was less an impartial pronouncement than a contribution t
    o the Muslim case. So much for "the judicial remedy". As the great
    jurist Benjamin N. Cardozo sagely remarked in his classic The Nature of
    the Judicial Process: "The great tides and currents which engulf the
    rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by"
    (Yale University Press; 1964; p.168).

    The Muslim League's Annual Session in October 1937 had convened a
    special session of the Council on January 30, 1938. It decided to
    observe February 18 as Shahidganj Day. Mean-while, moves were afoot to
    resolve the issue by "legislation" - the remedy for Ayodhya advocated in
    the Bharatiya Janata Party's Palampur resolution of June 1989. Barkat
    Ali, an able lawyer, drafted the Punjab Muslim Mosques Protection Bill,
    1938, in order to override the High Court's judgment and give
    legislative sanction to the principles of Muslim law propounded by
    Justice Din Mohammad. The maverick, K. L. Gauba, drafted a Bill which
    provided simply for the compulsory acquisition of the land under the
    Land Acquisition Act and vesting of the site in the government, deeming
    it a mosque "which shall be maintained as an open site" (Gauba;
    pp.108-110 for extracts from his Bill and the aftermath). Barkat Ali's
    Bill won greater support. His joy was shortlived.

    On March 16, 1938, the Prime Minister of Punjab (as Chief Ministers were
    known then), Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, made a statement in the Provincial
    Assembly which is of historic importance. It is highly relevant to the
    Sangh Parivar's policy before and aft er the demolition of the Babri
    mosque. Listing his objections to Barkat Ali's Bill, he pointed out that
    it would "involve reopening and retrospective reversal of cases settled
    by valid judicial pronouncements".

    Moreover, "if non-Muslims claimed similar immunity for their places of
    worship in the Punjab which had passed out of their hands into Muslim
    possession, it would be illogical to resist such a request". He drew the
    point home with rigorous logic:

    "If the Governor were to give his sanction for the introduction of such
    a bill in the Punjab, with the consent of his Ministry, it would provoke
    similar bills, in those provinces, where the non-Muslims are in a
    majority, for the restoration of many histo ric and important places of
    worship originally belonging to non-Muslims but now in Muslim
    possession, and, in the light of the precedent set in the Punjab, it
    would be impossible for Muslims logically to invoke protection against
    such bills under the Gov ernment of India Act...

    "Its only practical effects would be to increase bitterness and remove
    for all time the prospect of an amicable settlement and to align parties
    in the legislature and in the province on rigid communal lines, a
    prospect which no well-wisher of the province can contemplate without
    despair...

    "The Government has under consideration means to ensure the due
    protection of all places of worship so that a repetition of incidents
    like Shahidganj may be impossible in future. To this end it is proposed
    to appoint a small informal committee of the mem bers for this House to
    advise the Government with regard to proposals for legislation" (vide
    Gauba, pp. 111-115). Apparently, something on the line of the Places of
    Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

    Five days later, on March 21, the Muslim League's Council endorsed this
    statement. At its special session in Calcutta on April 17-18, 1938,
    Jinnah said that "certain individuals on both sides were and have been
    aggressive to each other, and they h ave created a situation which has
    involved the two great communities into the position of an impasse. I
    deplore the excesses committed on both sides..." (S. S. Pirzada;
    Foundations of Pakistan, National Publishing House, Karachi, 1970) Vol.
    II, p. 291. It is a compilation of the League's resolutions; vide
    Resolution II on Shahidganj, p. 296).

    On May 2, 1940, the Privy Council brought the curtain down on the
    litigation by dismissing the appeal. By then the SGPC had secured in
    August 1935 the municipality's sanction for construction of a gurdwara
    on the site of the mosque.

    The issues raised by the Privy Council are highly relevant to Ayodhya.

    "The first question to be asked with reference to this immovable
    property is: In whom was the title at the date when the sovereignty of
    this part of India passed to the British in 1849? It may have been open
    to the British, on the ground of conquest or o therwise, to annual
    rights of private property at the time of annexation, as, indeed, they
    did in Oudh after 1857. But nothing of the sort was done so far as
    regards the property now in dispute. There is nothing in the Punjab Laws
    Act, or in any other Ac t, authorising the British Indian Courts to
    uproot titles acquired prior to the annexation by applying to them a law
    which did not then obtain as the law of the land. There is every
    presumption in favour of the proposition that a change of sovereignty
    would not affect private rights to property. Who, then, immediately
    prior to the British annexation was the local sovereign of Lahore? What
    law was applicable in that State to the present case? Who was recognised
    by the local sovereign or other auth ority as owner of the property now
    in dispute?...

    "If it be assumed, for example, that the property in dispute was by
    general law, or by special decree or by revenue-free (muafi) grant,
    vested in the Sikh rulers, the case made by the plaintiffs becomes
    irrelevant...

    "The rules of limitation which apply to a suit are the rules in force at
    the date of institution of the suit, limitation being a matter of
    procedure. It cannot be doubted that the Indian Limitation Act of 1908
    applies to immovables made waqf, notwithstan ding that the ownership in
    such property is said in accordance with the doctrine of the two
    disciples to be in God... The property now in question having been
    possessed by Sikhs adversely to the waqf and to all interests thereunder
    for more than twelve y ears, the right of the muttawali to possession
    for the purpose of the waqf came to an end under Art. 144 of the
    Limitation Act, and the title derived under the dedication from the
    settlor or wakf became extinct under S. 28."

    Justice Bhide rightly said that the law of limitation does not
    distinguish between property sacred and other. Yet faced with precisely
    that law, the Sangh Parivar demolished the Babri mosque. In Pakistan,
    the law laid down by the Privy Council on May 2, 1940 is still
    respected.

    The last word must belong to the distinguished educationist Dr. Amrik
    Singh: "The interesting thing is that even after 1947, when there is
    hardly anyone to visit the gurdwara, the character of that building has
    not been changed and it has not been conver ted into a mosque. If this
    can happen in Pakistan, which according to its constitution is described
    as an Islamic state, can India, which describes itself as a secular
    state, act differently? How does one deal with an issue when faith is
    put forward as t he governing principle in place of reason? If that
    contention were to be accepted, it would be the end of civilised
    governance."

    These remarks were made before the demolition of the Babri Masjid. They
    apply with yet greater force to the future of its site. So do Amrik
    Singh's censures of the Parivar's conduct on December 6, 1992.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [ Subscribe | Contact Us | Archives | Table of Contents]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [ Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar ]
    --------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------


    *Negahe Marde Momin Se Badal Jate Hai Taqdeeren*

    #2
    I am sure Rani will be very pleased to hear of the tolerant attitude of Pakistanis towards the sikh places of worship in Pakistan as compared to Ayodhya and the storming of the Golden Temple in India.

    Comment


      #3
      All Gurudawara in Pakistan are empty. Without worshipers the places of worship have no meaning. You can keep these empty buildings and tell your children that this land, at one time, also belonged to Sikhs, till we chased them out so that only muslims can live here.

      No idea what kind of toleration Azad munna is try to portray by posting this article. I am sure he will not be happy if we chased him and his community out and kept all the empty masjids intact.



      [This message has been edited by Rani (edited February 09, 2001).]

      Comment


        #4
        [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rani:
        [B]All Gurudawara in Pakistan are empty. Without worshipers the places of worship have no meaning. You can keep these empty buildings and tell your children that this land, at one time, also belonged to Sikhs, till we chased them out so that only muslims can live here.

        No idea what kind of toleration Azad munna is try to portray by posting this article. I am sure he will not be happy and think of us as tolerant people, if we chased him and his community out and kept all the empty masjids intact.

        Comment


          #5
          [quote]Originally posted by Rani:
          [b]
          Originally posted by Rani:
          All Gurudawara in Pakistan are empty. Without worshipers the places of worship have no meaning. You can keep these empty buildings and tell your children that this land, at one time, also belonged to Sikhs, till we chased them out so that only muslims can live here.

          No idea what kind of toleration Azad munna is try to portray by posting this article. I am sure he will not be happy and think of us as tolerant people, if we chased him and his community out and kept all the empty masjids intact.
          Rani,

          I agree the Mandir mostly in Pakistan are abandoned,no devotees,&unused.But if despite not that many Sikhs ,if it is taken care of by govt.,is the most anyone could have done like a custodian ,by default.
          I am sure you must have read the story of a mosque in Ahmedabad which was locked down by archeological dept. of Hindutva govt.since the last big riots in Ahmedabad in 1969.No muslim is allowed to pray in it by order of govt.There are many abandoned musjids in India like i say not totally b/c of hindus in india ---just as abandonment occured for many reasons & not directly result of demolition of mosque or of mandir in Pakistan.
          It may sound like a insensitive reason but if sikh had returned after the partition they could have claimed it just as indian muslims depite come what may still hang on with a fatalistic philosophy,'jeena yahan marna yahan'.

          Comment


            #6
            Azad munna

            It may sound like a insensitive reason but if sikh had returned after the partition they could have claimed it just as indian muslims depite come what may still hang on with a fatalistic philosophy,'jeena yahan marna yahan'.

            It doesn't just sound insentive it is insensitive. Sikh will claim what...? that land has been taken away from us. We would love to have that fatalist attitude which 150 million muslims have but our houses were burnt and we were pushed out.

            Empty worship places mean nothing. Dividing countries on the basis of religion is wrong. Intolerance towards others gives rise to intolerance towards each other when others are gone.

            Comment


              #7
              If pakistan and Pakistanis are so tolerant than why are there more Sikhs in India than in Pakistan?

              Please someone explain that to me!!!!!!

              All this hue an cry over a freekin' building? Who cares!!!! There are worse problems affecting Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in the subcontinent. I don't care if that place was a temple or a mosque or a gurdwara. Maybe we should all be fighting about where we all came from in Africa.

              For god's sake, if you want to go back...have some balls ...go all the way back.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Infoman:
                If pakistan and Pakistanis are so tolerant than why are there more Sikhs in India than in Pakistan?

                Please someone explain that to me!!!!!!
                ---.>Infoman,that is not the reason.B/c if i say that more muslim 150 million are in India than in Pakiostan is b/c India is more tolerent towards muslim than pakistan is i bet 100% of ppl. will say NO

                All this hue an cry over a freekin' building? Who cares!!!! There are worse problems affecting Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in the subcontinent. I don't care if that place was a temple or a mosque or a gurdwara. Maybe we should all be fighting about where we all came from in Africa.

                For god's sake, if you want to go back...have some balls ...go all the way back.
                xplain that to me!!!!!!


                ANSWER:---.>Infoman,that is not the reason.B/c if i say that more muslim 150 million are in India than in Pakistan is b/c India is more tolerent towards muslim than pakistan is i bet 100% of ppl. will say NO- that is not correct!There are more than that involved.Jinnah did offer Tara singh & the ...Singh ,independent khalistan type ,but sikhs chose Hindu India at that time.


                Informan ,i agree with you ,going back is not good idea ,it opens up whole can of worms that no body will benefit,We all came from adam & eve ,lets keep it that far other wise to hindus 1200 yrs is as if some body is newbee b/c they CLAIM there ancesters were 6000 yrs ago & then budhists ,were overcome by hindu themselves.Thats layers of history & to pick one layer over others is analogously speaking EARTH QUAKE indeed no less than partion figuretively & bhuj literally
                We have also have to HEAL old wounds.how long the wrong of the past keep gnawing us or would we ever shake ourself from the unfortunate incident in history &say enough is enough,b/c deep down every body suffered & to fight about quantity me suffered more than you will never end>

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Rani:
                  All Gurudawara in Pakistan are empty. Without worshipers the places of worship have no meaning. You can keep these empty buildings and tell your children that this land, at one time, also belonged to Sikhs, till we chased them out so that only muslims can live here.

                  No idea what kind of toleration Azad munna is try to portray by posting this article. I am sure he will not be happy if we chased him and his community out and kept all the empty masjids intact.
                  [This message has been edited by Rani (edited February 09, 2001).]
                  I can simply assume that Rani has never visited the Sikh Holy Shrines in Pakistan. (She might comes from sort of those burger-families not practicing their rituals!)

                  Right from 1947, the Sikhs from round the globe visit their two important gurudawaras i.e Punja Sahib and Nankana Sahib. Some Sikh families live in the relevant towns and they themselves take care of their gurudawaras. Like India, our central government or the local bodies do not poke their noses into "prabandak" affairs of these shrines.

                  About the pooja pat, it is upto you Sikhs Rani, you have to do it anyhow. Don't expect Pakistani Muslims to undertake your pooja pat as well (our apology!)

                  And if you disregard the importance of your Gurudawaras situated in Pakistan, you are suggested to write a letter to Pakistan government to demolish these sites. You might have a plea that India had the right to demolish Babri mosque due to lack of Nimazis (worshipers) overthere and so is the case with Punja Sahib and Nankana Sahib (if you realy think so!).
                  Bolay so Nihal...........!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Rani:
                    Azad munna

                    It may sound like a insensitive reason but if sikh had returned after the partition they could have claimed it just as indian muslims depite come what may still hang on with a fatalistic philosophy,'jeena yahan marna yahan'.

                    It doesn't just sound insentive it is insensitive. Sikh will claim what...? that land has been taken away from us. We would love to have that fatalist attitude which 150 million muslims have but our houses were burnt and we were pushed out.

                    Empty worship places mean nothing. Dividing countries on the basis of religion is wrong. Intolerance towards others gives rise to intolerance towards each other when others are gone.
                    MINORITIES IN A ISLAMIC STATE
                    You will always hear from some elements in the media that what ever will
                    happen to minorities
                    should Islam come to power. One cannot describe these people as being
                    nothing more than
                    ignorant. Are they unaware of the rich Islamic History, where Islam
                    ruled for 14 centuries.
                    If you are a minority, then the best place for you is to be is in an
                    Islamic State. If you are seeking
                    refuge for survival - the Islamic state is the best place for you to be
                    in. The past record of the
                    Islamic State stands as a testimony to the greatness of Islam and the
                    barbarity of man made ideas
                    and beliefs.
                    THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT THE FIRST ISLAMIC STATE ESTABLISHED BY THE
                    PROPHET (SAW) IN MEDINA HAD JEWS, CHRISTIANS AND PAGANS, HYPROCRYTES
                    AND MUSLIMS. The life, freedom of worship, etc of minorities were all
                    guaranteed and
                    specified. NO ONE WAS FORCIBLY CONVERTED. Do not forget that Allah has
                    clearly stated
                    in the Quran that THERE IS NO COMPULSION in religion.
                    Non-Muslims lived in peace and tranquillity under the protection of the
                    Islamic state for over 13
                    centuries. The ISLAMIC STATE BECAME THE SAFE HAVEN FOR OPPRESSED AND
                    PERSECUTED PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE WORLD. For example, when the JEWS WERE
                    PERSECUTED BY THE CHRISTIANS DURING THE SPANISH INQUISTION OF 1492,
                    THEY SOUGHT THE HELP OF MUSLIMS, WHO GAVE THEM SAFETY IN THE ISLAMIC
                    STATE. The Jews lived happily under the rule of the Islamic State and
                    flourished in business and
                    trade. TO THIS VERY DAY YOU CAN FIND THE DESECENDENTS OF THESE JEWS IN
                    ISTANBUL AND OTHER PARTS OF TURKEY. So even those who have the greatest
                    hatred of
                    the Muslims (i.e. the Jews) were afforded SAFETY AND PROTECTION BY THE
                    ISLAMIC
                    STATE. As they should be given, since an Islamic Sate obeys the COMMANDS
                    OF ALLAH and
                    EVEN JEWS DESPITE THEIR HATRED OF MUSLIMS HAVE A SAFE AND DIGNIFIED
                    PLACE IN THE ISLAMIC STATE.
                    Palestine was under Muslim rule for centuries, JEWS, CHRISTIANS AND
                    MUSLIMS lived
                    together peacefully under THE ISLAMIC STATE. It is the blood thirsty
                    crusaders, like the
                    Christians who committed the Spanish Inquisition of 1492, who went to
                    Palestine slaughtering
                    Muslims, Jews, and even Christians. IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE ISLAM RULED
                    THE
                    MIDDLE EAST THAT TO THIS DAY YOU CAN FIND ANCIENT CHURCHES,
                    SYNAGOGUES COMPLETELY INTACT. IT IS BECAUSE OF ISLAM THAT YOU CAN
                    STILL FIND CHRISTIANS AND JEWS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Had some other
                    ideology or
                    religion had the power to rule this region, the fate of people not
                    belonging to their beliefs would
                    have met a different fate. The attitude of non-Islamic religions or
                    ideologies towards minorities
                    can be easily judged from events in History. WHO COMITTED THE SPANISH
                    INQUISTION
                    OF 1492, ELIMINATING THE PRESENCE OF MUSLIMS IN SPAIN ? WHO COMITTED
                    THE HOLOCOUST IN EUROPE ? WHO ELIMINATED THE NATIVES OF AMERICA ?
                    WHO ELIMINATED THE NATIVES OF AUSTRALIA ? WHO OPRESSED THE PEOPLE OF
                    SOUTH AFRICA ? WHO ARE OPPRESSING THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE, WHO ARE
                    NOT EVEN SAFE IN THEIR MOSQUES AT TIMES OF PRAYER ? WHO ARE KILLING
                    MUSLIMS IN INDIA AND DESTROYING THEIR PLACES OF WORSHIP ? WHO
                    COMMITTED THE ATTROCITIES AGAINST THE MUSLIMS OF BOSINA IN THE SO
                    CALLED CIVILLISED EUROPE ?
                    Above is merely a small list of crimes committed against mankind by
                    people who do not follow
                    Islam.
                    HAD ISLAM FORCIBLY CONVERTED NON-MULSLIMS TO ISLAM, TODAY THERE
                    WOULD BE NO CHRISTIANS IN THE BALKANS, NO JEWS AND CHRISTIANS IN THE
                    MIDDLE EAST, NO HINDUS IN INDIA. Just like there are no Muslims in
                    Spain. As much as
                    the Christians were able to wipe out Muslims from Spain it would have
                    been as easy for the
                    Muslims to wipe out Hindus from India or the Jews & Christians from the
                    Middle East. THE
                    JEWS, HINDUS, CHRISTIANS AND OTHERS OWE THEIR SURVIVAL IN MANY
                    CORNERS OF THE GLOBE TO THE TOLERENCE AND JUSTICE OF ISLAM. Had Muslims
                    rejected the commands of Allah, sections of Europe (from the gates of
                    Vienna), the whole of the
                    middle-east, most part of Africa and India would have today consisted of
                    a homogenous
                    population only following the religion of Islam.
                    THERE CAN BE NO BETTER PLACE IN THE WORLD TO LIVE AS A MINORITY THAN IN
                    AN ISLAMIC STATE, RULED FULLY ACCORDING THE COMMANDS OF ALLAH. NO
                    MAN CAN VIOLATE THE RIGHTS AFFORDED TO MINORITIES BY ALLAH - THE
                    POSITION IS DEFINED AND MINORITY KNOWS HIS POSITION AND CAN DEFEND
                    HIMSELF. In man made systems the fate of minorities can shift from good
                    to bad purely on the
                    basis of a variation in human whims and desires. As an example, the
                    Muslims of India live an
                    uncertain life, anytime policies can be formulated to eliminate them.
                    What happened in Hitler's
                    Germany can repeat itself again in Europe, as long as man made ideas are
                    the basis of decision
                    making.
                    ISLAM IS AN IDEALOGY WHICH SAFEGUARDS BASIC RIGHTS FOR ALL MANKIND
                    AND NOT JUST MUSLIMS. SUPERIORITY OF ISLAM OVER ALL OTHER IDEALOGIES
                    IS ONLY NATURAL AFTERALL ISLAM IS THE IDEALOGY OF THE CREATOR. THE
                    CREATED CAN NEVER MATCH THE GREATNESS AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE
                    CREATOR.

                    ------------------

                    "jo kHat main kahte they apni jaan mujhko
                    aaj kHat likhne main unki jaan jaati hai .....

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Mr Xtreme:
                      I am sure Rani will be very pleased to hear of the tolerant attitude of Pakistanis towards the sikh places of worship in Pakistan as compared to Ayodhya and the storming of the Golden Temple in India.
                      there are more mosques gurdwaras churches
                      and village gods tribal religens temples
                      in india than pakistan .

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by rvikz:
                        there are more mosques gurdwaras churches
                        and village gods tribal religens temples
                        in india than pakistan .
                        what an interesting comment to make..
                        would it be because the population of india is 8 to 10 times that of Pakistan?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Rani,

                          your hatred of muslims runs so deep that you cannot bear to see them act with the tolerance that is missing in Hindutvastan.

                          Not all sikhs are like you though. In fact I don't know of any other Hindutva sikhs so you are pretty much unique. Here is what a more open-minded sikh thinks about this issue:

                          The last word must belong to the distinguished educationist Dr. Amrik
                          Singh: "The interesting thing is that even after 1947, when there is
                          hardly anyone to visit the gurdwara, the character of that building has
                          not been changed and it has not been conver ted into a mosque. If this
                          can happen in Pakistan, which according to its constitution is described
                          as an Islamic state, can India, which describes itself as a secular
                          state, act differently? How does one deal with an issue when faith is
                          put forward as t he governing principle in place of reason? If that
                          contention were to be accepted, it would be the end of civilised
                          governance."


                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X