Originally posted by: krystal_watz
Not the most appropriate place, but couldn't resist this:
An excerpt from a history professor's FB post. Read and respond accordingly. 😆
Romila Thapar on The Verdict on Ayodhya
[The Hindu, 2 October 2010]
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 froa 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."
Now that you read it, disagree in a witty manner. 😛
P.S. You may forego this task if you wish to.
good stuff, is she a Literature professor? Too bad because she gets everything other than the english all wrong.😆
cultural value: of course, we do know that the magical mystery cultural tour made pee-stops there, or don't we?
historical legacy: yeah sure, let's keep other structures standing too then- Lenin's, Hitler's, Saddam's. They are pretty historical too. Whether it was imposing jaziya on non-believers, destroying institutions of higher learning, or keeping women in purdah chained to medieval times, that era was not exactly a period of India Shining. So rather than eulogize one symbol of that era, she should join us in making new history we can actually be proud of. It's called evolution.
other point is that certain sentiments existed far before that structure was ever constructed. Those sentiments are also a part of our legacy, as much as any structure. For someone to have built that structure 500 years ago at the birthplace of what would have been believed to be Lord Ram's birthplace was wrong to say the least. It's high time someone righted that wrong, and consigned that bad history to the dustbins of history.
evidence: the ASI believes that there was a temple at that place before, but of course the author would dispute that. Nothing but the smoking gun for her. Madam forgets that in our country, people can't even find evidence the next day,😆 forget about ravages of time over the centuries. Even today, they keep digging and finding ruins in Rome, and that's when their entire tourism industry depends on it.
law- professor whines that the courts ruled in favor of the temple just because of beliefs. Duh, even if that were the case - and it is not - the entire foundation of law is based on societal beliefs and values, common sense and norms. She also quibbles with people having beliefs on one hand, and yet wanting us to buy into her abstract notions like legacy and historical value. She should try being consistent instead of bringing in gobbledygook just to impress people.😆
precedence- how clever. The way she puts it, you'd think this ruling will set off a huge land-grabbing rush😆, with 100s of places waiting to be claimed on the basis of divine birthplace. Can she specify other places that have such claim as this one? She's insulting people by even trying that angle.
see we can either place value on religious sentiments or disregard them. If we disregard sentiments, then why did tearing down that structure bother anyone? For land value? Sure, if it's another Nariman Point but then someone forgot to tell the real estate guys😆. So basically if anyone's needing a fuller understanding of things, it's she. We toh totally understand. 😆