Religious differences break out again

[KS]

@vsdoc:
Contrary to the Razakar color painted on the MIM, the party's electoral politics actually helped the Muslims there move towards the Indian union. Here's a little history.
All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Their leaders have been well-educated. After being banned for their role in Hyderabad's independence war, they got reincarnated by well-educated men who made the party constitution compatible with India's constitution.

Is that why they mourn the liberation of Hyderabad as a black day every year ? Go read the articles in Twocircles.net and Siasat to know their mentality. Most of them still think they live in Nizam's Hyderabad and not in India's hyderabad.

Since BJP begain losing their power in the city, it became peaceful.

BJP never had power in Hyderabad to start with. And they are totally within their democratic right to try expand their reach where they deem fit.

But there are people who feel the muslims have a free hand (There are some inconveniences like you cannot sport a saffron flag in some places of old city, especially on the roads leading to mosques. There may be bigger issues but they did not come up in the media so much) and want BJP to come back to give a balance. So if you ask me, in the old city BJP's comeback is dangerous.

How is 'giving a balance' harmful ? Infact it brings a de-facto peace between the communities as each know there is bound to be a retaliation if they attack the other. Also going by that logic should not Muslim parties which seek to give a balance overall be deemed dangerous ?

The funny thing is that religious zealots on both sides agree on their belief about the monument; that the building was built for religious reasons. One side then has a reason to protect it and the other to harm it.

No one wants to harm the Char Minar. Why are you spreading baseless propaganda here ? Tell me one Hindu Organization that has demanded that Char Minar be razed down and a bhavya mandir be built in its place ? The only demand of the Hindus is they be let to worship in their temple. If you have a problem with it, sorry nothing can be done about that. This is India and not Pakistan.

 

[rubyjackass]

I have never been presumptuous in assuming that the temple was indeed older than Char Minar. I have always stated that the temple had been place before the law preventing building of structures within 100 m was in place and hence it is legal. It is you who is asserting dismissively that there was no temple when the matter is sub-judice.

Well fine, take your 100m technicality. 'I saw some pictures and there was no temple or idol'. I don't need a court's permission to say this.

So if start destroying even legal temples just because they are 'near' Islamic structures then where does it stop ? What is the difference between Aurangazeb's mughal empire and secular India then ?

The attribute that makes Charminar important is its historic importance, not its religious nature.

Thats what I said - there can be 'n' number of reasonable interpretations and the final interpretation rests with the court. And as the high court ruling, the legality of the temple is NOT in question. SO you need to revisit your assumptions and presumptions.

Well, I think the court was wrong.

How can it be a secular structure if they call it Masjid-e-charminar ?

Again, the attribute that makes Charminar important is its historic importance, not its religious nature. There are various stories regarding the nature of Charminar. My argument does not depend on the fact that it is secular.

The temple was not expanded. Give rest to that propaganda. What was done was the tarpaulin which covered the temple got old and was being changed. Also for the upcoming Deepavali season some decorations were being made. No expansion whatsoever was made. And the worshippers who come to the temple are in no way harming the temple unless ofcourse the Carbon dioxide they exhale is damaging the structure.

I was paraphrasing what MIM said. I repeated: I am interested in the protection of the historical monument. I wish all well for the temple's prominence, it may draw even more huge crowds than Charminar for reasons other than historical. Just take it somewhere else.

So how does this offering namaz gel with your claim that Char Minar is a secular monument ? And how can one offer Namaz without touching the structure ? And what damage can the worshippers coming to a temple which is not even in physical contact with the structure do which will not be done by the namazees who do that on top of the structure ?

My stand here was a matter of practicality. As long as visitors are allowed inside the monument, you cannot stop them from thinking of God inside their mind. There can always be a restriction on time spent by visitors or some such practical regulation inside Charminar.

That is what I said by, "let us reserve our judgement on the issue". And moreover the editorial in Hindu has been panned even by the APCC president Niranjan saying it was false and fabricated.

As I said, I saw pictures. And how is the APCC president more informed than me? Does he cite any sources? On the other hand, apart from the Hindu's retouched pic, many other pics came out later confirming the fact.

And what I meant by "the Indian state is also responsible for that" is that by supressing real history and whitewashing many things it enables the rise of spurious, exaggerated versions that defeat the very purpose of that whitewashing in the first place.

Yes, I do not believe in the secular story of Hyderabad. Some of them are artificially made to make it appear like Muslims and Hindus had lived together like friends throughout. There was an uneasy peace and there were periods of bloodshed. I think honest research should be made into the history of the city and that should be taught as lessons to our children. I agree with your statement. But that does not change my argument about the current incident.

 

[rubyjackass]

What is 'rational' - that depends on the court and not on you or me. So as per law, the temple is completely legal unless the court rules otherwise and the court has NOT ruled otherwise and has stated very clearly the legality of the temple is NOT in question.

Agree. The legality is upto the court. I just said what sounded reasonable for me. The legality of the temple is not yet established. The court just said the temple has been there for a long time. No time was specified and the ruling was meant to establish a status quo.

What you would want to believe or not is not my problem sir. But the fact of the matter is the Owaisi clan is top rated bigoted blood chain who still have that Razakar streak in them. And what Hyderabad riots ? The Owaisis and MIM have been the cause for most riots in Hyderabad including the one in 90s and in '79.

Of course, they were part of the riots. But I will disagree if you say they were the only party involved.

 

[KS]

Well fine, take your 100m technicality. 'I saw some pictures and there was no temple or idol'. I don't need a court's permission to say this.

The argument of the Hindu orgs that claim that the temple is much older is not based on the outer temple structure but the worshipping of the idol on a small shilakaram. Even they agree that the outer temple came much later. And none of this takes away the fact that even the temple as a whole existed before the 100m rule came about.

The attribute that makes Charminar important is its historic importance, not its religious nature.

But the current issue is very much religious motivated than by history.

Well, I think the court was wrong.

Your thinking does not take away the legality of the temple as affirmed by the court. Many Hindus think the mosques in Kashi and Mathura are illegal structures. But still it does not mean such.

I was paraphrasing what MIM said. I repeated: I am interested in the protection of the historical monument. I wish all well for the temple's prominence, it may draw even more huge crowds than Charminar for reasons other than historical. Just take it somewhere else.

Then you are being partisan in your argument by taking MIM's stand and not a neutral perspective as you wish to project. The temple is going nowhere since it does not violate any law of the land. MIM, please learn to live with it.

My stand here was a matter of practicality. As long as visitors are allowed inside the monument, you cannot stop them from thinking of God inside their mind. There can always be a restriction on time spent by visitors or some such practical regulation inside Charminar.

They can be stopped from expressing their thoughts as actions though.

As I said, I saw pictures. And how is the APCC president more informed than me? Does he cite any sources? On the other hand, apart from the Hindu's retouched pic, many other pics came out later confirming the fact.

I have explained that before. The outer structure of the temple came later and the idol on a small shilakaram had been there much earlier as per the claims of the Hindu orgs. So such small idols cant be seen from a long shot with those dinosaur age cameras.

 

[rubyjackass]

This is the High Court Order on the issue and it is categorically stated that the temple had been there for a very long time and the court is clear that unless the temple structure does not touch the Char Minar there is no problem as of now. The Temple Committe have also given in writing that they dont plan on any expansion. Fair enough.

The question of legality of the temple was not taken up by the court. In any case the damage was already done in letting a temple be built there. The first blame obviously lies on the authorities blind to the construction at that time. I still maintain that the temple was an encroachment.

 

[KS]

Agree. The legality is upto the court. I just said what sounded reasonable for me.The legality of the temple is not yet established. The court just said the temple has been there for a long time. No time was specified and the ruling was meant to establish a status quo.

Just like its innocent until proven guilty, its legal unless otherwise stated. And as of now, the temple is legal.

Of course, they were part of the riots. But I will disagree if you say they were the only party involved.

They were the cause of the riots. Pray tell me, what reason has the MIM got to riot just because some Islamic radicals took seizure of kaaba ? And if they start riots, there is bound to be a retaliation.

The question of legality of the temple was not taken up by the court. In any case the damage was already done in letting a temple be built there. The first blame obviously lies on the authorities blind to the construction at that time. I still maintain that the temple was an encroachment.

Lol how can it be an encroachment when the law making it an encroachment was not there when it was being 'encroached' ? Just because you think so...

 

[rubyjackass]

Is that why they mourn the liberation of Hyderabad as a black day every year ? Go read the articles in Twocircles.net and Siasat to know their mentality. Most of them still think they live in Nizam's Hyderabad and not in India's hyderabad.

They cannot be stopped from mourning the liberation of Hyderabad. I agree that is sick, but people with wet dreams of Islamic riyasat should be allowed to have them. I don't think MIM was part of the 'Black day' celebrations. Do you have any sources?

BJP never had power in Hyderabad to start with. And they are totally within their democratic right to try expand their reach where they deem fit.

I agree with both.

How is 'giving a balance' harmful ? Infact it brings a de-facto peace between the communities as each know there is bound to be a retaliation if they attack the other. Also going by that logic should not Muslim parties which seek to give a balance overall be deemed dangerous ?

As I said, any effort by a party to move to the left or centre is good. But when there is such a 'balance' you are talking about, both populations will get pushed to the extreme right. Unfortunately there is only one left, but many rights.
Your balance sounds like the 'hostage theory' thought of by none other that Muhammad-Ali-Jinnah. It is just a molotov cocktail.

No one wants to harm the Char Minar. Why are you spreading baseless propaganda here ? Tell me one Hindu Organization that has demanded that Char Minar be razed down and a bhavya mandir be built in its place ? The only demand of the Hindus is they be let to worship in their temple. If you have a problem with it, sorry nothing can be done about that. This is India and not Pakistan.

Sorry for the bad use of word. I should have used the word 'malice', may be. Construction of a temple is an old trick in the book. In any case, I have no intention to fight in the streets for what I think should be done. In the end, the issue will be decided by the courts if there is no compromise.

I am just throwing an idea of compromise in the air. The exact position of the temple is not an issue for Hindus. So why not move it some place nearby but farther from Charminar. Besides the photos show that there was no idol near where the temple is currently. So it is a fair compromise.

 

[rubyjackass]

The argument of the Hindu orgs that claim that the temple is much older is not based on the outer temple structure but the worshipping of the idol on a small shilakaram. Even they agree that the outer temple came much later. And none of this takes away the fact that even the temple as a whole existed before the 100m rule came about.

Open your eyes. Look at the pictures. There was no shilakaram at the place where the temple is currently.

But the current issue is very much religious motivated than by history.
Your thinking does not take away the legality of the temple as affirmed by the court. Many Hindus think the mosques in Kashi and Mathura are illegal structures. But still it does not mean such.

Then you are being partisan in your argument by taking MIM's stand and not a neutral perspective as you wish to project. The temple is going nowhere since it does not violate any law of the land. MIM, please learn to live with it.

I told you what MIM's position is and said that is very close to my position. The temple itself is too close to the monument. Add to it the festival decoration. Well, for the right wing, neutral can seem to be partisan.

They can be stopped from expressing their thoughts as actions though.

Fine. Have guards paid to stop people from kneeling.

I have explained that before. The outer structure of the temple came later and the idol on a small shilakaram had been there much earlier as per the claims of the Hindu orgs. So such small idols cant be seen from a long shot with those dinosaur age cameras.

Again, open your eyes. Look at the pictures. There was no shilakaram at the place where the temple is currently. Small idols will come up as at least black specks on a plane platform.

 

[rubyjackass]

They were the cause of the riots. Pray tell me, what reason has the MIM got to riot just because some Islamic radicals took seizure of kaaba ? And if they start riots, there is bound to be a retaliation.

What do you want me to say? Ok Muslims started the Kaaba riot. But great to know your stand on your solution to riots.

Lol how can it be an encroachment when the law making it an encroachment was not there when it was being 'encroached' ? Just because you think so...

The temple was 10 ft from Charminar and was built after about 1960, by which time there was a law prohibiting any construction near monuments of national importance. I will rest my case here.

Just like its innocent until proven guilty, its legal unless otherwise stated. And as of now, the temple is legal.

Thanks. Finally, we came to the point where your argument lies.

 

[Silverblaze]

Religion must be kept out of politics.

 

[rubyjackass]

This article comprehensively covers the story.
Tehelka - India's Independent Weekly News Magazine

Not another mosque-temple tinderbox

The Charminar-Bhagyalaxmi temple row in Hyderabad could escalate into an Ayodhya-like situation if the powers that be do not cease from their polarising antics

By Rosina Nasir


In 1970, the ASI allowed a kum-kum sprinkled stone on the southeast corner of Charminar in Hyderabad to be converted into a Bhagya Laxmi temple.

It seems in secular India, encroachment and squatting to build illegal religious structures in public spaces are still quite rampant. Religion may be a private affair, but vested interests know well how to manipulate it in public spaces. By the time the administration or the state machinery takes cognizance, the event has already snowballed into a political crisis, now with fears of polarisation thrown in. Such polarisation was precisely what happened in Ayodhya, resulting in the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Faizabad district, Uttar Pradesh.


ALSO READ

Archaeology and tourism have become handmaidens of Hindutva
We continue to feed our communal fires

The Kafka Project
And now it seems we could be bracing for another such communal breakdown. Tension prevailed a few days before Diwali when the Bhagayalaxmi temple abutting the historic Charminar in Hyderabad, caused a flare-up in the old city due to some temporary structure that was erected around it.

Just like the Ayodhya case, here too, the temple authority is insisting that the temple is as old as the 16th century monument, a claim refuted by locals, historians and the Archeological Survey of India. The locals are divided on how the temple came into existence. Some believe during the Qutub Shahi dynasty, a stone was erected to mark the end of a plague, while some say the stone was installed to maintain distance between the Charminar and vehicles on the road. Both views, however, are in agreement that the stone gradually became an auspicious entity, was replaced by a picture of a goddess and eventually, an idol of Laxmi. The extensions got actualised over time wherein everything, from the decorative materials to the picture of Gowalkar (an RSS protégé) at the door became properties of the temple. Another aspect that is reminiscent of Ayodhya is that these renovations and extensions were happening surreptitiously in the night. Remember that in Ayodhya, a Hindu sect (Nirmohis), had come up with the temple-demolition and mosque–construction story and juxtaposed the “miraculous appearance of Ram” theory to get two things done: the installation of idols inside the mosque at night, and second, getting permission for opening the shrine’s lock and to worship on the basis of “comparative user” principle (namely, Muslims were praying less often than Hindus in the disputed structure before demolition).

The Archeological Survey of India (ASI), custodian of the Charminar monument, had denied any permission for construction around the temple. A show-cause notice was issued by the ASI to the temple management for some construction done in August 2012. When neither the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation nor the ASI had issued any permits, it’s hard to believe that the police, with a police station adjacent to the monument, was oblivious of this construction. Interestingly, prayers at any protected heritage monument are categorized as “illegal”. Earlier too, a request by a Muslim group to perform prayers at the historic mosque in the terrace of Charminar had been rejected by the ASI. Logically, the question now is why are prayers at the Bhagaylaxmi temple not being connoted as illegal? Why is the ASI using one yardstick for the Muslim minority and the other for the Hindu majority? It appears that if the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) had not reacted to this incident and filed a petition seeking a stay-order on further construction by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, a full-fledged temple would have been constructed. Or was all of this crafted to polarise communities before an election? The unpleasant incident at Ayodhya and the recent commotion at Charminar, both exhibit the assertion of the religious aspiration of the dominant majority, either by crafting a space within or next to the past-constructed structures. Will such temple-construction be limited to monuments erected by Muslim rulers only? Or will we see temples coming up next to the Parliament, India Gate, St Thomas Cathedral, Jama Masjid, Humayun Tomb, Red Fort, Fatehpur Sikri and so forth?

The area surrounding Charminar has a dense Muslim population comprising lower middle class population. The Bhagayalaxmi temple has been around for at least a few decades, without any strife between Hindu and Muslim communities, which is exemplary. So why has it suddenly become a hot-spot for potential rioting? Was the concrete structure of the temple turned from temporary to permanent overnight? Is the MIM’s withdrawal of support to the UPA-II and the Congress government in Andhra Pradesh by its president Mohd Owaisi mere political drama to ignite and nurture communal emotions? Why had he not noticed this development at the Charminar before? After the order of the High Court to maintain a status quo on 30 October, what prompted further violence? The withdrawal of support after a warning of communal tension by the MIM is being considered as blackmailing Chief Minister Kiran Kumar. Interestingly, Reddy had turned down Owaisi’s plea on two different occasions: first, in clearing a three-acre plot at the Mahavir Hospital in the AC Guards area of Hyderabad whose 30-year lease period ended in 2007, and second, to hand over possession of the prime property to the Deccan College of Medical Sciences, run by Owaisi’s family. Many feel Owaisi just wants to draw political mileage from the temple row. Alternately, the temple controversy could also be construed as a smart move for the MIM to snap ties with the Congress and join the YSR Congress for the upcoming elections.

The temple issue of Ayodhya, importantly, was the sole crucial aspect that catapulted a small fry BJP into a national party – from just two seats in 1984 to 85 seats in 1989. Going by that, the BJP has the potential to capitalise on the Charminar-temple controversy to establish itself in Andhra Pradesh electoral politics. The MIM seems to be following what the Congress was doing to Muslims – garnering votes by inculcating the fear psychosis of the Hindu extremist, by projecting itself as the lone savior of Muslims.

Power tussle aside, one cannot but help think all of this could be the Congress’ strategy to divert attention from the Telangana issue, and create a chance to appease Muslims. Or at the least, it could be a plot by YSR Congress in collusion with MIM to attract Muslim votes in the next election.

Major Parties Performance in the Lok Sabha Elections

Andhra Pradesh (42 seats) Uttar Pradesh (85 seats) AllIndia(543 seats)
Year BJP INC TDP AIMIM BJP INC JD BSP SP BJP INC CPM Others
1984 1 6 30 -- 0 83 -- -- -- 2 404 22
1989 0 39 2 1 8 15 54 2 -- 85 197 33 143(JD)
1991 1 25 13 1 51 5 22 1 -- 120 232 35 59(JD)
1996 0 22 16 1 52 5 2 6 -- 161 140 32 46(JD)
1998 4 22 12 1 57 0 0 4 20 182 141 32
1999 7 5 29 1 29 10 0 14 26 182 114 33
2004 0 29 5 1 10 9 19 35 138 145 43 19 (BSP)
TDP=Telugu Desam Party, INC= Indian National Congress, BJP=Bharatiya Janata Party, AIMIM=All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen, JD=Janata Dal, SP=Samajwadi Party, BSP=Bahujan Samaj Party, CPM=Communist Party of India (Marxist).
Source: Election Commission of India

(The views expressed are the writer’s own)

Roseena Nasir is Assistant Professor, CSSEIP, UoH

@Joe Shearer , @vsdoc, @KS

 

[zaxcollix]

Religion must be kept out of politics.

Ironic coming from a citizen of a nation which was formed for Religious reasons.