When a Supreme Court Bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra took up the Ayodhya dispute, it made it clear that the Bench would consider only the issue of ownership of the disputed land, and would steer clear of matters of faith. That said, faith remains at the core of the conflict. The pro-temple lobby maintains that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site, that the Babri mosque was built on the ruins of a temple, and that nothing but a grand Ram temple can come up there. Its rivals not only lay claim over land but also contest the belief of the deity being born at the site.
The claim over the disputed plot of land can be decided by the apex court, and the presence of a temple before a mosque came up, can be determined scientifically. In fact, there are findings of the Archaeological Survey of India, which had extensively conducted excavations following court orders, that establish the widely-held belief of a temple in existence before it was razed to the ground for the so-called Babri mosque to come up. But how is one to determine the faith of millions of Hindus that Lord Ram was born exactly there — at what is referred to as the Ram Janmabhoomi Sthal? A participant in one of the many television shows on the subject challenged the pro-temple groups to “prove” that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site. There is of course no scientific method of doing so, just as there is no way to prove the belief, in similar cases, of millions of those belonging to other faiths. It is, therefore, patently absurd to be selective in questioning the Hindu faith.
Take the case of Temple Mount in the old city of Jerusalem. The flat plaza is dominated by three structures: The Al Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, and the Dome of the Chain. According to the Bible, the Jewish temples stood on Temple Mount, the first of which had been constructed by King Solomon in 957 BCE. Sunni Muslims believe it was not just the location of Prophet Muhammad’s journey to Jerusalem but also his ascent to heaven. This makes the Temple Mount the third holiest site for Muslims, after Mecca and Medina. With both sides sticking to their claims, the place has become for centuries a point of severe conflict between the Muslim world and the Jews.
There is no scientific evidence of the Prophet ascending to Heaven from Temple Mount. But it’s a belief that millions of Muslims worldwide hold. One has not heard of scholars, certainly not Muslim academics but also not from other faiths, who demand scientific evidence of Lord Ram’s birth at the disputed site in Ayodhya, challenge this centuries-old belief.
Then there is the issue of the birthplace of Jesus Christ. The Bible is clear enough: Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Both Mathew 2 and Luke 2 mention that Jesus’s birthplace is Bethlehem in Judea. But recent Biblical scholars have raised doubts. If indeed Jesus was born there, how is it that he is referred to as a Nazorean (giving rise to the possibility that he had been born in Nazareth) or a Galilean throughout the New Testament? Even the Gospels do not, outside of the narratives that relate to an infant Jesus, mention his birthplace as Bethlehem. But, despite such doubts raised by experts, the conventional faith holds that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that is how it stands, and is celebrated, today.
There are many other issues relating to religion and faith that cannot be rationally or scientifically explained, but they are not dismissed, and cannot be dismissed. Why is there, then, such a hue and cry over the claim of Hindus that the disputed site in Ayodhya is Lord Ram’s birthplace? Stories of religion are full of fantastic happenings that feature their respective icons — stories that may not just appear unbelievable today but are also difficult to rationally explain. Rationalists in India love to question, even ridicule, the beliefs of Hindus, but they do not apply similar yardsticks to the beliefs of other faiths. A Leftist politician can appear on national television and make fun of Hindus revering a ‘stone’ in the form of a Shiv Linga, but he will not dare to take potshots at the minority community’s belief in angels, in the process of sacred text dictated to a prophet by an invisible person somewhere in heaven — text which is then inscribed on stone slabs over a period of time.
The bottom line is: Matters of faith are best left alone, so long as they do not breach the law of the land or the Constitution. If the Hindus believe that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site in Ayodhya, that belief ought to be respected.
Discussion about this post