AN INSIGHT INTO THE AYODHYA DISPUTE
Welcome address -Dr. PADMA SUBRAHMANYAM
Introduction By Vigil
The invincible Abode of Dharma -Pujyashri Vishwesha Theertha Swamiji,Sri Pejawar Mutt,Udipi
Historical and Archeological Claim-Shri Devandra Swaroop,Historian ,Member , ICHR
Political and Cultural Assertion-Shri S.Gurumurthy , Political Commentator and Columnist
Religious Identity-Pujyasri Swami Dayananda Saraswathi,President ,Hindu Dharma Rakshana Samithi
Welcome Address by
Dr. PADMA SUBRAHMANYAM
The one name that is equal to a thousand names of the Lord is that of Srirama. Srirama Rama Ramethi Rame raame manorame. Sahasranama tathulyam Rama naama varanane. Paramapujya Shri Pejawar Swamiji, Paramapujya Shri Dayananda Swami ji, respected Shri Gurumurthy ji, Respected Shri Devendra Swaroop ji and the Respected assembly of Rama bhaktas, on behalf of ‘Vigil’ and the Hindu Dharma Rakshana Samithi, I have great pleasure to reverentially welcome all of you for this meeting on Ayodhya to provide an insight into its various facets.
There are some issues which need attention in Time amd some others which need attention always and hence beyond Time. Ayodhya is a timeless issue. We have to live in Time and Timelessness as far as Ayodhya is concerned. Ayodhya bothers the core of our faith and culture of timeless value. In fact, this issue transcends space and pricks the very psyche of every Hindu around the world, traditionally Rama is a household name in many parts of Asia and the culture of many nations is steeped in the life of Srirama and the Ramayana even when the people practice other religions. For example, when the Pakistani President Ayub Khan visited Indonesia, the official reception included a performance of the Ramayana by a hundred Indonesian artists. The Pakistani President was puzzled and he asked the Indonesian President Mr.Suharto, if he were in India or Indonesia. President Suharto answered him by saying “we follow Islam for religion and Hinduism for culture”.
Several Indonesian artists, all of them Muslims, I know have been performing the Ramayanam for decades, and very much like our own Sivaji Ganesan there is this Indonesian thespian, Rama Sudarshano. He has been performing the role of Srirama for at least forty years. In fact there are numerous countries from Egypt to Indonesia where the ruling dynasties are named after Rama. Hindu culture is nothing if it is devoid of the Ramayana. Music, sculpture, painting, dance, literature, classical or folk or tribal, we need Ramabhakthi for all expression. I am perhaps the only classical dancer who had the bhagya to dance inside the Rama shrine at Ayodhya way back in the eighties before the issue became a prestige issue. In fact, there were several Muslims among the audience. In fact, more than eighty percent of the people gathered there were Muslims as I danced to some of the verses from the Ramayana.
I wish and prey that it can happen again. Srirama is at the core of our culture, religion and heritage and it is ironic that Ayodhya, which means a place where there is no yudhha or war, is today at the center of a different kind of war. It has really deeply ruptured the Hindu heart through an unwarranted insult to our faith, heritage, culture and spirit. When ‘Vigil’ approached me and requested me to contact both Pujya Swami jis, I must say, both of them readily accepted and I could see how concerned they are about the issue and how both of them are keen to somehow resolve this issue and bring back peace to all of us – Hindus and Muslims. Both Swamijis have not only been the traditional custodians and propagators of their respective philosophies of Advaita and Dvaita, they are one in protecting the roots of our Dharma – the Vedas. It is the Vedas which have given birth to several branches of Vedanta, Agama, Ithihasa, Purana, and our very way of life. On behalf of all of us I welcome both of them with profound reverence. I also welcome Shri Devendra Swaroop who has been so gracious as to come here all the way from Delhi and Shri Gurumurthy. I have pleasure in welcoming members of the media who have gathered here in such large numbers for this rare event for satisfying our intellect, emotion and spirit through the speakers of great renown. Let me conclude by saying that this meeting is aimed at not just oration on Ayodhya but to trigger some of us into action. Thank you all for being here today.
INTRODUCTION BY ‘VIGIL’
I will now try to place before you, to the best of my ability, my analysis of the Supreme Court Order of 1994 on a case challenging the Acquisition of Certain Areas in Ayodhya Act. Initially I had planned a different kind of introduction but when I read through the compilation ‘Vigil’ had made of articles on this judgement, copies of which you all have with you today, I found that even among Hindu scholars, there is no uniformity of perception or understanding of this judgement. I therefore decided to study the judgement myself and I hope Shri Gurumurthy who will be touching upon the legal dimensions of the dispute, will respond to some of the points I will be making today and I hope at a later date to interact with Shri Arvind Datar, Senior Advocate in the Madras High Court and who is also present today, on the same issues.
The Supreme Court judgement of 1994 was not a unanimous judgement. It was a split verdict – 3-2. I wish to divide my talk into three parts, what the majority verdict says, what the minority verdict says and why is it that we all slept through seven long years. This judgement is based not just on the Act acquiring all this land. This judgement is based on three factors – the Act, the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Act and the Presidential Reference made on the very same day to the Apex Court under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution by the President Dr..Shankar Dayal Sharma. Now the whole hooha seems to be, the VHP wants to perform puja on land which it claims belongs to the VHP and the Ramajanmabhoomi Nyas (RJN), or thr RJN and other Hindus. It wants to perform puja on what is known as ‘undisputed land’, meaning there are no contestants, no Muslim contestants to the bits and pieces of the land you see on the map. No Muslim has come forward to contest the claim that except for the disputed site, the rest belongs to Hindus and the RJN.
The VHP wanted to perform puja on this undisputed land which even otherwise belongs to it. And there was a hue and cry demanding that the VHP must stick to the court order of 1994 maintaining status quo. And when the VHP made the demand that the land belonging to it must now be returned to it, or else that it must be allowed to perform the puja on the land over which there is no dispute, one Mohammed Aslam Bhure filed a case before the Supreme Court pleading that the VHP not be allowed to perform the puja on any part of the land that had been acquired by the Act. This is what happened in recent times and the March 13 judgement as I see it, was in two parts. It said the VHP cannot perform puja in any part of the land, disputed or undisputed, and also said that the central government, having acquired this land for a purpose, now cannot hand over any part of the land to any body or group.
Now why did the Supreme Court feel compelled to deliver this interim order? The Statement of Objects and Reasons for passing this Act by the Narasimha Rao government, one of the reasons cited by it is that this is a long-pending dispute which is creating bad blood between the two communities, we intend to resolve it, and we are acquiring this land for the purpose of building a temple, a mosque, a library, a museum and other amenities. This is not a part of the Act but is a part of the Statement of Objects and Reasons cited by the government for acquiring the land. This Statement of Objects and Reasons is also not a part of the Ordinance. The Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution Dr.Shankar Dayal Sharma requested the Supreme Court to go into the issue of whether a temple or any other Hindu religious structure had existed on the site before the mosque came up there. This was the Presidential Reference.
The judgement of 1994 is thus based on the Act, the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Presidential Reference. Now one thing which none of the writers who have analysed this judgement have touched upon, is that which struck me as being the most pertinent for discussion, and the most important step taken to resolve the issue. Shri Narasimha Rao along with sending the Presidential Reference to the Apex Court through the office of the President, also abated all pending suits to the site. Which means all cases with regard to the site, pending before all Courts, stood abated. And the Presidential Reference, in my opinion was a brilliant move by Shri Narasimha Rao to ultimately give the Hindus some hope to see some ray of light. Because the Solicitor-general, on behalf of the Government of India gave a written assurance to the Supreme Court that – we may believe a government or not believe in its assurances, we may believe a political party or not, but a written assurance given by a government to the Supreme Court with regard to a course of action, is binding upon all successive governments unless otherwise challenged or retracted by Parliament. Am I right, Mr. Datar? Thus the GOI gave a written assurance to the Supreme Court stating, we request you to go into the Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution decide if a Hindu religious structure existed prior to the mosque and if it had been brought down for the purpose of raising the mosque, and if the Supreme Court were to say, ‘Yes’ then this government is committed to building a temple on the site; but if the Apex Courts findings went in favour of the Muslims saying that No, there was no temple or any other Hindu religious structure on the site, ten this government is committed to rebuilding the mosque on the same spot. This was the assurance given by the GOI through the Solicitor-general to the Supreme Court.
The judges and the judiciary are ready to pontificate, at the drop of the hat on the VHP, the bureaucracy, the politicians, they pontificate to us on anything and everything but now just see, they have put the Hindus into a loop within a loop within a loop. Title to the disputed site is pending before the Courts for nearly a century now. On what basis are the Courts going to decide on the title to the disputed site? They have to decide the cases? On what basis? Once the so-called mosque came down on the 6th of December, irrefutable archeological evidence is available as attested to not by the saffron historians, and all of you are present today in the company of saffron sanyasis, saffron columnist, a saffron historian at a function organized by a saffron organization. The fact that a Hindu temple of the 12 th century dedicated to Lord Vishnu has been confirmed by no less a personage than the late Shri Ajoya Mitra Shastry and reiterated by Shri B.B.Lal that indeed a temple had stood upon the site before the mosque up on the very spot. So if the Supreme Court had gone into the Presidential Reference, I have no doubts in my mind, the Supreme Court would have been compelled to have delivered a verdict in favour of the Hindus. Narasimha Rao knew this. Narasimha Rao knew this. Which is why he sent in the Special reference under Article 143. And Narasimha Rao abated all pending suits before the judiciary with regard to the site.
Now the majority verdict does not go into the Presidential Reference at all. What it says is, by denying the parties to the dispute recourse to the law, you are denying them a right guaranteed under the Constitution, the Government of India cannot abate pending suits, all the suits stand revived, and so therefore the Presidential Reference is “superfluous and unnecessary”. This is the judgement by the majority. Look at the point he is making. “ You are denying them recourse to law”. Now the judiciary is the embodiment of the law. Now if the judiciary had gone into the Presidential Reference, we would still have been looking for a solution within the framework of the law. The judiciary dare not go into this because the proof is staring them in the face and they do want the onus of rendering a verdict in favour of the Hindus. Because anything said or done in favour of the Hindus is to be labeled ‘communal’ or to be accused of threatening the ‘secular fiber’. It is therefore convenient to revive all suits because now the case can drag on for another fifty years and the courts do not have to deliver any lasting judgement.
Now the minority verdict. The minority verdict strikes down the acquisition completely. And says we will not answer the Presidential Reference because, and hold your breath and don’t laugh any of you, the judiciary is a secular mechanism and we cannot render a judgement which will favour one community over another. Now when they go into the question of the disputed site, surely the verdict they will render has to be in favour of one community or the other? Unless it doesn’t intend to deliver this judgement at all, a conclusion all of us are coming to. So the majority verdict says revive the suits, we will not even consider the Presidential Reference. The minority verdict says, strike down the acquisition but we will still not answer the Presidential Reference.
Secondly, the Act acquiring the undisputed land specifies that if the government so desires, it may hand over part or the whole of this land to any body or Trust constituted after the commencement of this Act. Which means it cannot be handed over to the VHP or the RJN. It can be handed over, if the government decides, to a body or Trust constituted after 7-1-1993. And it will not be handed over unconditionally, it will be handed over by the government only with conditions and stipulations. Therefore how can the VHP or the RJN demand that the undisputed land be handed over to them when the Act specifically states that it cannot be handed over (by implication) to any body or Trust which existed before the commencement of this Act? Now why did the VHP or the RJN not constitute themselves into a new body or Trust on the eighth of January 1993 and start exerting pressure on the government to return the land acquired under the Act? We did not do that. We did not challenge the Statement of Objects and Reasons which stated that the government intends to build a mosque, a temple, a library and so on and so forth? The government has forcibly acquired land belonging to the RJN and other Hindus and says it will build a mosque, a temple and a library and other amenities. We did not challenge this absurdity. We also did not exert pressure on the government to expedite the process of demarcating the land required for Muslims to have access to the disputed site if and when the Courts decided the title to the disputed site in their favour. We did not do any of these things. The fault lies with us too for having slept for seven years since the judgement was delivered in 1994. We have not studied the nuances of the judgement. We did not challenge even its grossest remarks. We did not untangle the legalese into which the Courts were trapping us.
I will now draw your attention to only one contradiction, as I see it, in the majority verdict. On the discretionary power of the government to hand over part or whole of the undisputed land, section 6 of paragraph 96 of the judgement, and I think paragraph 96 is the most important para of this judgement, says, “The further vesting of the adjacent area other than the disputed area, in accordance with Section 6 of the Act has to be made at the time and in the manner indicated in view of the purpose of acquisition”. ‘At the time and in the manner indicated according to the Act’ means it will not be handed over to the VHP or the RJN after deciding on the extent of land required to provide the Muslims with access to the disputed site, the rest will be handed over to any body or trust constituted after 7-1-’93. Two seconds later, Section 9 of paragraph 96 says, “The challenge to the acquisition of any part of the adjacent area on the ground that it is unnecessary for achieving the professed objective of settling the long-standing dispute cannot be examined at this stage”.
What does this verbiage mean? It means you are challenging the acquisition saying that it is unnecessary for the purpose for which it has been acquired, we will not go into it at this moment, but, we give you the liberty to approach this court asking them for the return of your land if the central government is retaining it for too long after adjudication of the dispute on the disputed site. So, the aggrieved party can approach the courts for return of their land only after the case on the disputed site is over. Sections 6 and 9 contradictory! The court says hand it back to the original owners, the Act says we will not give it back to the original owners. It is obvious that we have ourselves not really studied the judgement in minute detail. I find the minority verdict more honest, more purposeful than the majority verdict. A Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha, around 10 days ago wanted to know our views on the Ayodhya issue. He wanted to know what points he may make in the Rajya Sabha when the issue of Ayodhya would came up for discussion. I told him all of us are avowedly committed to abiding by the Supreme Court verdict or resolving the problem through dialogue and negotiated settlement. But we have come to realise that the judiciary is playing games with Hindu sentiments on the issue. It is not going to deliver a verdict on the title to the disputed site for the next five generations. Negotiated settlement is also not possible because there is nothing to negotiate. The site has to be voluntarily surrendered by the Muslims to the Hindus. There is nothing to negotiate. Either you give it to me or you don’t give it to me. Where is the room for negotiation here? If both talks with the Muslims and the Supreme Court are no longer avenues for resolution of the dispute, the third option is mass movement. Is the country prepared for a mass movement on this issue over which no institution or mechanism will have any control. That is the third option and mass movement is justified in a democracy – people’s voice.
We have with us today Pujya swamijis, I was asking Pujya Pejawar Swamiji yesterday, if the Courts fail us, if the talks fail, if the political leadership fails the Hindus, the only hope that Hindus have is our religious leaders. It is only our sadhus and sants and sanyasis who have to show us the way, who have to tell us what to do. If the sadhus and sants tell us that it is in this direction that we should move, then the Hindu society will move en masse in that direction. I conclude my talk by requesting Pujyasri Pejawar Swamiji to begin this evening with his ‘Anugraha Bhashana’.
Pejawar Swamiji’s Speech On Ramajanmabhoomi
We are expressing our views and thoughts in the Sanskrit language since our prayers, our aspirations have not been heard properly by the court of law. Our courts are unable to deliver justice in time. The rulers of this land are also not responding to our voice. Parliament also doesn’t pay heed to our requests. In such a situation, we are left with the only option of taking refuge in the Lord Himself and to pray only to Him, in the divine Sanskrit language, requesting Him to make us succeed in our movement to build a temple for Him at Rama Janma Bhoomi as early as possible. So I speak in Sanskrit on this subject to pray to the Lord in His own language.
The Lord Sri Ramachandra is our National God. He is our nation’s Purushottama – the ideal man. He is an inspiration and the embodiment of Bharathiya cultural heritage. We expect Rama Rajya to prevail once again in this punya bhoomi. There once lived a unique king named Rama. He by his valour established Rama Rajya. Now this is a democratic county. When can it become Rama Rajya again? Only when every individual in this nation becomes Rama, will Rama Rajya return. Only if the ideals that Rama embodied in Himself is reflected (replicated) in each and every single person in this country, only then can we attain Rama Rajya again.Therefore, to inspire Rama’s ideal nature in the minds of the entire Indian people, the construction of Rama Temple at Rama Janma Bhoomi, which would be an inspiration centre, is the deepest and most intense desire of all Bharatiyas.
Sri Rama is the ideal human being not only of the Hindu community, but he is the ideal person for all mankind. He is superior among men. For all Indians, let them be Hindus or our Muslim brothers, for the entire Indian people Sri Rama alone is the ideal man. He is the National Hero. There is no question of any single religion claiming possession of such an ideal Rama. He belongs to this entire Nation. If we were to deny such a status to Rama, the ideal person, then our very Indianness would become questionable. Let Rama be a holy God for Hindus and not a holy person for our Muslim brothers, yet Sri Rama is the son of India (Bharat) and an ideal person of India. In this respect, all Indians need to honour Sri Rama. If this high honour is denied to Sri Rama, then the very Indianness in us is doubted.
Now, it is a great opportunity for the Muslim brothers, if they, by there own will and wish give back the land of Rama Janma Bhoomi to the Hindus, responding to their sentiments, then it would be a golden opportunity for Hindu – Muslim brotherhood. It is for our Muslim brothers to make good use of this opportunity. Now, the ball is in their court. Muslims don’t lose anything by giving the land for the construction of this temple. Space is also available for building of the Mosque. The construction of a temple in this most revered Rama Janma Bhoomi would in no way result in a loss to Muslims. But, this would usher in a new era of Hindu Muslim unity. We invite Muslims to assist with full enthusiasm and whole heartedness in building the Temple at Rama Janma Bhoomi in Ayodhya, leaving their ego behind them.
The political parties claim that Babri Masjid is a secular structure or a secular symbol. These secular politicians and so-called intellectuals advice Hindu saints and sadhus to stay away from the Rama Temple construction. But, they are not prepared to warn the Muslims to stay away from this issue. They advice only the Hindu seers not to involve themselves in this issue to prevent violence.Who is responsible for violence? The V.H.P. or the Swayamsevaks, or the Karsevaks, or the Sadhus have not initiated any violence. But these secular politicians and so-called intellectuals feel that our very presence would lead to violence and advice us to stay away from Ram Janma Bhoomi. Why can’t they similarly advice our Muslim brothers? Hindus are not responsible for any conflict or violence. If we are to stay away to avoid any conflict or violence, then we have to hand over Kashmir to Pakistan since there is conflict and violence there too. If Hindus should give up Ram Janma Bhoomi to avoid conflict then it follows that India should hand over Kashmir to Pakistan in a golden platter. We (Hindus) never instigate violence. There is no room for violence in our peaceful mass agitation. There is no other option for us but to construct the Temple other than through peaceful mass agitation. We feel that the Ram Janma Bhoomi movement is our only way out.
Babri Masjid is not a symbol of secularism. It is a symbol of invasion. A symbol of aggression of one faith over the other. The construction of Ram Temple there would only result in Hindu Muslim unity. In my opinion, it would actually wipe out the symbol of invasion and slavery and in its place create a symbol of peace and friendship. Some contend that Sri Rama himself was so generous that he gave up his kingdom to his brother Bharatha and went into exile in the forests. Similarly they advice the Hindus that they too should also show such generosity by relinquishing Ram Janma Bhoomi to Muslims. While I agree that Sri Rama was generous in relinquishing his kingdom, I would like to say that the very generous Rama fought with Ravana to rescue Sita when Ravana abducted Sita. Srirama did not give away Sita to Ravana because he was generous. Likewise, while we are generous and respect all other faiths, we should fight for our rights where the Rama Janma Bhoomi is abducted. I emphasis that our protests have always been peaceful. The Rama Janma Bhoomi movement led by sadhus and saints will always be a peaceful one. There will be no room for violence. The movement it trying to accomplish the goal through a peaceful, friendly, mutual agreement. If these efforts do not succeed, then we have to be always prepared for a peaceful mass agitation throughout India.
Like the gentle breeze coming into the courtyard from all directions can be enjoyed, we enjoy the different faiths that have come into India from various places around the world. But, when the breeze turns into a tornado it destroys the entire house. Similarly, when the other faiths assault our faith then we cannot sit quietly. We have to engage in peaceful mass agitation. While we should make every peaceful effort to resolve the issue, we should at the same time should also be ready for mass movement.
Thus I conclude, that through Lord Sri Ram’s grace and through people’s committed efforts Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple will become a reality soon
Blessed indeed is this gathering for having listened to the ‘anugraha bhashana’ of Pujya Pejawar Swamiji. Shri L. Ganesan has made the observation that two very important points made by Swami ji need to be emphasised again.
SHRI L. GANESAN
With due appreciation for the translation of Swami ji’s talk by Shri Ramasubramaniam, I wish to make the following observations. Our Pujya Pejawar Swamiji, said in the course of his talk that it is possible that the Muslims of India may not accept Srirama as god but at least they must accept him as our national hero. If a person living in India fails to regard Srirama as a national hero then his very Indianness is in question. And if I have understood Swamiji correctly, he had remarked that secularists always say that there will be violence if we hand over the Ramajanmabhoomi to the Hindus. But we are faced with violence in J&K too. But that violence has not deterred us from settling the issue. So fear of violence is not going to make us hand Kashmir over to Pakistan on a golden platter. Similarly, fear of violence cannot deter us from resolving the issue of Ramajanmabhoomi too. This may be a more accurate translation of what Pujya Swamiji said. Once again, it is not my inyention to fault the translation, but only to emphasise what I thought were two very points made by Swamiji. Thank you.
Thank you Ganesan ji. As we understand it there is indeed irrefutable proof that there was a twelfth century temple on the site dedicated to Lord Vishnu. It is to talk about the historical and archeological evidence available to attest to the existence of this temple that we have invited Mananeeya Devendra Swaroop ji to inform us on the available evidence.
SHRI DEVENDRA SWAROOP
Parampujya Pejawar Swamiji, Parampujya Swami Dayananda ji Saraswati, Shri Gurumurthyji, and dear Ramabhaktas and rashtravadis. I really do not know if this audience which is so full of Rama bhakti and shraddha really needs to be told about the historical evidence that there did exist a temple before the Babri Mosque was built in the year 1528. In fact, it is really unfortunate that this Ayodhya movement is being reduced to a Hindu-Muslim conflict and a mandir-masjid issue. I am so thrilled to hear from Pujya Pejawar Swamiji the real spirit and goal of this movement. This movement is not aimed at adding one more temple to the hundreds of thousands of temples already existing in this country. This movement was never destroyed to destroy a masjid. This movement really aimed at establishing a positive secularism and a positive nationalism. It in fact is symbolic of the ideological conflict going on in this country for over 1300 years. Only last month did I listen to a speech on Pakistan television on the occasion of Pakistan celebrating the Arab conquest of Sindh day. The speaker said the foundations for Pakistan were laid down the day Sindh was conquered by Arabia and the day the first Hindu was converted to Islam. And today we are facing the problem of how to integrate ten crore Muslims in our nationalism which is rooted in secularism which means tolerance and respect for all forms of worship and which worships the Motherland as the Universal Mother.
Swamiji in fact tried to highlight this aspect of the movement. With Swamiji’s permission I wish to read out a paragraph from a VHP document published in February 1991, almost two years before the tragedy of 6th December. I quote, “The struggle for the liberation of the Sri Ramajanmabhoomi and the restoration of the magnificent Ram temple at Ayodhya has been going on continuously in one form or the other for several centuries. Many generations have participated in it and have paid the heavy price of martyrdom. Only the perverse and blind will say the VHP is the originator of the struggle. The VHP represents only the latest reincarnation of an organized manifestation of this centuries-old Hindu aspiration. The VHP is deeply committed to the Hindu ideal of ‘sarva pantha samabhava’, which alone can be the foundation of positive secularism and nationalism. It has been very keen to find a peaceful solution to this centuries-old discord. It has sincerely felt that India’s experiment with secularism will succeed only when the present day generation of Indian Muslims disassociate themselves from the medieval ideology of religious exclusivity, expansionism and iconoclasm pursued by foreign invaders like Babur or by intolerant rulers like Aurangazeb and glorification of such acts of vandalism in the name of religion. And therefore the VHP has been trying all means of dialogue and persuasion to make Muslim leaders understand and appreciate its point of view. It is really sad to see that Muslim leaders instead of taking any initiative on their own to close this centuries-old chapter of discord and conflict and to begin a new one of harmony and trust have only been indulging in a futile exercise of defending such symbols of medieval vandalism. Instead of identifying themselves with their pre-Islamic ancestors Srirama and Krishna, they are still trying to trace their history from foreign invaders like Mohammed bin Kasim, Mohammad Ghaznavi and Mohammad Ghori, Babur and others”. I just read out from the VHP document of February 1991. And since then a debate on the historical aspect of this isue has also been going on. But the question is, whom do we want to convince? Do we want to convince the Muslims? It is interesting that in 1986 Syed Shahabuddin made the statement that if it could be proved that there existed a temple on the site which was destroyed to build the mosque, I will be the first to go and destroy the mosque because no masjid can be created on another religious site through dispute. But when the evidence of the existence of such a temple started pouring in,. he began to shift his ground.
The British records in their gazettes, the settlement reports, in research studies were rejected by him because they were colonial evidence. A story was floated around that the fact that a temple was destroyed to build a mosque had been invented by the British themselves as a part of their divide and rule policy. So please show us non-British evidence was the new demand. An IAS officer, Aabhath Kumar Chaterjee who went to London for higher studies, came across the evidence recorded by an Austrian Jesuit priest – Josef Heller. He had visited Ayodhya between 1766 and 1771 and his travelogue was published in 1785 from Paris. And it is clearly recorded there that a Hindu temple was destroyed either by the Mughal King Babur or Aurangazeb and that the Hindus are still coming there to offer worship. They have dug a hole there into which they place their offerings.
The Muslims rejected this too saying that this too was European testimony. Now they demanded Muslim testimony. Then our friend the late Dr. Harsh Narayan who was a great Persian scholar
Indian Express and they said this Muslim evidence is very late so please bring us an eyewitness. 6th December revealed this eyewitness too. This piece of archeological evidence was found among the debris of the fallen Babri mosque. This was a blessing in disguise and it is a lesson to us Hindus that much of the history of this country lies buried under those monuments which were raised after destroying earlier Hindu temples and other structures. You see in South India every ancient temple will have inscriptions engraved on all walls. And no history of South India can be written without referring to the contents of these temple inscriptions. So was the case with the temples of North India too. But there, not a single ancient temple exists now and we found that on the 6th of December, when the structure came down in a matter of 5 or 6 hours (it would have taken a contractor several years to remove it), out of the debris a large number of archeological artifacts emerged – amalak, chaadya, chajja, vallari, pillars and lintels emerged. And out of all this emerged a Sanskrit inscription in twelfth century nagari script, five feet long, two feet three inches wide and two and a half inches thick, of red sandstone. It was no less than a divine blessing. I think Rama himself directed us towards that inscription as Pujya Swamiji said today at the very beginning of his talk.
Nobody imagined or could even believe that an inscription could survive not only for all those centuries under that mosque or that it would emerge unscathed after the destruction of that mosque. It is barely two and a half inches thick which means that it was not used as a part of the building structure of the mosque. It would have been crushed when the mosque was razed down. We found out later that the middle portion of the back wall of the mosque happened to be hollow and all artifacts and other articles and such inscriptions which were of no use to the Muslim invaders, were dumped into this pit and sealed. And therefore it survived. On the 7th of December, when the debris was being cleared and as all archeological material were coming to light, a spot was earmarked and an announcement made over the loudspeakers that karsevaks finding any piece of archeological evidence must deposit it in that spot so that all of them could be gathered for safe keeping and future study. And this inscription was also taken there and as it was being placed down on that spot, one corner was chipped and lay broken under the impact. This inscription is in twelfth century nagari script and can be deciphered by not more than a dozen epigraphists in this country.
We have just a list of fewer than twelve experts who can decipher that script. Fortunately for us, one of our colleagues Dr.Sudha Mallaya of Bhopal was present in Ayodhya on that day. She is a doctorate in the History of Arts and has a sense of archeology and epigraphy. She had a camera with her on that day and she brought to Delhi some pictures of this inscription on the 9th of December. And the first news of the discovery of this inscription was carried by a Hindi daily on the 10th of December. Immediately, Dr.S.P.Gupta, a renowned archeologist and Dr.Sudha Mallaya approached Dr.K.V.Ramesh, a name I have to take with great respect. Because at that moment he was the Government of India epigraphist and officially he could not undertake the responsibility of deciphering that script. And this was most unfortunate. Because in the field of scholarship, every inscription is named or known after the epigraphist who deciphers it, and to decipher this inscription would have been a momentous achievement for Dr.K.V.Ramesh. but this extraordinary person saw the picture and said honestly that it would not be possible for him to decipher the script from a photograph and he therefore requested Dr.Gupta and Dr.Mallaya to bring a scientific estampage, or what is more commonly known as an ink-impression. I hope you know what a scientific estampage is. The procedure of getting an estampage is a cumbersome technical exercise to take an imprint of the inscription with cotton, cloth and paper and a special kind of ink. The letters of the inscription after this process, emerge in white against a black background. It is then backed by bandage cloth, after which it can be rolled up like any piece of cloth or paper. Dr.Ramesh requested us to bring the estampage of this inscription. That was easier said than done.
How could this be done? After the 8th of December, the site was taken over by the CRPF and no one was allowed into the site anymore. But Dr.Mallaya was a lady of wonderful determination. She was determined to get into the site although she knew she may well be arrested. We tried to dissuade her but she was determined to go and she went there again. Dr. S.P.Gupta also went with her and I must say Bhagawan Ram was very kind to us that day, very helpful. Unimaginable circumstances prevailed on that day. All officers on the site were absent at the time when Dr.Mallaya and Dr.Gupta reached there. They had all left to attend a meeting called by the District Magistrate. People had been requesting our friend Pandit Ramshankar Agnihotri to please call some expert from Delhi to make a list of all artifacts collected from the site and to identify them. Ramshankar ji immediately pointed to Dr. Mallaya and Dr.Gupta and told them, the experts are here, please allow them in to get on with the work. Dr, Mallaya had carried with her a video camera because neither she nor Dr.Gupta knew how to perform the estampage. So they brought along with them the video camera and managed to get excellent pictures of the inscription, which they handed over to Dr.K.V.Ramesh. Dr.Ramesh deciphered it and it was not a complete decipherment but he identified two or three words. He told us the words ‘Ayodhya’, ‘saketha mandal’, ‘janmabhoomi’, and ‘Vishnuhari’ are mentioned in the inscription as was the story of Bali (Vali), as also the killing of Dashanan or Ravana. This is what we wanted. The story is complete. Our only interest was only to know if the inscription could attest to the existence of the janmabhoomi and if it could prove that a Hindu temple had stood on the janmabhoomi before the mosque was constructed.
Now let us come to the reactions of the Muslims and the secularists who were backing them. Without having seen the inscription, without having visited Ayodhya, they started issuing statements to the effect that this inscription was a forgery, that it had been planted on the site after the demolition, and that therefore it is not a genuine inscription. We issued a challenge to all of them. An open challenge which was published in The Hindu on the 9th January, 1993. We told them if these eminent scholars could forge four lines in Sanskrit in the twelfth century script which renowned epigraphists will then attest as being genuine, then we will collect two lakh rupees from the people and offer it as reward for their enterprise. Needless to say, they have not accepted our challenge, even 9 years after we made it. So if any group is going to demand proof that a temple existed on the site prior to the mosque then they have it in this inscription.
On the 18th June, 1992, when the UP government was leveling the ground around the site that it had acquired, with a bull-dozer, the bull-dozer unearthed a treasure trove of archeological artifacts – 39 of them, mostly belonging to the upper structure of the temple, the decorative pieces like the amalak and the chajja. There is no question of proving again and again that these are indeed the historical evidence attesting to the existence of the temple which were buried inside the babri mosque and which came to light after the destruction of the mosque. It establishes that the act of the demolition of the temple and the construction of the mosque happened consequentially. Other wise how could these artifacts which were discovered on the 7th of December, have been inside the mosque? I personally feel that this debate now has lost all its meaning. This country has more than 3000 pieces of physical evidence of this medieval vandalism. In Delhi, in the vicinity of the Kutub Minar, there is a mosque. On this mosque there is an inscription which says clearly that the mosque was constructed with the material of twenty seven Hindu and Jain temples and that this illustrates the power of Islam – ‘quvvatuul Islam’.
So you see in the light of this kind of overwhelming evidence that lies scattered all over the country, practically in every district of this country, why should we be asked to convince that a temple existed before the mosque? And convince whom? We have just been told that the judiciary is not willing to be convinced because it does not want the onus of resolving the dispute to the site thrust on it. And therefore it will not even go into the issue of whether a temple existed on the site. This is what our Hon’ble President wanted the judiciary to decide and they refused!. And the political leadership is not interested in the truth and the facts that have been literally unearthed. They are only interested in votes and they have fragmented the our society that has ushered in a caste-based vote bank which has in turn fragmented the polity itself. There are at present 44 political parties in the Lok Sabha. In 1998, there were 34 and every small party has developed a vested interest in fragmenting the polity of this country. Because it is in this fragmentation that they have identified one caste, one mohalla, which will elect one representative to the Lok Sabha, who will also become a minister. This is the situation which prevails today and we can therefore not expect a political solution to this issue. As Pujya Swamiji pointed out, only a peaceful, non-violent mass awakening and mass movement in the country can help us to achieve our objective. Thank you all.
Parampujaneeya Pejawar Swamiji, Parampujaneya dayananda Swamiji, my learned and elder friend Mananeeya Shri Devendra Swaroop ji, dear brothers and sisters. Today I read two articles in two important newspapers. One was written by a secular Hindu – Sujit Bhalla. Never in all his writings has he ever failed to condemn Hindus and Hinduism. Never,ever. This article appeared on the center page of the ‘Business Standard’, a very well-written article. The other article appeared in the asian age, again on the center page, writen by a very well-known lawyer from Bombay. Both have said the same thing in their respective articles – that there is only solution to the Ayodhya issue; that the Muslims should hand over the site to the Hindus. Never has a secularist dared so far to make this suggestion. Because this amounts to committing suicide. But then these secularists have been on the suicidal path for a long time now. Such a thought is to move away from the brink, as it were.
Secularism has now relegated itself to the position of nuisance in this country. So this secularist has written that the only way to stop these Hindutvawadis is to hand over the site to the Hindus. The idea behind handing over the site to us is not to build the Ram temple or to bring about amity between the Hindus and Muslims but to stop the Hindu movement. But the Muslim lawyer has said something very different. It is an extraordinarily well-written piece. He says that the very fact that all Hindus believe that Rama was born there, is the only reason that is needed for handing over the site. But this article could not have appeared earlier. It could not have appeared because it is now becoming clear that this movement cannot be stopped. So this advise, this pontificating to the Hindus that Swamiji mentioned, is now beginning to be done to the other side. This is how the polity of India is changing. The polity of India abused Rama, the secularists poked fun at Rama. They said he was never born in India, he was born in Iran, maybe Iraq. He ruled maybe Egypt, but he was not born in India. Secularists, secular historians, secular intellectuals kept on writing papers after papers, articles after articles, issuing statement after statement, unchallenged in this country until the VHP decided to call their bluff.
Never in the history of any country would a great tradition be demeaned like this. Because the English-educated intellectuals in India had no backbone. They had to be abused in good English, that is all. So the Ayodhya movement has changed the political map of India, the political idiom. The polity and its content, the political parties and their behaviour have all undergone a radical change. And this is going to be the subject matter of my talk today. How did this happen?
As Devendra Swaroop ji said, and as Swamiji in his own spiritualised exposition also said, this movement is not merely to build a temple. Its reach, its vision and its depth go beyond the temple. It was aimed at the reassertion of Dharma in the society. It is to undo the wrongs, the distortions and the humiliations that this great civilization has undergone for centuries now. It is not a small affair. How did this movement evolve? How did this change the polity of this country. I think we are still in transition. The entire confusion about the purpose of this movement, the emergence of caste-based politics, all this, in my opinion, is the process of transition being undergone by the Hindu society. We should not think that the polity is being fragmented or that the country is in difficulties, no. This country has immense capacity to change itself and what is incubating today is the great future. And I will relate it to not only the developments within our country but also the collateral changes happening around the world, in which the great tradition of India and our Sadhus and Sanyasis are the path-finders. Let us look at what happened in this country since Independence. What powered India to freedom, the movers of the freedom movement, what happened to them?
The great Vande Mataram of Bankim Chandra,, Sanatana Dharma which Maharishi Aurobindo set out as being the goal and the content and the direction of this country and its very soul, the idea of Rama Rajya which Mahatma Gandhi set out as the objective of the freedom movement, the idea of spiritual nationalism articulated by Swami Vivekananda, and the simple Ganapathy festival which Balagangadhar Tilak started to trigger the people of Maharashtra to unite and to participate in the freedom movement as a united force, these were the moving sentiments, philosophy and thoughts of the freedom movement, not secularism. No one had heard of secularism during the freedom movement. The word was unknown to India. India knew Dharma. Even the travelogues written by foreign Christian missionaries, by European travelers and scholars say that there was only one word that everyone in India in every nook and corner of the country had in common and understood, and that was Dharma. The elite could explain it, the ordinary could follow it. Dharma was internalised by every individual. It defined his family life, his relationship with his relatives, friends and neighbours. And all that inspired the freedom movement became anathema for the intellectuals in the post-independence period. If Swami Vivekananda were to deliver a speech in the Parliament about Hindu nationalism, he would be called communalist.if maharishi Aurobindo were alive today and were he to say that Sanatana Dharma is the soul of India, what would he be called? If Bankim Chandra were to know somehow that the Vande Mataram which inspired young men between the ages of 16 and 30 to willingly go to the gallows, the same Vande Mataram is today not acceptable as a national song to the Muslims and the secularists of this country, what would he feel? If Mahatma Gandhi were to be in our midst today he would have been told that the desire for Ramrajya is anti-secular and communal by the political parties, the intellectuals and the elite of India. So all those thoughts and ideas and sentiments which drove the freedom movement were first marginalised and eventually driven out of public spaces. It was no longer politically correct to talk about Vande Mataram, Ramarajya or Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism.
It was the marginalising of these thoughts and sentiments and ideas that caused the derailment of the Indian mind and the psyche. And this was done, not by the colonial administration, it was done by our own leadership. Today, in this article that I read this lawyer has written that it was undeniable that the Muslims of India have been treated as ballot papers. It is a derogatory term but that is the truth of the political climate in this country. It is fortunate that the Hindus have not yet become ballot papers but the day is not far off because it is only when the Hindus constitute themselves into a powerful vote bank that the distortions that have arisen of the Muslim vote bank, can be corrected. So in the post independence period, the spirit of the freedom movement was distorted by perverted secularism. The loaded secularism of Pandit Nehru became pseudo secularism of Mrs. Gandhi and it became even more perverted and even more pseudo as time progressed until it reached its peak when V.P.Singh became the Prime Minister of India.
I have seen V.P.Singh at very close quarters. The last time I saw him was on 17th October, 1990. Even as early as 1990, I know V.P.Singh had been advised to pass the ordinance acquiring this land in Ayodhya around the disputed site. He had also been advised to refer the question of whether there existed a Hindu temple or religious structure on the site before the mosque was raised, to the Supreme Court. I explained the advantages of doing both to five ministers in his cabinet. The cabinet ultimately agreed to pass the ordinance acquiring the land and also to refer the dispute over the land to the Supreme Court. The President Shri R.Venkataraman was woken up at 11.30 in the evening and he signed the Ordinance but at 4.30 in the morning, the Ordinance was withdrawn. This ordinance was re-issued by the Narasimha Rao government.
Radha mentioned in the introduction that the Supreme Court will never deliver a judgement on the disputed site which will favour one community over the other, in whichever community’s favour the judgement may be. Why speak of litigation between Hindus and Muslims. Let us see how the polity has responded to a judgement to a litigation between the Shias and Sunnis. The case was as follows: the Sunnis of varanasi buried their dead in a burial ground belonging to the Shias with the complicity of the Varanasi Municipal Corporation. The Shias filed a writ before the Allahabad High Court demanding that the Sunnis be asked to stop burying their dead in their ground and also to remove the existing tombs. I do not remember how the Allahabad High Court ruled in the case but the case soon went up to the Supreme Court and I remember it was Justice Tulsapurkar in the bench, he ordered the Varanasi Municipal Corporation to clear the Shia burial ground of all Sunni tombs. The Varanasi Municipal Corporation refused to comply with the Supreme Court order, fearing a backlash from the Sunni Muslims. When the Municipal Corporation refused to act on the orders of the Apex Court, the Shias filed a contempt petition before the Supreme Court. When the case came up for hearing, both the Varanasi Municipal Corporation and the UP state government pleaded helplessness in complying with the orders and the central government therefore had to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court requested it to stay its own orders. The Supreme Court stayed its own orders for the next ten years. This was in 1986. There have been any number of instances when orders of the Supreme Court have been flouted, overturned and stayed. And yet, all our intellectuals, all political parties, all seculars want the VHP alone to abide by the Supreme Court Order to maintain status quo on the disputed site! And these are the people who are asking for the Ramajanmabhoomi issue to be settled by the courts. Let us assume it is decided that the place should be handed over to the Hindus. If the ISI so decides, it can trigger and and fan the flames of communal riots and large-scale violence. It can set the country on fire. Which government can execute this decision? The ISA can set Coimbatore on fire, the ISI can set Aligarh on fire.
Speaking of Aligarh let me tell you of yet another Supreme Court order which was not only flouted but overturned too. In the year 1966, the Supreme Court delivered its most famous judgement, declaring Aligarh University to be not a Muslim university. It is not a minority institution said the Apex Court, in what I consider to be a brilliant decision; and the person who wrote the judgement was none other than Justice Hidayatullah who would later be elected as India’s Vice-President. What did the government do? It passed a law, a special law, declaring Aligarh University to be a minority institution. What happened to the Supreme Court order then? It was consigned to the trash can and no one knows about it. What was the fate of the Muslim Women’s Bill aimed at protecting the rights of Muslim women who have been summarily divorced by the triple Talaq? The Bill was intended to provide the divorced woman with financial support, with compensation or alimony. The Muslim law says support money is for the duration of three months only, the Supreme Court said such a law was unfair to women who find themselves suddenly and unilaterally divorced one day. The Supreme Court also declared that Muslims are subject to the rules in criminal law of the land. The offence of not providing support money to a divorced wife is a criminal offence and the Muslims cannot take shelter behind the Muslim Personal Law, the Supreme Court held. The Muslims have the right to live by their personal law only in matters of civil law, but the criminal law is applicable to all.
The Supreme Court therefore ordered the husband of Shah Bano, a poor elderly Muslim woman who had been summarily divorced, to pay her lifetime adequate compensation. The country was set on fire after the judgement – riots after riots in Aligarh, in Lucknow, in Kanpur, in Allahabad, in Hyderabad. The central government once again had to pass a special law to overrule the Supreme Court judgement. These are the political parties, these are the leaders who are asking the Hindus to obey the interim orders on the disputed site. These are interim orders mind you. The courts have not dared to settle the dispute since 1885, for more than a century! The first case was filed not in 1950 but in 1885 by the Hindus for recovery of the Ramajnamabhoomi. So perverted secularism is the target of the Ayodhya movement. Secularism as a convenient political ideology has completely defaced and defiled India and destroyed our psyche and reduced us to a state where we do not have a character or personality of our own. The consciousness of this country, the ‘chittha’ of this country began manifesting itself through the Ramajanmabhoomi movement. When this movement was started, what were the epithets thrown at us, at this movement? Secular party after secular party would say that this movement is an anti-national movement, this is not what Rama would have wanted and many historians went to the extent of saying what a tolerant man Babar was and several wonderful things about Babar began to be written by the secular brigade in academia.
There is a manuscript called the ‘Babarnama’ written by Babar’s own courtiers and there are references in it to Babar’s hostility towards Hindus and how he has had several Hindu temples destroyed. Now the same secular brigade is questioning the authenticity of the Babarnama and has pronounced the manuscript to be phony, and that it is a forgery. The same argument again. There are authentic historical documents from the court of Aurangazeb too. Aurangazeb says, in this month of Ramadan, there are three places of worship very dear to the Hindus – kashi, mathura and Ayodhya. Ayodhya has been taken care of. Destroy the other two, are the written orders of Aurangazeb and it is recorded. Its authenticity cannot be questioned by the secularists and they haven’t questioned it so far. Do you all know how the destruction of these two holy shrines took place?
In Mathura they broke the murti of Bhagawan Krishna into pieces, slaughtered forty cows, and mixed up the flesh of the slaughtered cows with the pieces of the broken idol of Krishna and put into sacks. Two sacks of this act of religious bigotry and violence was sent to Mecca, two sacks sent to Baghdad and some pieces of the broken idol and the flesh of the cows was strewn in the Jamma Masjid for the Muslim faithful to step on and urinate upon. This is how Hindu Gods were dealt with by more than one Muslim invader king. What is it that the Hindus want? Not revenge, but the return of those sites so that the temples can be rebuilt on the site again. There are huge mosques in Varanasi and mathura, on the exact spot where our temples had stood. The Muslims and the seculars want proof in Ayodhya. There is irrefutable proof, existing proof, historical proof for Kasi and Mathura. So why don’t they give us back those sites?
The Ramajanmabhoomi movement was begun to awaken the Hindu society and to correct the distortions in Indian polity. And I will say, the polity has begun to change now. Secularism in India is a sunset ideology and unless the political parties, the intellectuals, secularists and the political leaders understand the situation in which the Hindus are being placed today, my only worry after the 6th December 1992 is that the Hindus are becoming like the Muslims. This should worry the political and the intellectual class too. This growing trend does not auger well for the Muslims, for the Hindus and for the country. The first ever Islamic act of the Hindus was on the 6th December, 1992. The second Islamic act of the Hindus was the reaction to Godhra in Gujarat. These are matters for concern, worry and introspection. If Hindus cease to be Hindus, there won’t be any hinduism left. This is therefore an issue which has to be addressed by every section in India. If this fight, and it is not a fight between the Hindus and Muslims, it is a fight between Hindus and secularists, it is between Hinduism and pseudo secularism, if this fight had been left to the Hindus and Muslims to resolve it between themselves, it would have been resolved long ago. It is because the advocates of the Muslims, the secularists have a vested interest in the dispute continuing unresolved that the case has dragged on for over a century now. And it is because of this enormous secular interest that has clouded the case that even when the issue comes up before the Supreme Court, the judges, as Radha said, keep on pontificating about how the Hindus should behave. The Supreme Court however made one good observation, though I disagree with some aspects of Radha’s presentation, it is the majority judgement which makes some sense of the nonsense of the law passed by the Narasimha Rao government acquiring the land in Ayodhya. The majority judgement gives some meaning to the law. In one place, the judge rendering the majority judgement lists the persons who appeared on behalf of the Muslims. He said we are happy that all those who argued the case on behalf of the Muslims, belong to faiths other than Islam. But what he did not say was that only Hindus argued for Hindus. The point here is that taking the Muslim side has become the symbol of secularism and therefore even the Babri Masjid has become a symbol of secularism even though the truth is that it is a symbol of religious bigotry and vandalism.
The fashion is to refer to it as the ‘disputed structure’. Arun Shourie told me not to call it a disputed structure. He used to say the karsevaks did not pull down a disputed structure, they pulled down a humiliating symbol of the invaders. And it was not Arun Shourie who called the mosques in Ayodhya, Kasi and Mathura humiliating symbols, it was Arnold Toynbee who called them so. Toynbee remarked that these mosques were symbols of political, religious domination over India. They are humiliating symbols and he said, that these would have been removed in any country. Not the humiliating symbols of the Muslim invaders alone, he said the same thing of the symbols of colonial rule. He remarked that in the interest of continuing good relations between both countries, he would advise the British government to request the Indian government to remove those offending symbols of the Raj.
But the English educated in India like to see the statues of Thomas Munroe, King George V and Queen Victoria looming over us still. Because we have not really asserted ourselves. This assertion has not happened because the Indian elite, the English educated in India, the middle and upper classes have not been emotionally motivated about India. Many of them have a boarding and lodging culture towards India. And this the bane of this country. This has to change and only the great and noble souls like Pujya Swamijis can bring about this change. I have lost faith in politicians to set such an example not because the politicians are bad themselves but because they are prisoners of secular India. There is a tussle between secular India and religious India. When I say religious India I mean Hindu religious India because Islamic India is protected by, defended by secularism while Hindu religious India is unprotected, undefended. A constitutional expert is seated in our midst today. The Indian Constitution is secular, everyone will agree. Secularism protects the minorities, everyone will agree to that too. So the silly logic is the Constitution protects only the minorities. Silly but true! God is love, love is blind, so God is blind. This is how the mind and system and polity of India has been distorted. The Ramajanmabhoomimovement cannot be led by politicians. Because to them is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of expediency. A Union Minister in the central government remarked that the movement is no longer relevant and that it is an encashed cheque. She can say that now shamelessly because she is sitting where she is because it delivered the votes that put her there. It is indeed an encashed cheque for some politicians.
But fortunately for us the movement is led not by politicians like this Union Minister, but by greater souls who have a vision for this nation. This movement will be a corrective to the distortions in our polity; the people of India have been yearning for such a lead. Important segments of our intellectuals have to be converted to this view and I plead with our Pujya Swamijis to convert these minds from every city and town of this nation. Thank You.