Campaign round Ram Temple, i.e. demolition of the Babri mosque; paid rich electoral dividends to the BJP and also to its parent RSS. Kashi and Mathura are in the line. A new front has now been opened with Somnath Swabhiman Parv (Somnath Self pride Festival). Speaking on the occasion in full religious regalia, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated two things, directly and subtly: one, that as Somnath Temple stood as the symbol of glory of India, the Muslim kings attacked it repeatedly - Mahmood Ghazni demolished it in 1026 and plundered it 17 times -  but it kept coming back in its greater glory. The second point he made was directed against the Congress party and more particularly Jawaharlal Nehru, Modi’s pet hate persona, as being opposed to its rebuilding.

It is doubtful if any place of worship can be the symbol of a secular nation. The most important part of religion has been its moral values as Father Of The Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, taught us. 

Plundered For Its Riches

As far as Mahmood Ghazni is concerned he did plunder it. His court historians highlighted that he did it for religious purposes as idol worship is not permitted in Islam. Persian sources Al-Utabi and Al-Baruni called Somath a "treasure house". 

Mahmood Ghazni might have had many motives behind this raid on Somnath. The primary was wealth; it was among the richest temples of India. As per Romila Thapar (History of Ancient India, Penguin) it had wealth equivalent to 20,000 golden dinars (coins) There are no definitive sources that he plundered it 17 times; this is a popular myth. The wealth he plundered was loaded on many elephants and taken to Gazna. Mahmood’s army had many Hindu generals, like Tilak, Sondhi, Harzan and Hind, as per Tarikhe Bayaki. Mahmood’s successor Masood sent his army under the leadership of Tilak, one of the generals of his army, to Central Asia to plunder wealth from a mosque.

Ghazni appointed one of the local Hindu kings as his governor as he left Somnath. He also issued coins with Sanskrit words on them. More so, King Anandpal of Thaneshwar helped him by sending him elephants and soldiers etc.

Temple destructions in ancient India and medieval India were not primarily a religious phenomenon. Richard Eaton in his research on temple destructions in pre-Mughal India tells us that in a fight between two Hindu kings, the victor Hindu king used to demolish the 'kuldevta' (clan god) idol of the defeated king and install his own 'kuldevta' there. In the fight between Allauddin Khilji and Abdul Fath Dawood of Multan, a mosque was destroyed. Associating religion with kings began with the British who introduced communal historiography in India to pursue the policy of ‘divide and rule’. Beginning with James Mill’s book on History of India to Elliot and Dawsons’ multi volume ‘History of India as told by her Historians’, religion was the central marker of kings' rule.

Truth And Fiction

Modi’s politics is opening this new divisive front and trying to tie in Nehru also in the narrative. He is projecting as if Nehru was opposed to rebuilding of Somnath. That’s incorrect. The matter came up when Gandhi was alive and he categorically stated that state funds should not be used for the building of the temple. This is what the Supreme Court a few years ago opined when Ram Temple was being planned. Gandhi, Nehru and Patel were unanimous on this. In the prayer meeting on 28 November 1947, he stated that Junagadh (where Somnath is located) government cannot give any state funds for building of the temple.

Gandhi asked Sardar Patel whether any funds were being given to the building of Somnath temple. Patel replied that till I am alive, no such thing will happen and that donations for rebuilding will be collected from the public. As per this a trust was formed with Sardar Patel as chairman and with K.M. Munshi and Gadgil as trustees which completed the task of building the temple. 

The false propaganda does not stop here. Then comes the inauguration of the temple. India's first President Rajendra Prasad was invited to inaugurate the temple and asked Nehru about it. In a letter to Nehru on 2nd March 1951, Prasad said that he wanted to go to inaugurate the temple in his personal capacity. Nehru said if he wanted to go thus, he had no objection. 

Babele clarifies the whole truth based on evidence. He also takes a dig at Modi as to why the then President Ramnath Kovind and present President Draupadi Murmu were not invited in the events related to  the Ram Temple. Clearly these two presidents were not invited for Ram Temple foundation and inauguration as one was a Dalit and another an Adivasi!

Revenge Of History

In a supplementary on history, India's National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, on the occasion of inauguration of a youth festival in Delhi, gave the advice which is very retrograde. As per him our temples were plundered, our villages were ransacked so it is time now to take revenge for this! Question is whether revenge is a part of the modern legal system; it is stuff from medieval times. For every crime the guilty should be punished, and the innocent should be given protection. So for the alleged crimes he is mentioning the revenge is to be taken against whom? For temple destruction by Muslim and Hindu kings, who should be taken revenge against? There are atrocities of history which he did not mention. Buddha viharas were destroyed; Jain temples were smashed; atrocities against Dalits and women were the norm. There was the tradition of sati, burning women alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. Who should take revenge for all these dark deeds of history?

History is not a tool to divide society and perpetuate the injustices of the past. It is there to show us what wrongs have happened in the past which should not happen again. We need to march towards a just society where all live the life of dignity and respect, a society where all of us enjoy equal citizenship rights.

(The author is a former professor at IIT Bombay and Chairman of the Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai. Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of South Asia Monitor.)