The Allahabad High Court has ordered a survey of the entire plot atop which towers the Shahi Idgah Mosque. The survey, a much-appreciated procedural nicety, is however quite perfunctory. It will only unearth the truth that has been hiding in plain sight.
On this point, legal pedants will of course raise strong objections. They will throw the code of civil procedure at this author. They will say that because Krishna Janmabhoomi is the subject of a legal battle, it is wrong to declare that the Idgah Mosque built upon this holy land is the consequence of a great usurpation.
And they are not wrong. Commentators are legally obligated to maintain an objective stance till the case is decided. So, this author must not get ahead of the law.
But the devotees of Lord Krishna can happily ignore such redlines. For them, the existence of Krishna’s Janmasthan is a matter of supreme faith. Even “proof” is immaterial. And that too when evidence of the profound desecration of the erstwhile Krishna temple in Mathura comes hidebound in meticulously maintained annals of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s court chroniclers.
In most places around the world, belief counts as proof. Belief is enough to settle disputes or shame doubting Thomas’s.
Indeed, it is considered heresy to ask the adherents of Abrahamic faiths to provide proof to underscore the sanctity of the revelations in their holy books. Or where their revered God was born. Or why they covet the so-called “holy land” upon which their places of worship are built.
In fact, very few would dare to challenge these revelations as they would stand accused of blasphemy. Which, as we know only too well, is a crime that can spell deadly consequences.
Hindus on the other hand, even in the land of their birth, are subjected to inquisitions from within and without. In the present times, these inquests have become formalised hearings. Now, courts sit in judgement of Hindu customs and religious beliefs in the name of progressivism or dispute resolution.
Judgement after judgement has codified Hindu personal laws and customs while exempting regressive customs and laws prevailing in other sects.
The recent Hijab wrangle is a clear example. When the donning of the Hijab was challenged in the Supreme Court, a welter of protests broke out. Many Muslim conservatives questioned the court’s motives and its competence to interpret Muslim personal law. In the end, the top court delivered a split verdict. Which is the equivalent of a cop-out. Who after all, wants to risk being branded Islamophobic?
Of course, this selective interrogation of Hindu belief mocks secularism. But this transgression has gone unnoticed largely because Hindus have been tolerant as is their way.
Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
