[Hassan] We begin in the name of Allah, the most merciful.
Thank You for you time, Ghamidi Saab
It must be in your knowledge that a verdict has been declared
regarding Babri Masjid by the Supreme Court of India.
What is your opinion about it? Do you believe it has delivered justice?
[Javed Ahmad Ghamidi] I can offer opinions on this verdict only once
a detailed analysis of the judgment is done.
It would be irresponsible on my part
to give a detailed analysis without looking into the reasoning behind it.
Although, I would like to focus on this matter of principle
that situations like these are afoot in society.
It is well known, that the world has witnessed an era of conquests by rulers.
When the rulers acquired a place,
they used to make it a part of their empire or establish a new one.
Consequently, the rulers took such authoritarian decision regarding
the places of worship, old monuments and buildings.
which meant destroying and disfiguring old buildings, or renovating them.
Three types of situations may arise in this case:
The first case is where there is no authentic proof of the timeline
in which the monument existed.
However, people have a religious belief, or have some religious conventions
which have a firm ancestry, which they have been following it for generations.
And one says that it is believed that a certain site existed,
300, 500, or 700 years back which was destroyed
and it is decided that it has to be erected again.
This is one case.
Second case is the one where there is an authentic proof
of the dated material existence of a place about which no historian disagrees
It is known that there existed
a temple, church, mosque, or any other place which had been dismantled
for the construction of another building.
Third case is when a place has a material existence and is also authentically dated.
And the site has only been transformed or changed a little.
One example of this case is when,
during the times of Prophet SAW, the Kaaba was turned into a place for idol worship.
The Kaaba was a symbol of oneness of God under the traditions of Ibrahim.
However, it was turned into a place for idol worship, by its own trustees.
Another Example, is of Masjib Qurtaba which was turned into a church.
Hagia Sophia is another example, where a church was turned into a mosque.
All these places materially existed, with authentic proof of their dates.
These places were transformed.
Following this case, if any modern state
aims to change a place to serve its original purpose, I'd have no objection.
I would, In fact, welcome that Masjid-e Qurtuba is returned to its original glory.
The Kaaba was restored to its purpose. So it would be apt for the Hagia Sophia too.
However, if such decisions are taken with respect to the first two,
then the only thing I would say is that you are only raking up the past.
The old site has been demolished, and a new one erected, 300 or 500 years before.
It is implicit that a certain community will have emotional, religious,
or cultural attachment to the place.
If such a monument is attempted to be brought down, and the old one restored,
which only has its authenticity by date or by beliefs,
then a modern nation state cannot run smoothly with such a precedent.
These states are not based on the principles of conquests.
In modern nation states, people of varied
religions, cultures, races, co-exist.
In America, Britain, Europe, there is no single community but rather, diversity.
Where will you be able to find a place where there exists single religion?
And we know, It is not as if, the Muslims in India, have recently migrated there.
It is well known that in India, there are crores of Muslims, Christians and others.
We know about Buddhists that their native land was here, and then had to leave.
Some still stayed back. I think that such a decision should not be taken.
I would apply the same logic everywhere, for my country too.
If such a situation arises in Pakistan as well, then we shouldn't proceed like this.
For example, outside the Lohari Gate,there was an uproar about Shaheedganj Gurdwara.
People died. Bullets were fired. Rallies came out.
The leaders stood people against the British but all to no avail!
After Pakistan was formed, Muslims had a majority. They formed a government.
The Sikh Temple could have easily been transformed into a mosque, as the argument
given was that it was originally a mosque before Sikh rule. But this did not happen.
Because a building has already been destroyed and another one constucted.
A certain community had already seen the destruction of a building, and suffered.
Now, for the new building, it is unwise to tamper with emotional, religious,
and cultural attachments of a new community or group.
For the state to meddle in such a case is like asking for fresh trouble.
For me, these things are a matter of principle.
I will gauge such situations keeping in mind these parameters.
Another issue here which was of concern to me was this.
This was not a situation where,
A court case was filed, following which, a judgment will be given by Supreme Court
to demolish the Mosque and establish a Ram Mandir.
A certain community grew hostile towards a building, and demolished it.
This was a punishable, criminal offence
Whether it happens in Pakistan, or anywhere in the world.
This should not be accepted under any circumstances.
Let me tell you that When Babri Masjid was demolished,
I am a witness to this that, in reaction, various temples were attacked in Pakistan.
Reactionary people rose up. It wasn't that a crowd organically went up in arms.
Instead, it was deliberately created as a tool for political machinations.
It is to be noted what the Supreme Court has said about this,
how it dealt with the criminal elements.
In a modern nation state, in these two cases which include
First, the oral belief that a building existed without any authentic proof.
The building was demolished, and a new building of another faith was erected.
Second, if the material existence of, say a church is authentically dated.
Or that a temple or a mosque at a site was demolished 300 or 400 years ago
In these cases, since a new place of worship has replaced it,
demolition of such sites should not be promoted on principle.
People should be educated so that they can forget the matters of the past.
History is fraught with conquests, and such adventures
It is better to not meddle in it.
If such a sensitive issue, is given a push,
then a furor will descend which will destroy mosques and temples
We know that It is written in the Qur'an, that Jihad has been commanded
only because had people not been prevented by the force of arms,
then perhaps temples, mosques, churces, etc. would have suffered destruction.
It is not easy to take such a decision in matters of a religious community.
There only one scenario, where the state has the right to execute.
That is when, a site, like Hagia Sophia, which materially existed as a Church,
or the Cordoba mosque.
Such buildings can be restored to their original forms.
This would be completely correct. And we should comment it.
Such a decision taken by a government, or state or a Supreme Court should be praised
But, in the first two scenarios, such a step is never acceptable.
[Hassan] Thank You so much for your time, Ghamidi Saab.