26 October 2004

I am right, you are dead

A god is nowhere born, yet everywhere
But Rama's sect rejects that fine distinction -
The designated spot is sanctified, not for piety but
For dissolution of yours from mine, politics of hate
And forced exchange - peace for a moment's rapture.
They turn a mosque to rubble, stone by stone,
Condemned usurper of Lord Rama's vanished spot
Of dreamt epiphany. Now a cairn of stones
Usurps a dream of peace - can they dream peace
In iconoclast Utter Pradesh?


Sham said...

dont blame me if i sound fascist.. (cant help if I am)

There was a temple there, which was brought down and a mosque put up in its place. The same thing is true to many places. Everyone agrees about this.

All I say is, why should it be a big deal if we build the same temple there?

Look at it this way.

Establishing a temple there is not about religion. Its about the victory of the good over bad. The mosque was built by looters (their religion does not matter)
If we leave the mosque like that, does not that remind you of the oppression the looters put on us for centuries?

Building the temple there is an assertion on our part that we welcome diversity but not oppression. Its a height of complacency to leave an artifact (which is reminiscent of the oppression) untouched

We do not have to be dumb sheep to be tolerant. Tolerance and diversity are fundamentally give and take processes.

may be its not a symbol of faith.. the mosque was put up by looters (their religion does not matter) So, leaving it there as it is is a symbol of our

Sham said...

sorry about the last part.. its some unformatted stuff i forgot to delete before posting

Vijayalaxmi said...

I think JM Coetzee's 'Disgrace' is very relevant here.

The point, Sham, is not about the rightness or wrongness of constructing a temple in Ayodhya. But is the BJP conscious that while righting a percieved historical wrong, the present is being violated? I think it is quite aware of it, and thinks it will benefit from the backlash.

In 'Disgrace,' the protagonist's daughter (she is white) is raped. She chooses not to take legal action against the rapists, implying somehow that the rape was justified because it was historical vengeance. Her dad, the protagnoist, thinks this is absurd.

Sham said...

ಹೌದು. ನನಗೆ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಸನ್ನಿವೇಶ ನೆನಪಿಗೆ ಬರತ್ತೆ. ಮೀಸಲಾತಿ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ನಮ್ಮ ವಾದ ಇದೇ ತಾನೆ... ಹಿಂದೆ ಯಾರೋ ತೋರಿದ ಭೇದಭಾವಕ್ಕೆ ನಾವು ಯಾಕೆ ನೋವನ್ನ ಅನುಭವಿಸಬೇಕು ಅಂತ..
I guess this is the only way to set it right. if we leave it at that, the present won't be right either.