Guru Nanak in Ayodhya verdict

[Dhillon]

The SC verdict on Saturday that settled the Ayodhya dispute has a historical nugget tucked away in its 1,045 pages that many might not have known about — the Sikh connection in what has been seen as a Hindu-Muslim tussle.

An evidence that helped strengthen the Hindu side’s claim to the disputed site was the visit by Guru Nanak Dev to Ayodhya for Ram Janmabhoomi darshan in 1510-11 AD. Babri Masjiddid not come up until after the 1526 Battle of Panipat.

More than three centuries later, in 1857, a Nihang Sikh barged inside the mosque and occupied it for a considerable amount of time, even setting up a platform on which an idol of Lord Ram was placed. With a posse of 25 Sikhs standing guard outside, the Nihang Sikh lit a fire and started arrangements for puja, leading to the first recorded instance of friction between Hindus and Muslims over the structure. The Nihang Sikh scrawled “Ram” on the walls of the mosque, according to police complaint.

The addenda to verdict bring on record the Janam Sakhis, or writings that profess to be biographies of Guru Nanak Dev. On the question of “whether the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Ram according to belief of Hindu devotees”, the SC says there is no material to identify the exact place of Ram Janmabhoomi. But it recognises the visit of Guru Nanak Dev to Ayodhya as an event depicting visits by pilgrims even before 1528 AD.

The judgment says, “It is found that in period prior to 1528 AD, there were sufficient religious texts, which led Hindus to believe the present site of Ram Janmabhoomi as birthplace of Lord Ram.”

One of the witnesses in suit number 4, during his examination in Allahabad HC, had referred to books on Sikh cult and history. He said Guru Nanak Dev had sought darshan at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple. To his statement, he appended various Janam Sakhis documenting the visit of Guru Nanak Dev to Ayodhya.

The verdict also traces a second event that occurred against the backdrop of 1857 transfer of power, when complaints sent to the Oudh administration (as Ayodhya and nearby areas were then referred to) reported the presence of Sikhs. A complaint in 1860 to deputy commissioner of Oudh said local Muslims were facing problems in performing namaz at the mosque. “The Azaan of Moazzin was met with the blowing of conch shells by Hindus. A contentious situation was arising. The Nihang Sikh was evicted from the site and a record was maintained,” SC notes, deducing that it showed namaz was at that stage being performed in the mosque.

That incident led to the installation of a railing in the form of a grill-brick wall outside the mosque. It was also the genesis of division of the complex into an inner courtyard (in which stood the structure of the mosque) and outer courtyard. “The construction of a railing in 1856-7 to provide a measure of separation between the inner and outer courtyards led to the construction of a platform by Hindus in close proximity to railing in outer courtyard. The platform, called Ramchabutra, became a place of worship for Hindus,” states the verdict.

 

[kit walker]

Guru Nanak Visited ayodhya as it was a hindu worship city. He visited all major cities where prominent people of different religion were based for a dialogue. He visited every nook and corner of earth. He might have visited Rome also where pope was based. But Christians left no proof of that visit. In Janamskahis there is no word about praying to lord Ram. Our religion pray before almighty one. The SC court reference to Guru Nanak Praying or having darshan of Idol is fact less. There is a reference of staying at ayodhaya for a night and having discussion with learned person of ayodhaya before proceeding ti banaras a hindu pilgrimage center.

 

[Dhillon]

As it attempted to sort out a century-old Hindu-Muslim issue with its 1045-page judgment on the Ayodhya land dispute, the Supreme Court has inadvertently riled Sikhs. It has described their religion as a ‘cult’ and seems to have relied on the testimony of someone who Sikhs believe has “misinterpreted the purpose of Guru Nanak Dev’s visit to Ayodhya in 1510-1511”.

The court relied on the testimony of one Rajinder Singh, ‘a person having interest in the study of religious, cultural and historical books of Sikh cult’ who had been fielded as a witness by Hindu parties to strengthen their claim to the disputed site.

The apex court further noted on Rajinder Singh’s evidence, “In his examination-in-chief, he has referred to several books about Sikh cult and history.”

The Kendri Guru Singh Sabha in Chandigarh has publicly criticised the judgment and described it as an “affront” to the Sikh community. “The court has called us a ‘cult’ — a word which bears a definite negative connotation. The learned judges should have consulted experts before doing so,” said professor Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon, a Sikh historian associated with the Sabha.

The Cambridge English dictionary describes a cult as “a religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people”. The Merriam Webster dictionary says that a cult is “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious.”

Neena Singh, a Delhi lawyer, has written to the Supreme Court registrar that she and a group of Sikh lawyers will be submitting a representation to the Chief Justice of India soon, asking for a correction of the portion of the judgment that refers to Sikhism as a cult. “It is derogatory and goes against all that Sikhism stands for. The judges should have rebuked the witness for using such language against a peaceful and independent religion like ours. The community is shocked and hurt by the false submissions of the witness and the judgment of the Supreme Court,” Singh said.

This is not all.

Sikh intellectuals are also angry over the allegedly false janam sakhies or biographical writings about the Guru that have been taken on record by the apex court from the evidence presented before the Allahabad high court. These state that Guru Nanak Dev went to the alleged Ram Janambhoomi in Ayodhya for ‘darshan’.

“Guru Nanak Dev went to religious places like Mecca or Ayodhya to preach and spread the message of one formless God. He did not go for ‘darshan’ at any place. There is no place for idol worship or ritualism in Sikhism and the Guru, in fact, preached against it,” said Singh.

Gurpreet Singh, president of the Kendri Guru Singh Sabha said, “Instead of relying on an unknown person, the court should have asked for opinions from Sikh historians or the Akal Takht or the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee who would have produced authentic ‘janam sakhies’ written by renowned Sikh writers and not a ‘fictitious’ account that has been presented before it.”

There is another reference in the judgment to a nihang or armed Sikh warrior, Faqir Khasa, lighting a havan fire and doing puja at the alleged Ram Janambhoomi on November 28, 1858.

Quoting a report by the Thanedar of Oudh, the judgment notes, “The report spoke of an incident during which Hawan and Puja was organised inside the mosque by a Nihang Sikh who had erected a religious symbol.”

This has also attracted the ire of the Sikhs who say that in Sikhism there is no custom associated with fire and puja. Nihang Sikhs are baptised Sikhs who do not engage in pujas.

But more than anything else, Sikhs are uncomfortable with how the Supreme Court has seen it fit to insert the Sikh religion into what they believe is purely a Hindu-Muslim conflict. “This was entirely unnecessary. We do not wish to take sides in this issue. To distort our 550-year-old history and religion is a humiliation and only serves to diminish the faith in the eyes of the world,” said the Sabha president.

The apparent “ignorance” of the Supreme Court about the basic tenets of the Sikh faith has confounded Sikh scholars and experts, some of whom have seen it as a definite affront to its glorious heritage.