Somnath and Ayodhya: What
Is the Difference
Somnath and Ayodhya: What Is
the Difference
By David Frawley
This article was posted in 1996
Somnath is one of the most important Hindu sacred sites, relating
to Lord
Shiva, who is worshipped as the Supreme godhead. Its history goes
back to
the Vedic era and to the Mahabharat. Its great temple was first
destroyed
by the Afghani invader, Mahmud of Ghazni, in the eleventh century.
It was
one of the first great Hindu temples attacked by invading Muslims
and its
destruction left a great scar on the psyche of Hindus.
Meanwhile Mahmud was hailed throughout the Islamic world as a
second
Mohammed and his smashing of Somnath was lauded in the Sufi poetry
of
Attar, Sanai and Omar Khayyam. These poets equated Somnath with
the temples
to the pagan goddess Al-Manat destroyed by Mohammed and viewed its
destruction as the 'will of Allah' and the 'enlightened march of
Islam.'
The Hindus rebuilt the temple several times, but the Muslims
destroyed it
again. The temple was last destroyed by the Mughal tyrant,
Aurangzeb around
1700. Aurangzeb, as history records, was a brutal ruler who left a
trail of
genocide and destruction, mainly aimed at converting Hindus.
Aurangzeb
built a mosque on the site of the Somnath temple, using some
columns from
the temple, whose Hindu sculptural motifs remained visible.
Under the guidance of the political leader Sardar Patel and KM
Munshi (who
founded Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan), the temple was restored around
1950.
Mahatma Gandhi also approved of the retaking of Somnath but did
not live
to see it happen. Recently the President of India, Shanker Dayal
Sharma,
performed the Kalash praishthan of the temple's Nritya Mandap and
dedicated the temple to the nation.
Hindu leaders, particularly the VHP (Vishva Hindu Parishad), have
been
asking for the restoration of three great Hindu holy sites whose
temples
were destroyed and replaced with mosques. These are Ayodhya (Ramajanmabhumi
or Ram's birthplace), Mathura (Krishnajanmabhumi or Krishna's
birthplace),
and the great Shiva temple of Kashi Vishwanath in Varanasi. The
restoration
of Somnath should be examined to see whether these other proposed
restorations are valid.
Both Krishnajanmabhumi in Mathura and Kashi Vishwanath temple are
products
of similar historical circumstances as Somnath. Both like Somnath
were
important Hindu holy sites destroyed by Muslim invaders, with the
last
destruction and building of their present mosques also done by
Aurangzeb
in the late 17th. Both, like Somnath, retain portions of the
original Hindu
temples. In fact the whole back wall of the Kashi mosque is from
the Kashi
Vishwanath temple, complete with all the sculpture.
The case of Ayodhya is not much different. It was destroyed by the
first
Mughal invader from Central Asia, Babar, in the 16th century and a
mosque
was built on the site. Like the others, portions of the temple
could be
found in and around the mosque. Hindus fought repeatedly through
the
centuries to regain the Ayodhya site but never succeeded in
restoring the
temple. Such mosques were placed on the holy sites of another
religion in
order to denigrate it. They are monuments to intolerance, cruelty
and self
righteousness and should not be looked upon as holy by members of
any
religion.
One important difference between Somnath and Ayodhya, of course,
is that
Somnath was reclaimed legally and Ayodhya was destroyed illegally.
However
the Ayodhya case has been in court since 1947 without a decision
so that no
legal action can proceed. Moreover, the legal building of Somnath
only
occurred because of the considerable pressure Indian political
leaders put
on the Islamic ruler of the area, who had tried to secede to
Pakistan though
over eighty percent of the population he ruled was Hindu. If
Indian leaders
today put the same pressure on the Islamic communities that hold
these
Hindu sacred sites, they will also give them up.
There is some debate today that Ramajanmabhumi or
Krishnajanmabhumi cannot
be reclaimed because no one can prove (hat Rama or Krishna, who
lived
thousands of years ago, were actually born there. Those who
restored
Somnath were not asked to prove the history of Somnath thousands
of years
ago before restoring the temple. The tradition itself was enough
to warrant
the restoration.
Why was Somnath restored and not the others? Because Sardar Pates
was a
Gujarati (Somnath is in Gujarat) and he unfortunately died in
1950,
preventing him from taking similar action for other Hindu sacred
sites.
Nehru, for whom Patel was the main rival, was not in favor of the
restoration of Somnath and he effectively blocked the restoration
of the
other sites, particularly Ramajanmabhumi. Nehru ruled as a
socialist with
communist sympathies, not as a Hindu and his policies followed his
ideological bent. In other words, the same process as reclaimed
Somnath was
initiated in regard to these other sites but was suppressed. Had
it I been
allowed to go through, the result would probably have been the
same. Why is
it therefore that the restoration of the Somnath temple is a
matter of
national pride, while attempts to restore the Mathura and Kashi
temples
are portrayed in the press as the ravings of Hindu militants?
It is hypocritical to separate Somnath from the other three sites.
If
Kashi and Mathura cannot go back to the Hindus, then the taking of
Somnath
was illegal. If the destruction of Babri Masjid was a dastardly
act, so was
the demolition of the Somnath mosque. If Hindu political leaders,
like the
President, will not go to Ayodhya for worship, they should not go
to
Somnath either.
On the other hand, if Hindus can reclaim Somnath, they can reclaim
the
other three sites. In fact of the four sites, it can be argued
that the
most important is Krishnajanmabhumi, because Krishna is probably
the most
important Hindu religious figure. Kashi Vishwanath Shiva Temple is
also at
least as important as Somnath.
Kashi comes first as the city of Shiva. Because Somnath was
destroyed
first, it gained a greater nostalgia, but not because it is a more
important site than the others The reclaiming of Somnath hence
demands
the restoration of these other sites.
If Indian political leaders like Sardar Patel could reclaim
Somnath and
remain good secular leaders that the nation still honors, so can
Indian
political leaders today. If Somnath can be dedicated to the
nation, so
can the other sites. If Somnath is a matter of national pride,
then
certainly Ayodhya and the others deserve to be as well. If a legal
process
could be created to reclaim Somnath, a similar process can be
created to
reclaim these other three sites.
Who is asking for the restoration of the Somnath mosque today? No
one in
India. There is no political action committee for the restoration
of the
Somnath mosque. If the other sites had been taken back at the same
time
forty-five years ago, they would no more be political issues today
than is
Somnath. Similarly if they are taken back today as Somnath was
decades ago,
they will cease to be issues in a few years. For those opposed to
the
restoration of Ramajanmabhumi, Kashi and Mathura, let them not
forget
Somnath.
If Hindus honor Somnath, they should not look down upon attempts
to restore
Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi, but, on the contrary, help accomplish
this aim.
End of the 1996 article by David Frawley.
If
you enjoyed this article, please visit: http://www.hinduunity.org
|
