Why Media Is Silent Over The Demolished Mandirs?


On May 1, a dargah, reported to be 200 year-old was demolished in Vadodara inviting ‘violent protests’ from Muslims in that area. In the course of the protests four were killed in police firing. The Times of India (May 2) carried a brief report on page 1 which said that "the demolition of a mazaar that encroached on a road caused a major riot" in Vadodara, "leaving four persons dead and over 30 injured". A fuller report on page 8 began by saying that "the demolition of more than 200 year old dargah by civic authorities spared a widespread violence in which four persons were killed in clashes and police firing..." Para 4 of the inside story said that "the trouble began when a VMC squad began demolishing the dargah which authorities said was encroaching on government land". Para 13 of the report said that "the minority community had requested authorities and city Mayor Sunil Solanki not to demolish the dargah as it was more than 200 years old and its destruction could hurt the feelings of the community". No newspaper explained how a 200-years old dargah could encroach on government land. Did it take 200 years for the authorities to realise that the dargah was built on government land and was an encroachment?
The Hindu ( May 2) carried two stories on the subject. The front page report said in para 4 that Minister of State for Home, Amit Shah, made it clear that "it was not a communal violence but a clash between police and Municipal Corporation staff on one side and Muslim residents who objected to the demolition of the dargah on the other". Para 9 of the report quoted Mayor Sunil Solanki as saying that "the demolition of unauthorised structures had been going on for a fortnight to widen roads and that nearly 1, 500 illegal structure had been removed, including more than a dozen religious places of different communities and that at many places the members of different communities volunteered to remove the obstructions. The mayor further said that three meetings had been held with representatives of the Muslim residents but they had not volunteered to remove the dargah and that the road needed to be widened to accommodate increasing traffic. In para 11 the report quoted Municipal Commissioner R.K.Pathak as saying that the demolition of unauthorised structures would continue despite the disturbances. Some questions arise: Which are the "more than a dozen religious places of different communities" that were demolished? Shouldn’t they —and their importance to the communities—be mentioned?
Was the dargah—or an extension of it—really encroaching on government land? How old were the "religious places" of different communities and why were they allowed to be built on government land in the first place? No reporter of any newspaper and certainly not the news agencies seem to have done any home work leaving one to believe that an injustice has been done to ‘the minority community’. How come that Vadodara Municipality looked the other way when "nearly 1,500 illegal structures" were built on government land? Questions, questions, questions. Where is the dargah situated couldn’t any newspaper provide a sketch of the area showing where the dargah is located and why it is imperative that it should be demolished? If the dargah needed to demolished was any attempt made to convince the Muslims of its need and at what level was the issue discussed and who participated in the discussions with representatives of the Muslim community? One is afraid that the story about the demolition of the dargah has been treated too casually. In Saudi Arabhia dargahs or masjids are routinely demolished; only recently a Pakistani paper reported that the ancient residence of the Prophet in Saudi Arabia was demolished to make way for a high-rise apartment.
Apparently in Saudi Arabia no particular significance is attached to masjids. Here in India one has to be careful in such matters. Already the National Commission for Minorities has reportedly urged the Gujarat State Government to conduct a judicial enquiry into the matter to ascertain when the classification of the dargah as an "encroachment" was correctly done. The Vadodara Municipality would have been wise to issue a Press Note long before the demolition of illegal structures was undertaken stating what the situation was. We get into communal trouble needlessly when a little thoughtfulness would have gone a long way in promoting understanding of the issues involved.
Was the dargah really an encroachment or did it just happen that it was standing in the way of the planners? It may be pointed that in Mumbai, under almost similar circumstances, a Muslim place of worship at Dhobi Dalao was left to stand even if it did not help in the smooth flow or vehicular traffic? At times it may be necessary to make some small concessions to any community in the larger interests of peace. The demolition of the dargah in Vadodara cannot be treated lightly considering that it might have national repercussions.
Our secularists would be the first to attack the Gujarat Government on "communal" grounds. One has also to blame poor—or thoughtless—reporting. If, for example, it was reported that violence erupted when "a dargah, along with one dozen religious places of different communities" was demolished, then at least the impression would have been given that a dargah alone was not singled out for demolition. The fact of religious places of different communities being demolished was not mentioned by many reports and The Hindu reported it in para 9. If a dargah has stood on its site for 200 years, obviously it could not possibly have been an encroachment. It can’t be given the same ranking as other religious places of different communities. Illegal ‘Hindu’ shrines are frequently built in cities on pavements which the authorities turn a blind eye to. Is it too much to ask our municipal authorities to be sensitive to religious issues. Gujarat is not Saudi Arabia; the latter may not think too highly of mere buildings under any name. But Muslims in India are sensitive and up to a point their sensitivity needs to be respected. The problem of widening roads is a perennial one and most cities in India face it.
According to one report, the mazaar of Chishti Rashid-ud-din was 300—not 200—years old, but demolishing it has cost four lives. The point to note is the very inadequate reporting in our dailies. Whether in this instance it is deliberate—to create an impression that the Gujarat Government is anti-Muslim, we can’t tell. But it seems likely. With secular dailies one never knows.
Our secular media is mum over the demolished almost 250 Hindu temples constructed over the government land creating traffic problems and so on in Madurai.
Last but not the least,on the banks of river Yamuna—adjoining to the Red Fort wall—so many graves have come up in the last 8/10 years? Whose graves are they? And when the Hon’ble Courts will order to remove all these unauthorised graves these psuedo-secularists/media will start to beat their chests.

No comments: