Educational Media Reviews Online

The confluence of religion, ethnicity, colonialism and politics all meet in violent conflict over a piece of land in northern India in the town of Ayodhya. There, in 1992, Hindus destroyed a 500-year-old mosque, claiming that the mosque was built on the ruins of a temple which marked the birthplace of the Hindu god, Ram. Bloodshed and anarchy around this event sparked looting, destruction and nearly 2000 deaths nationwide in the aftermath of the mosque’s destruction. Since then, the site has been off-limits to all except Hindu worshippers who have erected a make-shift worship area outside as they await the rebuilding of their holy temple. The problem is, archaeologists have not yet been able to determine that there was indeed a Hindu temple on this site that predated the mosque, despite vehement Hindu claims to the contrary. Both profess ownership; both are ready to die in defense of that possession. In fact, current archaeological excavations are occurring in an atmosphere of immense scrutiny accompanied by a media blackout that leaves all but the uninformed anxious for what will happen next.

In this riveting film, Finnish filmmaker Pertti Peterson interviews local Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya about the conflict, both past and present, and finds a violent intolerance in Hindu religious fundamentalism that can locate no community in their shared Indian heritage. For their part, the Muslim locals see no help forthcoming from the current government, which includes members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a radical political organization which includes the likes of Deputy Prime Minister L.K.Advani, who was physically present and seems to have participated in the 1992 destruction of the Ayodhya mosque. In fact, the local Muslim community blames politicians for inciting fundamentalists, many of whom come from outside Ayodhya but see in this poor community the nexus of action for Hindu nationalism.

To say that all Hindus are implicated is unfair. Peterson found several sympathetic Hindu locals who, in discussing 1992, claimed, “Our obligation towards a fellow human being is bigger than our religious obligations. That’s why we save our neighbors. That’s a bigger obligation.” Yet the conflict has virtually destroyed the local economy, which only further inflames the situation. For their part, some Hindu radicals seem to adopt a stance that places them above the law and into the realm of a near holy war. Others, like the neo-fascist RSS ( Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or National Volunteers Society) want to ensure the return of Hindu national pride and see the Temple as a means to that end only (Peterson does take a moment to point out as well that the religiously tolerant Gandhi was assassinated by an RSS member).

One criticism of Peterson’s approach might be that he could find—or at least did not interview—any Muslim fundamentalists or political radicals. It would appear from this film that the Islamic community is and has been peaceable, law-abiding and fearful for their lives, particularly as they await the subsequent decisions coming from the Indian Supreme Court regarding ownership of this piece of land. They are victims without a voice.

With that criticism in mind, this is a riveting yet disturbing piece of social history with no clear answer or resolution. One can view it as an argument for how Hindu nationalism works against the claims of secular democracy or, how one postcolonial democracy is on the brink of anarchy from religious fundamentalism. Remarked Haji Mahboob, the local Muslim leader, “Place one [temple] stone on that [destroyed] mosque and all India will burn.”

Recommended for religious studies, Asian history, postcolonial studies and political science collections.