Let Go Of Ayodhya
By Swami Agnivesh & Rev Valson Thampu
Deccan Herald
26 August, 2003Assuming that we have the patience and humility to consult Lord Ram on Ayodhya, very likely he will counsel, “It’s time to let go on this much ado about nothing.” The belligerent Ram bhakts, however, are disinclined to do so, underlining the ironic truth that the clamour for Ram temple is independent of devotion to Lord Ram. This is proved by the stand of the pro-mandir hawks: “We will build the temple in the disputed area, even if Lord Ram were to ask us not to.” The VHP, typical of its attitude to the rule of law, has made it clear that it will accept the court’s verdict only if it is in its favour.
The Muslims are reluctant to let go on Ayodhya on the pretext that the property under dispute belongs to Allah, which they are not free to give away. This notwithstanding, in deference to the rule of law and the ethos of a modern secular society, they will abide by the judicial outcome unconditionally. By the same token, they must realise that the theological notion that this piece of land belongs to Allah is not a self-evident fact in the secular context.
They should not, like the VHP, assume that all people are obliged to endorse esoteric assumptions simply because they are religious. Even theologically, this assumption is of dubious merit. On what basis can Muslims or any religious group assume that God is particularly interested in a certain piece of real estate?
The idea that God is particularly interested in a place of worship is a piece of clever invention by the priestly class in order to manipulate popular religiosity to their advantage. There are two contrary perspectives on the significance of places of worship.
Religiously conditioned, the faithful feel fervently for places of worship. In our multi-religious society, it is important for every person to recognise and respect this fact. In a spiritual sense, however, God does not live in structures of brick and mortar, but in human hearts sanctified by love. Temples, churches and mosques have social, cultural and political significance, but hardly any spiritual worth. Founders of religions never attached themselves to places of worship.
Continuing madness
All through religious history, places of worship have been vulnerable to corruption, perversion and politics. The religious elites have, besides, dragged credulous followers into their selfish squabbles sugar-coated as jihads and holy wars. Millions have suffered and perished; but the madness continues.
It is high time we outgrew the crippling communal obsession with Ayodhya, not least because it is a non-issue imposed over the helpless people of that town. It is time to allow Lord Ram, the embodiment of righteousness, to be a blessing, rather than a nightmare, to the people of Ayodhya, Hindus and Muslims alike.
The Ayodhya imbroglio defies solution simply because it is engaged from a predatory mentality of taking by force rather than of giving in grace. The threat to take the disputed land by force activates the vanity to defend it at all costs, irrespective of the worth ascribed to the object of dispute. At times it seems as though the Muslims are looking to the courts for a face-saving formula: “Please give an adverse verdict, so that we can wash our hands off this mess”.
The Ayodhya mess can be cleaned up only if the concerned parties desire a solution. As long as communalists, who see Ayodhya as a goose that lays golden eggs for them, are allowed to meddle with it, no amicable solution can emerge. The proof of a sincere desire to solve this issue is the willingness to approach it from the mindset of letting go. In practical terms this could take the following course.
First, all non-Ayodhya intruders into this dispute must take their hands off and leave it to the Hindus and Muslims of Ayodhya to resolve what is, essentially, a local issue. Reports from Ayodhya indicate clearly that this is exactly what the people of that town prefer.
Second, The Hindus of Ayodhya must take the initiative to return the disputed land to the Muslims. The Muslims were in religious possession of it for a long period of time, until extraneous forces alienated it from them. Natural justice demands that what is taken away by force be returned to the people from whom it has been expropriated.
Spiritual gesture
Third, the Muslims must, as a gesture of goodwill and as a token of their commitment to inter-religious harmony, gift that land to the Hindus of Ayodhya. To ask the Muslims to do this, while the title is still under dispute is absurd. How can they give away the land they don’t own indisputably?
The Hindus of Ayodhya, in turn, must welcome this as a spiritual gesture, and not as a token of submission, and gift the gifted land to the nation. It should be received by a multi-faith trust set up by the Government in consultation with the opposition parties. The Government, in turn, must provide land and funds to Muslims to build an alternative mosque. Neither temple nor mosque should be built on land polluted with bloodshed and violence.
It is regrettable in the extreme that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the country, taking advantage of the sentimentally charged context of the death of Ramchandra Parahans, have re-invigorated the VHP agenda on Ayodhya. For Advani, who is also the Home Minister, to argue that “even if the courts give the verdict in favour of Hindus, the controversy would not end,” is to erode, in effect, the morale and sanctity of the judiciary. It does not take extraordinary astuteness to see that Advani has said this with his eyes fixed more on the impending elections than on upholding justice.