Ayodhya: A Future Bound By The Past
By Sumanta Banerjee
Economic and Political Weekly (India)
15 July , 2003
If it were not for its destructive potentialities, the mandir-masjid
dispute could have been turned into a comic story of religious
madness harnessed by political expediency and ending in a hilarious display of all-embracing hypocrisy. It would have survived in popular legends only. But modern Indian politicians have the habit of allowing a contentious issue to drag on like a running sore as long as it feeds their diabolical appetite, while the country bleeds to death - whether it is Kashmir or Ayodhya.The latest actors in the mandir-masjid dispute, ranging from the
media savvy Kanchi Shankaracharya to the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), are scrambling for the best roles that they can grab in the next stage of the Ayodhya drama. Now with the campaign for the four assembly elections towards the end of this year gaining momentum, and acting as a run-up to the Lok Sabha polls early next year, the Ayodhya dispute has entered a crucial stage. While the cases on the title suits, and against the accused in the masjid demolition and Bombay blasts are dragging on, the excavations ordered by the court and carried out by the Archaeological Society of India have not yet yielded any concrete evidence to prove the existence of any temple on the site. The BJP therefore finds itself on a sticky wicket. If it can manage to come to some sort of an out-of-court deal with the Muslim religious heads that would allow it to build the temple on the site of the demolition, in exchange of a few concessions to the Muslims, it can revive its flagging influence on the Hindu voters, as well as increase the number of Muslim recruits of the types of Shahnawaz Hussain (a minister in the present government) and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi (the BJP spokesman) for its campaign in the next elections. Under its blessings, the Kanchi Shankaracharya has jumped into the fray with a formula which he is trying to sell to the AIMPLB.But this has made the members of the Sangh parivar bring out their 'trishuls' against each other. The VHP leaders are pretty hot under their saffron robes, as they feel that they are being ousted from the helm of the chariot of Hindutva. They are breathing fire against Vajpayee whom they regard a softie, while appealing to their knight-errant, the 'lauha purush' Advani not to come to any deal with the Muslim clergy that would allow them to build a mosque near the disputed site, offer 'namaz' in protected monuments, and give up the claims of the Hindu clergy to Kashi and Mathura. The ranks of the Hindutva brigade also are not too happy with the BJP ministers. They are realising that they are being offered as the sacrificial goats for prosecution in the Babri masjid demolition case, while those who masterminded the demolition like Advani, Uma Bharti and Murli Manohar
Joshi are getting away scot-free. At least five among the 49 kar
sevaks accused of the demolition and now facing trial before a
special CBI court have now turned their ire from the mosque to their leaders. Speaking to the press on June 7, they claimed that it was Advani and other senior BJP leaders who instigated them to pull down the structure on that fateful December 6 of 1992. But now, they alleged, these leaders had managed to get their cases separated from the rest, and were getting special treatment. They, the cannon-fodder, who were used by the 'Sangh parivar' on that day cannot be blamed, since while they have to appear every now and then before the CBI court, Advani, Uma Bharti, Joshi and other top leaders among the accused are being granted exemption from personal appearance on a regular basis by the same CBI court. The five accused have quite rightly demanded that the court should treat all on par.The other person who seems determined to queer the BJP's electoral pitch is the renegade from the 'parivar', Kalyan Singh. Having been a part of the entire plot to demolish the mosque during his tenure as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, he was privy to the roles played by Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and others. He is now threatening to squeal on his ex-comrades by spilling the beans - which would jeopardise the BJP's latest electoral strategy of coming to some sort of terms with the Muslim religious leaders.
As the 'trishuls' in the Hindu religious camp are being sharpened to settle scores among its members, daggers are being drawn among the Muslim religious leaders also to target rivals within their camp. They are divided over the stand to be taken on the latest compromise formula. Are the differences rooted to the Shia-Sunni dispute among the Muslim religious leaders? Let us remember that the main plaintiff in the Ayodhya title suit is the Central Sunni Waqf Board. The Shia community had remained more or less indifferent to the dispute. The Sunni Waqf Board has consistently stuck to two positions - one, opposition to any negotiated settlement outside the courts; and two, acceptance of any court verdict, whether it favoured it or not. Unlike the VHP which has repeatedly made it clear that it would not respect any court judgment that may go against its belief that the site of the Babri masjid is the birthplace of Ram, the Muslim plaintiff announced its adherence to the Indian Constitution and acceptance of whatever verdict that the court may deliver. The other Muslim party to the dispute is the AIMPLB, whose members are divided in their response to the Shankaracharya's formula.
While some are in favour of an out-of-court settlement on the basis of a compromise, others oppose it.
As far as the general Muslim response is concerned, it is a defeatist attitude inclined towards any sacrifice or agreement at whatever cost, that would buy them the guarantee (however fragile) of some sort of peace from the Hindu goons who rule the country. This is understandable. The Muslim community has been let down by the secular political parties ranging from the Congress to the Communists who during the last crucial decades had failed to mount any offensive against the onrush of the 'Sangh parivar'-led Hindu fanatical campaign, and provide protection to the minorities from its murderous assaults. It seems that the BJP on the other hand has succeeded in softening up the morale of Muslim intellectuals, by the application of a judicious mixture of terrorisation and cajoling. It is pathetic to watch even sections of Muslim progressive intellectuals veering towards the BJP-sponsored compromise formula.
All through these current reports and speculations about out-of-court negotiations and deals, as well as legal arguments and debates in the courts and before commissions, there are two things that stand out. One, the hypocrisy of the BJP leaders, and two, their sneaking attempts to escape legal punishment through some sort of out-of-court settlement. Take, for instance deputy prime minister Advani who seems to suffer from selective amnesia whenever he is asked to give evidence before the CBI court or the Liberhan Commission. It was this gentleman, in his role as the president of the BJP, who launched the notorious 'rath yatra' in 1990. At the height of the anti-Mandal Commission agitation, which saw the BJP gradually estranging itself from the National Front government, Advani cast himself in the role
of a modern Shankaracharya pretending to unite entire India under the hegemony of Hinduism, and started his 'rath yatra' from Somnath temple to Ayodhya at the end of September in 1990. But it was not a simple peaceful demonstration for the building of a temple. He carved it with murderous edges that continue to rip apart our society. The points of both embarkation and disembarkation chosen by Advani for his 'rath yatra' are significant. Both are associated with historical memories of Muslim invasion. His speeches accompanying the 'rath
yatra' reinforced the communal divide between Hindus and Muslims by reviving old hatreds. He whipped up a frenzy among Hindus all over the country with his slogan: 'Kasam Ram ki khate hain, Mandir wahin banayenge', urging his party's kar sevaks to build the temple on the same spot as the mosque. It was this that led up to the demolition of the masjid on December 6, 1992. All his public speeches made during this period, and the trail of killings of Muslims left behind by his 'rath yatra' are fully recorded in contemporary newspapers. Yet, today, when faced by the courts and judicial commissions, he feigns ignorance. He has the cheek to deny all responsibility and make the preposterous statement before the Liberhan Commission, "Snot a single riot or violence took place anywhere during my 'rath yatra'S". To save his skin, he is trying his best to dissociate himself from the
violence that he provoked during the 'rath yatra' and the Babri
masjid demolition. An out-of-court settlement that will put an end to the court cases pending against him, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and others of his ilk would therefore suit them best. Like Musharraf of Pakistan who after having aided the Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan promptly ditched them fearing US retaliation after September 11, Advani also, fearful of an adverse judicial verdict, is now willing to dump his cadres in the 'Sangh parivar' whom he rallied to demolish the mosque.A negotiated settlement of the mandir-masjid dispute is all the rage now. Well-meaning people both among Hindus and Muslims, in a desperate bid to put an end to the dispute once and for all, seem to be taken in by the various formulae being floated around for an out-of-court settlement. But they should be cautious about two possibilities. First, a settlement with the 'Sangh parivar' leaders who include the BJP ministers can never be relied upon. After all, it was these leaders who gave assurances to the Supreme Court, and violated them on December 6, and have yet managed to become ministers. Given the history of judicial procrastination on the mandir-masjid dispute during the last 50 years (the first petition in the case was filed on January 16, 1950 in the court of civil judge at Faizabad, which is still pending!), we cannot depend on any effective and prompt judicial verdict if the Sangh parivar decides to violate the terms of the settlement tomorrow. Secondly, what is more important is that such a settlement should not be at the cost of granting immunity to those who had been guilty of the demolition of the Babri mosque. Purely from humanitarian concerns, the victims of Advani's 'rath yatra' should get justice. Should those who unleashed the worst communal passions since the 1946-47 massacres in the subcontinent, which are still to be doused, remain unpunished, and emerge as ministers after the next general elections?