Author: Saisuresh Sivaswamy
Publication: Rediff
on Net
Date: December 12, 2000
Ayodhya, to most Indians,
is a divine city thanks to its association with the legend. And given
the force of belief, it is immaterial whether this was the actual geographical
entity that Ram presided over, just as it is irrelevant whether Jesus Christ
really performed those miracles attributed to him or if Prophet Mohamed
was all that legend tells us he was. Belief, often, transcends everything,
and where such belief is not maleficent, it really shouldn't be of concern
to anyone.
Given this, how does
one reconcile to the uproar in the newspapers with the situation on the
ground? To put it differently, is what is written in the mainstream media
reflective of the opinion of the people who access the news sources? Granting
that the media's role is not merely to inform but educate as well, and
given the fact that the English media has educated its readership of the
facts of the Ayodhya case for the last eight years at least, there ought
to have been a groundswell of opinion against building a Ram temple at
the disputed site.
Is there such a pervasive
sentiment?
The answer to that is
obvious. What is not obvious, however, to those who control the destinies
of men and nation, is that there is a tremendous price being paid, by the
State, by the people, the longer the issue is allowed to fester.
A solution is the need of the house, not one imposed by external agencies
like the courts, but one worked out by the disputants.
The prime minister, to
his credit, has taken the first step towards this, but instead of debating
his suggestion as mature individuals, the Opposition has resorted to paralysing
Parliament with its lung power. Surely, that cannot be the tactic
of those who have a counter-proposal that will go down well with the masses?
If Messrs Sonia Gandhi, Mulayam Singh et al have an alternative, lasting
solution, that will also find acceptance among the people, why don't they
simply come out with it? The media, given its hues, will surely propagate
it in a positive light, so they can't be afraid of their views being blacked
out?
If they still choose
to stick to their obstructionist ways, could it be because they know that
they have no workable solution to a problem that has bled the nation for
10 years now?
So the prime minister
had a political agenda in articulating his views on what should be done
at the disputed site, so he has his eyes on the assembly election in Uttar
Pradesh and this was his way of reassuring his party's votebank that the
BJP has not strayed from its original agenda. Even then, it does
not detract from the fact that this was the first serious attempt at initiating
a discussion on a problem that has vexed most Indians. Hereto all
that we have had has been suggestions like erecting a public urinal on
the site of the mosque and the like.
Even a kindergarten kid
will not believe that the demolition of the mosque was a spontaneous reaction
on the part of the frenzied mobs that had gathered there. If you
place petrol next to a fire, you don't have to be Einstein to know the
outcome. The demolition may not have been premeditated, but what
else could have happened that December day in 1992? Of course it was a
sorry day, a terrible day, but just as the nation has moved on, the disputants
too need to move on from there and not be stuck in some kind of time-warp.
Those parties that are
bristling at the prime minister's suggestion forget that the temple issue
could never have strengthened the BJP the way it did, had the BJP been
engaged, contained when it initially raised its mandir demand, rather than
opposing it. The shriller the Opposition to the BJP's demand, the
stronger it grew -- which is borne out by the fact that in the election
to the UP assembly soon after the masjid was pulled down, the BJP could
not cross the half-way mark.
The same mistake is being
repeated now. Once the electorate is divided into those who oppose
the Ram temple coming up in Ayodhya and who want the masjid to come up
there instead, it is clear who's got the numbers. The present scenario
will impact first in the next round of assembly elections, especially in
UP, and if the formula works again it will be tried out for sure on a national
level, ahead of time.
Whatever the legality
of the two claims to the Babri Masjid site, the reality is that what was
pulled down will remain in the rubble -- that statement bearing no relation
to the fact that I am a Hindu by birth. Given that, it is up to those
leading the charge for reconstruction of the mosque, and equating its non-compliance
to the Muslim community's doom, to figure out how to get out of the corner
they have painted themselves into.
As a dispassionate observer,
it seems to me that the prime minister has thrown them a lifeline.
It is interesting that Vajpayee has not made any reference to the other
two disputed structures in Mathura and Varanasi which had also adorned
the Sangh Parivar's shortlist on disputed sites that need to be reclaimed.
Perhaps that is the door
left open for a compromise between the hardliners in both communities.
Whether they like it or not, the Muslim community, or at least the people
who have anointed themselves its spokespersons are facing the greater challenge.
What the prime minister has told them tacitly is to give up their claims
to a site on which stood a decrepit, not-in-use mosque, a site which some
Hindus claim was the birthplace of what the legends say was a remarkable
man. Yes, the PM has taken sides in a partisan dispute over a conqueror
vs native legacy -- and if you took a comprehensive poll in the nation
you will be surprised at what its findings are.
Given the strength of
emotion there is little choice for the Muslim communities' leaders.
They have been presented an honourable exit, courtesy the prime minister,
or they can continue to lead their people into mindless conflict, a conflict
which they can never win and a conflict which will bleed their own country
into endless civil strife.
