Author: Shyam Khosla
Publication: Organiser
Date: January 25, 2004
Introduction: Chandra Shekhar kick-started
a dialogue between the Hindu and Muslim leaders. Leftist historians who
came forward to represent the Muslim case during the negotiations soon
ran out of arguments in the face of irrefutable historical, literary and
religious evidence produced by Hindu scholars and historians and chose
to boycott the negotiations
The positive response from both
the Hindus and the Muslims to the Dalai Lama's appeal to resolve the Ayodhya
tangle in our age-old tradition of religious tolerance is a heartening
development. Although the Buddhist spiritual leader has set the ball rolling,
powerful men of goodwill in the Government and outside have been working
behind the scene for months to prepare the ground for a negotiated settlement
of the vexed issue. The promptness with which the Deputy Prime Minister
welcomed the initiative and promised that the Central Government would
do its best to bring about a settlement lends credence to this perception.
This became imperative after the secularists' machinations and the Muslim
leaders' obstinacy frustrated Kanchi Shankaracharya's bold initiative to
hammer out a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute. Secularists are
not interested in an amicable settlement of the centuries-old dispute.
National reconciliation is not on their agenda.
Deepening the gulf between the Hindus
and the minorities is part of their vote-bank politics. No one will be
surprised if they and their friends in the media and the intelligentsia
put hurdles to scuttle the latest effort to arrive at a consensus on Ayodhya.
The negotiations need to be conducted away from the glare of publicity,
for premature leaks about the terms are the best weapon to scuttle any
settlement. There are reasons to believe that well-meaning Muslim leaders
have come round to the view that it is in the broad and long-time interest
of the community to respect the intensity of Hindu sentiments and hand
over the disputed site to the Hindus for the reconstruction of the temple.
The futility of prolonging the temple dispute is obvious. Keeping the festering
sore alive is not in national interest for it may further polarise the
polity and lead to disharmony and social tensions. The earlier the dispute
is resolved the better it would be for all concerned. Let everyone concerned
with this dispute appreciate that litigation offers no solution to as sensitive
an issue as Ayodhya. Cases pertaining to the title to the disputed land
are pending in courts for more than half a century. Several litigants have
in the meantime died but the courts could not, or did not, conclude hearing
what to talk of handing down a verdict. The Supreme Court's directive for
a day-to-day hearing, of the case has not brought much relief. Irrefutable
evidence of the existence of a Hindu temple below the disputed site brought
out by the excavations carried out by ASI on High Court's order too has
not expedited a decision.
Moreover, the aggrieved party is
bound to challenge an adverse decision in a higher court leading to further
delays. Finally, the courts may decide the title dispute but have no jurisdiction
over issues pertaining to faith. The apex court had itself said that there
were certain issues that fall outside its purview. Judicial delays and
interventions so frustrated' the Hindu leaders that they tilted in favour
of the legislative route. They asked the Government to enact a law for
handing over Ramjanambhoomi to the Hindus for the reconstruction of a grand
temple. It may be deemed to be an easy way out but is not a practical proposition
in the current political scenario. Even if the parties supporting the ideology
of Hindutva have the political will to introduce such a bill, they lack
the numbers in either House of Parliament to get it through. Presuming
that these parties get a clear majority in the fourteenth Lok Sabha, how
about the Upper House? And where is the guarantee that someone like Mohammad
Aslam alias Bhure will not challenge the constitutionality of the legislation
in the Supreme Court? That will put the clock back by years. The only viable
solution is a negotiated settlement. The Supreme Court had a decade ago
observed that it was a matter suited essentially to a process of resolution
by negotiations. It had hinted that a decree could be obtained in terms
of such a solution in the title suits. That is to say the apex court favoured
talks between the parties so that an answer to this imbroglio could be
found. Immediately after taking over as Prime Minister, Chandra Shekhar
kick-started a dialogue between the Hindu and Muslim leaders. Leftist historians
who came forward to represent the Muslim case during the negotiations soon
ran out of arguments in the face of irrefutable historical, literary and
religious evidence produced by Hindu scholars and historians and chose
to boycott the negotiations on one pretext or another. The Congress party
on whose support Chandra Shekhar had become Prime Minister too torpedoed
the process for reasons best known to it. Muslim outfits hardened their
stand after that mishap. The rest is, as they say, history. Fortunately,
sober elements among the Muslims have come round to believe that the discord
over Ayodhya has hurt the larger interests of the community and now appear
to be amenable to a negotiated settlement. They want an assurance from
top Hindu leaders that the Hindus will not lay claim to any other disputed
religious site after the Muslims show the goodwill by withdrawing their
claim on Ramjanmabhoomi. In this context they refer to Lal Krishan Adavni's
offer in the 90s that he would try to persuade Hindu leaders not to insist
on Kashi and Mathura if the Muslims willingly hand over Ayodhya to the
Hindus. Much water has flown down the Saryu during the past one decade.
But nothing will be lost in making yet another sincere effort to resolve
the tangle in the spirit of mutual accommodation. Reconstruction of a grand
Ram temple in Ayodhya will certainly generate a feel-great sentiment among
Hindus not only in India but also all over the world. Mutual mistrust and
misunderstandings will wither away and the country will witness a new era
of communal harmony and goodwill. However, it would be naive to expect
the practitioners of vote-bank politics and jehadis to allow this to happen
so easily. They would do all they can to scuttle the process of consensus
by spreading rumours and making inflammatory statements. The road to an
amicable settlement is a long and arduous one. Given the determination
of men of goodwill and their spirit of accommodation, a consensus is possible.
Let us keep our fingers crossed.
