How do we solve the Ayodhya dispute?

March 31, 2002

"An ideal solution would be (a) for the Government of India to take over all the

land disputed and undisputed and hand it over to the VHP to build a temple (b)

compensate the Muslim community adequate by giving it land somewhere else where

a new masjid can be built © get the VHP to build the new masjid at its expense

and (d) come to an understanding that no further demand as in regard to Banaras

and Mathura will be made and treat all matters as settled, once and far all.

The VHP argument that considering that under Islamic rule as many as 30,000

temples had been demolished and that it is not unreasonable to ask for the

demolition of the mosques in Banaras and Mathura for a full and final

settlement may be logical but it would be unwise. At some point in time Hindus

and Muslims must come to terms with history."==================================

In a two-part article in a national paper, Minister for Disinvestment Arun

Shourie critically dissected the judgment of the Supreme Court in regard to the

Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s insistence on laying the foundation stone of a temple to

Shri Ram in the Ram Janmasthan area, and thereby created a furore. There were

demands for his resignation in the Rajya Sabha. ============

The argument made was that following the Supreme Court Judgment on March 13,

Prime Minister Vajpayee had made a categorical statement that the Government

will "implement the Court’s order in letter and spirit" and that, where the

government was concerned that should be the last word. As a nominated member

and a distinguished lawyer Fali S. Nariman put it: "After Vajpayee had spoken,

it was not open to the Disinvestment Minister or any other Minister in his

government, to criticise the Court’s verdict, nor for the Law Minister to

defend such criticism, not because these worthies do not have the right to

express their own! opinions "but because once the Prime Minister had spoken,

the matter should end there." ============

As Nariman put it: "Free speech is good but collective responsibility is

better." Granting that Nariman has a point it must nevertheless be pointed out

that Shourie by no means criticised the judgment itself as much as certain

questions raised by the Court. The Court had asked: What is the VHP? Whom does

it represent? What is its locus standi? What Shourie wanted to know was why the

Court had not asked: "What is the Babri Masjid Action Committee? Whom does it

represent? What is its locus standi? What is the All India Muslim Law Board?

Whom does it represent? What is its locus standi? How is it, Shourie wanted to

know, that doubt assailed the Court only in regard to the Vishwa Hindu

Parishad? Isn’t that a relevant question to raise? And why is it, one is also

tempted to ask, that invariably it is always a Hindu organisation that is taken

to task? =================

May one ask: whom does the Babri Masjid Action Committee represent? Does it

represent the entire body of Muslim stretched across the length and breadth of

the country? And what sort of "evidence" did it give concerning the Babri

structure in its talks with the VHP which had been precipitatedly terminated?

Why, may one ask, hasn’t this evidence been made public? The VHP’s evidence of

the! pre-existence of a temple to Shri Ram on the Babri structure site is

overwhelming and is available to anyone who wants it. But the BMAC’s evidence,

if we are to take Shourie’s word, is ‘peurile’. If the BMAC is to be believed

Shri Ram was a King of Egypt and that he was born in Afghanistan! Why doesn’t

the BMAC publish what it considers are its arguments and evidence? Let the

public know! From what one understands, the BMAC is a front organisation of

Marxist historians, and the country knows the role that Marxists played in the

formation of Pakistan? No more despicable group can be conceived of than

Marxists, who, from the beginning of 1940 had played a traitorous role in

supporting India’s partition or vivisection. =============

However, some new developments seem to be taking place in Muslim circles that

call for examination. Thus we are told that opinion favouring an out-of-court

settlement of the Ayodhya tangle is gathering momentum among leading members of

the minority community. A report in a national daily, written, incidentally, by

a Muslim and can therefore be considered authentic, says: "The community

leaders cutting across political affiliations, are convinced that courts have

limitations in implementing verdicts on sensitive issues" and that only an

inter-faith dialogue can resolve the Ayodhya issue. But when one speaks of

"inter-faith dialogue" who is to represent each faith? The Shankaracharyas?

There are four of them and they do not necessarily have identical views on

Ayodhya. And besides, while the Shankaracharyas may be listened to with respect

on strictly religious issues, they have no political clout at all and could

possibly make fools of themselves. ===========

Strictly speaking they should be kept out. Besides, do the Shankaracharya

represent all Hindus? They do not have the same standing say, like the Pope.

Among Hindus there are several religious leaders and it is highly unlikely that

a conclave of them will ever be held. The Ram Janmabhoomi i! ssue is much more

than a religious issue and the Shankaracharyas should be kept out. And what

goes for Shankaracharyas goes for Muslim leadership as well? Who is the one

single Muslim leader who commands the respect of all Muslims including Shias

and Sunnis, not to speak of Bohras and Memons and Ahmeddiyas? There isn’t one.

But presuming that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board is, in howsoever

small a measure, representative of Muslim opinion, will its acquiescence of a

compromise be acceptable to all Muslims? According to the media report, one of

the factors that have heightened the sense of urgency in wishing to arrive at

an agreed solution on the Ayodhya issue is the failing health of Qazi

Mujahid-ul-Islam who heads the AIMPLB. ==================

The Qazi is supposed to have conveyed to his close associates that it is his

last with to see restoration of harmony between Hindus and Muslims in the

country which he refers to as dar-ul-Aman (land of peace). Apparently the

problem before the AIMPLB is that it is apprehensive about the Vajpayee

Government’s "true intentions" in view of "conflicting voices" within the Sangh

parivar. The Board is also allegedly clueless on what the government and the VHP

are willing to offer as part of a compromise formula on Ayodhya. Unfortunately

it is not just the AIMPLB that thinks that way. Does anyone know what the

bargaining position either of the AIMPLB or the government or the VHP is? There

is one way of looking at the problem. That way was recently presented by a

Muslim scholar, Sultan Shahin who said that the Muslim community should hand

over the entire land to the government asking for no quid pro quo as a noble

gesture. Should the government then hand over the land to the VHP or the Nyas

or any other Hindu body, Shahin’s argument is that the Muslim community should

not bother. ==========

Even, as he argued, if a temple was built on the disputed site. This, of course,

would be an ideal solution and would help bring about reconciliation between the

two major communities. But will the AIMPLB agree? And if it did, would Muslims

across the country? The point presently being made in some Muslim circles

apparently is that Prophet Mohammed himself signed the Sulah-e-Hudaibya Accord

after conquering Mecca on the grounds that it was important in the larger

interests of peace. Similarly, it is being argued, Caliph Omar declined to

offer namaz at a Bethlehem Church after co! nquering Palestine on the ground

that he did not want to set a precedent. While there was no bar on offering

namaz inside a church, went Omar’s argument, his supporters might follow the

precedent later and unwittingly create a rift with Christians. The question is

whether the VHP and the Sangh Parivar will raise the matter of Mathura and

Banaras during any negotiations. ===========

It is quite true that no archaeological evidence needs to be called in regard to

the masjids in Mathura and Banaras. But then, neither Shri Ram nor Shri Krishna

was born in Banaras and perhaps, in the larger interests of peace and goodwill,

the VHP must cease talking about Mathura and Banaras and stay satisfied with

getting all the land in Ayodhya to build the temple to Shri Ram. The Muslims

would then need to be compensated adequately even if Sultan Shahin in a spirit

of magnanimity says no compensation should be asked. It is here that the Sangh

Parivar could show its spirit of accommodation. ===========

An ideal solution would be (a) for the Government of India to take over all the