back to the courtroom again by a lavakare

[Guest guest]

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jul/01arvind.htm

Back to the courtroom yet againJuly 01, 2003

The Hindus are yet again at the old game they're best at -- quarreling among

themselves. And never mind if it's over what has been so dear so long to

millions of Hindus all over the world -- a Ram temple at Ayodhya.

It's all because Sri Jayendra Saraswati, the Kanchi acharya, has hijacked the

temple agenda from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and plunged into making secret

proposals to the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. The original sinner is,

of course, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee -- a Hindu, don't forget, even

if he has. It was he who roped in the seer for the secret mission because, all

of a sudden, he wanted politicians to be kept away from what has been a

simmering Hindu-Muslim issue for decades now.

The immediate situation is of the cat-among-the-pigeons kind. The VHP, enraged

at being bypassed by Vajpayee, has let its Pravin Togadia dub him as Mahatma

Gandhi II. The RSS too is very annoyed. Sri Vishwesha Tirtha Swami of Pejawar

disagrees with the Kanchi acharya that the latter, along with the Muslim

organisations and the Union government alone are parties to the Ayodhya issue.

In fact, all the other Hindu religious leaders associated with the VHP's Dharam

Sansad are dismayed at the Kanchi acharya's audacity in ignoring them. So are

millions of Hindus as well as the BJP -- Vajpayee's party, don't forget, even

if he himself has. All these entities are overtly confused and covertly

alarmed. They silently nod at the Communist parties attack on the prime

minister's 'effrontery' in engaging the swami they've labeled as 'ambitious and

scheming' (of whom more anon).

All this quarreling and confusion and consternation among the Hindus is to lie

in a state of animated suspension (or suspended animation, if you like) till

July 6 when, the Kanchi seer says, he will reveal all -- verily like the

magician 'cutting' a human body into two on stage and then, after a suitable

pause of suspense, pronouncing 'abracadabra' to produce the whole again. The

seer in question will probably do that after weaving the wooden staff he always

carries.

Meanwhile, the Muslims too are disunited -- for a change. The Shah Imam of Jamma

Masjid has challenged the AIMPLB's authority to negotiate on behalf of the

entire Muslim community. Some other Muslim organisations are disgruntled that

the Kanchi acharya's proposals have been kept confidential. However, writing on

the edit page of The Indian Express, Mumbai, of June 27, Saeed Naqvi -- a

seasoned journalist -- believes the community gains by keeping the proposals

confidential and that the AIMPLB along with the Kanchi negotiator could well

hit upon 'The solution that shall be such as to bring the two communities

closer, to re-establish the warmth between them which the politics of the

recent decades has destroyed.'

Now, now, Mr Naqvi, when was the last time that that 'warmth' existed between

the two communities? When did the Muslims last condescend to that affinity?

Subject to correction, the last occasion when the two communities came really

close to each other was during that struggle of 1857 which Veer Savarkar dubbed

as India's first war of independence. The Hindus joining the Muslims of the Ali

brothers in the Khilafat Movement of 1919 was not 'warmth' but blackmail by

Mahatma Gandhi who thought that Hindus supporting the Muslim demand for

restoration of the Turkish empire's dismissed Caliph would work wonders for

Hindu-Muslim unity in ousting our British masters. What we got instead was the

Moplah Rebellion of 1920 when the Muslims, routed by the colonial rulers, dug

into the soft targets -- countless Hindus converted and/or killed, their women

raped and outraged.

Since then till now, 'warmth' between the two communities has largely remained a mental fancy.

With regard to the Ayodhya issue, the Muslim community showed, not 'warmth,' but

the cold shoulder to the generous offer that the VHP made 17 years ago. Though

the Babri structure was not being used for namaaz since December 1949

definitely (and probably since 1934), the sants and the VHP proposed that the

Hindus would reverentially shift and relocate the Babri structure as the site

was important to the Hindus and the structure was important to the Muslims.

Since the Muttawali of the Babri mosque was a direct descendant of its builder,

Mir Baqi, a Shia, Shri Anjum Qader, the All-India Shia Conference leader,

proposed sometime in 1987 that the Muslims should accept the solution of

shifting of the Babri structure. Syed Shahabudin insisted that not merely the

structure, but also the site was sacred to the Muslims. Shahabudin wrote back

to him on 4.7.1987, referring to Shri Qader's letter of 1st June, and stating

that 'Even if shifting is permissible under some school of Fiqh, there is no

reason at all to opt for shift. In fact, one shift would open a Pandora's box.

Please do not pursue this line... I remain absolutely and totally opposed to

the mischievous idea of shift proposed by the RSS, which you appear inclined to

accept. Please reconsider.' (The words in italics are quotes from the 'BJP White

Paper on Ayodhya and The Rama Temple, April 1993,' page 91.)

Even in the negotiations during the period December 1990-January conducted

between the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee and the VHP under the

specific advice of the Chandra Shekhar government, the representatives of the

Muslims showed neither warmth nor seriousness.

According to History Versus Casuistry (Voice of India publication, 1991, no

author), Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar wanted (as advised by his predecessor,

Rajiv Gandhi) those discussions to narrow down to the specific point whether

the Babri structure had replaced a pre-existing Hindu temple. Further, those

negotiations were under the agenda set by the Union minister of state for home

affairs assisted by the chief ministers of Maharashtra, Rajasthan and UP. The

following is a nutshell account of those negotiations:

Since the VHP was ready with its evidence on the scheduled date of December 22,

1990 but the AIBMAC was not, the meeting was held on December 23, and photo

copies of the evidence of both the parties were furnished to the Union minister

on December 26. The VHP's evidence was specifically centred on the parameters

laid down by the government. A covering note set out clearly that the only

conclusion that could be drawn from its submitted documents was that the Babri

structure had replaced a pre-existing temple. AIBMAC's evidence was but a pile

of papers, prolific in polemics, short on hard facts and self-contradictory as

well. No covering summary was provided. Rejoinders to the evidence of either

party were required to be sent to the Union minister. The VHP did so, point by

point, on January 6, 1991. The AIBMAC's rejoinder was... another pile of

papers. In the meeting held on January 10, 1991, it was decided that the

evidence would be divided under the heads of history, archaeology, revenue

records and law, and that the list of experts to be appointed by each side

would be submitted on January 17 for a preliminary discussion on January 24 and

for a joint meeting on February 6, 1991. The VHP's list of experts was ready on

the stipulated date while the AIBMAC's was submitted six days late.

When the meeting of experts took place on January 24, four nominees of the

AIBMAC wanted to be heard as independent scholars. When the minister rejected

that demand, they wanted a minimum of six weeks for studying and evaluating the

evidence. The meeting was adjourned to the next day. On January 25, 1991, the

VHP experts reached the meeting venue at the appointed time. The AIBMAC experts

failed to turn up. That was the end of the first serious effort made by the

Government of India for an amicable settlement of the Ayodhya dispute.

Now has come the second major government effort, albeit clandestine. This effort

is based on 'deals,' not 'documents.' The sole rep from the temple side is one

whose mysterious disappearance from his matha in August 1987 for days together

required the engagement of the police, the CID and other agencies to search for

him, resulting in an exposition of his credentials by the national media in

general and The Times of India group's The Illustrated Weekly of India

specifically in its issue of September 13, 1987.

(http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/alt_hindu_msg.html.).

What that once-prestigious weekly pinpointed nearly 16 years ago was

'Sri Jayendra Saraswati cannot be regarded as a Sankaracharya at all, because

the Kanchi math is not one of the four peethas constituted by Adi Sankaracharya

..It is only a shakha (branch) of the Sringeri peetham.' -- Sankaracharya of

Dwarka, Swaroopananda Saraswati. 'Several years earlier, Sir C P Ramaswamy

Iyer, who headed the central commission on Hindu religious and charitable

endowments, had announced that "there is no such thing as the Kanchi Kamakoti

peetham."'

That Adi Shankaracharya established only four mathas across India -- at

Jagannath Puri in the east, at Sringeri in the south, at Dwarka in the west and

at Jyothirdham in the north, about 30 kms south of Badrinath -- is borne out in

the authoritative book titled Sankara, the Missionary brought out in June 1998

by Central Chinmaya Mission Trust, Mumbai, and carrying a foreword by the much

and widely revered Swami Chinmayanand, now departed.

What solution then should we expect from this Shankaracharya and an AIMPLB chief

who locks away the secret proposals in his cupboard at home instead of straight

away discussing them with his Board colleagues?

What solution should one expect when there is a sharp divide in the Muslim

opinion on Ayodhya? On the one hand, there is a sprinkling of liberals which

supports the view expressed by Firoz Bakshi Ahmed that 'It would be best for

Muslims gracefully to offer the disputed patch of land in Ayodhya to their

Hindu brethren...' (The Times of India, Mumbai, June 16, 2003, edit page

article).

In utter contrast, a very recent poll of 1,432 Muslims in eight cities showed

that 85 per cent of them don't want their community to gift the disputed site

to the Hindus. (Outlook weekly magazine, June 30, 2003).

On the Hindu side, the VHP is on the warpath -- period.

What solution then shall we expect on July 6 and soon thereafter? Will it

suggest another Muslim appeasement or will there be a Ram miracle or will it be

back to the courtroom? The last option seems the best bet just now. Nothing like

our judicial system to wear everyone out!

Arvind LavakareDiscover your Indian Roots at - http://www.esamskriti.com, 700

pictures, over 140 articles.To mail - exploreindia (AT) vsnl (DOT) net, to

Un write back.Long Live Sanatan / Kshatriya Dharam. Become an

Intellectual KshatriyaGenerate Positive Vibrations lifelong worldwide.Aap ka

din mangalmaya rahe or Shubh dinam astu or Have a Nice DayUnity preceedes

Strength Synchronize your efforts, avoid duplication.THINK, ACT, INFLUENCE, to

Un write back.Create Positive Karmas by being Focussed, controlling

senses, will power & determinationNever boasts about yr victory and

successKnowledge, Wealth, Happiness are meant to be sharedBe Open Minded, pick

up what yu like from the world

 

Stop cribbing, ACTION is what the Indian scriptures talk aboutTake the battle

into the enemy camp, SET THE AGENDA, be proactiveIn an argument, no emotions,

be detached, get yr facts right, then attack with the precision of a missile