Not a credible exercise

THE ATTEMPT BY a hardcore Sangh Parivar functionary, Mr. Vinay Katiyar, to start a dialogue on the Ayodhya temple issue has understandably, and quite legitimately, met with stiff resistance from those sections of the Muslim community that are directly involved in the dispute. The seemingly individualist initiative, for which Mr. Katiyar had apparently enlisted the support of Mr. Hashim Ansari (a litigant in the Mandir-Masjid case) from the other side, was in fact a trial balloon of sorts aimed at buying time or projecting a facade of `conciliation', even as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad was pushing ahead with the temple construction project. Presumably, the inspiration for the `dialogue' idea came from the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee's `Kumarakom musings' wherein he had said the judicial route and the negotiations option were not mutually exclusive, but were in fact complementary to each other. Eminently sensible as that proposition might sound on paper, any talk of negotiations will not only lack credibility but will appear devious, given the VHP's very high stakes in putting up the Ram temple at the disputed site and the sort of momentum the preliminary construction work has picked up.

Whatever potential the negotiations route might have had as a way of settling the vexed Ayodhya dispute has entirely dissipated in the post-Masjid demolition context; the outrageous act of pulling down of the structure on that fateful December 6, 1992, had brought about a fundamental, qualitative change in the situation. And, worse, the option stood utterly discredited when the P. V. Narasimha Rao Government encouraged the two communal groups, the VHP and the Babri Masjid Action Committee, to engage themselves in an exercise based on highly questionable parameters, aside from the fact that the process gave recognition and authority to these groups to speak and decide on behalf of their respective communities. The dialogue, intended for an exchange of archaeological evidence on whether or not a temple pre-existed the mosque (since demolished), in a way sought to legitimise the unreasonable stance of the Sangh Parivar and was premised on a totally unwarranted concession to its revanchist frenzy. No democracy anchored to secular and pluralist principles can afford to ignore the dangerous consequences of allowing fanatic communal groups to get away with their attempts to avenge what they perceive as historical `wrongs' and thereby helping them gain political space and credibility. It is noteworthy that the `pre- existence' theory as a basis for dispute settlement ceased to be canvassed with any degree of seriousness after the Supreme Court's decision returning the Presidential reference on the subject.

In any search for a fair solution to the Ayodhya tangle, the bottomline to be recognised is the necessary reparation that is called for in the context of the injustice done to the Muslim community when the Babri Masjid was razed to the ground eight years ago - an act of national shame. And this logically points to a restoration of the status quo ante. As things stand, however, there is a political consensus nationwide - excluding of course the segments constituting communal chauvinists - that the judicial verdict (which is awaited) should be accepted as the final word by all sides. For his part, Mr. Vajpayee has, in a faintly-concealed retraction from his controversial statements backing the `temple at the disputed site' line, committed his regime to maintaining the status quo in Ayodhya and accepting the judicial verdict, ``whatever it might be''. However, with the Hindutva elements working overtime to use the Maha Kumbh mela in Allahabad for whipping up communal frenzy on the temple issue and the drummed up prospect of a firm date for construction of the temple being announced on the occasion, it is Mr. Vajpayee's assurance on maintaining the statusquo in Ayodhya and his warning against any attempt to disturb it that will be subject to a litmus test in the immediate context.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Ad-Hocism again