An appeal for conciliation on Ayodhya

COME DECEMBER 6, every year after 1992, Hindu and Muslim disputants in the Ayodhya affair and their supporters have been reminding the country about the deplorable demolition of the Babri structure in Ayodhya in 1992. Each group has been trying hard to whip up emotions against its adversaries. The political supporters do use this opportunity to advance their own agendas. This trend has been amply demonstrated by the behaviour of the political parties in Parliament's session during December, 2000.

While the Congress(I) tried to destabilise the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and advance its own claim to power at the Centre in the resulting confusion, the U.P. centric parties with an eye on the imminent elections in U.P. in 2001/2 tried to score points favourable to their game plans. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which likes to ride two horses at the same time, has been asserting that while Ayodhya continues to be a part of the party's agenda, its government stands bound by the NDA's charter which excludes Ayodhya. But what has the country gained from all this rumpus? Are we anywhere near the solution of the Ayodhya problem? How long and how often are we to go on witnessing this frustrating and dangerous drama?

VHP belligerence

Of all the members of the Sangh Parivar supporting the Hindu disputants, the Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has been the most vociferous and belligerent. It insists on building the Ram temple at the very site of the demolished Babri structure as it is believed to be the birth place of Ram. It has managed to persuade a number of sadhus assembled in Kumbh Mela in a so-called Dharma Sansad to pass a resolution fixing the commencement of the construction of the temple at the disputed site anytime after March, 2002. An ultimatum has been given to the Government of India in regard to the transfer of the said land to the Ramjanmabhoomi Temple Trust well before that time, at any rate by Mahasivaratri of 2002. The VHP has further announced a countrywide programme to arouse strong emotions among the Hindus. As the editorial in The Times of India on January 23, 2001 said, all this could be for ``giving a year to Atal Behari Vajpayee - a year during which they would gradually raise the tempo of their demand so that the final crescendo coincides with the elections in U.P.''.

On the other side viz., Muslim Biradari, the Muslim Personal Law Board (MPLB) took up the challenge thrown by the VHP and declared that all attempts of the VHP to take the law into its own hands would be resisted in all possible ways. The MPLB put the responsibility on the government to rein in the handliners and make all concerned await the judicial verdict. As regards a dialogue suggested by the Bajrang Dal, one of its members, Syed Shahabuddin has said that ``There is no question whatsoever of negotiating with those who demolished the Babri Masjid and are planning to challenge and defy the law''. This sentiment, though understandable, does not help an early solution. Another Muslim organisation, Babri Masjid Action Committee, International (BMAC- I) led by Javed Habeeb, described as a breakaway group in the press, has favoured a negotiated settlement, while urging the government to control the extremists of the VHP.

There appears to be a general consensus among the political parties in favour of a judicial verdict. The Prime Minister too supported this consensus explicitly in his recent speeches in Parliament and his Musings from Kumarakom, but with a rider which provides for the possibility of an amicable settlement among the disputants and their communities that may be worked out through a dialogue. Some speak of a verdict by the Supreme Court, though, according to reports in the press, there is no case pending in the Supreme Court. On the other hand, quite a few cases are pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and perhaps also in the lower courts of U.P. It is not known why they are pending for so long and when the final judgments will be delivered. The Supreme Court had, however, ordered on October 24, 1994 how most of the land acquired by the Centre under the Act of 1993 should be handed over to the winning party, leaving a small part only for other purposes. Thus, one can make bold to say that at the most the courts may be able to pronounce on the title to the particular site.

A matter of faith

It is difficult to envisage clinching verdicts on the two important issues raised by the protagonists of the Ram temple at the disputed site, viz., that the very site was the birth place of Ram, and that the Babri structure was built on the site of a demolished Janmabhoomi temple. The first issue, it has to be recognised, is a matter of faith. It can hardly be countered by the arguments of some scholars that Ram was only an epic hero and not a historical figure and that Ayodhya of the epic should correctly be identified with some place in ancient Afghanistan. The second issue, the destruction of a pre-existing temple, has been rejected by some historians of repute, although the clinching proof can only be provided through excavation of the site under the guidance of trained and unbiased archaeologists.

Is it wise to start archaeological excavations now? Any attempt to prove or disprove the demolition of a pre-existing temple will have the unintended consequence of legitimising claims of Hindu extremists to all other sites where mosques have been proved, beyond doubt, to have been built after demolishing temples. It is best, therefore, not to pursue this kind of enquiry to its logical conclusion. Here, it is good to remind ourselves of the refusal of the Supreme Court to give its opinion on such issues when a Presidential reference was made to it some years ago. Because of the inherent ambiguities of the above issues, the losing side in court cases is likely to remain dissatisfied and agitate to the detriment of peace of the nation. In these circumstances, it does not appear to be wise to wait indefinitely for the judicial verdicts.

Wise course

It is necessary to recognise that the dispute is not about the title to a piece of land and that it is about a historical memory of a wrong done to a community, the urge to correct it on the part of some vocal elements of that community and the counter- urge of some others (including some of the first-mentioned community) to prevent the correction and preserve a symbol of the past. Those who call themselves secularists tend to dismiss the fact of historical wrong and the legitimacy of the urge to correct it by citing the ambiguities referred to above and the ethos of the present day. While all concerned must act according to the modern ethos in resolving the dispute and not indulge in reprisals of medieval kind, it does not appear to be wise to reject outright the perception of a historical wrong. The wise course is to recognise the incontrovertible truth about the past and to promote reconciliation among the disputing parties and communities.

Even if we do not give credence to the Janmabhoomi claim and the destruction of a pre-existing temple, we cannot ignore the fact that Mir Baqui built a mosque in Ayodhya in 1528, the second year of Babar's rule, on `the Command of the Emperor' (as recorded in Babar Nama) in a hallowed place of pilgrimage for the Hindus. The ethos of that time provides us sufficient justification for interpreting this fact as a political statement of his supremacy by Babar who is known to have described himself as a Ghazi and a Jehadi. We may ask whether it is not logical for such an act to give rise to the Hindu perception of a historical wrong. That such a perception remained dormant for a long time for various reasons and has been revived in recent times, again for political reasons, would be a legitimate comment. But the comment cannot invalidate either the historical wrong or the perception. Historical wrong it certainly is and needs to be addressed properly in the modern mode of conciliation, and not in the medieval mode of reprisal. Historians know that historical memories acquire new dimensions and new colours according to the needs of the times and that such embellished memories do move people to action, sometimes positive and often times destructive. If historians react to these embellishments in a contemptuous and dismissive way, without recognising the hardcore of the particular memory, they are apt to stoke the fire of partisan conflict and not to dampen the adversarial behaviour of the parties concerned. So, it is often wise to steer clear of the pontificating historians with scant respect for religious sentiments and to search for solutions on the basis of common sense and pragmatism.

Indefinite wait for a judicial verdict of doubtful value is harmful. Parties to the dispute and their political supporters are not likely to remain quiet in the meantime. It will not be easy to restrain the VHP and Bajrang Dal which have demonstrated in the past their flair for impatience, mob action and lack of respect for the law of the land. The Muslim Biradari and their supporters cannot also be persuaded to show restraint in the face of provocation. The mood and the considerations the imminent elections in U.P. are likely to throw up will make the confrontation even sharper. The bitterness thus generated will make it extremely difficult to find a satisfactory solution to the problem for a long time thereafter. So, we feel that the present is the opportune time to make a concerted effort to start a dialogue and to bring about conciliation.

Press reports indicate that an attempt has been made by Vinay Katiyar of the Bajrang Dal to initiate a dialogue with some Muslim disputants of Ayodhya. Although this attempt cannot be described as successful and some influential Muslim voices have been heard against dialogue with the organisations perceived to be the destroyers of the Babri structure, the MPLB appears to be aggreeable to a dialogue, if initiated under the aegis of the government. Naturally, the MPLB cannot be expected to be enthusiastic about a dialogue initiated by the units of the Sangh Parivar, particularly with the Damocles sword hanging over its head in the shape of an imminent and violent anti-Muslim campaign. In these circumstances, we urge the Central Government to take the initiative to arrange a proper dialogue among the parties concerned. This request is entirely in accordance with the recent declaration of the Prime Minister that an amicable settlement would be an acceptable alternative to the much-awaited judicial verdict. But will the partners of the NDA like the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the Trinamool Congress allow such an initiative as Ayodhya does not form part of the National Agenda of Governance? We appeal to them not to take umbrage at the Ayodhya word in view of the conciliatory approach proposed.

Legal basis for dialogue process

In this context, we suggest that legal experts may explore the possibility of invoking the provisions of part III (sections 61- 81) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and provide an authentic legal basis for the dialogue process. This part of the Act has been hailed as an innovation in Indian law, as ``the emotional harmony between the parties may not suffer much, in the case of concitation'', unlike in the case of court litigation or arbitration. The procedure is flexible and the conciliator is not bound by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act, which bring about delay and rigidity. The legal experts will, no doubt, advise how the disputes over the Babri site can be brought within the meaning of ``disputes arising out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not'', stipulated by the Act. As regards conciliators, it should not be difficult for the disputants to agree on one or more persons without bias and with goodwill towards both parties, who are `independent and impartial' in terms of the Act. The settlement, which has to be ironed out pragmatically in a spirit of give and take, can be enforced like the decree of a civil court.

This procedure can be initiated by anyone of the parties with the consent of the other. This is, in a sense, a revival of the dialogue held in 1991 between the VHP and the AIBMAC under the sponsorship of the Narasimha Rao Government at the Centre. Unfortunately, that dialogue came to an abrupt end after the mutual exchange of statements of their cases and supporting evidence. The bitterness that got escalated soon thereafter, culminating in the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, is now part of history. Let us avoid the pitfalls of the exercise of 1991 and set up new procedures for a renewed dialogue and possible settlement in the larger interests of communal harmony. All concerned must realise that there is no real alternative to conciliation.

Rudramahalaya example

The reader will be glad to know that in a similar case, ordinary Hindus and Muslims of Sidhapur, 60 miles north of Ahmedabad in Mehsana district, Gujarat, chose dialogue and conciliation as the best method of resolution of their seemingly intractable dispute regarding Rudramahalaya complex in the Nineties. But only after a number of riots, quite a few civil and criminal cases, and deplorable loss of life and property. At last, both communities realised that they were being misled by the leaders at the state level and that peace and harmony could be secured only the process of conciliation, and of give and take. The National Minorities Commission, which took up the matter in 1979 on receipt of a complaint from the Trustees of Jama Masjid, Sidhapur, played the role of a conciliator and suggested in 1980 a formula. It was accepted by both the parties eventually, that is after about 10 years.

Briefly, the dispute arose in 1979 with the apprehension of local Muslims that Hindus were trying to usurp an old mosque in the archaeological site of Rudramahalaya complex. This complex was originally built in the 12th century by Siddhraj Jayasimha and demolished partly by Ulugh Khan in 1297-98 and partly by Ahmed Shah in 1415. The Archaeology Department added to their fears by unearthing the ruins of a Hindu temple, and several icons and other artefacts of Hindu religion, while implementing a beautification plan on the site. Both communities of the town were egged on to escalate the confrontation by the respective state level leaders through court cases and riotous behaviour. Finally, the dispute was settled by the Hindus and the Archaeology Department stopping further excavations and by the Muslims opting for a new mosque at a distance, leaving the old mosque to remain a national monument pure and simple. All these details have been obtained from the Annual Report of the National Minorities Commission, 1983.

Two lessons

This narrative offers two lessons: (a) leaders of both communities at higher levels attach exaggerated importance to the historical memories of their respective communities even at the risk of endangering the lives and properties of the locals; and (b) conciliation and give and take are the only path to harmony. Will all concerned with the Ayodhya dispute learn these lessons now and act accordingly?

As Mr. Vajpayee has said in his Musings from Kumarakom, ``The wrong of the medieval past cannot be righted by a similar wrong in modern times''. Now that the Babri structure has already been demolished, and a modern wrong done in `flagrant violation of the law', the country has to consider carefully how to contain the after-effects of this unfortunate event. The question is what will secure for us a peaceful future and an end to a possible chain of reprisals. One thing is clear, that is, neither the reconstruction of the demolished mosque nor the construction of a temple at that very site is likely to bring peace and harmony. Some via media has to be found through dialogue and conciliation, as the people of Sidhapur have demonstrated.

M. RAMAKRISHNAYYA

Trustee, Hum Sab Hindustani Trust

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : China's leap forward