Ayodhya 2001

By Rajeev Dhavan

DECEMBER IS a cruel month. It was in this month that the Bhopal tragedy occurred in 1984. It was also on December 6, 1992, that the Babri Masjid was mercilessly destroyed under the watchful eyes of the BJP's leadership. Years have passed. But the contemporary events of 2001 suggest that something lurking below portends danger.

The Ayodhya story of 2001 began with the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, defending his December `Musings from Kumarakom' on the unfinished task of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya. On January 6, the VHP threatened an Israel-Arab style `self defence' retaliation - that the temple could be built during the Kumbh Mela of 2001 if the Dharam Sansad so decided.

It may recalled that on December 2, 1992, Mr. L. K. Advani declared that the question of construction - and, presumably, destruction - of the temple would be decided by the Dharam Sansad. But, by January 11, 2001, there was a fissure in the ranks. The Akhara Parishad declared that `sadhus' and `sants' who attended the Dharam Sansad would be boycotted. The Shankaracharyas shied away from the Sansad. Joined by the RSS, an alarmed BJP postured a deferment of the immediate building of the temple. On January 12, 2001, the Union Minister, Mr. Shanta Kumar, warned that the `temple' cheque cannot be cashed again. Undeterred, the VHP responded that the Dharam Sansad's decision would be final. To avert a crisis a round of negotiations was suggested with the Muslim leaders. However, rebuffed by the VHP and alarmed at the emerging stance of the Sansad, the Muslim Law Board declared that it would talk only to the Government.

Meanwhile, on January 18-21, 2001, the VHP's `Dharam Sansad' took place amidst protests from Shankaracharyas and sadhus questioning the Sansad's sole authority to determine these matters. A self- styled body of some 400 people were to decide the secular fate of the nation. On January 21, the Dharam Sansad unfurled its programme for the construction of the temple. In the first phase, ceremonies of shivacharan and jalabhishek would take place from September 17 to October 16, 2001. In the second phase, from November 26, collective japayajnas ``would take Lord Ram to every Hindu home and heart''. For the third phase, the dates of February 18-22, 2002, were earmarked to convince the Government to hand over the land. This ultimatum would end on Mahashivaratri on March 12, 2002. Theoretically, no date was set for the building of the temple. But, clearly, 2002 was the set target. The programme was as clear as it was precise. Seeing this as a reprieve, not too much further thought has been given to these well laid plans. It was overlooked that it was kar seva plans like these that lulled people in 1991-92.

Meanwhile, the Liberhan Commission hearings to inquire into the events of 1992 became a veritable playground for BJP politicians. On February 7, the RSS leader, Mr. K. S. Sudershan, abandoned his `bomb theory' to quietly accept that the kar sevaks had destroyed the mosque. In her deposition, on February 8, Ms. Nirmala Deshpande said the destruction was pre-planned. Was this so? For political reasons the BJP now wanted to distance its top leadership from the decision to destroy the mosque. At the Liberhan Commission, the former Prime Minister, Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao's testimony in February 2001 defending his actions, inactions and ignorance had little impact. The BJP had to improve and change the shrill story line that it had taken from 1990-1995 when not in power.

Much to Justice Liberhan's chagrin, in March 2001, Mr. Advani decided to absent himself from the Commission hearing for reasons of state. When he did take the stand on April 11, his testimony that the demolition was `unfortunate' and `distressed' him seemed well rehearsed. On May 15, Mr. Advani went further to distance himself from the BJP's fundamentalist `White Paper on Ayodhya' of 1993. However, on May 16, 2001, a journalist, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, who had accompanied Mr. Advani during the fateful first week of December 1992 deposed that Mr. Advani seemed to be in charge of things, knew about the demolition and seemed happy about the destruction.

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in his April testimony, Mr. Advani went further to declare the Ayodhya temple's existence as de jure and to laud the Supreme Court's decision on Hindutva. This de jure theory - like much of Mr. Advani's testimony - has been rightly described by the Congress(I) spokesperson, Mr. Jaipal Reddy, as `a polished falsehood'. The existence of the `make-shift' temple created after the demolition could hardly be described as de jure. The BJP leaders wanted to systematically play down their role and support for the demolition of December 6, 1992. On March 16, 2001, Ms. Uma Bharati evaded many questions on the demolition. Again, on May 2, 2001, Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi laid the blame at the door of the policies of the Congress(I) and others. The actual turn of events of December 1992 were glossed over.

There also came a bombshell from the courts on February 12-13 which ruled that Mr. Advani, Mr. Joshi and Ms. Uma Bharati could not be proceeded again in the criminal trial on the demolition unless the sanction given by the Uttar Pradesh Government to the CBI was re-written to include them. In May 2001, the High Court declined to order the Government to rectify the mistake. Mr. Advani and the other `accused' could have volunteered and demanded to be put on trial to clear their name, but chose not to do so.

No doubt, the Commission will go over the events of December 1992 carefully. The BJP White Paper of 1993 (now conveniently repudiated by Mr. Advani) recalls how two rath yatras were commenced. Mr. Advani was to proceed from Varanasi, Mr. Joshi from Mathura. This pincer movement from the east and the west met at Ayodhya. After his warning from Bhubaneshwar on May 7, 1992, that the Government should not test the impatience of the people to construct the temple, Mr. Advani on December 1, 1992, declared in Varanasi that kar seva would commence on the 2.77 acres of land acquired next to the mosque. On the same day, he apparently made it clear in Kanpur that the kar seva was not a matter of singing bhajans but of bricks and shovels.

On December 2, 1992, he reportedly stated that whether shrama seva would extend to temple building would be determined by the Dharam Sansad. Clearly, the Dharam Sansad took some kind of decision. It is difficult to believe that Mr. Advani did not know about it. It is even more difficult to believe that these who came with pick-axes, ropes and equipment were not prepared for the travesty that followed.

The events of the first part of 2001 have certain menacing patterns. The same Dharam Sansad that perhaps took the fatal decision of 1992 has unfurled its agenda for 2001-2002. Politically, the BJP has distanced itself from the destruction of the mosque, but not from the fundamentalist support that propelled it to power. The decision of the Dharam Sansad of January 19-21, 2001 cannot be ignored. It was followed up on February 24 by VHP leaders, supported by the BJP, flocking to Mr. Vajpayee to demand the `return' of temple land. But, the plan for Ayodhya for 2001-02 is a real plan. On March 27, 2001, the Ram Temple Construction Committee reminded the Government of the three-phase programme to build the temple, demanding that all impediments to the construction of the temple had to be cleared by the Mahashivaratri of March 12, 2002. These plans do not seem a mere threat. There is little reason for rectitude. Fundamentalist forces have threatened to carry out a major offensive in Ayodhya this fall when elections are due. The BJP Government cannot be trusted to sacrifice electoral gain for secular sanity.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Indonesia's democratic pangs
Next     : Reservation in the corporate sector - II