The Hindu : Wait for the judicial verdict

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jul 08, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

Wait for the judicial verdict

AN INTELLIGENT ALIEN reading the front pages of Indian newspapers over the past several days might form the impression that, for some bizarre or outlandish reason, politics in this strange land revolved round the question of whether a temple or a mosque would come up on some `disputed' site in a place called Ayodhya. If the alien did some quick research on the Internet, he or she would learn that a sixteenth century mosque known as the Babri Masjid had been demolished, on December 6, 1992, in a well-planned act of criminal vandalism involving some leading politicians; that criminal cases had been launched against the political vandals, but for some reason were not being effectively prosecuted; that there was some kind of `title' suit, and related issues, in court; that governments had fallen and risen on this Ayodhya issue; that there was a whole constellation of political and social forces known as the `Sangh Parivar' militantly on the march to build the temple on the very site where the Babri Masjid stood; and so on. The intelligent alien might then begin to worry over the future of this great and ancient civilisation.

The process of politically initiated `conciliation' featuring the Sankaracharya of Kanchi and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has come to a dead end — for reasons that should have been perfectly clear from the start. For one thing, the background, character and agenda of the Sangh Parivar in prosecuting the Ramjanmabhoomi campaign are well known and have generated an impressive literature. Quite predictably, as general elections approach, the militant organisations belonging to the Sangh Parivar, guided by its `brain', the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, are raising the temperature on the Ayodhya issue. Hardly a day passes without some Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader firing a fusillade at the Vajpayee Government in connection with Ramjanmabhoomi, or some other highly divisive agenda item. Secondly, the issue is eminently justiciable. Some twenty issues have been framed in the `Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute', which is currently before the Second Bench of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow. Add to this the fact that, on March 31, 2003, the Supreme Court, in a splendid demonstration of judicial impartiality and commitment to the secular values enshrined in the Constitution, prohibited the Central Government from handing over the 67.703 acres of land claimed to be "undisputed" to a trust or organisation for the purpose of constructing a Ram temple, and ordered that the "status quo" be maintained until the title suits were adjudicated by the Allahabad High Court. Thirdly, in an objective sense, the Sankaracharya's proposals are such as to guarantee rejection not just by the Muslim Law Board but by the whole of secular and constitutional India. What are these proposals, around which there has been so much unnecessary secrecy? The answer has come in the three texts released in Lucknow by the Muslim Law Board on July 6. The Sankaracharya's letter of June 16, 2003 was an exploratory exercise characterised by ambiguity. While it asked the Muslim Law Board to consider giving a "No Objection" Statement for constructing a "Mandir upon the undisputed/acquired area," it did not demand a "donating" of the Babri Masjid site by the Muslim side. On the contrary, it proposed that the "disputed area can also be discussed after some time and an amicable settlement may be given to the court and verdict can be given by the court on the settlement." Nor did the June 16 letter say anything about Muslims having to give up "at some time or other" — for the sake of "communal harmony" and "the larger interest of the country" — the mosques at Kashi and Mathura. The text of the July 1, 2003 letter of "explanation" reveals that these are indeed the Sankaracharya's two core proposals. They happen, not coincidentally, to be two of the key agenda items of the RSS and the VHP. This is why it is sensible for all concerned to abandon this totally one-sided and futile exercise at out-of-court `conciliation' and wait for an objective and just judicial determination of the dispute, however long that takes.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Wait for the judicial verdict

A World Champion is born?

Pressure from Parivar

Dubious role

Safety derailed

Vanishing people