The Hindu : Ayodhya solutions

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jul 11, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Ayodhya solutions

By Rajeev Dhavan

The touchstone of any compromise is not a negotiated barter under coercive conditions but a result founded on secular principles.

AS A private dispute, `Ayodhya' will be settled by law. But, will it end with the court case? Rightly or wrongly, `Ayodhya' has entered the public domain to be resolved as a public issue on recognisable principles of public scrutiny. Resolving `Ayodhya' is not a matter of a tug-of-war between dominant Hindus and minority Muslims. The politics of pressure can never be a basis for any just or enduring solution. Rebuilding the destroyed Babri Masjid is not just a matter for Hindus and Muslims, but for all who rely on Indian secularism to keep the country together. Any solution must be consistent with Indian secularism which promises freedom and dignity to all. India cannot follow one principle of secularism on Kashmir and wholly contrary assumptions on `Ayodhya'. A solution, inconsistent with Indian secularism, should be rejected as endangering the nation itself.

This is not the first round of negotiations. During the shilanyas movement of sending bricks for the temple, the VHP entered into an agreement on September 27, 1989, with the Government of Uttar Pradesh to abide by the court's directions, "maintain status quo and... not change the nature of the property in question." One of the signatories to this agreement was Ashok Singhal.

Later, the spirit of this agreement was violated when the VHP declared its kar seva programme in October 1990. Despite this, the Muslims entered into negotiations to consider whether Babur had destroyed a Ram temple to build this mosque. The VHP was adamant. The talks of 1990-91 failed. No less relentlessly, in October 1991, the BJP Government in Uttar Pradesh acquired 2.77 acres ostensibly for tourism — demolishing many older structures. This acquisition was eventually struck down as mala fide by the Allahabad High Court on December 11, 1992. Little heed was paid to the National Integration Council's Resolution of November 2, 1991, to maintain status quo.

In February 1992, a wall was sought to be constructed by the Uttar Pradesh Government — pointing towards a construction of the temple. In March 1992, about 42 acres were leased out by the Government to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas. Notwithstanding this extreme pressure, the Muslims agreed to another round of negotiations from October 3, 1992, which was broken off on November 8, 1992, because a kar seva was announced for December 6 that eventually led to the destruction of the mosque. With this, something of India's secular soul was badly damaged. In 1994, the Supreme Court upheld the post-demolition acquisition of the site by the Union Government but underlined that the `dispute' had to be decided by the Allahabad High Court.

From the Kumbh Mela of 2001, the VHP made it clear that it would build the temple. Physical attempts to break the status quo were thwarted by Supreme Court orders in 2001 and 2002. Now an unrepentant VHP threatens to go ahead with the construction — come what may.

Against this background and conditions of unabated pressure, what is there to negotiate? One of the nodal points of concern in the 1990-91 and 1991-92 negotiations whether a Ram temple was actually destroyed by Babur's general, Mir Baqi, in 1528? Now, excavations — ordered by the High Court for unconvincing reasons— provide the lie to this assumption. No Ram temple was destroyed to build the mosque — thus undermining even the questionable moral basis of `redeeming' a destroyed temple.

Once this argument goes, the only argument (put at its best) is that the Muslims must purchase peace by bowing to the demands of Hindu sentiment, for which nothing is given in return. The only peace that India dare negotiate is a secular peace. A coercive peace imposed on the Muslims is unacceptably non-secular; and would threaten India, its Kashmir and Northeast policies and the peaceful co-existence of all faiths in the culturally richest multi-religious nation in the world.

The VHP plea that parliamentary majorities step in to legislate in favour of a mandir is not tenable. Parliament has already legislated on the issue. The Places of Religious Worship Act, 1991, preserves the status quo as on August 15, 1947, for all sites except the Babri Masjid. This, incidentally, takes care of the renewed controversies raised about Kashi and Mathura by the VHP and the Kanchi Sankaracharya's letter of July 1, 2003. But, when Parliament tried to take over the dispute by the Ayodhya Act of 1993, the Supreme Court's judgment of 1994 struck it down — denying Parliament the power to adjudicate on a pending legal case.

What was good for 1994 remains true for 2004 and beyond. The VHP's threat to invoke the brahmastra (ultimate weapon) of a parliamentary statute defies legal possibility. Amazingly, the BJP Government has chosen to remain silent rather than unequivocally tell the VHP that Parliament is not empowered to take over the dispute and authorise the temple construction.

The Kanchi Acharya's interventions of June-July 2003 — if well meant — are elliptical. Recently, the seer himself had taken a view similar to the VHP agreement of September 27, 1989, that he would abide by the court's verdict. The new proposal of June 16, 2003, seemed to demand building on the undisputed area — part of the VHP's demand rejected by the Supreme Court in March-April 2003. Eventually, the masjid, which too was to be built, was to be relegated to a site many kilometres away. The seer's proposals of July 1, 2003, left the status of Kashi and Mathura open. There is no enigma in this riddle. Nor is it wrapped up in any mystery — as the seer might have us believe. The offer simply appears to be to build the temple now, leaving everything else up for grabs. This is no offer — only a humiliating imposition intrinsically indifferent to secular fairness.

How do we test the fairness of any `Ayodhya' solution? The touchstone of any compromise is not a negotiated barter under coercive conditions but a result founded on secular principles. The principles to be followed are clear. First, the principle of status quo. On August 15, 1947, India became a secular republic which is now the home of over 100 million Muslims. The Places of Religious Worship Act, 1991, rightly enacted a 1947 status quo for all sites — thus drawing a line recognised by India's history. Ideally, this should apply to the Babri Masjid; so that all faiths are told that Independent India respects all faiths and sites at least since its inception. Second is the restorative principle. On December 6, 1992, the mosque — both a heritage and religious site — was destroyed. It follows that restoring the mosque is of prime importance — a view endorsed by Parliament in its Statement of Objects to the Ayodhya Act of 1991. Third, the principle of non-coercion does not permit a community to be pressured by unrelenting majoritarian pressure. Fourth is the principle of co-existence. We have something to learn from South Africa's experiment with Truth and Reconciliation where Nelson Mandela brought an apartheid-torn people to peace. What flows from this is that there must be a general truth and reconciliation apology by all.

Then, the mosque must be restoratively built — both in contrition and as part of India's heritage. What is to be negotiated is the site of the Masjid which has to be on, or in the immediate vicinity of, the disputed site. This is the starting point of a fair and secular negotiation, which also requires that the 1947 status quo on all other sites be maintained at all costs.

What is troubling about `Ayodhya' solutions is the coercive subversion of secular principles that India swears by when advocating its case on Kashmir or defending its secular viability after Gujarat. Ayodhya concerns all Indians — not just Hindus and Muslims. An unfair solution condemns and indicts all of us.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Congress and coalition

Fostering Bilateral Trade

Ayodhya solutions

Controlling an epidemic