The Hindu : Muslims and the democratic process

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Muslims and the democratic process

By Imtiaz Ahmad

Any resolution of the (Ayodhya) tangle could not have been thrashed out outside the democratic political framework of the state.

UNTIL RECENTLY, Muslim leaders were supporting a hard line on the Ayodhya issue. They were asserting that the Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya was not negotiable. That it was the site of a mosque and must remain so. Even after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad began pressuring the state to hand over the so-called `undisputed' land for beginning construction of a Ram temple, eventually to be extended to the `disputed' land, hard line Muslim leaders said that the matter was sub judice and that it should be left to the court.

Suddenly, Muslim leaders changed tack. They agreed to consider the proposal of the Kanchi Sankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswati, for a negotiated resolution of the Ayodhya tangle. This raised substantial questions, which would have produced far-reaching consequences not only for Muslims but, more significantly, for the democratic process which is the only framework for the resolution of contentious issues in a democratic polity.

The political posture assumed by the Muslim leaders conveniently ignored the point that the Ayodhya dispute is not over a piece of land. It is a dispute over the kind of political system that the country will have in future. Will the political system be one in which individual and collective rights would be secured by the state? Or, will it be one in which the guarantee of individual and collective rights would depend on the benign pleasure of a political majority? Muslim leaders, by becoming party to the kind of negotiations that took place, displayed lack of sensitivity to this important democratic consideration. They made it appear as if the democratic relevance of the Ayodhya tangle is wholly irrelevant and are, to that extent, liable to the charge of bartering away the issue of democratisation of society in favour of a tenuous and short-term public peace. They overlooked the point that public peace and security in a democratic society came from the state's commitment to uphold the rule of law and not through an appeal to the benign sensibilities of any crafted majority.

One is not, in raising the issue of democratisation of society, suggesting that efforts should not have been made or should not be made in future to arrive at some kind of a negotiated settlement in the interest of public peace and harmonious relations among communities. One is merely arguing that any resolution of the tangle could not have been thrashed out outside the democratic political framework of the state. Negotiations should have been carried out with the state being a part of the process — any negotiated settlement arrived at without the state mediating the process is no more than a scrap of useless paper.

There is a great deal of difference between the state, or for that matter the Government of the day, blessing a process and being a part of that process. If the state, or the Government of the day, had assumed a direct role in the negotiations it would have been accountable for what emerged out of the process. Can the state, in its anxiety to find a solution to a contentious issue, repose confidence in any Muslim leader, or a group of self-styled Muslim leaders for that matter, to be the sole spokesman of an extremely diverse community? Could the Muslim leaders, who took upon themselves the onus of thrashing out a negotiated settlement, claim that they represented the whole community? Further, is the state democratically correct in trusting a sensitive issue of this nature to a few handpicked leaders whose influence over the community has neither been demonstrated nor democratically tested? These are substantive questions, which were completely overlooked not only by the state but the Muslim leaders too.

Every political process, including the recent effort to arrive at a negotiated settlement, carries two possibilities. Either it succeeds. Or, it fails. If the negotiations had succeeded and a solution emerged, it would have established the VHP and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board as permanent representatives of Hindus and Muslims. The state's role as judge and arbiter of serious communitarian issues would have been lost forever. Besides, it would have foreclosed all possibilities of internal democratisation of the communities. On the other hand, since the negotiations have eventually failed to deliver a satisfactory settlement, the chances are that the blame would be squarely placed on the shoulders of Muslims who will be accused of adopting a "recalcitrant and uncompromising" posture. As equal citizens, Muslim leaders should not have allowed themselves to be party to an erosion of democratic values upon which the edifice of modern India stands.

(The writer is a former Professor of Sociology, JNU.)

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Moving SAARC forward

The politics of pull-out

Sanity on private funding

Muslims and the democratic process

Assertion of democracy