A darshan of Ramlalla at the makeshift temple at Ayodhya early this week was an event which I had been looking forward to ever since I had become aware of the struggle for construction of the temple at Ayodhya. While a complete identification with the zeal of Kar Sevaks of those decades is beyond me, I could only wonder on how could lakhs of Kar Sevaks manage to cram themselves in those narrow alleys of Ayodhya and attack the disputed shrine in midst of that heavy security bandobast! No wonder that the aggrieved community holds the PV Narasimha Rao responsible for the events of December 6, 1992.
The struggle for liberation of the shrine or construction of the Ram temple, depending on the way you look at it, has been an old one with 1949, 1986 and 1992, in the modern era, being watershed years. People involved with the issue were looking forward to the judgement of Lucknow High Court, if for nothing, as at least a step forward. Hence, the Supreme Court decision to defer the HC judgment has come as quite a dampener. It is inexplicable that the Honorable SC has decided to defer the judgement when by no stretch of imagination, could a decision on a 60 year old litigation process be seen as hasty or ill-thought. Likewise, the fear of adverse impact on Law & Order is inexcusable as even a fig leaf to cover governance shortcomings. More so, when the Courts adjudicate on the basis on facts and the law, governance being beyond their sphere of activities!
It is quite fashionable to oft-quote that the citizens of Ayodhya were and are aloof from the temple movement or that there is no sympathy of the construction of the temple any longer. Such assertions ignore the facts that most Kar Sevaks were lodged in houses of residents time and again and that the demolition of the disputed structure resulted in Diwali being celebrated at Ayodhya. Yet again, believing that support for the temple has waned would be mistaking trees for the woods. While there is no doubt that support for the parties who led the temple movement has waned considerably and all of them are bereft of any credibility on the issue, the average person on street, in fields and in kitchens, does not desire that the temple be replaced by a mosque or some hospital.
A look on the intransigence of the leaders, who represent the Muslim populace on matters on faith, makes one wonder whether these leaders are only interested in furthering their own careers or whether more ominously, their rigidity has something to do with the religious beliefs they profess. The controversy over the proposed Islamic Centre near the site of the destroyed World Trade Center has only served to harden the negative perception about Islamists. The proponents of the Mosque have done no service to their ostensible aim of promoting an understanding of Islam among others by their bull headed insistence on having the centre at that precise spot, something which is an anathema to a vast majority of Americans. In the case of Ayodhya, the dispute is in between a regular mosque and the Hindu efforts to reclaim the right to worship God where he was born in human form. Even if we dignify attempts to question the historicity and divinity of Rama, the point beyond doubt is that the spot where the makeshift temple stands today is considered especially sacred by vast multitudes of Hindus while the mosque in question held no such significance for Muslims.
Just imagine the wonders it would do to the standing of Muslim community in India if they voluntarily forego their claim to the mosque. Not only would such an act deflate anti Muslim propaganda of the more rabid Nationalists, it will completely take the wind off demands for restoration of the shrines at Mathura and Kashi. However, not only have these leaders failed to rise to the occasion, their fanatical supporters in the governance and chattering classes have only served to act as an hindrance to any potential settlement of the issue. Don’t they realise that the act of ‘giving away’ the site would only result in even more pampering of the ‘oppressed’ and ‘marginalized’ Muslims and rather than only a few Nadias and Degangas, they will be allowed free run of the entire country, on strength of their ‘sacrifice’? The ‘secular’ champions of all causes Islamic may take care to go back to the Hubli Idgah case and do well remember that the laws don’t follow secular theology all the time and Islamic claims can be thrown out by the courts. Another favorite ‘solution’ offered by these champions is the construction of both the temple and mosque side by side. This is not going to resolve the problem – Kashi and Mathura are a living testimony to the same. Suggesting building a school / hospital or a urinal (aka Mahesh Bhatt) is trivializing the issue, not even worth a serious debate.
The phase of struggle for the temple, witnessed in the previous century got entwined with the larger Indian yearning for a change from the effete Governments of the day and propelled the BJP to the centre-stage. Sadly, while the ruler changed, the regime did not and we continued to have more of the same in various forms.
I do not know if the makeshift temple would ever be replaced by a magnificent temple dedicated to Shri Ram on the site, the liberation of which has been the cause for countless martyrs over the centuries. Perhaps the temple has to wait, either for Muslim magnanimity or for another sustained phase of struggle for there cannot be any solution to the issue other than temple at that spot!
Interesting.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are three things you may be interested to know of:
1. The deferring of the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court (LKO Bench)by the Supreme Court is more a result of procedure than an actual opinion of the Court in the case. In case of conflict of opinion b/w two Judges, the case is always referred to a different Bench and notice has to be issued as one judge is willing to hear the case on merits.
2. The temple which existed at the disputed spot at Ayodhya was destroyed around the Year 1528. But only in 1989, for the purpose of furthering political motives, and tampering with evidence,the mosque was demolished.
3. The Filing of such petitions for settlement at this stage, seem like a feeble attempt by a party which has an inkling that the judgment will not go in their favor and as such they are just trying to buy time particularly when it is to the knowledge of one and all that one of the Judges to the judgment is retiring and if the judgment is not signed by him before he retires, the case will be heard afresh by another bench of the Court. And as such it has nothing to do with fear of communal riots.