‘It
is my faith in our past which has given me the strength to work in the present
and to look forward to our future.’ KM Munshi, Union Food and
Agriculture Minister, in his letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, on the latter’s
reservations on restoration of the Somnath temple.
Browsing through old
records is in quite a lot of ways, humbling. Humbling because even the relatively
well aware forget the spirits of the past. Humbling, because these records
indicate that one time colossuses, intellectual or otherwise, sometimes become
a poor replica of their past selves.
Following is the
reproduction of some extracts of an interview of Shri L K Advani, reproduced
from G. Vazirani’s ‘Lal Advani: The Man and His Mission (New Delhi: Arnold
Publishers, 1991). If nothing, this extract offers glimpses of the man’s
convictions which made him a leader of his people. Quite a contrast it throws
against the tentative and apologetic approach of many of our leaders today.
Q.
What;
according to the BJP, is the main issue in the coming elections (of 1991)?
LKA. The
main issue is going to revert back to the what was being talked about two
months back. Mainly how can the unity of this country be preserved? What is
nationalism? How do you ensure social harmony? Communal harmony? And in that
context what is secularism? These issues have been there all along but have
been sharply focused on as a result of Ayodhya. I view this not as an issue of
Ayodhya, though at the level of the common man, the common voter, it will
continue to be Ayodhya. I view it in this context. And this I believe is going
to be the principle issue in this election.
Q. How
do you square a purely religious ritual like temple building with the larger
Hindutva concept?
LKA. I
would like to answer this question by recalling Sardar Patel’s approach to
Hindu-Muslim problems. His approach was that it is a broadly Hindu country and
the tendency to shy away from Hindu feeling is not secularism. Take the case of
Somnath, something like this could not have happened now. Some might say it was
the aftermath of Partition and therefore it took place. I would say no. It was
because of Patel. Nehru did not like it even then.
Q.
How
do you justify the BJP stand that the Rama Temple issue is a matter of faith?
LKA.
There was that theft of the Prophet’s hair at the Hazrat Bal shrine in
Srinagar. Now if someone explains that the relic has been stolen and the state
must exert its entire energy to see that it is recovered, and someone counters:
‘Can you prove that this is the Prophet Mohammad’s hair?’ Would it be a right
question? But I for one would say, that as my Muslim brethren believe that it
is the hair of the Prophet, I respect their sentiments.
Similarly if crores of
Hindus believe that it is the birthplace of Rama, I would expect the state as
well as other sections of opinion in this country, especially the minorities,
to respect that sentiment and say, ‘Well, if you believe that it is the
birthplace of Rama, it is the birthplace of Rama, we are not asking you to
prove this.’
Q.
Isn’t
upholding the cause of temple construction communal? What about the Muslims’
claim that it is the site of a mosque?
LKA. As
for the Ayodhya site, for 54 years no one has offered namaz there. From 1949,
40 years now, regular poojas are going on. One should end the dispute on this.
Moreover, the VHP has offered that, if you are attrached to the bricks and
mortar, which you call a mosque, we are willing to reverently shift it to
another site where you can construct another mosque, we would even contribute
to its construction. It would be an amicable solution and settlement of the
problem.
Q. How
do you relate your demand for the construction of the Rama temple at Ayodhya to
the larger issue of secularism? How do you propose to dispel the misgivings
among the Muslims on this score?
LKA. I
am fighting against the attitude of politicians and political parties that
anything associated with Hinduism is communal, their allergy to it and their
idea that if you cherish this allergy, only then your secular credentials are
proved.
I have not made it a temple
issue. I have made is an issue of secularism, of national unity. I am also
trying to convert it into an issue pertaining to the welfare of the so-called
minorities – that this is not their interest. These days Muslims meet me and
say ‘humko jahan phasa diya. Humko pata
bhi nahi tha ki hum wahan jaa bhi nahi sakte.’
And these political parties
have done a singular disservice even to the reputation of the country by
propagating that the Hindus have suddenly gone mad under the leadership of the
BJP and they want to pull down a 500 year old mosque and build a temple in its
place. If the facts were to be presented, the impression would be totally
different. Hindus have not become fundamentalists. Not at all. It is a
remarkable though happy fact that there are 35 mosques in Ayodhya apart from
the controversial one. Not one of them was touched during these months of
turmoil. Lakhs of people visited the place. All of them extremely devout and
passionate. Not one of them was touched. Why is that no Muslims were killed in
Ayodhya? No riots took place in Ayodhya,
Why?
It is our responsibility to
see that the misgivings which have been deliberately created by our adversaries
are removed. But at the same time, the efforts to remove those misgivings
should not tend to make us apologetic and defensive about our basic beliefs.
Q.
What do you mean by positive secularism?
LKA.
Positive secularism flows from our commitment to national unity which is an
article of faith for us and not just a slogan to be converted into slick spots
for TV. Our Constitution seeks to strengthen this unity by rejecting theocracy
and by guaranteeing equality to all citizens, irrespective of their religion.
These are the two principal facets of secularism as our Constitution makers
conceived them, For most politicians in the country, however, secularism has
become just a device for garnering block minority votes.
I wish the country’s
political leadership; irrespective of party affiliations, could realize that
the utterances and activities of some elements among the minorities are
becoming increasingly aggressive and are ominously reminiscent of the pre-1947
years. These elements must be isolated, not propitiated. If these elements are
allowed to grow, the consequences can be extremely dangerous for national
integrity. Appeasement failed to avert partition. Appeasement is no way of
combating the present threats to national unity. These threats have to be met
head on, and squarely spiked.
The BJP believes in Positive
Secularism; the Congress-I and most other parties subscribe only to Vote
Secularism. Positive Secularism means; justice for all but appeasement of none.
In the ensuing elections, let this become the BJP’s distinctive message to the
nation.
Q. Why
do you say that the courts cannot settle the dispute about the Ayodhya site?
Why are you not prepared to abide by a judicial verdict?
LKA.
My
party has never said that we will not accept a court verdict. What we have said
is that the nature of the controversy is such that a court verdict will not
solve the problem. That is all that I say. Further, I say, let us understand
that this present turmoil, the present acute controversy has itself arisen from
court verdicts. It is not arisen because of any agitation as much as it has
arisen out of court verdicts – tow court verdicts, one of 1951 and the second
of 1986.
The 1951 case was Gopal
Singh Visharad vs Zahoor Ahmed and others, and the court was that of the
Faizabad Civil Judge. The Judge observed in this judgement of 3 March 1951
that, ‘At least from 1936 onwards, the Muslims have neither used the site as a
mosque not offered prayers there and that the Hindus have been performing their
pooja, etc.’ on the disputed site. And on that basis, he granted a temporary
injunction, against removal of idols, though for considerations of low and
order he said that locks should be imposed on the gates, the pooja should be
done from a distance, people need not go inside, In 1986, the District Judge,
Faizabad, referred to this 1951 order and directed that, ‘As for the last 35
years, Hindus have had an unrestricted right of worship at the place’, the
locks put on two gates in 1951 on grounds of law and order should be removed. This
is Civil Appeal No. 65/1986. It is after this appeal that suddenly the
controversy became very acute, very bitter. Shortly after this, the Babri
Masjid Action Committee was formed.
Now the people are asking
why are these locks there even after 40 years, why are we not allowed to have
pooja without any hindrance, without any difficulty? I for one am of the view
that if the Central Government had taken note of the problem that obtained in
Prabhas Patan, a seaside plant in Gujarat in Surashtra, where at one time there
was that Somnath Temple which was razed to the ground many times, destroyed
many times, reconstructed many times, it would have been different.
Q.
What is wrong in making a national monument of the Ayodhya site so that it will
be neither a Hindu nor Muslim but will be purely of archeological interest?
LKA. A
similar suggestion was made in the case of Somnath also. Many bureaucrats were
unhappy over the decision of the Government to reconstruct the temple. The Department
of Archeology itself suggested that the site at Prabhas Patan – where originally,
there was the Somnath Temple and subsequently there was a graveyard – should be
declared a .protected monument’. The then Home Minister, Sardar Patel, put it
down in writing his reactions to the proposal. The Hindu sentiment in regard to
this temple is both strong and widespread. In the present conditions, it is unlikely
that this sentiment will be satisfied by mere restoration of the temple or by
prolonging its life. The restoration of the idol would be a point of honour and
sentiment for the Hindu public.
----
Am planning to reproduce another interview, explaining why the acts of December 6, 1992 were a setback.
No comments:
Post a Comment