The Praful Bidwai Column (March 18, 2002)

Peace Plan In Pieces
Ayodhya needs a just solution

By Praful Bidwai

Postscript/Update: The Supreme Court order affirming secularism is a
slap in the face of the VHP and the Vajpayee government, which to its
disgrace, pleaded the Hindutva case. This vindicates the argument
below and reinforces the case for a just, balanced, solution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (MPLB) rejecting the
Kanchi Sankaracharya's proposal to allow symbolic shila pujan leading
to temple construction at Ayodhya, it is clear there will be no
negotiated settlement of the contentious Ramjanmabhoomi issue. At
best, or at worst, depending on one's predilections, there could be
an underhand shila pujan deal between the VHP-Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas
(RJN) and the government. But this will lack the imprimatur either of
the Muslim community, or of India's secular opinion, including the
majority view within the National Democratic Alliance.

Although one may have reservations about the representative character
of the MPLB, it is hard to fault its rejection of the Sankaracharya's
formula as "incomplete and inchoate". The Sankaracharya is not some
"neutral" third party, but a signatory of the pro-temple demand. His
formula is one-sided, involving transfer of a 42-acre "undisputed"
plot to the RJN and temple construction--without relocation of the
garbha griha (sanctum sanctorum) away from the spot where the mosque
stood. The MPLB has put the onus back on the government to ensure
peace and maintain the status quo in Ayodhya till the land-title suit
is settled. By contrast, the VHP has held out a nasty threat, namely,
to forcibly acquire land to begin construction, and turn "the whole
country [into] Ayodhya, " as well as to punish Muslims.

This talk of a militant "sustained" agitation in defence of "the
fundamental rights of Hindus to perform puja" on land not belonging
to them puts a huge question-mark over the credibility of the VHP's
undertaking to abide by the legal judgment in the title suit even if
the verdict goes against the RJN's pleas. As for the RJN, its leaders
such as Ramchandra Paramahans reject even the possibility of
respecting an adverse court verdict.

Clearly, Mr Vajpayee has failed to persuade the VHP and RJN of the
cardinal importance of respecting legal rulings and giving up their
insistence that Ayodhya is a matter of "faith", not law, history or
facts--regarding the prior existence of a Ram temple, construction of
the mosque in 1528, the complex 22-item property dispute, political
mobilisation from the mid-1980s leading to frenzied mobs tearing down
the mosque in one of India's most shameful episodes of mass madness.
That Mr Vajpayee has failed to restrain fanatics like Mr Togadia from
threat-mongering and hate-speech is a poor comment on his leadership
and his eroding authority within the sangh parivar.

After the BJP's latest electoral rout in four states, Mr Vajpayee is
under pressure from within the party and the sangh to revive
"divisive" issues like Ayodhya, which had been omitted from the NDA
agenda. His government cannot be expected to handle the VHP-RJN's
militant mobilisation in Ayodhya competently and fairly, while
upholding the law. There is a significant likelihood that the present
opportunity for a good consensual out-of-court settlement will be
squandered. The danger lurks that horrible violence will break out in
Ayodhya and elsewhere, thanks to communal machinations. After the
organised massacre of Muslims in Gujarat, this will inflict
unbearable, unacceptable, damage upon India.

This makes it imperative that the Ayodhya issue is treated with the
utmost decency, balance and fairness, while totally eschewing guile,
deception, pressure, and devious means, as well as parochial and
sectarian goals. Such an approach would bear sharp contrast to the
past--whether in 1949, when fanatics were permitted to sneak into the
Babri mosque and install Ram idols; in 1986, when the temple's gates
were unlocked, but the mosque was closed for prayer; in 1989, when
"shilanyas" was illegally permitted; or in 1992, when the mosque was
torn down, and an illegal makeshift temple was constructed, which has
been preserved since.

Only an approach based on worthy principles of justice can rectify
the anomalies and flaws in the 1993 Act acquiring Ayodhya land and
providing for its transfer to two trusts. As one of our great
jurists, H.M. Seervai, has argued, this Act "violates the fundamental
rights of Muslims and Muslim denominations to the freedom of religion
conferred on them by Articles 25 and 26". Seervai says: "The Supreme
Court has held in cases too numerous to mention that any law which
extinguishes a religious trust or removes the trustees or managers of
properties … belonging to a religious trust is void …It follows that
… provisions … empowering the government to create two trusts and …
appoint new trustees to manage the trust property on such terms as
government may impose are also void."

Regrettably, the Act was declared valid by the Supreme Court by a
majority of three against two in 1994. This verdict tragically saw
the bench split along religious lines. Flawed as it is, the ruling,
nevertheless has some safeguards: The 67 acres can only be
transferred as part of a package deal after a settlement is arrived
at, and that too to a trust to be created after 1993, unlike the
pre-1993 RJN. The Act's purpose is not to build just a temple, but "a
Ram temple, a mosque, amenities for pilgrims, a library, museum and
other suitable facilities."

It would thus be absurd to parcel the land into different bits,
including the 42-acre "undisputed" plot, and transfer them piecemeal.
In reality, the 42 acres ceased being "undisputed" in 1993. In the
first place, it never belonged to, nor was owned by, the RJN. It was
leased to it by the Kalyan Singh government in March 1992 for
purposes of "tourism"to "develop and maintain" the Ram Katha Park and
other sites within the Ayodhya complex, to do which the government
lacked funds. It would ludicrous to gift the land to the RJN as if it
was its valid "owner"in contravention of the scheme of building both
a temple and a mosque for which the plot was originally acquired.

The declared premise of the scheme was to rebuild the mosque--an act
of restitution of what was wrongly destroyed. This was promised by
Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and reiterated in the 1993 Act and the
1994 judgment. An out-of-court settlement of the dispute is indeed
possible, but the Kanchi Sankaracharya didn't attempt one. His
formula is one-sided and biased in favour of the VHP-RJN; it has
nothing to offer to the Muslims. Needless to say, any fair settlement
cannot be coercive or manipulative of the Muslims. However, the
political motivation behind the revival of the temple agitation at
the time of the UP elections, and even more important, the communal
pogrom in Gujarat, gives the present "negotiations" all the
characteristics of a coercive enterprise.

There are only two ways in which the Ayodhya issue can be resolved
today. Either there is an equitable mosque-plus-temple solution,
based upon strict adherence to legality and morality, which secures
the informed consent of all. Such consent cannot be confined to
self-appointed sadhus and imams who represent little in their own
communities. Alternatively, there should be a radical, non-religious,
non-denominational solution, to build secular structures which serve
the Ayodhya-Faizabad community.

The course has an added advantage: an opportunity to break the
stranglehold of "identity politics" and assert the real priorities of
the people. What the masses of eastern UP--one of India's most
backward regions--need is a patient-friendly good-quality hospital
and a solidly secular school. The first should be a model for the
kind of healthcare that people want and deserve, but don't get,
including free primary and preventive treatment, all the way to
affordable super-specialities. The school could offer an alternative
to the cocktail of hubris, superstition, irrationality and half-lies
doled out in NCERT and madrassa syllabi as "education". Learning here
would be about opening the mind and letting in free, fresh, ideas.

However, this can only happen if secular forces, including political
parties, civil society organisations and NGOs, launch a spirited
counter-campaign among ordinary people. This means collecting bricks
from every village and ward for the hospital/school. It means
confronting Hindutva's advocates in the streets.

This is certain to evoke infinitely greater resonance than the tired,
shop-worn, temple issue. The sants' chetavani yatra enthused nobody.
Even going by India Today's conservative opinion poll, issues like
employment, high prices and corruption rate five to 19 times higher
in people's concerns than "religious and caste issues" (two percent
rating). The temple has been tomtommed, manufactured and contrived
into a major "popular" concern.

Secular India has far too long condoned Hindutva's fanatical politics
and its self-appointed sadhus, antics. Some people mistakenly assume
this society is less welcoming of modern, liberal, rational ideas
than of "tradition", religiosity or superstition. This passivity must
give way to active opposition to mixing religion with politics, thus
degrading both. Judicial intervention too must play its part. The
appeasement-prone Vajpayee government must be restrained by legal
means. But that's not enough. There is no substitute for a mass-level
campaign.--end--