Mail Today, 11 October 2010
by Mahesh Rangarajan
THE VERDICT in the Ayodhya case has undoubtedly been positive on one count, but its larger consequences remain disturbing for a law governed state.
That a court and appeals to higher judicial authority be the mode of conflict resolution is however welcome.
It would be difficult for an Indian born since, or coming of age after December 1992, to comprehend the extent to which the issue of Ayodhya raised tempers to fever pitch at the time. From the late 1980s onwards, it became not an issue of a disputed site as much as a marker of what one thought India did or did not stand for. In its long history, the movement to consolidate and solidify a sense of Hindutva had never found a symbol quite as powerful.
History
This insurgent movement, for that is what it was, harnessed with success first by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad at a time when under Vajpayee’s leadership, the new born BJP had steered clear of such rhetoric. Once the party was reduced to a tiny entity with just two elected members in the Lok Sabha, the time was right for a change of gear.
But it was after the Palampur Resolution that the Ram temple, in Advani’s words became ‘ electoral mascot’ of the party. His Rath Yatra launched in October 1990 from Somnath may have been halted at Samastipur where he was arrested, but it was completed in December 1992. Ayodhya was more than a route to power in Lucknow and New Delhi. It was evidence of how the markets of politics would be changed, the idea of India redefined.
There were three key milestones in this process. The opening of the locks in February 1986 reversed a decision taken the first government of independent India.
No one should forget that the aftermath of the murder of the Mahatma by independent India’s first political assassin, Nehru and Patel deployed the full force of the government against militant groups. The idea behind locking the shrine in Ayodhya was to freeze the dispute and let India move on.
Note that this decision was by a government that included other stalwarts— BR Ambedkar and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. The Ram issue was not taken up by any major political party till the BJP resolution in Palampur. It was pre- eminently a local dispute that had been taken off the political map by an alert administration.
In February 1986, the District magistrate assured the judge that ‘ heavens will not fall’ if the locks are opened. It is commonplace today to run down the early Indian leadership in general and Nehru in particular but in hindsight both he and his Home Minister Sardar Patel showed more courage than latter day leaders.
But it was hell that broke loose in a fresh wave of riots. Not content, the Congress government and the VHP made a deal to allow a shilanyas ( foundation stone laying ceremony) in November 1989. Veteran Congressman and scholar of the scripture, Kamlapati Tripathi warned against the deal. But the Congress launched its poll campaign from Ayodhya.
The denouement was in the 1992 destruction of the Babri masjid. Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram is right to warn that the September 2010 judgement does not mean that the accused in that case have been cleared. Vandalism cannot go unpunished in a democracy.
But equally seriously, those who gave a solemn written assurance to the Supreme Court on the safety of the site committed contempt of court. The issue has not died or gone away.
Faith
Yet, there is disconcerting fallout of the recent judgement. By according faith a place in the adjudication of what was a title suit, it has set a serious precedent.
The verdict has been received with calm, maturity and sense should not blind anyone to what this implies. Faith has never been denied or suppressed in republican India, but if it is to be the basis of a legal decision, it amounts to opening a veritable Pandora’s Box.
After all, the site in question was a place of faith for more than one group of citizens. This is not about the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara or Ram Lalla. It is about how a court, or for that matter an organ of the state can or should decide on what happens when faiths collide. This is not a matter for a secular state to pronounce on.
The fact that the Ram Temple movement has accepted the verdict for the most part is significant. This movement was built on the singular principle, “ Ham Mandir Wahin Banayenge”. We will build the temple on that very place.
The impact of the judgement is to transform the insurgent consciousness of 1986- 89 and the political logic of the shilanyas into a part of state ideology. It marks a serious marker but no one should have any doubts that this is a step away not only from pluralism but of legal frame based on reason.
This is not because reason is hostile to faith. Far from that. But it cannot be the basis of a decision, for this is a matter courts cannot decide.
More seriously, by taking on issues of archaeology and history, the precedent again can be an unwise and troubling one. There is little doubt many medieval and early Indian places of worship had involved desecration or destruction of other shrines. This is by no means unique to the Turks, Afghans or Mughals. The Cholas who were staunch Shaivites were known to have demolished Vaisnava shrines.
Can an India in 2010 afford to reopen such issues? It is difficult to answer in the affirmative unless one wants to relive the past as a nightmare. But this country was founded on a dream that a diverse society could hold together because it was so varied. Plasticine and not steel was the metaphor that could describe us best.
Needless to add, there was a broad plural consensus. There were and are limits to what India will take. And none other than LK Advani knew this when he said then, and never ceases to say since, that the day of the demolition was the saddest in his life.
Constitution
To conclude, the Supreme Court will have the final word on the title suit. But is important not to confuse ourselves what may be at stake. Silencing doubt or snuffing out reasoned argument in the name of unity cannot be a route any democracy, least of all one as stable as India’s can afford.
After all, the major reason for the rallying around the temple movement was the sense of unease, fear and panic about the future. Its proponents claimed it would unify India when what it did was to link together local conflicts and passions more successfully than any one before or since.
India has indeed moved on from that state of high fever. But decisions founded on faith as fact may do more to undo the idea of India than we may realise at first sight.
This is a matter so vital that it will call for the highest wisdom not only of the Supreme Court, or the political leadership, but of any one who sees India as an entity founded on constitutional principles.
The writer teaches history at Delhi University
|
