by Dileep Padgaonkar (The Times of India, Oct 10, 2010)
The Ayodhya verdict is a done deed. Three courses of action are now open to the stake-holders. They can challenge it in the apex court, or accept it in its entirety without ado, or use it as a basis for a settlement that requires no more legal intervention. The first course holds the promise, however distant or forlorn, of setting to rest the serious doubts the verdict raises. The nation needs to know -- without ifs and buts -- whether the belief and faith of any section of the citizenry merits a place in our jurisprudence.
This is all the more urgent because in the thousands of pages of the verdict there is, from all accounts, not even a passing mention of the vandalism witnessed in Ayodhya in December 1992. No reference to the death and destruction it left in its trail. No appeal to the perpetrators of that heinous act to express remorse. No call for atonement. And not a word of empathy for the victims of the violence.
The main advantage of the second course -- accept the verdict and hasten to implement its operative part -- is that it allows the stakeholders to take their future steps on a legal footing. With the area under dispute equally divided between the three parties, each is at liberty to erect a structure of its choice on the portion that now rightfully belongs to it. Its right to do so cannot be questioned on any ground -- legal or moral, political or ideological.
However, any attempt in this direction is fraught with risk. The very people who hailed the verdict as the epitome of judicial wisdom, statesmanship, foresight and robust pragmatism are eager to emasculate its substance. They aren`t content with the trifurcation of the land. At the core of their appeal to permanently settle the dispute in a spirit of give-and-take — the third course of future action — lies a demand with an ominous ring to it: Muslims must be magnanimous enough to renounce the area that belongs to them to pave the way for the construction of a massive Ram temple. For this singular gesture of generosity, they will be richly compensated with a large tract of land miles away from the proposed temple to build a mosque. Kept at a safe distance from each other, they can live in peace and harmony for all time to come.
Underlying this approach is the conviction that Hindus and Muslims cannot worship in adjacent areas. Oddly enough, even liberals who have not been contaminated by the communal virus seem to endorse it. They too subscribe to the thesis that Muslims would be serving the larger good should they agree to voluntarily leave Ayodhya bag and baggage.
The votaries of this sort of `reconciliation` would vastly strengthen their case if they advocated, in the same breath, ways and means to expel all demons of communalism from our body politic. Perpetrators of the December 1992 vandalism must apologize to the nation for that dastardly act; undertake not to raise any Ayodhya-like issue in future; cease to regard minorities as fallen or de-frocked Hindus who need to return to the parent faith; end all talk of appeasement and desist from foisting their notions of `cultural nationalism` on a resurgent nation that swears by another credo: the geek will inherit the earth.
This is admittedly a tall order. The `sober` and `mature` reactions of the Sangh Parivar to the Ayodhya verdict did not prevent L K Advani from claiming that it vindicated his `rath yatra` of 1989. The BJP patriarch thought it fit to gloat over that blood-soaked journey. In comparison, the reaction of Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS chief, seemed to echo, partially to be sure, the sentiments of pseudo-secularists! He reached out to the Muslim community without a trace of triumph.
Such an attitude provides the Muslims with a small window of opportunity to strike a deal, no matter how irksome, that is in keeping with their immediate and long-term goals: to enjoy, like other citizens, security of life and limb, a future free of want and fear for their children, liberty to practice their faith and protect their culture without let or hindrance and, no less important, to lead a life of dignity. That appears to be the driving force of several initiatives now underway in Ayodhya, Lucknow and Delhi to get this contentious issue out of the way once and for all.
Significant in this regard is the rebuff that the likes of Mulayam Singh Yadav and Kalyan Singh have received from Muslims and Hindus alike for seeking to exploit the Ayodhya verdict to revive their political fortunes. A similar fate awaits hot-heads in both communities. Therefore, any effort that seeks to curb forces of religious extremism and terrorism deserves to be given a chance to succeed — whether it is undertaken, simultaneously or otherwise, at the level of the Supreme Court or in talks between the contending parties.
Voltaire, a foe of clerics, once observed: God is always for the big battalions. India, where the divine is seen to dwell even in a dolt, a rake and a harlot, doesn`t buy that majoritarian flim-flam.
Read more: See clearly, take off communal blinkers - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/all-that-matters/See-clearly-take-off-communal-blinkers/articleshow/6721635.cms#ixzz124VHmkQr
|
