Search the Internet           Tips

Ayodhya: What next?

India observed the 8th anniversary of the destruction of the Babri mosque by Hindutva hordes on December 6. Since then, much water has flowed down the Sarayu, but what is to be done with the site remains still unanswered. The question is also up before the courts, but remains mired in the delays that accompany our legal system.

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has now allowed the Babri Masjid issue to revisit India by his statement that a Ram temple should be built on the disputed site. Vajpayee has since claimed that he has been misquoted, but frankly, that is debatable (is it not Vajpayee who offered his 'regret' at the destruction but lacked both the courage and the conviction to take a stronger stand despite his party's involvement).

What is not debatable, however, is what should be done with the disputed site, now guarded by police and out of bounds for everyone.

Time is the essence since it appears that slowly but surely, the situation is being prepared for a temple to be finally built at the disputed site. In the past eight years (during which a BJP led coalition has held office for only two-and-a-half years), precious little has been done to actually ensure that the issue is resolved rationally rather than emotionally, and this absence of action has only benefited the temple votaries.

The VHP every now and then talks of how it is building the pillars, readying the temple plans, preparing the bricks, etc, etc. The promise made by none other the then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao that the Babri mosque would be rebuilt has clearly become a politician's word: it will never be kept. It surely is a tragic reflection on India that a prime minister's promise has no meaning.

While many might actually welcome a Ram temple, seeing in its construction the end of a dispute that has wracked the secular and moral fabric of India, it is far more likely that a temple on the disputed site today will only open a Pandora's box for similar demands.

And such demands can be insatiable.

The VHP has already set its eyes on the mosques at Varanasi and Mathura that adjoin important Hindu temples, while some other radicals now see buried temples where the Taj Mahal, the Qutub Minar and the Jama Masjid stand.

At this rate, almost every standing mosque or structure with an Islamic link can and will be seen as having come up on the ruins of some ancient temple, and competing Hindutva outfits will each see success in the number of mosques or other structures that can be brought down to build a Hindu temple/edifice.

After all, if a Ram temple is important to the VHP, why is the belief that a Vishnu temple beneath the Qutub Minar is any less important to some other right-wing Hindu group (this claim is being put forth by Gopal Godse, formerly of the Hindu Mahasabha)?

Similarly, the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra claims that a particular dargah (Haji Malang) is actually a temple that should be called Shri Malang. Other groups elsewhere will come up with their versions of temples wronged and so on.

This has the potential of devastating India. It simply cannot be allowed under any circumstances.

And it is for this reason that a solution must be found to the Ram temple, a solution that is just, fair, and which ends the dispute rather than becomes the harbinger of further conflicts.

There is no guarantee that a Ram temple will actually end the Hindu-Muslim divide. If anything, a temple is guaranteed to once more stir up communal passions, something that the politicians in the VHP/RSS/BJP will love, since they stand to gain from it.

A Ram temple will whet the appetite of the VHP and its allies, who will then seek to do an encore on other mosque sites. It will encourage the formation of new fanatical Hindu gangs, who will seek to become professional mosque breakers in order to gain politically and monetarily.

Moreover, even if the VHP and allies give a guarantee that they will desist from further claims and settle only for a Ram temple, as suggested by Wahiuddin Khan, what is the surety that other groups not under the control of the VHP/RSS (like the Shiv Sena today; and tomorrow many more outfits can and will come up) will also be bound by such a promise? Just as the VHP does not speak for all Hindus, it does not speak for all fanatical Hindu groups.

Rebuilding the mosque today is not feasible. It will only complicate matters. Narasimha Rao should have rebuilt the mosque in December 1992.

Leaving the site vacant has the potential of keeping it open for claims, and thus for future violence.

Perhaps the best alternative is one suggested, strangely, by Sena supremo Bal Thackeray a few years ago. Thackeray said that instead of building either a temple or a mosque, let it would be better to create a monument to honour Mangal Pandey, the man whose revolt sparked off the 1857 War of Independence (aka the Sepoy Mutiny).

Going a step further, a monument could be built to hail all the greats who participated in that famous war -- Pandey, Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi, Nana Sahib, Tantya Tope, Bahadur Zafar Shah, etc. It would be a tribute to Hindu-Muslim unity, given that the Indian forces went into war with the dual battle cry of 'Har Har Mahadev' and 'Allah-o-Akbar' (both mean God is Great).

Yet, given that even Thackeray has now gone back on his words, and Vajpayee is singing the Hindutva tune, this option is no longer favoured. Unfortunately!

One can only hope that our leaders decide for the sake of India and not for their political gains.

Amberish K Diwanji