Ayodhya: Muslims must act with grace

[Guest guest]

Ayodhya: Muslims must act with grace

By MV Kamath

Source: Free Press Journal

 

"No masjid, in the first place, should even have been built in a city

held holy by the Hindus just as no temple would ever be allowed to be

built in Mecca."

 

Does it require ten years for the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case

to be decided by a court of law? No, it doesn't. It should take no

more than ten minutes for a decision to be handed down. All the facts

are available as also all the arguments for and against the building

of a Sri Ram Temple on the Ayodhya site. The plain truth is that, the

fact of a temple having existed on the site once occupied by the

Babri Masjid, is unchallengeable. And that is the only fact relevant

to the issue. All the rest, such as concerning the land surrounding

the disputed area over which such hullabaloo is made, is irrelevant.

The issue, really - as should be evident - is not regarding the 67

acres of land acquired by the Centre in 1993; the real issue is

emotional, psychical, one might even and primordial, and has to do

with pent-up anger and frustration of centuries. Whether the Babri

Masjid was built on a temple demolished by invading Islamic forces or

not, is purely peripheral. No masjid, in the first place, should even

have been built in a city held holy by the Hindus just as no temple

would ever be allowed to be built in Mecca.

 

The very act of building a masjid in Ayodhya was an act of deliberate

sacrilege, intended to show to a defeated people, who were the rulers

in the land. That is the root of the problem. All else is hogwash.

The Hindu mind has been in a state of turmoil over the Babri Masjid

for centuries. The secularist asks: which Hindu mind? Why wasn't that

mind active in the twenties, thirties, forties etc. of the 20th

century? Why is the issue being raised now? Why can't the dead past

bury the dead? How one wishes that was possible! The issue had not

been raised during the first half of the 20th century because the

country had more important things on its mind such as the struggle

for independence. Even the temple at Somnath was built after

independence.

 

It could well have been built in pre-independence days; there was no

dispute over its site or over the structure. But that matter had to

take second place over the larger question of getting the British Raj

out. And so it turned out. Had India been an autocracy as it was

under Babar and his descendants or as Pakistan is today, the matter

of the demolition of the Babri Masjid would have been settled by an

executive order and no Syed Shahabuddin would have dared to raise his

petulant voice. There is one - just one - instance in history when

Shivaji, outraged at a masjid that had been illegally raised, ordered

its demolition. And Shivaji was no communalist. He was one of the

fairest of fair rulers who commanded the respect and adoration even

of his Muslim subjects. But just raised as to why a majority of

Hindus have not asked for the building of a Ram Mandir but has been

asked only - according to our secularists - by a handful of the

saffron brigade, one is tempted to ask whether a majority of Muslims

want the matter to drag on endlessly contributing to instability and

continuing communal tension. Has anyone thought about that? Does Syed

Shahabuddin speak for all Muslims? But even if he does, would he be

right?

 

Consider this: According to an India Today-ORG-MARG poll, there has

been "a dramatic surge in support for the VHP demand to begin

construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya". A year ago, only 20 per

cent favoured this drastic step. Today, says India Today (4 February

2002) that number had shot up to 43 per cent. Among Hindus it is 48

per cent."

 

According to India Today the hardening of positions is visible in the

Hindi heartland and western India. In Gujarat support for immediate

temple-building has risen from 26 per cent to 73 per cent, in

Rajasthan from 23 per cent to 60 per cent, in Maharashtra from 23 per

cent to 51 per cent. Says the weekly: "There seems to be a definite

convergence between support for temple building in Ayodhya and

endorsement of the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO)". Surely,

not all those who want the immediate building of the temple are

members of the VHP or even the BJP? On February 4 The Hindustan Times

polled its readers on whether the government should ban the VHP if it

forcibly tries to construct the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. As many as

63.66 per cent voted 'no'. That shows the temper of the Hindus.

 

What is clear is that the raising of the temple is not a matter for

the courts to decide. Besides, should a court decide, against all

evidence, that the VHP is in the wrong, will the dispute end

automatically? It will not. It will only exacerbate feelings leading

to more rioting, bringing Hindus in particular, and India in general,

into disrepute. Can't our Muslim fellow citizens understand this?

What everyone - the BJP, the NDA, all political parties, the courts

of law, Hindus and Muslims - must realise is that what is at issue is

not the legality of the possession of the land at the Babri Masjid

site and around, but a deep and unhealed hurt of the Hindu psyche

that cannot be wished away.

 

To ask, as our secularists do: which Hindus are you talking about,

who cares etc. etc. - is not to address ourselves to one of the

leftover problems of history. To duck it, as the NDA government is

presently doing, may be good politics, but poor administration. The

Gordian Knot is waiting to be cut, the Alexander way. What a section

of the Muslim world led by the likes of Syed Shahabuddin do not want

to face up is the fact that great harm has been done to the Hindu

psyche by past Islamic rulers during some 450 years of Mughal rule

that calls for redress.

 

But, goes the argument, if one concedes the Ram Janmabhoomi to the

VHP, will it not merely whet the Hindu appetite for redressal of the

Banaras and Mathura masjids as well? What that suggests is that for

both Hindus and Muslims, it is a matter of coming to terms with an

unhappy past. This is where the Muslim minority has to show grace.

Agreed that it takes courage, but that courage will not be misplaced.

It is not a virtue that one expects from a Syed Shahabuddin or from

the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC). Petty-minded that they are,

they can only think of property rights, not of hurt Hindu feelings.

It was such pettiness, in the first place, that led to the demolition

of the Babri Masjid.

 

Had the BMAC shown statesmanship, the Babri Masjid could have been

reverentially dismantled and rebuilt elsewhere, even at VHP cost.

Even now it is too late. What is missing in this entire episode is

grace. If only the BMAC would graciously concede all the land,

disputed and undisputed to the VHP in an act of unprecedented

generosity and nobility of spirit, overnight the Hindu-Muslim

equation will change, winning for the Muslims not only the applause

but the eternal gratitude of all Hindus everywhere. "Ideally" said

George Fernandes, who recently met the VHP leaders, the other

day, "the matter should be resolved through a dialogue which would be

a meeting of minds and hearts".

 

If that happened, he said, "it will be the finest thing which can

happen to a nation" - which goes without saying. One can imagine an

upsurge in favour of Muslims that no one can even dream of; politics

would then take on an entirely new turn. The Muslim community would

be hailed as generous, far-sighted and as full partners in the great

task of building a newer, better, stronger India. Practically

overnight. But does the community have the right vision? For the

Union Government to refer the matter to the Law Ministry for it to

examine the legal and constitutional aspects of handling over the

undisputed plots of land around the disputed site is ducking the

issue! The appeal should be to the good sense of the Muslim

community - of which a part, howsoever small, is making a mountain

out of a molehill. It just does not seem to understand what one

gesture of goodwill can do it - and the country.

 

India's tragedy is that it had to live under minority rule for

centuries to the point that the minority came to believe that it not

only had the inherent right to rule but to run roughshod over

majority sentiment with impunity. That, indeed, Islam had the natural

right to impose itself on Hinduism - which is exactly what happened

in Ayodhya, Banaras and Mathura and other Hindu Holy places. An

English traveller making his way from Surat to Delhi in the

eighteenth century has recorded that throughout his long journey he

did not see a single a Hindu temple - so many had been ruthlessly

demolished. Babar did not ask for a Supreme Court permission to build

a masjid in Ayodhya nor did Aurangzeb seek guidance in setting up a

masjid in Banaras. They took it as the victor's natural and absolute

right freely to trample on Hindu sentiments. That this feeling should

exist in the new millennium as well among a certain segment of the

Muslim community makes it even sadder.

 

In a democracy, a government cannot take the law into its own hands.

It is this weakness that Syed Shahabuddin and his ilk are exploiting

to the fullest. Grace is not a word in their extended vocabulary. At

first they dared the Hindus to demolish the masjid - which the latter

did, almost shamefacedly, if L K Advani is to be believed. There is

no sense of triumph among the BJP leaders over what happened. But

should the BMAC continue to take a hard stand? If the India Today and

Hindustan Times polls are any indication, even those Hindus who had

pastly looked askance at the Sangh Parivar are likely to lose

patience. It is time the sorrows of the past are forgotten. The onus

lies squarely on the Muslim community. Ayodhya must be turned into a

healing ground for all time.