• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Rasheeda Bhagat

A PERTINENT question to ask during these troubled times is whether we will ever return to an era when one's religious beliefs and ideology will remain confined to the private domain of the home, and not make headlines as they are doing now.

Last Sunday saw the end of yet another effort to find a solution to the contentious and controversial Ayodhya issue. The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board rejected the Kanchi Sankaracharya's "formula", explaining that what it was rejecting was the seer's "most recent clarifications" and not the original proposal.

There was disappointment, and rightly so, that the Kanchi seer's original proposal was different from his July 1 letterto the Muslim Personal Law Board that had sought clarifications.

The Board felt that the latter proposal contained "veiled threats" that, sooner than later, Muslims would have to give up claims to their mosques at Kashi and Mathura too.

This is what the seer had to say in his July 1 letter: "A point was made that Kashi, Mathura and Ayodhya — all the three belong to the Hindus and keeping in mind the larger interest of the country and communal harmony, if not today, but at some time or other, these places have to be given to the Hindus. The Muslims have to mentally prepare themselves for this."

Naturally enough, such an explanation could not be accepted by any segment of leadership claiming to represent Muslims. But, at the end of the day, the impression sought to be created was that Muslim leaders are intransigent and not willing to concede even an inch to solve this issue, which has resulted in so much violence and bloodshed.

And, hence, certain Vishwa Hindu Parishad leaders, particularly its General Secretary, Mr Praveen Togadia, fulminated about how the Muslims have insulted the 80-90 crore Hindus of the country once again.

But more than the Board, if anybody needs to be really blamed for sullying the atmosphere and queering the pitch carefully prepared by the Sankaracharya initially, it is the Sangh Parivar, particularly the VHP's top leadership.

Let us not forget that the Kanchi Sankaracharya's efforts, initiated a few weeks ago, were at first kept totally away from media glare. And when each side was tight-lipped about the contents of the Kanchi seer's first letter, there was a lot of hope and expectation that he had finally hit upon a formula which might just be acceptable to the Muslim leadership.

But Union Ministers started making sudden pilgrimages to the Kanchi Mutt a couple of weeks ago, and it became obvious that despite the Sankaracharya having asked the politicians to keep off what was a "religious issue", the Vajpayee Government was very much involved in his efforts to find a solution to the mandir-masjid issue.

It was at this time that the VHP, to a great extent, and the RSS, less so, both feeling obviously left out, started queering the pitch by raising slogans of "not only Ayodhya but Kashi and Mathura too". Some like Dr Togadia even went so far as to say that the "30,000 mosques in India are built over temples which were destroyed by Muslim invaders".

Understandably, all this set the the alarm bells ringing for the Board which, hardly a few days before its crucial meet last Sunday, had come forth to say that any solution to the Ayodhya issue which did not involve the VHP and the RSS would not be durable.

Meanwhile, the VHP leaders called the Prime Minister, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a few names, as they have done so often in the past, and demanded that both he and his deputy, Mr L. K. Advani, step down if they could not even manage as modest a feat as building a Ram temple on the disputed site at Ayodhya.

And so, after the seer's failed mediation effort, the Ayodhya issue is back to square one and nowhere near resolution.

If the Kanchi seer feels defeated and dejected today and says that this is the end of his efforts to find a solution to the Ayodhya problem, even though his doors would be always open to talks, he has the hard-core elements in the Sangh Parivar to blame rather than the Board.

More than anybody else, he should know that his mission was defeated by zealots in his own camp, rather than those on the other side.

The tragedy is that each time an attempt is made to resolve the Ayodhya tangle, and it fails, attitudes on either side only harden.

Soon after the Sankaracharya's proposal was rejected by the Muslim Personal Law Board, the Aaj Tak channel got hold of a Board member, Mr Sajjad Nomani, in Lucknow and Dr Togadia in Kanyakumari.

The former explained the Board's stand calmly, saying that the Kanchi seer's clarification hardly gave any scope for "give and take. It was only take and take, without any give".

When asked by the anchor what next, he said that the Board would wait for the court's decision on the title suit to the disputed land.

He was asked pointedly and repeatedly if the court verdict would be acceptable to the Board and he replied in the affirmative each time.

But when the VHP General Secretary was asked the same question, he refused to answer it, and chose to launch a tirade against the Muslim community for having "insulted" the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano judgment. "How dare they talk about respecting the judiciary now?" he said.

At the moment, the Ayodhya issue appears to have reached an impasse. So, what about the judiciary, one might ask. When a Praveen Togadia refuses to reiterate his faith in the Indian judiciary, he voicesthe fear lurking in the mind of the Parivar... that the verdict, when it does come, will more likely favour the Muslim rather than the Hindu claim. It is going to require a brave judge to write that judgment, for one fears that whichever way the verdict goes, the country will see fresh violence..

(Response can be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Exuberance unexplained

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line