Ayodhya verdict: anger, laughter; but in introspection, relief

By Mohammad Reyaz,

If not anything, the verdict issued by the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court on 30 September on the title suit of the Babari Masjid-Ram Janm Bhoomi dispute has provided a sigh of relief to the government, which was wary of communal conflicts following the verdict, at a time when it is organizing the Commonwealth Games.

But what has changed in the last two decades is that the editor of a popular English TV channel went on to say till last minute, “remember, we do not want to speculate”. By and large, the media reported the verdict ‘responsibly’. But then, it did so as it had sensed the pulse of the nation, which was weary of tension that would create problems for the country’s steady growth.

Two critical events occurred during the arduous tenure of Narismha Rao -- opening of the market by the incumbent prime minister and then Finance Minister ,Dr Manmohan Singh, and the fateful event took place on 6 December 1992.

When Rao was sleeping or not available on the day, the event sent shock waves in several quarters. Later, Rao clarified that he had never expected that Karsevaks would demolish the disputed structure.

Liberals, including a large number of Hindus, and Muslims were dismayed by what they witnessed in broad day light. L. K. Advani even called it the “saddest day” of his life, but the pictures and video footage of the day betrayed his words.

In 1970s and 80s, when the country was reeling under extreme poverty with GDP hovering around 3.5%, two simultaneous movements, contradictory but at the same time, overlapping, gained momentum inthe backdrop of what was sarcastically called “Hindu rate of growth” by late Economist K. N. Raj. While Advani’s Toyota driven rath yatra was instrumental, the socialist movement under Jai Prakash Narayan and his protégés became powerful. Finally, the government woke up to the demand, partly under international pressure (many still have problems in the way it was done though).

Today, the country is reaping the fruits of liberalization, privatization and globalization (LPG). As Professor Qamar Agha once told me “the ever growing middle class, which once formed the base of the BJP, has particularly deserted them after the Gujarat pogrom as they want to get enjoy and move ahead”.

Certainly, there are elements of truth in it. Even Narendra Modi, the new mascot of right-wing Hindutva politics, appealed to citizens, especially “the peace-loving people of Gujarat,” to maintain peace and calm. Justice S. U. Khan has talked about this economic angle in his judgment.

Similar sentiment is echoed on the streets from Chennai to Delhi. The generation, which grew up post 1992, hardly identify with the issue.

Tilak Jha, a 25-year-old employee of Gurgaon-based Political Edge says, “I will worship Ram with this belief that he was born in Ayodhya even if a mosque is built there. For me, the decree of court is immaterial; whatsoever, no court has the moral authority to decide on my faith”.

Terming the judgment a good one, he said that “Muslims should also come together to build the temple of Lord Ram…, and the court did a right thing in taking ‘faith and sentiments’ as evidence”. Not many legalists share this view though calling it ‘panchayti system’, and fearing that this would set a wrong precedent.

However, all agree that it is a good opportunity for Hindu-Muslim reconciliation. Reports even suggest that RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat does not want that the Hindu party should file petition in the Supreme Court. However, reconciliation for them was explicitly put by beaming Ravi Shakar Prasad immediately after the verdict outside the court:

"After this ruling, I make a humble appeal to the Muslims of this country, please accept this verdict, and help in the construction of a temple.... It will lead to a new brotherhood in the country.” Bala Saheb Thakrey echoed the same sentiments in Saamna’s editorial, praising Justice Khan and asking Muslims to covert this into “golden opportunity” for amicable solution and to shed the image of being unpatriotic. The editorial hailed Khan whose ‘patriotism stood above his religion’.

Although reconciliation for Muslims and Hinuds has different connotations, the likes of Bala Saheb, Mohan Bhagwat and Advani seem to suggest that Muslims should prove patriotism, brotherhood and friendship by helping create a ‘grand temple’ at the birthplace of Lord Ram, and as Bala Saheb suggested let ‘patriotism stand above his religion’.

But this is problematic for a democracy where a judgment has relied on ‘beliefs’ over evidence and the judgment appears more of a settlement.

This is the same point on which even most progressive of Muslims have problems. While most are simply happy and relieved that nothing unwanted happen, but as Shabnam Hashmi called feel as ‘second class citizen’. Saba Parveen, a cartographer from Kolkata says, “It was partial verdict tilting in favour of majoritarian Hindus…a political settlement.” The Sunni Central Waqf Board has already declared that they will appeal in the apex court.

It is important to mention here that the ‘dispute’ has been made into Hindu Muslim issue only by some petty right wing politicians on both sides. An overwhelming number of Hindus have always maintained that the structure was mosque till 1949, when it was closed after the installation of Ram lala, while there is no conclusive proof of existence of temple before the mosque. A large section of intelligentsia, academia and civil rights group have even questioned the veracity of the Archaeological Survey of India Report.

Most middle class ‘liberals’ want to move ahead and are not really bothered what stands at the disputed site. Ankita Khare, a researcher with the Press Trust of India, says, “I do not really care”. Most university graduates seem to suggest that at the site, an orphanage, hospital, etc should be built for the larger good of the society or an interfaith centre. Asif Akhtar, a student of Jamia Millia Islamia, wants that a “University with a dedicated centre for comparative religions should be built at the site”. Saurabh Sharma, a self-proclaimed antagonist explains, “Who cares what is built there!

Just that no one should die in the name of Allah or Ram. Beyond that, I do not care”. “Anubhooti Panda, an alumnus of Jamia’s Mass Communication Research Centre, tersely says, “Leave the land khali (vacant) as a reminder of how dumb we can get”.
----
(The writer is a research fellow at MMA Jauhar Academy of Third World Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi)