By A. Faizur Rahman,
In a calculated attempt to circumvent the Ayodhya verdict Hindutva organisations have started issuing veiled threats (euphemistically called “appeals”) to the Muslims demanding that they handover for the construction of a “grand” Ram temple the land allotted to them by the Allahabad HC. Surprisingly, the latest “appeal” comes from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the three claimants of the disputed site, which until now had been engaged in negotiations initiated by Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant on the Muslim side, and Mahant Gyandas, president of the Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad. Perhaps the recent closed-door meeting between Mahant Bhaskar Das and firebrand BJP leader Vinay Katiyar was the cause for the sudden hardening of the Akhara’s attitude.
The truth is, if giving up claim to the Ayodhya land was possible it would have happened decades ago. Only because the contending parties refused to budge from their respective positions it was decided that exploring the legal option was the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Sadly, it was not to be because, the honourable judges thought it fit to by pass the rule of law and grant legitimacy to the religious faith of the majority community, to say nothing about the their inexplicable silence on the demolition of the Babri Masjid which is being interpreted as an exoneration of the criminals who pulled down the mosque. This has in a way nullified the efforts to break the deadlock and resulted in a mutually hurting stalemate once again.
Kanchi Shankaracharya, Swami Jayendra Saraswati discussing Ayodhya issue with Muslim Personal Law Board leaders in 2003 [Photo by Outlook]
The only option left before the parties now is to shed their adversarial approach and arrive at a compromise formula through negotiations. For this to happen, two confidence building measures are imperative insofar as the Muslims are concerned. First, the Supreme Court must countermand the dangerous precedent set by the Allahabad HC that makes it possible for the majority community to takeover a place of worship belonging to any minority community purely on the basis of antiquated dogma. Second, the Hindutva Parivar, in the spirit of reconciliation it is talking about, must take the first step towards it by announcing that its willingness to relinquish its claim to other mosques in the country. Such a gesture would be seen as upholding the concept of democratic fair dealing and pave the way for a negotiated settlement of the dispute.
As for the Sunni Central Wakf Board, although it may go against their claim to ownership of the entire disputed land, it should not be difficult for them to enter into a harmonious agreement with the Hindus as such a precedent (as pointed out by Justice Khan) exists in Islamic history in the form of the Hudaybiya Treaty which was signed with the Meccan polytheists by no less a person than the Prophet himself despite the fact that it was opposed by the entire Muslim community at that time for its humiliating conditions. It is hoped that in the interest of peace the Muslim leadership would follow the farsighted approach of the Prophet to resolve this seemingly intractable conflict.
But the problem is, these sentiments are not being reciprocated by the other side. Hindutva ideologues are displaying a kind of majoritanian masculinity that seems to suggest that it is below their dignity to treat the Muslims as equal citizens of this country. The demolition of the Babri Masjid is being justified by saying that it was not a mosque at all. And the latest innuendo is that a mosque is less sacred than a temple and hence it may be demolished to make way for a holier place, the Ram Temple. Persons spreading such disinformation must realise that it has the potential to disturb the remarkable Hindu-Muslim harmony that exists at the people to people level in India.
If the Sangh Parivar is honest the Ayodhya issue can be easily resolved on the basis of the values that Islam and Hinduism share. For instance, the idea of unity despite religious diversity is not against the Muslim ethos as, unlike Hindutva, Islam does not belittle the sanctity of places of worship of other religions. In a verse which could be described as the bedrock of inter-faith harmony the Quran says that if God did not check the mischief mongers “there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques where the name of God in commemorated in abundant measure” (22:40). And it has been declared in the Bhagwad Gita that absence of enmity for people (nirvairah sarvabhutesu), even though they might have done great harm, is one of the important virtues of the best of the devotees (XI-55).
Having said this, it may be misleading to see the Ayodhya dispute as purely a Hindu-Muslim issue. It actually concerns the entire nation and could seriously affect its development if allowed to continue. It is common knowledge that poverty and backwardness of African countries is mainly a result of violent conflict. And nearer home, one of our own neighbouring countries finds itself in deep trouble, financial and otherwise, for failing to contain sectarian violence and in some cases promoting it as a matter of policy to further its vested interests.
Therefore, if Central government wants India to maintain its position as one of the fastest growing economies in the world it must assume the role of a genuine mediator to help the Hindu and Muslims resolve this dispute amicably. The Sangh Parivar too must realise that it would be unwise to prolong this conflict at a time when all our energies are required to be focused on the equitable distribution of the fruits of our economic growth. In other words, we need to go beyond idea of conflict resolution into the realm of conflict transformation by which both the communities join hands to work towards the larger goal of making India an epitome of peace, stability and progress.
(The author is secretary-general, Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought among Muslims. He may be reached at [email protected]. Article was first published in the Indian Express)