Search the Internet           Tips

Ayodhya again!

Given this, how does one reconcile to the uproar in the newspapers with the situation on the ground? To put it differently, is what is written in the mainstream media reflective of the opinion of the people who access the news sources? Granting that the media's role is not merely to inform but educate as well, and given the fact that the English media has educated its readership of the facts of the Ayodhya case for the last eight years at least, there ought to have been a groundswell of opinion against building a Ram temple at the disputed site.

Is there such a pervasive sentiment?

The answer to that is obvious. What is not obvious, however, to those who control the destinies of men and nation, is that there is a tremendous price being paid, by the State, by the people, the longer the issue is allowed to fester. A solution is the need of the house, not one imposed by external agencies like the courts, but one worked out by the disputants.

The prime minister, to his credit, has taken the first step towards this, but instead of debating his suggestion as mature individuals, the Opposition has resorted to paralysing Parliament with its lung power. Surely, that cannot be the tactic of those who have a counter-proposal that will go down well with the masses? If Messrs Sonia Gandhi, Mulayam Singh et al have an alternative, lasting solution, that will also find acceptance among the people, why don't they simply come out with it? The media, given its hues, will surely propagate it in a positive light, so they can't be afraid of their views being blacked out?

If they still choose to stick to their obstructionist ways, could it be because they know that they have no workable solution to a problem that has bled the nation for 10 years now?

So the prime minister had a political agenda in articulating his views on what should be done at the disputed site, so he has his eyes on the assembly election in Uttar Pradesh and this was his way of reassuring his party's votebank that the BJP has not strayed from its original agenda. Even then, it does not detract from the fact that this was the first serious attempt at initiating a discussion on a problem that has vexed most Indians. Hereto all that we have had has been suggestions like erecting a public urinal on the site of the mosque and the like.

Even a kindergarten kid will not believe that the demolition of the mosque was a spontaneous reaction on the part of the frenzied mobs that had gathered there. If you place petrol next to a fire, you don't have to be Einstein to know the outcome. The demolition may not have been premeditated, but what else could have happened that December day in 1992? Of course it was a sorry day, a terrible day, but just as the nation has moved on, the disputants too need to move on from there and not be stuck in some kind of time-warp.

Those parties that are bristling at the prime minister's suggestion forget that the temple issue could never have strengthened the BJP the way it did, had the BJP been engaged, contained when it initially raised its mandir demand, rather than opposing it. The shriller the Opposition to the BJP's demand, the stronger it grew -- which is borne out by the fact that in the election to the UP assembly soon after the masjid was pulled down, the BJP could not cross the half-way mark.

The same mistake is being repeated now. Once the electorate is divided into those who oppose the Ram temple coming up in Ayodhya and who want the masjid to come up there instead, it is clear who's got the numbers. The present scenario will impact first in the next round of assembly elections, especially in UP, and if the formula works again it will be tried out for sure on a national level, ahead of time.

Whatever the legality of the two claims to the Babri Masjid site, the reality is that what was pulled down will remain in the rubble -- that statement bearing no relation to the fact that I am a Hindu by birth. Given that, it is up to those leading the charge for reconstruction of the mosque, and equating its non-compliance to the Muslim community's doom, to figure out how to get out of the corner they have painted themselves into.

As a dispassionate observer, it seems to me that the prime minister has thrown them a lifeline. It is interesting that Vajpayee has not made any reference to the other two disputed structures in Mathura and Varanasi which had also adorned the Sangh Parivar's shortlist on disputed sites that need to be reclaimed.

Perhaps that is the door left open for a compromise between the hardliners in both communities. Whether they like it or not, the Muslim community, or at least the people who have anointed themselves its spokespersons are facing the greater challenge. What the prime minister has told them tacitly is to give up their claims to a site on which stood a decrepit, not-in-use mosque, a site which some Hindus claim was the birthplace of what the legends say was a remarkable man. Yes, the PM has taken sides in a partisan dispute over a conqueror vs native legacy -- and if you took a comprehensive poll in the nation you will be surprised at what its findings are.

Given the strength of emotion there is little choice for the Muslim communities' leaders. They have been presented an honourable exit, courtesy the prime minister, or they can continue to lead their people into mindless conflict, a conflict which they can never win and a conflict which will bleed their own country into endless civil strife.

Saisuresh Sivaswamy