Loitering with Intent in Ayodhya

The Babri Masjid issue has been on the boil for more than 150 years now. After the destruction of the existing structure, India saw much bloodshed and politicking. The issue has once again come to the centrestage after the court ordered an archeological excavation at the controversial site. There has been heated debate over the necessity or futility of the archaeological exercise.

Not only this, the Central government approached the Supreme Court seeking vacation of its order prohibiting religious activities on the undisputed land in Ayodhya (claiming that there the situation prevailing last year had considerably improved and there was no fear of a Muslim backlash now). The Supreme Court dismissed the Centre’s application on March 31, 2003. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice S Rajendra Babu said "we are of the view that the Supreme Court March 13/14, 2002 order should be operative till the Allahabad High Court disposes the title suits." The court said the Union Government’s application required to be rejected "not only to maintain communal harmony but also to fulfill other obligations".

The government has also indicated that as per the 1994 order of the Supreme Court, the Centre was free to hand over the management of the undisputed land to a trust or a registered body. This could be done after making adequate provisions for access to the disputed site.

Yousuf Saeed, an active secularist and an old friend, recently published his solution to the problem. He proposed that Indian Muslims should withdraw their claim on the Babri Masjid on certain conditions that ensure safety of further monuments, and peace in this country (http://www.alif-india.com/rambabri.html). I did not doubt his intentions even for a moment. I know that his secular credentials are impeccable. However, I had some reservations about the points he made.

My basic contention is that Indian Muslims never had a claim to the Babri mosque - like with all mosques, the only stake holders are people who live in the hinterland, in this case, those Muslims who lived in Ayodhya. It is the Masjid committee there which has a stake and a claim.

Yousuf based his arguments on five assumptions, which I am quoting below:

• Whatever solution we propose to find, it has to be a win-win solution for both the parties.
• This issue cannot be resolved by archaeological/historical evidence. It is not possible for historians to tell the “accurate" truth about any event, as there is always room for interpretations. As the religious zealots themselves point out rightly, it is a matter of sentiment. Therefore, we have to simply forget about proving or disproving historical facts now.
• The Judiciary is not likely to find a win-win solution.
• The demolition of Babari masjid is an irreversible act – one can never rebuild the mosque with its original feel - whether for aesthetic or archaeological purposes. Moreover, the demolition of the mosque was a sort of catharsis for a large number of people who wanted a Ram Mandir there. Hence, to rebuild the mosque at the same spot would be like ’forcing someone to eat what they have thrown up’, as one of them claims.
• The resolution of Babri mosque issue (resulting from this proposal or otherwise), does not guarantee the end of communalism and religious extremism in India. The Babri mosque is one of the many ’time bombs’ ticking away on the delicate secular fabric of India.

I would now like to comment on Yousuf’s well meaning proposal.

1. In such mindless situations, there cannot be a win win situation, for what constitutes a win here is itself not clear. Will Muslims (those few who live there) win if they get back the mosque? Will the Sangh parivar win if it gets the land and builds a temple there (paradoxically it loses out on its biggest slogan)?

2. In the absence of everything else, secular citizens will have no choice but to go by archaeological findings... which might very well discover a Buddhist monastery or a Jain temple.

3. In any society that believes in the rule of law, the courts are paramount and their decisions must be enforced, even if it means using the police to do so.

On points 4 and 5, I completely agree with Yousuf and have nothing further to say.

Yousuf also suggests four conditions for withdrawing the Indian Muslim’s claim from the Babri structure. They are:

• A permanent status quo on all historical buildings
• A complete ban on all organizations, institutions and individuals involved in any kind of communal or sectarian extremism, including violence, hate campaign, excessive nationalism, religious bigotry, or international terrorism, whichever religion, caste or region they belong to.
• Complete rehabilitation of all those affected by communal riots – rebuilding their property, and full compensation for their losses.
• Educational reforms involving special courses on (a) Secular Ethics and (b) a status quo on all history textbooks published before a certain recent date – no revision or rewriting of them without the approval of a committee of well-known experts from a cross-section of society.

On these conditions that he sets forth, Yousuf needs to be careful of the following:

1. The status quo has already been declared - an act passed in 1993 by the Parliament forbids any claims on any other monument and makes an exception only for Babri masjid where too it asks the court to decide. But this entire problem arises because the rabble rouser hardly cares for the law.
2. Again such a ban already exists. The IPC makes such acts illegal and the Election laws forbid the same. So what? Thackeray, Modi and their ilk can hardly be bothered with such trivia.
3. Modi has declared that he has rehabilitated everyone and the situation is normal. And so does every chief minister and home minister who claims to have brought situations quickly under control each time riots break out.
4. The suggestion (a) in this point is superb. Point (b) has a problem - you can either be secular or say that research and the quest for truth must go on, or be communal and fundamentalist and say that knowledge be frozen in time.

I personally think that the only option is for the courts to declare that this is a local dispute. Outside and vested interests will not be tolerated. Then the local chaps sit down together and negotiate. And if the local temple committee agrees to buy out the land, the Muslims sell it (and they will get a huge premium if they bargain well) and open a school, a mosque, a film club, children’s park and an old age centre somewhere close by - there is enough land in Faizabad and it is cheap.

This is not without precedent - a number of temple lands have been sold, mosques given away, churches given on rent..... This is a win win situation - however, the administration has to be tight and throw into jail any outsider seen loitering around with intent to create mischief.