Ayodhya

Govind N Deodhekar

G. N. Deodhekar was active in the independence struggle in India, and has lived and worked in the UK for many years. He served as treasurer of the National Secular Society for many years.

THE PULLING down of the structure in Ayodhya, popularly known as Babri Masjid, by extremist Hindus on 6 December 1992, resulting in widespread violence, loss of life and property, may be regarded as a watershed in Indian politics. Parties claiming to be secularist, such as Congress, Janata and the Communists have tried to pin ali the blame on the right-wing Hindu-oriented BJP and the Hindu organisation VHP. Viewed from a distance in space and time, however, one cannot absolve centre and left parties of all blame.

The three-domed structure, which the whole world saw on TV, became semi-derelict and stopped being used as a mosque around 1947 at the partition of India, perhaps even earlier. The Hindus had for years claimed that it was built by demolishing a temple, believed to be marking the birth-place of Ram, one of the principal Hindu incarnations. It took the local Hindus two years to pluck up courage to occupy the structure and install an idol of Ram under the central dome. A court case followed and the court ordered locking up of the structure but allowing Hindu priests to carry on worship and care for the idol.

In February 1986 after a full 36 years of worship, another court ordered unlocking the sanctum and general access to worshippers. The Hindus then organised collection of large funds n replace the 3-domed Islamic structure by a Temple of Hindu style. In fact, the laying of the Foundation stone was approved by the Congress .government.

During my visit to Bombay in the winter of 1989, I had reasoned with some rank and file Hindus on the following lines: "This conflict," said, "could cause thousands of deaths and loss of property worth billions of rupees. Why not offer o build a brand new mosque, at Hindu cost, at a site suitable for Ayodhya's Muslims?" Being rank and file irresponsibles, they thought this unnecessary! Imagine my surprise, when later on, the BJP leader, Advani, appeared on my TV screen in London and said that the Hindus would offer to relocate the mosque some 5 to 10 kilometres away. This is documented in his speech to the Lower House on 7 November. He said: "The best possible solution in such a situation is to let a temple be constructed there at a place where Ram is believed to have been born and the structure which once was a mosque be relocated."

During the tripartite negotiations the parties of the centre and left failed to support this eminently reasonable solution. By giving an abstract claim to a structure they did not possess, the Muslims would have gained a relocated or new mosque. What is infinitely more valuable, they would have gained the goodwill and even the affection of the mass of the Hindus.

The Hindus may (or may not) have pressed for some re-arrangement affecting the birth-place of Krishna at Mathura and the re-possession of the central Hindu shrine at their Holy city of Benares. From thousands of temples despoiled by Muslim rulers the VI-IP is pressing for a readjustment of these three sites. Any compromise could be a historic compromise and a settlement leading to a new era of peace and amity. What the intransigent leaders of Muslims are effectively saying to the Hindus is: "We have the militancy and the strength to dispossess you of territories the size of France and Germany. But we shall not yield to you three structures - not even one!"

The impression given by the self-styled secularist parties is that they are primarily concerned with building Muslim vote-banks by making concessions to the intransigent Islamic leadership. The Congress particularly so, by banning Rushdie's Satanic Verses (ahead of Pakistan or Iran) and by sacrificing Muslim women's fights to alimony by putting them under Islamic Law rather than the general law of the land. Now at last they seem to have precipitated a substantial Hindu vote-bank for the BJR Though Hindu-oriented, the BJP has some small support even among Muslims, who seek conciliation with Hindus rather than confrontation. It has had the wisdom to appoint a Muslim as its leader in the Upper House. One can only hope that if it emerges as the alternative Government, as seems inevitable, it will keep in check both Muslim intransigence and Hindu extremism.