From: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed A Khan)
Subject: Re: RSS ( a reply to fundamentalists)
Reply-To: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed A Khan)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:27:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.220214.10845@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>,
bond@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Girish Bonde) writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.100629@IASTATE.EDU> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed A Khan)
writes:
> >
> >This can only be established when the team sent by the Supreme court to
> >Ayodhya to inspect the construction submits its report. The court can then
> >decide if the construction violated the order of maintaining the status quo. 
> >
> 
> Actually, I am of the opinion that this controversy can not be resolved
> in court. The only viable alternative is that the Muslim leadership should
> agree to hand over the disputed land to Hindus. A blatant disregard to the
> sentiment of Hindus does not serve national interest and many Bharatiya
> Muslims who realize this are not opposed to the temple construction at
> the disputed site. It is only some opportunist politicians like Shahabuddin
> who are playing with the sentiments of Hindus and Muslims. To further
> clarify my point, I am posting an article by Shri. Girilal Jain, an
> eminent journalist and former editor-in-chief of Times of India. This
> article appeared in the Times of India, August 14, 1992. He has discussed
> various possible scenarios and options for Muslim leadership to get this
> issue resolved once for all.
> 
> (This article was posted by Dinesh Agrawal in the India-D Digest).
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> VEXING AYODHYA ISSUE: Voluntary Settlement will Benefit Muslims
> 
> By: Mr. Girilal Jain
> 
> Source: Times of India, August 14, 1992
> 
> Four points should be obvious to any discerning observer  in  relation
> to  the Ramjanabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue in the relatively quiet atmo-
> sphere PM Narsimha Rao's deft handling of the crisis  last  month  has
> produced.
> 
> First, the consequences will be grave if the problem is  not  resolved
> during  the brief respite Mr. Rao has bought for himself and the coun-
> try. As the crisis last month amply demonstrated, the  stage  is  past
> when  the  issue  could again be put on hold. The first casualities of
> any attempt to do so will be men and women of moderation and  goodwill
> in  the  Congress and the BJP-VHP-RSS combine.  But much more than the
> furure of some individuals and even the government is at stake. By  no
> reckoning  is  this  the  time to invoke some abstract priniciples and
> side-step the reality on the ground.
> 
> Secondly, a strange, indeed unique, series of developments spread over
> more  than  four decades, beginning with the placement of idols in the
> already unused Babri Masjid  in  1949,  have  cumulatively  given  the
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


A favourite half-truth from the BJP-VHP-RSS combine. They never mention why
this was so. There had been some trouble over the issue in the 40's(?) which
lead to a court ordering that the muslims could pray inside the the mosque
while the Hindus could worship at the Ram chabutra in the compound of the
masjid. When the idols had been secretly smuggled inside the mosque one night
some years later, tensions flared up again leading to the court ordering
that the masjid be locked and muslims were barred (I'm not very sure if it
applied to the Hindus too)from praying in the mosque to maintain peace. This
is touted by the VHP-BJP-RSS combine as proof that the muslims have no claim
over the masjid.
 
 

> dispute  the  explosive  potential it has acquired. Such  developments
> cannot possibly be repeated to give rise to another  similar  problem.
> As such, it is not only possible but necessary to treat it as an alto-
> gether special case.
> 
> In plain terms, the Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute should not  be
> used  to  raise  the  spectre  that similar campaigns and demands will
> arise in respect of other mosques which have allegedly been  built  on
> the sites of demolished temples often with their material.


Girilal Jain is blissfully ignorant of the agenda of the RSS-VHP which calls
for the destruction of over 3000 mosques which they claim have been built after
destroying temples. There's no reason to believe that they will give up their
claim even if the muslim community agrees to hand over the mosque to the
RSS-VHP
to build a temple.


> 
> Thirdly, the Supreme Court cannot resolve this problem, brave declara-
> tions  by some of its judges notwithstanding. It will indeed be highly
> surprising if the court can cut through the legal maze that has  grown
> around  the  issue since the first petition was moved in the Allahabad
> high court over 40 years ago. But what if it does perform such a mira-
> cle?


He has a point here about the Supreme Court not being able to cut through
the legal maze but its possible for a Supreme court panel of judges to make
a final arbitration in a reasonable time-span after going through all 
currently available documentation and evidence with the understanding that its
ruling will be binding even if one party feels that its decision is unfair.



> 
> The critical issue in this case is in fact no longer legal at all. The
> heart  of  the  matter  is  why the site in question has been known as
> Janamsthan as far back as we go into its history and whether a  temple
> stood  there  earlier.  Surely these are not questions the apex or any
> other court can settle. These are clearly matters  for  archaeologists
> and  historians to decide and since many of them are passionately com-
> mitted on one side or the other, they cannot be depended  upon  either
> to  agree  among  themselves, or to  tender agreed  recommendations to
> the court.


There are at least three other sites in Ayodhya which also lay claim on the
title of the birthplace of Lord Ram. It is debatable if Hindus having regarded 
this particular place as the birthplace of Lord Ram since time immemorial. Its
my belief that Ayodhya was definitely beleived to be the city of birth of 
Lord Ram but there was no consensus on whether the particular spot on which the
BM stands was believed to be the precise spot on which Lord Ram was born by a
majority of the Hindus. IMO the majority of Hindus have been steam rollered into
believing that the BM stands on the site of the bithplace of Lord Ram by the
events which took place in the 40's  and more significantly in the 80's when the
relations between the two communities were at an all time low.



> 
> The Supreme Court can only help prolong the status quo as the  Allaha-
> bad  high  court has done all these years. Indeed, that is perhaps one
> reason why Babri Masjid Action Committee leaders are  so  eloquent  in
> their  promises  to abide by the court verdict in this case. They have
> not always been so  respectful  towards  the  judiciary.  Witness  the
> denounciation  by some of them of the same Supreme's Court's judgement
> in the Shah Bano's case and the pressure they successfully mounted  on
> PM Rajiv Gandhi to annul it by way of a new parliamentary enactment.


The BMAC cannot claim to be representatives of the muslim community. And
as such their suit in court is their personal public interest litigation.
But it is a fact that society as a whole is now party to the dispute and
hence trying to dismiss the role of the BMAC as an illegitimate but
unfortunately only "representatives" of the muslims in the dispute would be
naiive. IMO the muslims as much as the hindus (and perhaps only more) have
a stake in the peaceful solution of the issue but with the state unable
to take sides because of the nature of the disputants; the muslims as well
as the hindus are being forced to have these illegitimate groups represent
their case and hence are being held hostage to the realpolitik being played
out between these groups. 



> 
> The VHP leaders are not being deliberately provocative and  subversive
> of the rule of law when they refuse similarly to commit themselves. In
> their rather inelegant way, they are only saying that the  status  quo
> is not acceptable to them. It cannot suit the country either.


Great ! His argument is that the since some leaders of the BMAC were so
vociferous in denouncing the Supreme's court decision in the Shah-Bano case
the VHP-RSS combine has the right to do the same. So in effect he is saying
that he does not consider the denunciation of the Supreme court orders by
some of the BMAC leaders as wrong but only that the same right be given to
the RSS-VHp too. The initial wrong is not being righted but is being allowed
to perpetuate. Mr.Girilal Jain seems to be affected by the same "Us v/s Them"
attitude that so many of the muslim leaders have. 
   
One thing to be made clear is that its my opinion that the muslim community
is certainly not crying for preventing the hindus from building the temple
for Lord Ram. Contrary to popular belief the muslims have a high respect for
the Hindus and their belief. The problem here is that there seems to be a case
of injustice being sensed by both communities which is largely as a result of 
political events and historical acrimonies. The Hindus are incensed at the
percieved stubborn attitudes of the muslims and hence fitting their
stereo-types
of the trouble-making muslim. The muslims on the other hand see that there
is no *visible* sign of any destruction of a Ram temple and seeing the
BJP-RSS-VHP spearheading the movement they donot want to be seen surrendering
to these groups who have made no secret of their anti-muslim stand.
These perception may be right or wrong but are for real and each perception
seems to be feeding the other when any major politico-religious upheaval takes
place.



> 
> Fourth, the Prime Minister is in a position  to  take  up  the  thread
> where  his  predecessor,  Mr.  Chandra  Shekhar,  left  it in terms of
> presentation of evidence by the two sides in respect of  their  claims
> and  counter-claims,  specifically  on the question of the presence or
> otherwise of a Hindu temple  earlier  on  the  Babri-Masjid  site  and
> simultaneously  to  institute  a  government inquiry in that regard in
> order to equip himself with  the  facts  of  the  case.  Since  Muslim
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> leaders, including Syed Shahabuddin, committed themselves at one stage
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to handing over the site if it was established  that  a  Hindu  temple
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> existed there, this approach can work.



That is IMO the most sensible way if we are to prevent bloodshed.



> For, there cannot be much doubt about the existence of the temple.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then the RSS-BJP-VHP should have no problem in convincing the rest of the
country and the court that a temple was indeed demolished and would lay to rest
the controversy.



> 
> But this will not be an ideal solution. A  prime  ministerial  verdict
> would  not  help  lighten the heavy burden of the chequered history of
> Hindu-Muslim  relations which  continues to cast its dark shadow  over
> the  present  and  to threaten to overwhelm the future. A solution can
> emerge only if Muslim leaders agree, on their own, to the shifting  of
> the  mosque to a mutually agreed place so that the construction of the
> proposed Ram temple can begin in a proper atmosphere.
> 

I'm sure that today the average Indian muslim is not averse to even this idea
if it can be done honourably. But as I mentioned in an earlier posting there is
no credible "muslim leadership" that can represent the muslim community and
negotiate the issue. What we have is a motely group of self-serving politicians
and individuals who will not take responsibility for nor have the power to
prevent bloodshed if the country is plunged into a communal holocaust with any
miscalculation on their part.



> Indian Islam has no more been a fixed category than Hinduism.  It  has
> changed  from  time  to time depending on the exigencies of the situa-
> tion. In our era, it changed dramatically in 1947 when many  of  those
> who regarded themselves as lega tees of the Mughal empire by virtue of
> their foreign descent, real or imaginary the status of  their  forefa-
> thers  under  Muslim rule and their distinct culture, left what is our
> India today for the new state of Pakistan.
> 
> The self-perception of this elite  is  evident  in  the  writings  and
> utterances  of  Sir Sayyid Ahmed, among those of others. Partition was
> in no small way the result of the self-perception  and  activities  of
> this  class,  though  the  leadership was provided by  Jinnah who came
> from a very different background. Indian Islam can broadly be said  to
> have moved from militancy to orthodoxy in 1947.
> 
> Indian Islam underwent another radical change in 1965  and  1971  when
> the  myth  of  superior  Muslim valour was laid to rest on the battle-
> field. This is not a pleasant thing to say in polite society and it is
> not  being  said  in a spirit of narrow chauvinism. But to avoid it is
> also to neglect a hopeful feature of the scene.
> 
> The third change will have been initiated if and when  Muslim  leader-
> ship  voluntarily  agree to hand over the Babri Masjid site before and
> indeed  without a final  and  official  determination  that  a  temple
> existed  there.  This  symbolic  gesture  will  do much more than help
> dispose of the specific Ramjanam Bhoomi- Babri Masjid  issue.  It  can
> help  promote  fresh  thinking and attitudes.  That will meet a Muslim
> need as much as a Hindu one - the need to grapple with the past. There
> is no other way to exorcise the ghost of the past.
> 
> Secularism and rule of law are noble concepts and they alone can  con-
> stitute  the  foundations  of  the  Indian  state.  But  these are not
> independent and absolute categories. They were  born,  and  they  have
> prospered,  in  certain historical circumstances. As such they have to
> be related to the  compulsions of  circumstances. The law of necessity
> is as pertinent as the rule of law.
> 
> For a number of historical reasons, Indian elite has a  special  fond-
> ness for abstract principles divorced from social, economic and polit-
> ical realities. A significant section of this elite  was  indulged  in
> this  trait  without  restraint  in a number of cases in the past, the
> intense hatred of Indira Gandhi for example, and it has done the  same
> in  respect  of the Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy. That is a
> road to disaster.
> ======================================================================



--Javed.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.indian:29415 alt.sex:27658 sci.med:16428 talk.politics.misc:42008 talk.religion.misc:14844