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 22:41:20 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.
> 


IMO the issue can be tackled in two ways :

1. The govt. arbitrates or negotiates a settlement between the two sides. But
this appears unlikely because of the increasingly hard positions being taken
by the disputants. Again the govt. is driven by political considerations and
is amazingly weak in taking any decisive clearheaded step to try and solve
the dispute.

2. The "muslim leadership" volunteers to hand over the mosque over to the RSS
VHP combine to generate "goodwill". But it is as yet unclear who make up the
"muslim leadership". The BMAC has no leader elected by the muslims to represent
their case in the dispute. Even an lected leader who happens to be muslim 
cannot really claim to have the mandate to represent the muslim community as a
whole. This is because it would negate the very concept of a secular democratic
polity where leaders are elected to represent constituencies and not
communities. In any case even if one were to accept them as representatives of
the muslim community, there is no guarantee that all sections of the muslim
community would agree with the concept of "magnanimity on the part of the
muslims" ;not because they are fundamentally averse to the idea but because
they
consider the Hindu groups spearheading the movement as Muslims haters and as
such giving into the demands of such groups is unacceptable. However given the
relations between the two communities its unclear what the reaction would have
been if the RSS-BJP-VHP combine had not been spearheading the issue. In any case
given events already taken place, this option seems highly unworkable.

3. The VHP-BJP-RSS combines gives up the claim on the BM and negotiates with
the BMAC to build the temple on the land adjacent to the masjid and could
include the RAM chabutra and the shilanyas spot and other negotiated land. 
There's no gurantee that this would not trigger off reactions among the 
diehard extremists in both communities but the chances are that such elements
will be small in number and can be controlled.

4. The court determines the likelihood of a temple having been demolished to
make way for the masjid and orders the  masjid to be demolished to make way for
the temple. This IMO offers the best hope to solve the issue because looking
at any perceptible  opinions expressed by the muslims or the hindus there does
not appear to be any misgivigs about any miscarraige of justice if the court
honestly tries to solve the dispute. 






> (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
> 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.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 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.
> 
> 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. For, there cannot be much doubt
> about the existence of the temple.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.