From: bond@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (  Girish)
Subject: Thoughts on Ayodhya events
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:10:51 GMT


This is for a friend who do not have access to SCI.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

by Sanjeev Shukla <sanjeev@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>

	Events in the past week precipitated by the destruction of the
structure have saddened me terribly.  These events have made us take
stock of what India is and should yearn to be. 
 
	Many writers have denounced the destruction of the structure in
Ayodhya saying that it violates that which India as a nation holds dear
even sanctimonious - her secularity.  In the shedding of blood which has
now extinguish the light of more than a thousand lives, we see the
consequences of actions not properly gauged.  In the naked
violation of the decision of the court and the constitutionality by a
frenzied mob, we see an example of behaviour that must be condemned.
But, many of the contributors (to India-D) have mentioned the 30-40 temples 
which were destroyed in Kashmir.  Their destruction did not receive our 
attention or unanimous condemnation.  Why is that?  One thread in
analysis might be: 'Not even the Hindus rioted in the cities or marched in
protest to show their grief.'  The logic is open to question due to
the differing circumstances, but the essense of the objection survives
argument.  Secularity, practised in its purest form, requires that
consider all actions and declare illegitimate all inappropriate acts,
not just those which are aimed at hurting a particular group.

	The majority of press did a good job on delivering some facts
and then opted to put in articles commentary better placed in the
editorial section or a forum like this one.  The NY Times for example,
chose to inspect the underlying causes for the pro-Rama Mandir sentiment
among Hindus four days after the initial act.  In that article written 
by Ed Gargan, any legitimate basis for the political alienation and
building of a temple dedicated to Rama, 'an important Hindu god' or 'the
mythical warrior god' is labelled as anti-Muslim or uneducated.
Mentioned as a triviality is the non-functionality of the structure for
70 years.  There was nothing in the articles to tell the reader that the
structure was in dispute for many years and that it has not been used
by Muslims for years.  (This does not mitigate the actions on Dec 6,
but is an important aspect in the previously unresolved discussion on
the future of the contested site.)  
	
	The writer mentions a discussion in which a lone college student
(studying sociology no less) is the only one disagreeing with older men
on the basis for the actions and the state of 'persecution' of Hindus.  
In using the word 'persecution,' Gargan tries to paint the scene as if
Hindus have manufactured this view.  In fact, most don't go to the extent of
calling it 'persecution.'  'Neglect' is the better word in this context.
In sum, the article implicitly seeks to show that those who are 
educated in assessing the social fabric of India know better, i.e.
that the middle class has succumbed to the propaganda of fanatics.

	Unfortunately, this knee-jerk reaction rather than thought
out analysis echoed in the actions of the Indian government in banning
the five organisations will only stiffle necessary debate on the course
of India.  The government has only identified the disharmonious component 
in the temple building campaign.  It has chosen, for now, to ignore the
alienation of the Hindus in the political arena especially when judged
against the effectiveness of Muslim conservatives (for example the Shah
Bano case).  The fact is that a minority community must yield a
collective voice in order to impact the political process in a
democracy.  However, if secularity is to be a guiding principle, it must
be equally applied.  Secularity should not be compromised due to  
*over*sensitivity for minorities.  All citizens, groups, states must
be respected but all action and decision making should be within the
bounds of secularity.  It deserves mention that although Nehru and
others sought secularism based on the models of the West, the idea reso-
nated with the general populace due to its existence in the spiritual 
traditions of India, especially in what we term Hinduism today.  Res-
pect for all is at the core of her longstanding tradition.
	
	In this vein, the immediate banning of groups issued by the 
government is far from a panacea to the existing discord in our nation.
Whereas the VHP and the RSS have been prominently identified with 
agitation on the Mandir-Masjid issue, both organisations have devoted 
much of their resource to social service especially in rural areas.
It might be better to let the organisations weed out intolerance within
their organisations.  By condemning the organisations to an underground
existence, there is surely no one who expects them to have a conciliatory 
line.  If a public trial were held to exorcise the intolerance that each
banned group is accused of harbouring, perhaps the groups would continue
to participate in Indian democracy within the bounds of secularity and
with intent of harmony.  At any rate, if these groups were to be found
holding an unacceptable agenda, the government would have a recognized
and defencible mandate to ban the groups.
	
	In the final analysis, we must ask ourselves where we wish to 
see India in the future.  We must be able to address our issues diplo-
matically and sensitively under the properly practised secularism of 
the government.  And we must have peace in what is arguable the most diverse
and internally divided society practising nationhood in today's world. 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian