From: bond@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Girish Bonde)
Subject: Re: III: Conflict: Causes: Babri Masjid
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:19:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.160401.29410@ucunix.san.uc.edu> bhatnagr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Raj Bhatnagar) writes:
                                                            
>      <<< An interesting discussion deleted for brevity >>>
>
>At this level, the dispute is between the perceived Islamic nation 
>within India for which Babri Masjid is a VICTORY TOWER, and the
>Indian nationalism for which it is a symbol of national defeat and
>humiliation, irrespective of any considerations of religion. To phrase 
>the issue in terms of rights of religious worship is only 
>drawing a smokescreen.
>
>---raj

    In the same context, the following article may help some netters
    to clear their views about this conflict.
                                      
=================================================================

A signed editorial from Times of India, October 28, 1991, written
by Mr. Swapan Dasgupta, senior editor of Times of India.

"TEMPLE OF MODERN INDIA: Fighting The Mann-Shahabuddin offensive".

   Unlike the Shiv Sena Chief, Mr. Bal Thackeray, who is quick to
respond intemperately to any event which provokes him and provide
succour to his opponents, the people of India appear to have
infinite patience and resilience. What else can explain the
commendable restraint in UP to the terrorist depredations in the
Terai region culminating in the murder of nearly 70 people
attending a Ramlila in Rudrapur? What else, for that matter, can
explain the pussy-footing of the intelligentsia and political
class to the plight of lakhs of Kashmiri Hindus who are refugees
in their own country?

However, there are limits to being taken for granted and the the
turning point may have been reached last Wednesday when
newspapers all over the country published photographs of the
maverick Sikh leader, Mr. S. S. Mann, flanked by Mr. Shahabuddin
and the Muslim League president, Mr. Sulaiman Sait, clutching at
the sword of "minorities" unity. The very spectacle of a
self-confessed supporter of Khalistan coming together with two
foremost champions of muslim communalism has created ripples of
consternation throughout the country and served to remind people
of the assault on Indian nationhood. And, Mr. V.P. Singh's
studied ambivalence on the curious behavior of a leading member
of the Janata Dal has only confirmed the suspicion that this is a
multi-faceted offensive which can not be taken lightly.

Public Gaze

The ideological parameters of this threat to the unity and
integrity of the country have never been hidden from public gaze.
What unites the votaries of Khalistan, the Islamic insurgents in
the Kashmir valley and sundry other seccessionist outfits in
Assaam and the North-east is not separatism arising from
imbalances in the federal structure, but a  fervent belief that
India consists of diverse nationalities who should have a right
to thier own nation-states. This was also the assumption of Mohd.
Jinnah whose formal commitment to constitutional federalism was
offset by his dependance on cultural separatism. That is why the
Quaid-e-Azam could not realistically contemplate any political
arrangement short of separate Pakistan.

    It would, of course, be unfair to lump Shahabuddin in the
same category. Whatever may be his personal inclinations, the MP
from Kishenganj has not resurrected the old Muslim League demand
for a separate homeland for Muslims. In view of the special
disbursement of the Muslim community it makes little sense for
him to do so.On the face of it, his more publicised
pronouncements have been confined to securing a better deal for
his co-religionists in both the economic and political spheres
and upholding their cultural autonomy. Mr. Shahabuddin may have
committed a few tactical blunders such as advocating a boycott of
Republic Day in 1987 and opting out of the Janata Dal in 1989,
but in sum he has been perceived as a mainstream politician and
been actively wooed by almost all political parties barring the BJP.

   Yet, it would be wrong to be misled by superficialities, Mr.
Shahabuddin may not be a seccessionist in the mould of Mr. Mann
and the Jamaat-e-Islami in Kashmir, but his political vision is
equally divisive and , if successful could also lead to the
dismemberment of India. First, like most separatists, Mr. Shah
abuddin is committed to the notion of fragmented nationality. His
preference for Muslim Indian over Indian Muslim is perhaps the
clearest indication of this. The September issue of his journal,
Muslim India, for example, prominently features a concluding
address ofBahadur Ali Khan to the All India Muslim League session
in Karachi in December 1943:"Our compatriots had given us to
understand that we are a minority in spite of our 100
millions...The Quaid-e-Azam told us that we are not a minority,
for 100 million people cannot be called a minority. We were a
nation, a separate and self-contained nation whose ingredients
and structure differed fundamentally from those of other nations
of the world, and which was founded on fundamentals that
transcend geographical boundaries, race and color". This
re-invocation of the two nation theory is significant. Although,
Pakistan has become a reality, Muslim separatism continues to be
a potent force in India, albeit with subtle strategic shifts. The
demand is no longer for an Islamic homeland, but a systematic
campaign to project a united Muslim community as the natural
allies of sections of fragmented and Mandalised India. The steady
transformation of Sikh theological opinion from being the 'sword
arm of Hinduism' to separatism - for which Hindu communalists in
Punjab must share responsibility - has, of course come in handy.
A memorandum to the President from 'Muslims of Ayodhya-Faizabad',
for example, demanded that 'for the security of the mosque
soldiers of the Sikh regiment be posted' around the shrine.
But more to the point, the unabashed promotion of casteism and the
attempted negation of a unified Indian identity by radical
secularists and the Janata Dal have given a fillip to the scheme
for the emotional Balkanisation of India.

'Muslim India'

The plan is elaborated at length by Mr. Shahabuddin in Muslim
India: "At every level, the decision making process should
provide for equitable participation on matters of common interest
and for a veto on matters of vital or exclusive concern to a
social group. At each level, the hierarchy of office should
follow the demographic order:. Shorn of the semantics, this
apparently innocuous demand for proportional representation is
tantamount to a plea for the backdoor introduction of a more
insidious form of Ramsay Macdonald's infamous Communal Award. If
successful, this will negate the entire nation-building process
and reduce India to a chaotic amalgam of fractious castes and
communities. It is also no accident that protagonists of
divisiveness have found common cause in the opposition to the
movement for the construction of the Ram Janam-bhoomi temple in
Ayodhya. With the international collapse of communism and its
attendant impact on the Nehrivian consensus, THE NATIONAL
RESURGENCE CENTERED ON AYODHYA CONSTITUTES THE MOST COHERENT PLEA
FOR SAFEGUARDING THE UNITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE COUNTRY.

    First, the movement for the Ram temple while not bereft of
ritualistic overtones, is by no means a religious project. By
drawing upon the folk idiom symbolised by Lord Rama and linking
it to incidents of past humiliations and defeat, it seeks to
conjure up visions of a new, resurgent India. Contrary to
commonly expressed misgivings, the thrust is not towards the
creation of a monolothic, monotheistic and semitic Hinduism, but
towards a cultural and civilizational awakening. This would
explain the significant participation of non-idolatrous Arya
Samajis and Nihangs, Jains and practising Shaivites in last
year's kar seva and the appeal of Mr. L. K. Advani's popular but
controversial rath yatra.

Ayodhya Movement

Secondly, the overwhelming popularity of the Ayodhya movement has
tobeviewed in the backdrop of the strains on Indian unity and
integrity. With the Indian state on the retreat in Punjab,
Kashmir and to a lesser extent in Assam, not to speak of the
Janata Dal's cynical flirtations with casteism and minority
communalism, the need has arisen for symbols that encapsulate the
determination of the people to persevere with India. In the past,
the Congress and the Nehruvian vision reflected this urge for
vibrant nationhood. Unfortunately, the assumptions that held the
country together in the aftermath of independence appear to have
fallen by the wayside. Consequently, there is national disarray
and a growing mood of despair and dejection, and not least
because the center-left has run out of ideological steam. The
uncertainties of the govt's Kashmir and Punjab policies are a
reflection of this creeping defeatism. So too is the profound
demoralisation of the intelligentsia fearing on the one hand a
repeat of the Soviet collapse at home but unwilling on the other
hand to grapple for alternatives that are rooted in Indian
history and culture.

   It is an antidote to collapse that the Ayodhya movement, for
better or worse has captured the popular imagination. THE PLANNED
TEMPLE CONSTRUCTION MAY WELL TAKE A DECADE OR TWO, BUT WITH EVERY
SMALL ADVANCE THE CONTOURS OF A NEW SELFCONFIDENT AND MODERN
INDIA ARE BEGINNING TO TAKE SHAPE. Little wonder that Mr.
Mann and Mr. Shahabuddin acknowledge the need to join hands in
retaliation.
========================================

-Girish.
 bond@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca