Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: RSS (a reply to fundamentalists) And A Solution To The Problem.
From: vivek@ecst.csuchico.edu (Vivek R. Prabhu)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:15:57 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

In article <1992Aug30.174120@IASTATE.EDU> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed A Khan) writes:
>> 
>
>
>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.


Even if the Govt. takes a decision, it would backtrack, a la Shah Bano case,
when they brought about a Bill to subvert the decision of the Court.

>
>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.

I agree very much, since not only the VHP, but also the BMAC, has highly 
questionable credentials.


>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.


Probably the most practical and only solution. It could be even known as the
Ram-Rahim House Of Worship. Since we are all members of the same human race,
that would serve to be a beacon of communal amity.


>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. 

Even then it would seem that two wrongs could not one right make.


>
>
>--Javed.
>

Regards,
Vivek.

-- 
vivek@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu (Vivek R. Prabhu),
Research Assistant, Department Of Computer Science, 
School Of Engineering, Computer Science And Technology,
California State University, Chico, California.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian