From: budaraju@chewi.che.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Babri Mosque and other Hindu-Muslim conflicts - 1/10
Date: 10 Dec 92 22:34:01 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ of Wisc, Dept of Chem Engr

The following are excerpts from an interview of Asghar Ali Engineer by Sridhar
D. Damle, a free-lance reporter for India Tribune (Chicago) and co-author with
Walter K. Anderson of the book "The Brotherhood in Saffron: The Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism", Vistaar Publications, New Delhi,
1987.  Some extraneous or redundant material has been deleted; a few
grammatical errors have been corrected; subheads have been put in for clarity.
 
The interview took place on Dec 2, 1990, in Chicago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. MISSED OPPORTUNITY: VP SINGH'S ORDINANCE
 
D: VP Singh issued an ordinance which hands over the land to VHP;
it will take 2 years to start construction and Supreme Court will 
decide after that. Why was the ordinance withdrawn?
 
A: You know, VP Singh did issue an ordinance. In fact, I felt
that perhaps this is the way out in the present tangle. Because,
according to that ordinance, it was very clear that Babri Mosque
will be protected.  Govt will take over the entire complex and
refer it to Supreme Court for its final judgement. And meanwhile,
Hindus will be permitted to do kar seva...
 
D: Can I interrupt you? The ordinance clearly states that it is
not that the govt will take it over as a national monument. The
govt will acquire the land and hand it over to the VHP. Only the
matter within *that* particular controversial site will be
decided by the Supreme Court. Not regarding the title, not
regarding whether it is owned by Shia or Sunni. Court was to
decide the particular issue whether temple was there and Babur
destroyed the temple and built a mosque on it.
 
A: Ordinance was like this. Let's not go by what Mr Advani said.
Advani is the leader of a political party; he can make
insinuations against this and that party leader. I don't care
what Advani says. But I would give my comments on the 3-point
formula. You say that this shows that the Janata Dal is not
secular.
 
D: No, I am not saying secular, I am saying double standards.
 
A: Double standards means, it becomes secular when it suits it
and becomes communal when it suits it. I do not think 3-point
formula was that kind of thing. Let us consider the complex
situation which prevailed. There was great danger of communal
conflagration. Because VHP was determined to break Babri mosque
and construct RJB temple.
 
D: But they said they will shift the mosque.
 
A: Shift means break the mosque, do you follow. What VHP was
saying, it was holding a clear threat that if Muslims shift it,
we are prepared to bear the cost and construct a mosque
elsewhere, a few kilometers away from there. But, if they don't
agree, then we are determined to do kar seva on 30th October.
Means, we will break it, if Muslims don't agree.  I mean, we must
construct RJB temple there, whether Muslims agree or not. That is
why the govt had to provide such a tight security there. The
situation was extremely complex. On the one hand, Muslims were
taking a position that they will not allow anything to be done.
On the other hand, VHP was saying that they are fully determined
to do kar seva on 30th Oct, come what may.  Now, in such a
situation, the govt also dependent on BJP support for survival.
In such a situation, what could a PM have done? He devised a
3-point formula, according to which BM was to be protected, not
to be demolished, not to be harmed; secondly the entire land
would be taken over by the govt; thirdly, VHP would be allowed
[to do kar seva].
 
This was the three-point formula issued by the govt and I think
that was the best compromise under the complex situation. Babri
Masjid would have been protected, and Hindus would have been
allowed to do kar seva, and finally the issue would be resolved.
Because they wanted to do it symbolically on 30th Oct, that, it
was not that they will construct the temple the same day, they
wanted to do it symbolically, so that they could satisfy that we
have done it.  It would have allowed VHP and BJP to do kar seva;
and finally the whole issue was to be referred to the Supreme
Court and that decision would be honored, whatever judgement
comes from SC. But, unfortunately, first the Muslims rejected it.
I mean, Vajpayee was on record saying that he welcomed this
formula, he appeared on Indian TV and made this statement that I
welcome the formula. Advani had not come out with a statement,
perhaps, he was waiting for the reaction of Muslims. And, Muslims
rejected it. They said that the Babri mosque will be protected,
but then it is bad omen that waqf property is being acquired by
the govt and tomorrow they will acquire other waqf properties
also, so we won't allow it.
 
When this statement came, Advani immediately disowned it. VHP
immediately disowned it, but gave their own reasons. Because,
they could not have taken the position that the Muslims have
rejected it, so we are rejecting it. The formula is not
acceptable to us because we are interested in the whole land;
according to the formula, land is not being handed over to VHP,
so we reject this formula. So, it is how this happened and it is
unfortunate that both sides took rigid positions and a compromise
that was worked out and was the best possible in the situation
was not accepted. All secular minded people were happy this
ordinance was enacted, & now the problem would be solved.  The
Communist parties also welcomed it, Janata Dal welcomed it and
other parties of NF also welcomed it. But since both the parties
rejected it, the ordinance had to be withdrawn. And there was no
other way except to arrest Mr Advani.
 
D: I am not interested in Advani's arrest, but do you think the
ordinance was rejected because both parties rejected it or
because Muslims rejected it?
 
A: But, both parties rejected it.
 
D: According to what I read, the ordinance was issued on
Saturday. The Muslims rejected it on Sunday night, and BJP
rejected it on Wednesday.  Before that, the ordinance was almost
withdrawn.
 
A: It had to be withdrawn. Even if one party rejects it, it had
to be withdrawn. Even if BJP rejects it first, it would have been
withdrawn.  The ordinance was meaningful only when both parties
accept it. Because, the dispute could be resolved only when both
parties agree. Otherwise, how do you resolve disputes?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Srinivas				budaraju@cae.wisc.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian