The big saffron roadblock

The big saffron roadblock
FAIZUR RAHMAN

If the Ayodhya dispute isn't to hold us back, the Centre must step up and act as a mediator For negotiations towards a compromise to happen, confidence-building measures are imperative insofar as the Muslims are concerned.

IN a calculated attempt to circumvent the Ayodhya verdict, Hindutva organisations have started issuing veiled threats (euphemistically called "ap called "appeals") to Muslims demanding that they hand over, for the construction of a "grand" Ram temple, the land allotted to them by the Allahabad high court. Surprisingly, the latest "appeal" comes from the Nirmohi Akhara, which until now had been genuinely engaged in negotiations initiated by Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant on the Muslim side.

The truth is, if giving up a claim to the Ayodhya land was possible, it would have happened decades ago. It is only because the contending parties refused to budge from their respective positions was it decided that exploring the legal option was the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Sadly, it was not to be; the judgment, by granting legitimacy to the faith of one community, nullified the efforts to break the deadlock and resulted in a mutually hurting stalemate once again. The only option left before the parties now is to shed their adversarial approach and arrive at a compromise formula through negotiations.

For this to happen, confidencebuilding measures are imperative insofar as the Muslims are concerned. The Hindutva parivar, in the spirit of reconciliation it is talking about, must take the first step by announcing its willingness to relinquish any claim on other mosques in the country. Such a magnanimous gesture would be seen as upholding the concept of democratic fair dealing and pave the way for a negotiated settlement of the dispute. And now that all the parties have decided to move the Supreme Court, it would restore the confidence of the minorities were the apex court to assure them that the Allahabad high court verdict would not set a precedent for the takeover of their places of worship by the majority community.

As for the Sunni Central Wa kf Board, although it may go against their claim to ownership of the entire disputed land, it should not be difficult for them to enter into a harmonious agreement with the Hindus, as such a precedent exists in Islamic history — in the form of the Hudaybiya Tr eaty, which was signed with the Meccan polytheists by no less a person than the Prophet himself, despite the fact that it was opposed by the entire Muslim community at that time. It is hoped that in the interest of peace the Muslim leadership would follow the farsighted approach of the Prophet to resolve this seemingly intractable conflict.

But the problem is, these sentiments are not being reciprocated by the other side. Hindutva ideologues are displaying a kind of majoritanian masculinity that seems to suggest that it is below their dignity to treat the

Muslims as equal citizens of this country. The demolition of the Babri Masjid is being justified by saying that it was not a mosque at all. And the latest innuendo is that a mosque is less sacred than a temple, and hence it may be demolished to make way for a holier place, the Ram Te mple . Persons spreading such disinformation must realise that it has the potential to disturb the remarkable Hindu-Muslim harmony that exists at the peopleto-people level in India .

If the Sangh Parivar is honest the Ayodhya issue can be easily resolved on the basis of the values that Islam and Hinduism share. For instance, the idea of unity despite religious diversity is not against the Muslim ethos as, unlike Hindutva, Islam does not belittle the sanctity of places of worship of other religions.

In a verse which could be described as the bedrock of inter-faith harmony the Koran says that if God did not check the mischief-mongers “there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues

and mosques where the name of e God in commemorated in abundant o measure" (22:40). And it has been f declared in the Bhagavad Gita that o an absence of enmity for people (nirt vairah sarvabhutesu), even though t they might have done great harm, is b one of the important virtues of the h best of the devotees (XI-55). g Having said this, it may be mis p leading to see the Ayodhya dispute as purely a Hindu-Muslim issue. It actually concerns the entire nation, and could seriously affect its devel opment if allowed to continue. It is common knowledge that poverty and backwardness in many African countries is mainly a result of continuous violent internal conflict.
And nearer home, one of our own neighbours finds itself in deep trouble, financial and otherwise, for failing to contain sectarian violence, and in some cases promoting it as a matter of policy to further its vested interests.
Therefore, if the Central government wants India to maintain its position as one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, it must assume the role of a genuine mediator to help resolve this dispute amicably.

The Sangh Parivar, too, must realise that it would be unwise to prolong this conflict at a time when all our energies are required to be focused on the equitable distribution of the fruits of our economic growth. In other words, we need to go beyond the idea of conflict resolution into the realm of conflict transformation, by which both the communities join hands to work towards the larger goal of making India an epitome of peace, stability and progress.

The author is secretary general of the Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought among Muslims
http://epaper.indianexpress.com/IE/IEH/2010/10/21/INDEX.SHTML