AYODHYA ‘NEGOTIATIONS’

Sinister Design Gets Exposed

Sitaram Yechury

THE cat is, finally, out of the bag! The central objective of the entire drama seeking a "negotiated settlement" of the Ayodhya dispute was to bring back to centre-stage the dispute and thereby rouse passions around it in the run-up to the forthcoming elections. The main protagonist, the Sankaracharya of Kanchi, seems to have made it a habit to offer his unsolicited services annually. Once again, however, he has ended up once again like last year, as the spokesman of the RSS/VHP. This year around, moreover, the exposure has been more naked.

Like the efforts made last year, in March 2002, the objective, once again, was to portray the "Hindus" as being reasonable and seeking a solution and to simultaneously portray the "Muslims" as being intransigent and unreasonable. The consequent hatred that the RSS octopus would spread against the minorities, it is hoped, will bring handsome electoral rewards for the BJP. 

SUBTERFUGE EXPOSED

However, the manner in which the Sankaracharya went about his role, this time, has exposed this subterfuge. This is clear from the full texts of his `letters' that have now been published. On June 16, the Sankaracharya writes to the president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) offering a "compromise formula." He proposes that the AIMPLB must give a "no objection" statement regarding construction of a temple on the undisputed/acquired area. The disputed area can also be discussed after some time and an amicable settlement may be given to the court for its verdict. In the meanwhile, the disputed area would be protected by constructing a wall. When the AIMPLB sought certain clarifications regarding the Sankaracharya's silence on the point that both the communities would abide by the court verdict, the latter sent another letter on July 1 which is nothing but an unadulterated rephrasing of the RSS/VHP position on the issue. 

It must be recollected that on March 10, 2002, the very same Sankaracharya had assured that the court verdict would be binding on both the communities. At that stage, the VHP had accepted, only to subsequently reject, the Sankaracharya's assurance that it would abide by the court verdict. The RSS/VHP has consistently taken the view that it was beyond the purview of the court to decide the birthplace of Rama. 

Completely endorsing the RSS/VHP positions, the Sankaracharya, in his July 1 letter, writes: "The disputed area in Ayodhya is a place which is highly revered by the Hindus.

"It was a historical fact that Babar the great constructed a building at that place in commemoration of his victory. At present, due to some unavoidable reasons, there is no building in that place. The status quo position is that Rama is sitting over there….."

The Sankaracharya further felt that in the present circumstances, if the judgement went in favour of one community or even in favour of both the communities, "we cannot expect communal harmony."

It was on this basis that the Sankaracharya asked the AIMPLB to "donate" the disputed area to the Hindus, stating that this is the only way for a "permanent solution."

In the name of a "negotiated settlement," what was thus demanded is that the AIMPLB forsake all its legitimate claims. This was nothing but an attempt to bulldoze a "solution" by demanding complete and unconditional surrender from the AIMPLB.

ADVANCING THE RSS-VHP AGENDA

It is indeed shocking that such claims regarding historical facts are being asserted at a time when the archaeological investigations being done by the Archaeological Survey of India have, so far, thrown up no evidence whatsoever of the existence of any temple that was supposedly destroyed to build the mosque. If anything, these excavations have yielded enough evidence about the existence of Muslim habitation in the area.

With regard to Kashi, Mathura and Ayodhya, the Sankaracharya, in his July 1 letter, says: "all the three belong to the Hindus and keeping in mind the larger interest of the country and communal harmony, if not today but at some time or other, these places have to be given to the Hindus. The Muslims have to mentally prepare themselves for this."

Following the Sankaracharya's first letter of June 16, the RSS chief meets him on June 30, reiterating its stand that not only will it not abide by the court verdict on the disputed land in Ayodhya, it will also intensify its agitation demanding Kashi and Mathura. Clearly, the RSS rejects the parliamentary act that protects the status quo of all religious sites, except that of Ayodhya, as on August 15, 1947.

Clearly, this entire drama was enacted to advance the RSS/VHP agenda at a time when all historical investigations including archaeological digging are increasingly showing that their claims regarding the disputed land are patently wrong.

It must be recalled that such dramas for a "negotiated settlement" have regularly been taking place. The Kanchi Sankaracharya himself stated in an interview: “I have not given any new proposal. I have repeated what I have said earlier” (Sunday Mid-Day, July 6). In fact, as early as in 1994, the four Sankaracharyas of Sringeri, Kanchi, Puri and Dwarka had floated the Ramalaya Trust under the auspices of the P V Narasimha Rao government. Interestingly, this could be probably the only body which could legally stake claim for the acquired land. All other bodies, like the VHP and the VHP-controlled Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, are barred under Section 6.1 of the central land acquisition act of 1993. The Acquisition of Certain Areas in Ayodhya Act, 1993, itself has inbuilt provisions, which prohibit either the transfer of any part of the land to the VHP or the VHP-controlled Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, or from changing the status quo on the land.

Section 6(1) clearly states that the land acquired by the centre could be made over only to a body or trust or organisation that comes into being only after the commencement of the act.

The VHP and the VHP-controlled Nyas are automatically barred by the law itself. Section 7(2) of the act makes it abundantly clear that status quo should be maintained even by the new body, pending disposal of the title-suit.

All that the new trust, to which the land could be transferred, can do is to perform the role of the centre --- as that of the statutory receiver --- and is prohibited against undertaking any activity on the land acquired by the centre. 

Given the situation, the only constitutional course open for settling the Ayodhya imbroglio is that all parties accept the court verdict and, meanwhile, desist from rousing passions.

NEED OF THE HOUR

Under these circumstances, it is only natural that the RSS is intensifying its campaign for a central legislation to permit the construction of a temple. As the elections approach, the BJP has stated that it is not opposed to such legislation but is handicapped by the present NDA government (cf BJP general secretary, Pramod Mahajan in The Asian Age, July 4).  In other words, what is being stated is that if legislation is the only way, then the BJP needs to come to power on its own by rousing passions, once again, on this issue by the entire corpus of the RSS octopus. They are hoping that this way the BJP will reap electoral benefits in order to achieve its own majority to form the government.

It must also be recollected that the last time around when efforts for a "negotiated settlement" were tried between 1989 and 1992 by the then V P Singh and Chandrashekhar governments, the entire exercise led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The efforts for a "negotiated settlement" clearly serve as a cover for the more sinister designs of the RSS-led saffron brigade.

The Indian people have seen through this subterfuge and perfidy. As the elections approach, the RSS octopus will intensify all its efforts to whip up communal passions for electorals, benefit with disastrous consequences for the country and the people. Their championing of Indian nationalism is such that they are prepared to destroy the very unity and integrity of India, jettison the very fundamental secular democratic character of the Indian republic and inflict irreparable loss of innocent lives through communal conflicts for the sake of reaping electoral benefits. These sinister designs must be defeated so as to safeguard India, i e, Bharat.