A spark politicised becomes an explosion. Consider any raging issue and, one can perceive the furtive presence of a politician in the smoky background, holding a torch. After having set it afire, he then basks in its warmth and keeps fanning it so that it does not die away. He then appoints himself as a negotiator, like the proverbial monkey arbitrating between two feuding cats.
And in the end, the monkey takes it all, leaving only the embers behind. Now filter the politician from that issue and there would be no issue at all. At least not as magnified as it appears to be, defying solution. The core problem is always within the reach of reason and seems overwhelming only when blown out of proportions by politicos whose only contribution is a lot of hot air. By their very nature they can only be a part of the problem, never a source of solution.
It is not that the Ayodhya issue was a creation of politicians; rather the seeds were sown much before their great as well as not so great grandfathers were even born. But its current monstrous dimensions are purely the handiwork of successive members of that tribe who have over the years confused and complicated the issue to such an extent that anywhichway one moves, there are road blocks stalling progress.
Add to it the rantings of the fringe elements on either side and the secular shadow sans substance of the omnipresent media, we have a cauldron that is perpetually on the boil. The vociferous threesome -power-crazed politicos, pervert fringe groups and hyperactive media – kick up such a noise, that one would find it difficult even to hear the voice of Rama, let alone his subjects, above the din.
While the very semblance of a solution is anathema to politicos and the fringe elements, the ‘star’ry eyed novices of the media capture live their premature outbursts with some worthies, all the usual suspects, always on hand, in all probability, even sleeping in the studios, and blabbering away in delirium whatever comes to their lips, the moment a mike is thrust in their face.
Possible solutions are discussed and debated threadbare, endlessly, and then dismissed summarily with nary a sign of humility or understanding, on the part of panelists or the politicos There is more heat on the tube than in Ayodhya -an inevitable outcome of the confluence of freedom of the press and the free-for-all politics of the country.
The much touted bogeys used to thwart any resolution of the issue are Sub Judice and Status quo. While for Congress the former is an expedient excuse to side step the issue and avoid any eye-ball to eye-ball (or rather Sibal to Sibal, he being the permanant default screen saver on the TV) confrontation in due regard for the party’s original ‘sin’ w.r.t to Shilanyas, the NDA allies want the current status to remain so.
Now one fails to understand what it means. Do they aver that the Ayodhya issue should never be resolved or are they worried that it may go out of hand leading to the fall of the Government, which would automatically disturbtheir status quo? Or for that matter, does the fact that the matter is sub judice preclude any sort of negotiations between the warring litigants?
Why should the judiciary object if the parties to the dispute are able to arrive at an amicable solution amongst themselves out of court and then probably seek legal ratification? In fact that may be a preferred option even to the judiciary for the simple reason that if it were to pass a judgement, it has to be one way or the other, there being no middle path in interpretation of law.
And the party faced with an adverse judgement is bound to guarantee violence despite tall promises of falling in line with the court verdict, because the Ayodhya issue is not merely a land dispute but a matter of deep seated sentiment that can be resurrected any time.
Without in any way questioning the jurisdiction of the judiciary in judging the issue, it has also to be stated that the imbroglio involves dealing with facts, evidence and details that are not generally accessible to the normal arms of the law nor can they be subjected to the usual legal tests. If anything the Ayodhya issue is actually a test for the judiciary and not the otherway round.
The matter just does not involve recorded history, immediate or distant, alone but also calls for consideration of beliefs handed down through hundreds of generations and over thousands of years. Can fifty secular years erase over five thousand years of abiding faith, just like that?
The present is just a speck in the endless realms of time, but do we, as the current custodians of the world we live in, have the capacity or moral right to preside over and decide on a matter so deeply rooted in time and so far reaching into posterity, just based on prevalent perceptions, pressures and available evidence, which may turn out to be inadequate or even wrong?
Indeed Ayodhya can confound the country and shake all the pillars of its democracy for the simple reason that it is too much of a load for these pillars to tackle. And it transcends them because it deals with faith. Or should I say, faiths?
A judicial verdict does not seem to be in sight. Petty politicians and empty experts can at most hog some limelight and a lot of prime time, with absolutely no sensible contribution to the resolution of Lord Rama’s residential status. With Parliament unable to set its own house in order, it can be least expected to arrive at a consensus on God’s own house.
In any case, thanks to Stars and Suns, the eminent MPs have already declared their intent to scuttle anything that even remotely resembles a solution. Of the fanatics on the fringes the less said the better as for them the burning issue has been about just that – burning down everything in sight. The only option therefore seems to be a negotiated settlement amongst the community leaders.
Such a solution with as wide a spectrum of consensus as is possible would also go a long in diminishing the prospect of violence, something that none of the agents of law or democracy can guarantee. It may seem like wishful thinking, but the resolution of the issue based on goodwill and trust between the two communities under the aegis of ‘acceptable and moderate’ religious leaders, can be the only option for ensuring long standing peace.
It is in this milieu that the sane voice of the Kanchi Shankaracharya comes as a ray of hope, mixed though it may be. A pontiff, who has absolutely no personal stake whatsoever in the issue and therefore nothing to gain, he could certainly be trusted to bring in an element of moderation in a scenario where only frayed tempers and inflammable rhetoric have so far seized centre stage.
One may not accept his suggestions but there can be no gainsaying the importance of his sanguine presence and approach which envisages a) involving the Muslim community leaders in order to both appeal to them as well as to assuage their apprehensions, b) keeping the VHP in leash without in anyway undermining the sanctity and pride of place that Ayodhya has in Lord Rama’s lore and c) also appeal to the larger Hindu audience.
The problem today is the majority community’s deep-rooted, underlying distrust of the secular brigade besides the weight of historical injustices that had been meted out to Hindu culture and its symbols of worship. Whatever one might argue about Hinduism being a liberal and tolerant religion, one has to face the fact squarely that a great part of the people are indeed distressed at the assault on their faith, not as much by the members of other faiths as by their own and feel that the tolerance is being stretched a bit too much. This paranoia in the Hindu psyche is real, it exists, it is growing and cannot be wished away, be he a vidwan, a village idiot or a VHP activist and it is only in the nature and intensity of reaction that they all differ.
The day of reckoning for real secularism is now and here, in Ayodhya. And for that day to pass of peacefully it is imperative that the fringes on both sides of the communal divide are sidelined and moderates take over. The politician can for now, to use a current jargon, disinvest his stake in the issue and the hungry media could always have its bytes, bites really, come what may.
The real stakes are for the faithfuls and they must be allowed to negotiate, without vested interests breathing down their necks. If they succeed, touchwood. And if they fail, we are back to status quo, sub judice and all the stuff. But try, we must!
e-mail the writer at [email protected]