Let us not confuse things. This is not related to the demolition of the mosque. The demolition is a criminal case and has been around for just 20 years. Of course now there are hardly any accused left. No conspiracy, just 11 or 12 accused and it seems that a 400 year old mosque simply collapsed all by itself despite all efforts to protect it.
What we have on friday is the verdict of the nearly 60 year old suit asking who holds the title of the land. The Muslim community by virtue of a mosque being there or the Hindu community as a temple existed there earlier. The title suit is also linked to the Babri Masjid demolition by virtue of events of the last 20 years. Just to give some background info, Babri masjid was a bone of contention since pretty long but this suit is linked to 1949 when miscreants broke into the mosque and installed idols in the center(the alternative version is that the idols magically appeared). The mosque was sealed and the case went to court. In 1988, Rajiv Gandhi ordered the mosque opened and worship allowed in the temple now formed in what many say as a measure to please the majority committee after the government had bent against pressure from orthodox Muslim clerics and invalidated the Shah Bano ruling with a new law.
The pandoras box had been opened. A party called the BJP, a successor of the Hindu Mahasabha took up the issue. Over a period of the next 3-4 years the mass public mobilizations culminated in the destruction of the mosque. Prior to this event and especially after the demolition, riots would break out in many parts of India. The Bombay riots among them were especially destructive. Hundred and maybe thousands died. But the greater damage was to the fabric of India.
So who owns the land. That is the vexing question? Because there are a lot of principles of law at stake here. Assuming a temple existed there, can an act however reprehensible be undone 350 years old. I am really not sure. By the same standard, the American Indians could claim back large tracts of America and so could indigenous people in many parts of the world.
However since I really have no memories of 1992 , I will involve other people who knew.
One incident I know is a person who said the issue has been used for political mileage. He went to Ayodhya with a group in early 1980's. They went to nealry 12 temples and out of them half claimed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. The BJP needed an event to propel it to the national stage and Ayodhya was it. There were nearly 20000 temples in Ayodhya and only 5 mosques. Now there are only 3.
Another relative, a very learned scholar mused recently that Muslim community lost a great oppurtunity. The mosque had not been used since 1949. Many muslims also beleive also that it ceased to be a mosque once idols were installed. So if the Muslim community as a whole had gone to the negotiating table and offered to shift the mosque to another plot they could have probably benefited greatly. Among the conditions he mused should have been proportional representation in the goverenment especially the police and constabulary. Another thing would be a new amendment in the constitution declaring 1990 as the status quo date and a law that no further mosque can be demolished for any reason whatsoever. However it did not happen and now we can only wonder how it would have sounded.
Now we have the verdict on the title suit. I don't know what the court will say. There is communal tension in the air because of the verdict. This is especially true for UP because of the political potential. If Muslims win , some fools will take out celebratory processions and if we loose idiots will take out a protest march. I am very much sure the same will stand true for some Hindus in either case. While there have been enough calls for peace and requests for no response of any kind to the verdict, there will always be fools and cynical manipulative leaders somewhere. A riot guarantees a vote bank.
If I could wish I would wish for a neutral verdict. Let that land be declared neutral area. I don't want a mosque which stands on so much of bloodshed of both communities.
I have always said the idea of a nation is weakened when we are so divided that we cant live together. Or stand each other. A nation held together only by force is one step away from imploding. India is a nation of many hues and shades. Unity in diversity. That we must never forget
Whoever wins, the final looser will be India..... Only India.
No comments:
Post a Comment