Vajpayee and the Babri Masjid

By Rajeev Dhavan

MR. VAJPAYEE has a party political memory. It is not the memory of a Prime Minister. Mr. Vajpayee seems to have forgotten that he represents all the people of the most varied multi-cultural and multi-religious nation in the world. Between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean lies a veritable civilisation composed of measureless diversity. It is not a question of numbers. But, the numbers themselves are daunting. India is the third largest Muslim country in the world after Indonesia and Bangladesh. It houses more Christians then the population of Australia. Buddhism and Jainism are practicing faiths in India. Hinduism, itself, is a compendium faith of many varied, breathtaking and, often, inconsistent interpretations. All this is known. It is all too easily forgotten. It has to be repeated again and again to remind Mr. Vajpayee that he must behave like a statesman. He cannot continually walk back to his Jana Sangh origins. He must look forward. He is the Prime Minister of India. He has forgotten that he represents 100 million Muslims and people of innumerable persuasions. Unfortunately, this too, needs to be said.

The Babri Masjid was destroyed on December 6, 1992. It was a wanton act of constitutional sacrilege. If India is to survive as one nation and one civilisation, such a sacrilege is simply impermissible. This is not simply because the Constitution and the law do not permit it. Or, because the Supreme Court has declared `secularism' to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Without secularism, there can be no India as we know it. To lose the gift of secular tolerance, religious equality and benign neutrality to all peoples and faiths is to lose the entire enrichment of India's unparalleled but turbulent history. There is little point in going back to the `sacrileges' of the past. Many did occur. No one defends the `sacrileges' of India's ancient medieval or pre-Independence past. The new post- independence compact between all communities' peoples and faiths in India unequivocally looks to the future and decries any future sacrilege as an act of faith of all Indians. This is relevant for the near future and the more distant coming together of the subcontinent as a whole.

The BJP and its allies alone are happy to risk `India' in order to win elections and retain power. The resurgence of the BJP as a political force was built entirely on the vicious campaign to destroy the Babri mosque. After the destruction of the Babri Masjid, the BJP's White Paper on Ayodhya (1993) unrepentantly and mercilessly canvassed the case for historical revenge against the Muslims. Having failed to win three elections decisively on its own, the BJP puts its Ayodhya rhetoric on the back-burner to serve its `coalition' route to power. A view was projected that the BJP was maturing into a national party and shedding its communal image.

But, the events from December 5, 2000, belie the BJP's new secular image. On that date the party's spokesmen likened the destruction of the Masjid and building of a temple on that spot as akin to the `freedom movement'. By December 6, 2000, the Bajrang Dal wanted the day of the demolition to be celebrated as `shourya diwas' (gallantry day). The Opposition demanded the resignations of Mr. Advani, Mr. Joshi and Ms. Uma Bharti until their non-complicity in the destruction of the Masjid was established in criminal proceedings. On December 6, 2000, the Prime Minister dropped a bombshell declaring that the construction of the temple at Ayodhya was an expression of national sentiment, which was yet to be realised. The Opposition reacted to this communal rhetoric strongly since it implied that supposed majority sentiment could ride roughshod over minority rights in a secular democracy. On December 7, Mr. Vajpayee's clarification at a Rashtrapati Bhavan function, in fact, confirmed what he said. He also refused to sack the trio of Ministers who allegedly participated in the sacrilege. The VHP cashed in on all this by declaring the date of the Kumbh Mela in 2001 as the date of construction of the temple. Demonstrations followed. On December 7, 2000, an ambiguous statement of Mr. Vajpayee suggested a new inchoate plan to build the Hindu temple at the site of the makeshift temple constructed in 1992 on the site of the destroyed mosque. He suggested that the mosque could be constructed elsewhere. The allies of the BJP's National Democratic Alliance (NDA) (especially the Telugu Desam) claimed to be fuming. Many, like Mr. George Fernandes, had been staunch secularists. Eventually, the NDA emerged with a formula that they will abide by the verdict of the Supreme Court. This was an ill- informed ruse to remain in power. Apart from a few contempt petitions, nothing is pending before the Supreme Court. By rejecting the Presidential Reference in 1994, the Supreme Court had refused to get drawn into deciding the issue; and, asked the High Court of Allahabad to decide the pending suit. In a questionable order, the Supreme Court ordered a pro- communal status quo in favour of the makeshift temple installed after the destruction. This, amidst heart burning, was graciously accepted by the Muslims. Technically, Mr. Vajpayye's, the VHP and the Bajrang Dal's statements hover on contempt of court.

Parliament was paralysed. Even a debate on this issue had been reluctantly agreed. The BJP challenged the Opposition to file a no- confidence motion aware that it has the brute strength of its allies in Parliament to avoid the real issue. No one wants another election. In this process, values crucial to Indian democracy will be sacrificed to expediency.

But the quest for the soul of India's governance must rise above this tumult. First, the Prime Minister and the BJP are wrong. The destruction of the Babri Masjid was not a `freedom movement', but a shameful act. Neither the NDA nor its allies are fit to rule in India as long as they do not acknowledge this act of shame in clear and equivocal terms. This means that the BJP must repudiate its White Paper (1993) and Mr. Vajpayee's statement (2000) which together portray an uneasy continuity. Second, the `rule of law' must, of course, take its course and has already resulted in an indefensible status quo in rewarding the miscreants of destruction to continue the makeshift temple. But, Rajiv Gandhi and Mr. Narasimha Rao did try a negotiated settlement which failed due to the intransigence of the VHP. It would be a supreme act of grace to re-build the mosque. If anything has to be built on this site, it has to be the mosque. If a negotiated settlement results in building both the temple and the mosque elsewhere, that should be done. Third, having initiated this controversy, Mr. Vajpayee needs to make a clear and unequivocal statement in Parliament (rather than through casual remarks) and face a full- fledged debate on his remarks. If he is unable to defend Indian secularism as correctly interpreted by the Courts, he should accept that he cannot rule India constitutionally and speak for all Indians and resign. Fourth, Parliament should seriously step in and resolve this controversy on a secular basis and for all religious sites.

In 1990, Mr. V. P. Singh was forced into resigning as Prime Minister because he wanted to introduce reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the Central Services. History and the Supreme Court proved him right. Like social justice, secularism, democracy and the rule of law are the cornerstone of Indian governance. The Prime Minister must take a lead, not create the mischief himself. If he wants to lead the BJP rather than India, he always has that choice. This is not yet another fracas in Parliament. The Babri Masjid goes to the core of Indian governance.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Uncover the Manipur scam
Next     : China's tryst with globalisation - II