Knitting yarn is always in balls or skeins. Leave the yarn untended and in no time it is knotted or entangled. If you are not an old lady with yarn at the fireside, you could be a young lad who likes flying kites. Here again the kite-string must be rolled on the latai, to prevent it getting entangled.
Unfortunately, this is just what has happened in Ayodhya. The politicians are like the old ladies knitting at the fireside. The religious fundamentalists are like the kite flyers. Both have failed to wrap and roll the various chords, resulting in discord. There have been too many loose ends, left untended. As every knitter or kite flyer knows, pulling at the loose ends only tightens the knots, heightening tension and increasing irritation. At such times it could be better to make a fresh start, rather than struggling with the knots.
From where do we begin to disentangle Ayodhya? How are we to unravel the mystery? The first step is a dispassionate study of the problem. What are the positions held by the Hindu and Muslim protagonists? For purposes of objectivity, let us refer to the Ramjanmabhoomi protagonists as the Hindutvadis (HVs), as all Hindus are not party to the issue, nor believe in Sri Ramji. Similarly we could refer to the second party as the Babri Masjidis (BMs).
What is the HV position? Their contention is that Sri Ramji was born in Ayodhya (no quarrel about that). They then contend that the Babri Masjid was built upon the garbgrih (sanctum sanctorum) of the Ramjanmabhoomi Temple, which is the exact spot where Sri Ramji was born. Here is where the problem gets knotty. The third assertion of the HVs is that the belief (astha) of the majority community must hold sway over all other considerations. The fourth co-related issue is the picture sought to be painted by the HVs, that the minorities are pampered (the Government pays for Hajj pilgrims, and for Muslim divorcees maintenance through the Wakf Boards – post Shah Bano. The Muslims also do not follow family planning). In contrast, it must be admitted, that the BMs have not been quite as strident. They have been harping on the court verdict in the title suit pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court since 1986. They aver that the Babri Masjid was built in 1528 by Mir Baqi, and only named after the then Mughal Emperor Babar. Some Muslim clerics aver that once a Masjid is built upon a particular site, it remains a sacred place till Judgement Day. However, some members of the Muslim Personal Law Board (the highest body of Muslims in India) state that they regard the Supreme Court like a Kazi, whose decision will be binding on them. At the same time they say that, apart from the 40 ft x 80 ft site on which the Masjid stood, they have no objection to the construction of a grand temple dedicated to Sri Ramji.
Where do we go from these apparently irreconcilable positions? This is not just a purely religious squabble. There are also Legal, Historical, Social and Political dimensions to it. Let us address them one by one.
(i) RELIGIOUS DIMENSION: Central to the issue is the HV claim that Sri Ramji was born on the exact spot where the Babri Masjid once stood? This is a riddle of Hinduism, if I may borrow a phrase from Ambedkar. I made enquires form several pundits in my hometown of Kanpur, which probably has thousands of temples. There are temples dedicated to various deities and goddesses like Hanuman, Krishna, Ganesh, Shiv, Shankar, Laxmi, Radha, Saraswati, Durga, Kali and even to Sati. But there is not a single temple dedicated to Ram! Even L.K. Advani, when he embarked on his Rath Yatra in 1990, admitted that the Ram temple “was never high in the Indian political debate until 1986”.[1] Some say that the sudden surge in Ram bhakti came with the televising of serials like Ramayana and Mahabharata on Doordarshan in the late 1980’s.
(ii) HISTORICAL ASPECT: According to Hindu mythology, Ram lived in the Tethrayug, 9,00,000 years ago. He ruled for 11,000 years, while his father Dashrath ruled for 60,000 years. Assuming, without admitting, that this in an incontrovertible fact, how can any site be pinpointed 9,00,000 years later? More so, when archaeologists tell us that the very art of writing (wherein documented history began) is only from the early Bronze Age or 3200 BC?
Lest devout Hindus misconstrue this averment of mine, permit me to digress a bit. Devout Christians tended to believe that the world was created in just seven days, as recorded in the Bible. This is contrary to scientific evidence, that creation began with the Big Bang 20 billion years ago. For centuries devout Christians could not reconcile themselves to scientific theories of evolution. However, thousands of biblical scholars, exegetes, researchers and archaeologists have since strived to evolve a de-mythologized and enlightened Christian faith. Such a scientific rationale enhances one’s faith, rather that diminishes it.
There is also the research work of Padmabhushan Rev Dr Camil Bulcke SJ, perhaps the most revered Hindi scholar in recent times. In 1949/50 he did his doctoral thesis from Allahabad University under the guidance of Dr. Dhirendra Prasad Verma, Head of the Department of Hindi. His thesis, “Ram Katha”, among other things, establishes that the Ram of history (Ayodhya) is not the same as the Ram of myth. Baba Bulcke studied Ram legends even in far away places like Indonesia and Mongolia, to arrive at his findings. If this is indeed so, it strikes at the very roots of the HV’s contention. There would then be no bone of contention. Prima facie then, there is no certitude or finality about the exact spot or time, of Sri Ramji’s birth.
(iii) LEGAL ANGLE: Finding mythological or historical issues too hot to handle, those in the hot seat have perhaps chosen the path of least resistance. Throw the ball, quite literally, into the courts! Passing the buck; or as Jug Suraiya impertinently calls it – passing the shila! Noted jurist Nani Palkiwala has this to say: “The suggestion that the Supreme Court should be asked to give its opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution on the question whether a temple existed earlier on the site where the Babri Masjid stood is …wholly untenable. In no other country is the highest court asked to decide questions of pure history or archaeology…. The decision to resort to Article 143 would thrust upon the Supreme Court a task for which it is not qualified by training, knowledge or experience. It cannot be asked to decide questions of opinion or belief, history or mythology…. The Executive is not entitled to shift the responsibility, which the Constitution has squarely placed upon its shoulders, to any other agency of the state, which was created for a wholly different purpose. Judicial pronouncements can never be a cover for inadequacy of government or bankruptcy of the political process…. No judicial mind can come to a definite conclusion on the identity of a structure, the marks and traces of which have been effaced by 500 years of bloody history.”[2]
Let us take two more contemporary examples. When former Indian cricket captain Mohd Azharuddin filed an appeal in the High Court against his dismissal, the court itself ruled that it was incompetent to adjudicate on a specialised subject like sports! And what of the Jain Commission enquiring into the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi? For all the advances in forensic sciences, photographic evidence and eyewitnesses, the Commission came up with nothing, other than a multi-crore bill for the national exchequer? At most, all that the courts can decide is the title suit pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. That suit itself has lakhs of pages of documentation. Too many knots there, so let’s leave it at that.
We also need to bear in mind that the “Places of Religious Worship Act of 1991” freezes the status quo of religious places as on 15/8/1947. Even though Section 5 of the Act does make an exception of Ayodhya, the spirit of the Act certainly is, to maintain the status quo ante.
(iv) POLITICAL FALLOUT: It is now old hat that the BJP played the Ram card to the maximum in the 1989, 1991 and 1998 elections. However, if the Assembly elections of 2002 are anything to go by, the political benefits of the Ram Rath have now dwindled, with Gujarat being a notable exception. The voters have already answered this question, so let us move on.
(v) SOCIAL CONCERNS: This brings us to the bread and butter issues of a poor and developing nation like ours. Hitler, the fascist, may have said, “Guns before butter.” Marie Antoinette’s ignorance may have fuelled the French Revolution when she said, “If they can’t eat bread, let them eat cake”. The question is, can a poor nation afford training its guns/trishuls/swords on its own? Are there any winners in such strife? Can we think of utterly-butterly dishes like Mandirs and Masjids, when there are millions of our countrymen still without their “daily bread” – the basic amenities of food, shelter, clothing, potable water, primary healthcare and education? Can the nation, parliament, the executive and judiciary remain embroiled and entangled in Ayodhya? Is it not exacting too high a price?
GOD’S ABODE: And finally, if this struggle is for the house of God, is God pleased with what is happening in Ayodhya, and in its name, all over the country? It would be interesting to here recall the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “To me God is Truth and Love; God is ethics and morality; God is fearlessness. God is the source of Light and Life and yet he is above and beyond all these… Religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral Government of the universe… This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It does not supercede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality … I therefore admit, in all humility, that even the Vedas, the Koran and the Bible are imperfect word of God, and imperfect beings that we are, it is impossible for us even to understand this word of God in its fullness…. Temples, mosques or churches, I make no distinction between these different abodes of God”.[3]
AN INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENT: The Mahatma’s thoughts are indeed a sobering influence on all those who seek to impose their brand of religion and religious claims on others. Let us now explore an altogether different case, which has striking similarities to Ayodhya – Jerusalem. In 1980 I was privileged to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, including Jerusalem. There are certain aspects that have a direct bearing on Ayodhya. If Ayodhya is a bone of contention between two religions (Hinduism and Islam), then Jerusalem is worse. It has been the battleground for three major religions – Christianity, Islam and Judaism. There have been claims and counter-claims, wars and crusades, claiming thousands of lives.
Let us examine how the claims of various religions (and even sub-groups) have been resolved in Jerusalem; taking into consideration various factors like (i) Majority belief (ii) Legal Rights and (iii) Exact Spots, sacred to various religious. Jerusalem and most of the biblical sacred places are in the modern day state of Israel, where the Jews are in the majority, and have political control. Despite this they have not been able to wrest control of their most sacred place – the erstwhile Temple of Solomon; that enshrined the Holy of Holies (sanctum sanctorum or garbgrih). In its stead now stands the Al Aqsa Mosque, where the Prophet Mohammed himself used to come to pray. For Muslims it is considered the second most sacred place, after Mecca and Medina. All that the Jews have of the temple is the Western Wall, commonly known as the Wailing Wall, where they congregate to express their grief. This, inspite of political power, majority opinions and even archaeological evidence of the earlier Temple. Ironically, many neo-Hindutvadis admire the Israelis for their no-nonsense approach to the Islamic countries that surround them!
What of the Christians? Their most sacred place is Mount Calvary, where Jesus died, was buried and rose again. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre today encompasses it. However, this Church does not belong to the Christians! Custody of this most sacred shrine of the Christian community vests with the family of Jawad Joudeh, whose ancestors, the Goddayehs, received it by a royal farman (decree) by the Muslim Emperor Saladin in 1187 AD. Other than the custody, the right to open and lock the door of the church vests in another Muslim family, the Nusseibys! Except for three days from Good Friday to Easter, the Church is opened every morning by Wajeeh Nusseiby, shut by him in the night, and the key returned to Joudeh. So religious astha (beliefs) and legal rights co-exist, minus the bloody rivalry of the Middle Ages!
Even among the Christians, there is a code of conduct. Ironically again, it is called the Status Quo. By this arrangement various sacred sites or routes are divided among different Christian Churches. Even their timings are specified. What is a matter of great shame for the Christians is that the most sacred of all the places, the tomb (sepulchre) of Jesus is divided between three Churches – the Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox. Each of them has just two feet each of the six-foot tomb! Apparently that was the only way to avoid internecine conflict. Several other places in and around Jerusalem that are sacred to the Christians, are still owned by Muslim families, who actually charge a fee from pilgrims and tourists. Among them are the place of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives; and the tomb of Lazarus, Jesus’ family friend, whom he raised back to life in Bethany.
There is a third very striking example in Jerusalem. That is the Cenacle, the Upper Room, where Jesus celebrated his Last Supper with his disciples. Just below it is the tomb of King David, which after the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, is now considered the most sacred place for the Jews. Adjacent to it is a mosque. Because of the proximity of the three holy places, they were always a flashpoint for trouble. Here again it is the Rule of Law that has taken precedence over astha. As per law, Christians, Jews and Muslims are free to visit these adjacent sacred places. But nobody is allowed to congregate, open their mouths, or conduct any services. All devotions are to be expressed in complete silence. Experience had shown that increasing decibel levels invariably led to competition and conflict.
There is yet one more lesson to be learnt from Jerusalem. Though there are majority opinions on the sacred sites, there are also dissenting ones. For example, in Jerusalem itself, I was shown a different site that some Protestant Churches hold to be the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Such claims and counter-claims are also to be found in Ayodhya, where different akharas (sects) claim different spots as Ramjanmabhoomi and Sita Rasoi (Sita’s Kitchen).
TOWARDS A SOLUTION: May I humbly propose to the Central Government that it sends a team of officials, archaeologists, scholars, jurists and representative of the HVs, and BMs to Jerusalem, to study the Status Quo enacted there. They can then evolve an amicable solution that keeps in mind national interests, the rule of law, land titles, the astha of the Hindus and iman of the Muslims. May I also humbly request the HVs and the BMs not to make a prestige or political issue out of Ayodhya. We must abide by the principle of “Live and Let Live”. Since there is no chronological or archaeological certitude of the exact spot of Sri Ramji’s birth, what difference would it make if there were a minor adjustment by a few feet, in the construction of the proposed Ram Temple? In a reciprocatory act of good will, could not the mosque be reconstructed a few feet away from its earlier site? On the “disputed site” which is 40’ x 80‘ a suitable national monument to peace could be built, or a stand of trees could be planted. And please predetermine timings and routes of various religious celebrations, to avoid further competition and conflict! If the knots are removed and disentangled, then indeed one can knit by the fireside, or fly kites in an azure blue sky.
Times of India dt 22/11/1990
[1] Times of India dt 1/1/1993
[1] Mahatma Gandhi, “All Men Are Brothers”, Chap 2, Nos 8,16,28&30.
[1] Times of India dt 22/11/1990
[2] Times of India dt 1/1/1993
[3] Mahatma Gandhi, “ All Men Are Brothers”, Chap 2, Nos8,16,28,30
Leave a Reply