 On
5 March 2002, a Delegation of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board led
by its General Secretary met the Kanchi Shankaracharya at the request of
the PMO. The Shankaracharya informed the Delegation that the Ram
Janambhoomi Nyas (RJN) has confirmed its commitment to abide by the
Court’s verdict in the case of the disputed site and in return he
appealed to the Board to ‘accord their consent for the start of the
construction of the Ram Mandir by Ram Janambhoomi Nyas on the undisputed
acquired land of which the Nyas is the original owner and a permanent
lease’.
This is the famous compromise formula or peace formula proposed by the
Shankaracharya.
The Delegation took note of his proposal and informed him that they would
consult their colleagues and place it before the Working Committee for
consideration. However, later the same day the Shankaracharya informed the
media that the Board has ‘nearly accepted’ his proposal. Subsequently
he sent a letter dated 8 March containing his basic proposal in writing
which was received by the Board on 9 March, 2002 afternoon. The Working
Committee met on 10 March, 2002 and adopted a Resolution expressing ‘its
inability to accept his proposal’. The rejection has been widely
welcomed by the Muslim community. The Resolution gives detailed reasons
for non-acceptance. Apart from mentioning these, this article highlights
other relevant aspects, which have been left unsaid in the Resolution but
which came up during the discussion.
The ‘peace’ or ‘compromise formula’ proposed by the Kanchi
Shankaracharya was essentially no different from the line peddled by the
VHP since the Shilanyas in 1989, sometimes to cajole and disarm the
Muslims, sometimes to threaten and demoralize them! ‘Let the
construction of the proposed Ram Mandir begin from the Shilanyas site,
120’ east of the Babari Masjid site, and proceed westward till it
reaches the Babari Masjid site. By then the title suit would have been
decided. If the Muslims win the suit, the RJN/VHP would abide by the Court
order, stop further construction and revise the Mandir site plan, and its
architectural plan, to relocate the Grabha Griha, the sanctum sanctorum of
the Mandir in obedience to the law’. The objective all along was to
persuade the Muslims to agree in principle to shift the Masjid against the
unanimous ruling of the Ulema.
Anyone conversant with the developments since 1983 would laugh at the very
idea of the VHP having a change of heart and respecting the law. But the
Shankaracharya, this was the difference, placed the dignity of his high
status on the line. He urged the Muslim side to accept his formula on his
personal guarantee.
To make his proposal meaningful he was requested for the alternative site
plan which would place the entire Mandir outside the Babari Masjid site.
He did not send it. He did not even send the existing site plan though it
has been widely circulated by the VHP/RJN and has been in the public
domain at least since 1985. As to his spiritual and religious authority
one would have liked to know why the Shankaracharya did not use it when
the VHP violated the law, first in 1989 and performed the Shila Nyas in
the disputed plot 586, then in July, 1992 when it built the 20’ thick
concrete platform to serve as the base of the Mandir, with the official
support of the Kalyan Singh Government, between the Shilanyas site and the
gate of the Babari Masjid in the Wakf land and finally in December, 1992
when it demolished the Babari Masjid. Incidentally the Shankaracharya had
participated in the Dharma Sansad at Kumbh Mela in December, 2000 which
had set the deadline of March, 2002 for beginning the construction of the
Mandir at its chosen site, without waiting for the judicial verdict and
allocation of land under the Act of 1993.
The site plan was illegal because it admittedly included the Babari Masjid
site, the subject of the title suit under hearing. The Mandir base had
been constructed illegally on disputed land. The Babari Masjid itself had
been illegally demolished. How could even a symbolic act to start the
construction of the Mandir be legal, when its site fell within 5-6 acres
of land, largely graveyards in the vicinity of the Babari Masjid, claimed
by the Muslims and when the Supreme Court had imposed the status quo ante
as of 7 January, 1993 on the entire acquired area? Of course, though the
Shankaracharya had spoken of the symbolic Puja and token start. It is
notable that the Formula made no mention of a symbolic Karseva or Puja or
a few bricks or one stone pillar!
It was clear that the purpose of the Formula was nothing but to seek
Muslim support on removing the legal hurdle in the construction of the
Mandir in defiance of the status quo Order, in other words, to use the
Muslims to get the RJN/VHP off the legal hook, without giving them
anything in return.
Yes, the proposal offered Muslims maintenance of status quo on the
‘disputed’ site until the court pronounces its final verdict and the
written commitment of the RJN to abide by the final verdict. In other
words, it promised them the Babari Masjid site, if they won the case. In
other words, the Muslims were offered a post-dated cheque which, as
explained above, was more likely to bounce than to be honoured!
It was explained to the Shankaracharya that either the judicial course
should be followed in toto or there should be an out-of-court settlement.
It could not be a mix. The settlement should give something to both side
by mutual agreement. If the judicial course was to be followed, both sides
should commit themselves to abide by the final verdict and the judicial
process should be expedited. If an out-of-court settlement was to be
negotiated, the Muslim right to the Babari Masjid site should not be left
hanging in the air and await judicial verdict. His formula gave nothing to
the Muslim and everything to the VHP. In this sense, it was unbalanced,
unfair and unjust.
Incidentally, the status quo on the Babari Masjid site, it must be
clarified, only helps the VHP/RJN to keep its make-shift temple, illegally
constructed on the debris of the Babari Masjid by the grace of the former
Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, because the status quo was related to 7
January 1993, the day of issue of acquisition ordinance, and not to 6
December, 1992, the day of the Demolition. Thus the Formula ensured that
while the Ram Mandir was being constructed the make-shift temple on the
Babari Masjid site will not be disturbed. And the Formula was silent on
what will happen if the Muslims won the title suit. Will the make shift
temple be dismantled and the site handed over to the Muslims? The leading
lights of the Sangh Parivar, the RSS, BJP and VHP leaders, the sants and
sadhus of the Dharma Sansad and the RJN, it may be recalled, had time and
again stressed their determination to maintain the illegal occupation of
the Babari Masjid site which began in 1949. ‘No power on earth can move
the Ram Lalla from this site’!
There is an inbuilt contradiction in the Formula. It wants status quo to
be maintained on the Babari Masjid site but allows it to be violated en
masse in the rest of the acquired area which any construction or transfer
now would imply.
Apart from his own prestige, the Shankaracharya proposed a wall to
separate the Babari Masjid site and some adjacent land from the rest of
the acquired land. It was pointed out to him that the VHP had taken just a
few hours to demolish the Masjid on 6 December, 1992 and it will take them
a few minutes to demolish the wall! It was also pointed out to him that
once nearly half of the Mandir was constructed, psychological, political,
social and even physical pressure would be applied on the Muslims to
‘donate’ the Babari Masjid site for the sake of communal harmony and
for gaining the goodwill of the Hindu community. And if they did not sign
away their right, the VHP would simply break in and complete the Mandir.
The Formula, interestingly, commits the RJN but not
the VHP. So the rogue elephant is left free to roam in the jungle. The VHP
will be free to carry on with its programme of agitation and mobilization,
inciting religious passions, all over the country. When one looks closely,
any distinction between the VHP and the RJN is meaningless. It is a
distinction without a difference, because the same set of people dominate
both bodies and they act in tandem. Ashok Singhal is the International
President of the VHP and the Managing Trustee of the RJN at the same time.
Most of its trustees are closely associated with the VHP. The RJN, in
fact, was established by the VHP.
The Formula states that the ‘undisputed’ land outside the Babari
Masjid was acquired, from the RJN, the original owner and the permanent
lease, for building the Mandir. This is a misrepresentation. In fact the
State cannot acquire land for building a Mandir or Masjid. That is why the
Act of Acquisition, in its Preamble, speaks of ‘maintenance of public
order’ and ‘promotion of communal harmony’ as the basic objectives
of the legislation and concretizes it by proposing the construction of
both a Mandir and a Masjid as well as a Library and a Museum to clothes
the proposed acquisition in the garb of secularism and public interest. It
is this which permitted the Supreme Court in its majority judgement to
uphold the acquisition of 67 acres of land, adjacent to the Babari Masjid
site, on the ground that both the winner and the loser will have to be
accommodated. That is to say, if the Hindus win, a Mandir will be
constructed on the original site, with a Masjid at a reasonable distance
within the acquired area. It is another matter that Muslims have never
asked for or agreed to a substitute Masjid. But legally speaking, Muslims
have a potential interest equal to that of the Hindus in the entire
acquired area, although their primary interest lies in the Babari Masjid
site. It follows that if the Muslim win the suit, the existing Mandir site
plan becomes inoperative, because the Mandir has to be located at a
reasonable distance to the east. Thus the Formula, by ignoring this
aspect, was meant to safeguard the existing Mandir site plan. Even the
proposed symbolic puja or the Shiladan at the Shila Nyas site in the
acquired are would have only underlined the VHP’s commitment to this
site plan which locates the Grabha Griha, the sanctum sanctorum of the
Mandir on the Babari Masjid site and its claim to the self-chosen site for
the Mandir.
One wonders whether the Formula was not manufactured by the VHP itself and
whether the PMO had taken the initiative with the approval of the VHP or
perhaps at its instance.
The Formula makes a false distinction between the Babari Masjid site and
the rest of the acquired land - calling them disputed and undisputed
respectively. The legal status of all the acquired land is the same -
property of the Central Government. Because the crux of the problem is the
VHP’s inclusion of the Babari Masjid site in the Mandir site plan as its
Grabha Griha and since the consolidated title suit under hearing in the
Allahabad High Court, which was abated by the Act of 1993, the Supreme
Court declared the abatement unconstitutional, revived the title suit and
made the Court verdict thereon the starting point of the scheme for
settlement of the Ayodhya dispute.
The Formula has another flaw: the acquired land belonged to many owners,
including the RJN but pre-acquisition ownership is the basis for claiming
compensation not for restoration of land, except the left over land, on
the margin, which may become ‘surplus’ or ‘superfluous’, after
implementing the object and purpose of the Act.
The Formula has been rejected unanimously by the AIMPLB, by the Babari
Masjid Movement Coordination Committee and by the All India Babari Masjid
Action Committee and practically all Muslim organizations in the country.
In fact, the Board leadership stands embarrassed by the indulgence it has
shown to the PMO. Under the January, 2001 Resolution of its Working
Committee, it had committed itself to a positive response to any
initiatively by the Central Government for negotiations, provided the
latter had a precise proposal for cutting the Gordian knot and took steps
to curb the vicious campaign of the VHP. The Board had not envisaged
negotiations through intermediaries, howsoever exalted they be. But for 14
months, the Government has not taken any such initiative.
The Board has reaffirmed its decision not to negotiate with the Sangh
Parivar but only with the Central Government – an offer which the Prime
Minister has studiously avoided for 14 months. All the while PM made every
efforts to divide the Muslim community and to prop an ersatz Muslim
‘leadership’ which could be persuaded to sign on the dotted line.
These efforts have failed. In the process the Government has exposed its
intellectual bankruptcy, its conspiratorial style of functioning and its
collusion with the VHP/RJN. Its objective has all along been to promote
the Mandir cause - to fulfill the original agenda of the BJP. With the
exposure of the real interest of the Government in its plea before the
Supreme Court on 13 March, 2002, all fair minded persons will refuse to
recognise the bonafides of the Government and even the Board may be
reluctant to enter into a dialogue for an out-of-court settlement with the
Government and may accept only the judicial process. For an out-of-court
settlement, the initiative should be taken by a Group of Eminent Citizens
who command the confidence of both communities and not by the masked
supporters of the VHP.
But the crisis is deeper. PM Vajpayee had to choose between saving the
life of his government and the face of the VHP, though the VHP has been
challenging the Indian State, the Constitution and the Judiciary, creating
a law and order problem, disturbing public order, destroying communal
harmony and continuously breaking the law of the land. And the PM has not
only been receiving its leaders but fraternizing with them, while he has
been avoiding the Muslim leadership like a plague. Vajpayee never had the
courage to admonish the VHP, ask it not to toy with the Constitution or
press demands which are simply violative of the Supreme Court Judgement of
October, 1994. No, he even abdicates his executive responsibility and
throws the ball in the lap of the Judiciary and refuses to use the immense
power the people of India have bestowed up on him to curb lawlessness,
punish an affront to the rule of law, and allows the situation to
deteriorate for more than a year. He makes his own contribution by his
off-the-cuff remarks - like sprinkling a little petrol over a raging fire.
The PM has to learn to act as the Prime Minister of all Indians. To keep
his oath of loyalty to the Constitution. He should not act as the First
Hindu Prime Minister of India.
It must also be understood that while the Act, inter alia, promises to
build a Mandir, the Act leaves it to the Government to allocate the sites
for the Mandir, and for the Masjid, as well as a Library, a Museum and
facilities for the worshippers and the visitors. This master plan for the
acquired area can be drawn up by the Government only after the title suit
is decided, one way or the other, because that would be starting point for
the exercise. How can the VHP be certain that its much-publicized site
plan (as well as the architectural plan) will be endorsed by the
Government in the Master Plan, even if the title suit is decided in favour
of the Hindu community. How is the VHP certain that the RJN shall not face
any competition from other Hindu Trusts for the honour of building the
Mandir?
Ashok Singhal has publicly expressed his hope that with day-to-day hearing
of the title suit by the Special Bench, as agreed to by all concerned, the
judgement may be available in a year’s time. Since the VHP has already
postponed the start of construction by 3 months; why can’t it wait for
another 9 months? What is the hurry? Why the pressure? Why doesn’t the
Shankaracharya persuade the VHP/RJN to exercise a little patience?
Moreover, it is totally wrong to say that the case has been going on for
the last 50 years. In fact, the cases were consolidated and a Special
Bench was constituted only in 1989. All it could do before the Demolition
was to clear the preliminaries, identify the issues and obtain the list of
witnesses and the deal with the unlawful acquisition of land by the
Government of UP for tourism promotion. Only after the decision of the
Supreme Court in October, 1994, the proceeding has been revived. Witnesses
for the Muslim side have been examined since 1996. It has nearly closed
its case. To expedite matter it may cut down the list of witnesses. So now
it is the turn of the Hindu side to present its witnesses. So far in all
the Special Bench has heard the case for about 200 working days, mostly
consumed in irrelevant and unnecessary cross-examination of Muslim
witnesses. However, if it works on a day-to-day basis, it can finish the
hearing in the next 30-40 weeks.
The VHP is time and again pressing for legislation to hand over the site
of its choice (including Babari Masjid site) to the VHP/RJN. It never
forgets the legislation to nullify the Supreme Court Judgement in the Shah
Bano Case and does not appreciate that the Parliament is competent to make
laws and change laws, even the Constitution, but not to ‘make’ or
change facts. The Parliament cannot by legislation convert a Masjid into a
Mandir. That is why the Supreme Court revived the title suit. The VHP is
not even a party to the title suit. Nirmohi Akhara is. The VHP is being
clever; if the verdict is in favour of the Hindus, it will rush to claim
the credit and the benefit; it is not, it will carry on with its militant
campaign to secure possession of the Babari Masjid site any how. And it
has always challenged the rule of law and the authority of the Supreme
Court. It thinks this anti-constitutional stance gives it the freedom to
keep its options open.
Now can the Dharam Sansad or the Marg Darshak Mandal of the VHP substitute
or reduce the constitutional authority of the Legislature, the Executive
or the Judiciary. Since there is no place for Dharmacharyas, Sants and
Sadhus in governance, since India is not a theocracy, nor a Hindu State,
the resolutions or declarations of the VHP and its various organs are no
more than resolutions passed by any NGO. Indeed the pressure by the VHP on
the constitutional order is a blatant violation of the Fundamental Duties
as detailed in Article 51, Chapter IVA of the Constitution.
Time has come for the country and the government to press the VHP/RJN to
accept the rule of law, become a party to the title suit and commit itself
to accept the final judicial verdict, even if it goes against them, just
as the Muslims have done.
The Muslim community, any Muslim organization or any Muslim citizen should
not get into the boxing rink while the shadow boxing between Vajpayee and
Singhal goes on. At the end of the day the Government has to deal with the
demands of the VHP/RJN in the light of the Court orders. The path of
judicial redress against any illegal and unconstitutional appeasement of
the Sangh Parivar by the Government is always open. q
19 March, 2002
|
