|
Home
Search
Subscribe Online
Archives
About
Us
Cartoons
Online
Book Store
E-Greetings
Jobs @ MG
Advertise
on MG
Our
Team
Contact Us
Muslim
Matrimonials
Our Advertisers
| |
Babri Masjid episode: down the memory lane
By Obaid Nasir in Lucknow
 In
his otherwise self contradictory and false statements before Liberhan
Commission the union home minister and hero of the Ayodhya movement Lal
Krishn Advani has revealed nay reminded one turning point in the movement
that the then Prime Minister VP Singh had issued a notification to acquire
a plot adjacent to Babri Masjid in Ayodhya that was to be handed over to a
group of Sadhus for the construction of the Ram temple, leaving untouched
the Babri Masjid till the final decision of the court. He was however
compelled to withdraw the same within hours of its issuance as the then
Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav was opposed to it. Both the leaders
i.e., VP Singh and Mulayam Singh Yadav have given their versions on the
statement of Lal Krishn Advani, but none of them has denied the fact
revealed by him. This invites some introspection by the community and
other secular elements of the society. It shows that even in those
critical days when the entire nation was held at ransom due to Ayodhya
movement these two persons at the helm of affairs were not seeing eye to
eye on this issue.
One may agree or disagree but the fact is that a temple adjacent to Babri
Masjid encompassing Ram Chabootra and leaving rest of the mosque (now
demolished) as Babri Masjid was and is still the best possible solution of
this issue which has emerged as a great danger to the unity, integrity and
emotional oneness of the nation. In 1989 before parliamentary election
when BJP had adopted the Ram Mandir movement in its Palanpur resolution
Syed Shahabuddin who had till then not joined the newly formed Janata Dal,
while addressing the media persons in UP Press Club Lucknow had said
"It will be a glory for the nation if Mandir and Masjid stand side by
side" This still holds true and one is sure that Syed Saheb. will
continue to hold this view even today and in the days to come.
At the behest of Mulayam Singh Yadav the land acquisition by the central
government was also opposed by Babri Masjid Action Committee headed by
Azam Khan a minister in Mulayam’s cabinet and Zafaryab Jilani his close
relative and comrade in arm. VP Singh who has successfully splitted the
ranks and file of Sadhus and Akharas from Hardwar to isolate VHP could not
look at his own backyard and paid a heavy political price.
Actually in order to establish himself as the sole champion of secularism
or as the messiah of Muslims, Mulayam Singh never wanted the interference
of any other leader in the Babri Masjid episode. If the acquisition of
land and the construction of Ram temple on this land would have been
allowed with the help of non-VHP Sadhus the matter would not have taken
such a serious turn. After all the Ram Chabootra inside the Babri Masjid
was being used for pooja for a long time and if a temple encompassing that
Chabootra and some land, even though of Sunni Waqf Board, would have been
constructed the sky would not have fallen. But for his petty political
consideration Mulayam Singh Yadav opposed the move so that the credit does
not go to VP Singh and he with the help of Azam Khan and Zafaryab Jilani
could establish himself as the sole messiah of Muslims. The community
however paid a heavy price for this fight of one upmanship. The leaders of
Babri Masjid movement were more loyal to their political bosses than to
the community. Is it a coincidence that Babri Masjid Action Committee and
Janata Dal splitted simultaneously in 1990-91.
One more example of this upmanship. In 1993 the then Kalyan Singh
government, in order to facilitate the demolition of Babri Masjid acquired
some land and some mini temples were demolished for the construction of
Ram Katha Kunj facing the Babri Masjid. Barricades around Babri Masjid
were removed and mosque became vulnerable. Janata Dal was split and
Mulayam’s own SJP got only 32 seats whereas JD headed by VP Singh got 95
seats and was the main opposition party in UP assembly with Kr. Reoti
Raman Singh as the leader of opposition. The entire opposition had decided
to grill the Kalyan Singh government for removing barricades around Babri
Masjid. But inside the house the scene was quite different. JD and its
leader Reoti Raman Singh were fighting with SJP and its leader Mulayam
Singh Yadav on the issue as to who should initiate the discussion. Singh
was insisting that as the leader of the opposition he has the right to
initiate the discussion as per parliamentary norms and traditions but
Mulayam Singh Yadav was hell bent to initiate the discussion, as he was
the "champion of secularism and messiah of Muslims". Members on
the treasury benches (BJP) were enjoying the situation and the net result
was that the government went scot-free.The split of Janata Dal in 1990 was
the greatest tragedy in so far as the Babri Masjid movement is concerned.
It may be noted that BJP became strong only in those states where JD was
split (U P and Gujarat) and in Bihar it could not stand even on its feet
as JD under Laloo and VP Singh remained intact. If in 1990 Mulayam Singh
Yadav could visualize the dangers of split the great tragedy of Babri
Masjid demolition most probably would not have happened.
Mulayam Singh Yadav’s short sightedness has done immense harm to the
interests of Muslims. It was he who because of his infamous style of
"Parinda par nahin mar sakta", made the Babri Masjid issue
between Hindus and Muslims. His infamous decision of banning the 5 kosi
and 14 kosi Parikrama on the eve of Ram Navmi in 1990 on the plea that it
will endanger the security of Babri Masjid added fuel to the fire and
lakhs of people gathered there in spite of the fact that the whole of
India was converted into a big jail with strict checking of trains coming
towards Lucknow and Faizabad from all the four corners of the nation.
Muslim leadership also failed the nation and community. If few of us would
have stood against this decision as it was the question of religious
freedom of a community big or small, the story of Hindu Muslim
relationship would have been quite different. There could not be two sets
of standards. If we want that our religious or social freedom is intact we
should have the courage to stand up to protect this freedom of others. q |
Subscribe
Now
|
