|
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
| |
Bluff, deception or conspiracy?
A critique of prime minister’s
statement on Babari Masjid question
By Syed Shahabuddin
 "Talks
are going on at various levels. I am confident of finding a solution to
the Ayodhya dispute before March 2002" - Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Prime
Minister of India, Lucknow A prima facie assumption would be that the
Prime Minister is indeed confident that he can resolve the Ayodhya tangle
by the VHP’s deadline of 12 March, 2002.
But there are only four possible routes: legislation, judicial decision,
negotiation and executive fiat.
LEGISLATIVE ROUTE
The Prime Minister knows that even if all his NDA allies are to stand
by him, which is a doubtful proposition, he does not command even a simple
majority in the Rajya Sabha to put through a piece of legislation as
proposed by the Sangh Parivar. Moreover, the Indian Parliament cannot turn
a Masjid into a Mandir, just as it was said about the British Parliament,
the mother of all Parliaments, that it can do anything but turn a man into
a woman! The constitutionality of such a piece of blatantly discriminatory
legislation which transfers the Masjid site and Wakf land to the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad, will be challenged in the Supreme Court not only by the
Muslim community but by all parties, institutions and organizations which
value the secular foundations of the Indian Republic. Also because, the
legislation will violate the existing Order of the Supreme Court, which
has appointed the Union as the Custodian of the Acquired Area and reserved
to itself the authority to allocate land for the Mandir and the Masjid in
the light of the verdict of the Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court
on title to the disputed land, including the Babari Masjid site, which
forms part of the acquired area.
JUDICIAL ROUTE
As for the judicial route, by promising to meet the VHP’s deadline
of 12 March, 2002, the Prime Minister has, in a sense, indicated to the
High Court and to the Supreme Court to deliver a ‘favourable’ verdict
well before the ‘deadline’. That this amounts to impropriety goes
without saying. It may even amount to contempt of court. No Executive can
dictate a schedule to the Judiciary for hearing a case, delivering
judgement and passing order.
The High Court judgement on the title does not by itself solve the
problem; the matter has to go back to the Supreme Court. Moreover,
whosoever is the aggrieved party has the right to appeal which cannot be
summarily extinguished. Moreover, the Prime Minister cannot give away even
one square inch of the Acquired Area to anyone without prior approval of
the Supreme Court and any construction anywhere based on the existing site
plan, is simply UNLAWFUL. Hence, the judicial route is not available to
the Prime Minister for his Ayodhya yatra!
EXECUTIVE FIAT
If the Executive were to ignore the judicial status, simply bypass the
High Court and the Supreme Court and hand over or even give access to the
acquired area or any part thereof to the VHP or the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas
floated by it, that would be striking a fatal blow at the Constitution,
indeed sound the death-knell of the Republic, which would reduce the
Indian State to a lawless state. This will not merely tarnish the image of
our country but reduce it to the status of a rogue, not fit for civilized
intercourse by the international community. No Prime Minister, in his
senses, can afford to feed his ego or fulfill his internal yearnings at
such a stupendous cost.
NEGOTIATION ROUTE
So, finally the Prime Minister had no option but to fall back on the
negotiation route. Whether his statement in Lucknow was a spontaneous
response to a question which was suddenly thrust upon him in a weak
moment, his subsequent confirmation on the floor of the Lok Sabha has
given it a formal status. Therefore, the Prime Minister’s statement
cannot, and should not be, wished away or trivialized by anyone.
Not only the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, the only Muslim body
authorised to negotiate with the Government on the Babari Masjid Question,
has disowned the ‘honour’ of the negotiation; both the wings of the
Babari Masjid Movement – the Babari Masjid Movement Coordination
Committee and the All India Babari Masjid Action Committee, have also
denied the ‘honour’! Indeed during the years that Vajpayeeji has been
in power, he has avoided the representative Muslim organizations of
national stature like a plague – whether the All India Muslim
Majlis-e-Mushawarat, or the All India Milli Council, or the All India
Muslim Personal Law Board, the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, or the Jamaat-e-Islami
Hind! He is not known to have addressed the problems of the Muslim
community in any systematic or cogent manner or invited any of these
organizations or Muslim personalities who command national respect and
influence for any exchange of ideas on any matter of Muslim concern. He
has not responded to overtures like greetings on assumption of office or
formal resolution expressing readiness to discuss matters of common
interest –even the Babari Masjid Question. Of course, he has a
‘Muslim’ coterie around him. Power always has its hangers-on and the
habitual courtiers have a way of sneaking close to successive monarchs.
But can Mohammad Mian Mazhari, or Javed Habib, his new party favourite
Shahnawaz Husain, (now that Sikander Bakht and Naqvi have been shown the
door) or even some ambitious ex-Minister or Imam provide the cover or
credibility, if he is indeed planning to flash a ‘negotiated
agreement’ before the country, before the D-Day?
Yes, the Prime Minister does not have to spell out the name of his
interlocutors at the very outset. Negotiations often begin behind the
scene but agreements have to face the light of the day and supported in
public by persons who matter. Does the Prime Minister really believe that
his Muslim stooges can deliver the Muslim community or that an
‘agreement’ with persons who do not represent anyone but themselves
will fool anyone or the Indian people, as a whole, despite all the
drum-beating and fanfare and the Goebbelsian skill with which it is
projected? Can he impose a ‘solution’ on the Muslims only to placate
the VHP? The Prime Minister is totally mistaken if he thinks so. He shall
be setting the country on fire, opening the doors of anarchy.
Vajpayee’s ‘solution’ unfortunately must please the Sangh Parivar
which is committed to the construction of the proposed Mandir on the
Babari Masjid site, or rather, to the inclusion of the Babari Masjid site
in the Mandir site plan, as projected by the VHP since 1986. This is the
core problem which is impossible of solution in terms of the
reconciliation of two irreconcilables: VHP’s insistence on the Masjid
site and the Muslim’s refusal to surrender it!
One wishes the Prime Minister, instead of endorsing the VHP’s demand as
a Swayamsevak, applied his mind coolly on the possibility of leaving out
the Masjid site (less then 10% of the Mandir site-plan) and tried to
persuade the Sangh Parivar to redraw the site plan – moving it a little
more to the east! He may then be in a position to persuade the Muslims to
concede some Wakf land, but not the Masjid site, for the construction of
the Mandir. Imagine what moral authority he would command not only in
India but all over the world!
A solution in the national interest is not impossible but it cannot be
reached by an ‘agreement’ with unknown, rootless persons signing on
the dotted line.
Yet, the question remains: why did the Prime Minister have to revive the
Ayodhya issue? Obviously he was politically motivated. The ship of his
party is sinking in UP; its cadre are listless, even scampering away. He
had to sound the bugle to raise their morale, to bring them back into the
battle field. And so he has. He may or may not succeed in reviving their
spirit but he may think that before 12 March, 2002, the battle would in
any case be over.
But he should never forget that the VHP has its own plans and is prepared
to destroy him and his government on the alter of religious chauvinism.
The VHP has launched its Programme of Mobilization, which includes a
congregation of 50,000 or more activists in Ayodhya in mid-February, 2002.
The Prime Minister should realise that unlike P.V. Narasimha Rao, he has
no alibi for not deploying the Central forces to defend the Acquired Area.
No State Government will stand between him and the Karsevaks in February;
only his conscience, and his oath of office, will. When the moment of
truth comes, will he order them to use force to repeal any violation of
the rule of law? Or is he already part of a secret plan to re-enact the
drama of 6 December, 1992.
No one wants to believe it. No one desires avoidable bloodshed. If he is
not, can’t the Prime Minister prohibit the projected unlawful assembly
in Ayodhya before the Karsevaks leave their homes for Ayodhya? Can’t his
Government take into pre-emptive custody the carved pillars and the
architectural elements, stocked by the VHP, so that they are not available
for any unlawful assault on the acquired area? Can’t he atleast stop the
Bajrang Dal from raising a Sena of its own?
The Prime Minister is on test before the bar of History. q |
Subscribe
Now
|
