"Why should we boycott Ram temple function? ....," says a key Congress leader after Sonia Gandhi attended a strategy meet and strongly favoured the grand old party not giving the Jan 22, 2024 event at Ayodhya a miss.
“Our fight is against the BJP which is political and ideological. We have nothing against the Ram temple. We are also religious and more religious than the RSS-BJP which only exploits religion for political gains," he said trying to downplay the predicament the party is faced with the 'to be or not to be' predicament. The Congress history on Ram temple has hardly been on this line. The Congress leaders and the eco system along with a section of English and even vernacular media like in West Bengal could never have the 'vision' that the Temple will be a reality one day.
It is the same party which gave an affidavit that God Ram is an imaginary figure. Its lawyers and former Law Minister Kapil Sibal had blatantly told the Supreme Court that the final verdict on the decade-old dispute should be delayed further. Moreover, there is always a 'P V Narasimha Rao angle'. For his part, the Congress veteran must have presumed that destruction of the Babri Masjid would solve the problem as the BJP's chief political plank would be gone forever.
Congress leaders such as Mani Shankar Aiyar in 2016 stole the limelight at a book release function especially because he made a blistering attack on the Congress Prime Minister of 1992. "Narasimha Rao was completely convinced that by talking to the Sadhus and Saints he could solve the problem (Ayodhya's Ram temple issue)," Aiyar had said in presence of author Vinay Sitapati among others.
Others also maintained that the former Prime Minister Rao's "pro-Hindu mindset" had ultimately encouraged the destruction of the Babri Masjid. Speaking on the occasion many others, including former Congressman Natwar Singh who also worked closely with Rao, described the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992, as "the biggest failure" of the then Prime Minister Rao.
Aiyar went on to recall that on November 14, 1992, his "Ram-Rahim yatra" for peace and communal harmony was stalled at Faizabad and he was arrested by Uttar Pradesh Police. "I was summoned by Rao, he told me he had no problem with my yatra but he did not agree with my definition of secularism as India is a Hindu-majority country. I told Rao that's exactly how the BJP argues," Aiyar had said.
However, author Sitapati, a product of National Law School at Bengaluru and Harvard University, maintained that Late Rao had actually only "erred" in judging the situation. Sitapati did not agree to Mani Aiyar’s contention that Rao was to be blamed for the demolition of the Masjid.
“It was only the Congress creation that Rao conspired for the mosque's demolition".
Senior journalist Shekhar Gupta agreed that the ploy to "demonise" Rao on the Babri issue was a Congress attempt only to win over the Muslims. Gupta suggested the Congress wanted to give a big picture image - "....Look, Rao is responsible for the Babri demolition and not the party". "The Muslims of UP are not fools; they knew pretty well who opened the locked gates of the disputed structure," Gupta had said rather tersely in reference to a decision of the then Rajiv Gandhi government.
Aiyar, however, maintained that even after the mosque's demolition, Rao told a Congress Parliamentary Party meeting in Delhi that "even kings in ancient India used to consult sages and Sadhus and so did I". Aiyar still had problems with Rao and hence remarked rather rudely - "Was this a mindset of a 20th century Prime Minister or 12th century? This mindset actually encouraged the destruction of Babri Masjid”.
The Congress leader maintained that the then Prime Minister Rao could have dismissed the then Kalyan Singh government and impose President's Rule in Uttar Pradesh. "In fact, there was a precedent of such President's Rule. In apprehension that things can go out of control in Tamil Nadu, the then DMK government was dismissed and central rule imposed earlier without recommendation from the state Governor,” he had said in reference to the decision of the Chandrashekhar government in 1990.
Ironically, the Chandrashekhar government was propped up and had survived solely on the ‘outside’ support of the Congress party.
However, it would be of academic interest that a former bureaucrat and ex-Cabinet Secretary Naresh Chandra has in later stage strongly defended Rao's decision not to impose President's Rule in Uttar Pradesh in 1992 saying such an action would have been an act with constitutional flaw.
"The then UP Governor did not recommend President's Rule but in the case of Tamil Nadu, as argued by Mani Shankar Aiyar, the Governor (Surjeet Singh Barnala) had only said he is unable to make up his mind whether to impose President's Rule or not," Chandra said.
A former Union Minister Natwar Singh had described the demolition of the Babri mosque as "the biggest failure" of Rao's tenure. He also said that instead of P V Narasimha Rao after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, Shankar Dayal Sharma was the first choice of Sonia Gandhi for prime ministership.
"On the advice of P.N. Haksar, Sonia Gandhi sent me and Aruna Asif Ali to meet Shankar Dayal Sharma, but he declined the proposal," said Natwar Singh. It is altogether a different matter that Natwar Singh also threw light on and shared anecdotes about tension in relations between Congress leader Arjun Singh and Narasimha Rao and also between Sonia Gandhi and Rao, especially in the context of probe into Rajiv Gandhi's assassination.
Altogether a different player in the game, K S Sudarshan, the then RSS chief, in a way had echoed the line that the Rao government and the then Home Minister S B Chavan were responsible for the Babri demolition. At a media conference in 1992 itself, Sudarshan, now deceased , had charged "dilly-dally" by the then government of Prime Minister Rao for the major mishap.
"It was not a planned incident. Because of the dilly-dallying attitude by the then Prime Minister and delay in court judgements, things went out of control as lakhs of people gathered at Ayodhya for kar seva," he had said. Many others could agree to the argument that Rao regime had to be blamed for the December 6, 1992 catastrophe. Politicians like Atal Bihari Vajpayee used to even ‘mock’ at Rao for his well-known ‘dilly-dallying’ approach to things.
In fact, Late Prime Minister Rao had once famously said: “Not to take decision is also a decision”.
This could sound a political googly at times; but Vajpayee had on his part referred to this well known quote of Rao on the floor of Lok Sabha as well.
However, the Justice Liberhan report did not attack Prime Minister Narasimha Rao or his dispensation for Babri demolition.
On the contrary, the report supported Rao's stance that legally and constitutionally, the central government could not impose President's Rule. The report maintained - “Although, there was no order restraining the Muslims from going to the disputed structure or from offering namaz therein either by the judiciary or from the administration, yet namaz was not offered at the disputed structure since 1934”.
Interestingly, Justice Liberhan has agreed that “Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the birth place of Lord Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy and historical city”. It maintained that ancient Ayodhya was traditionally the epitome of Hindu life, culture and a paradigm of coexistence of a multi-religious society. It was also a peaceful place with a regular influx of visitors, pilgrims, Sadhus and Sants, monks, travellers and tourists.
Narasimha Rao: Fiddling while heat was turned on
‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars....’
The demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 could be certainly attributed to ineffective governance under Pamulaparti Venkata Narasimha Rao. It would not be erroneous to suggest that neither the then Prime Minister nor his party had any strategy to deal with the political challenge unleashed by the Hindutva forces including the BJP.
Not many would recall but it is a fact that the RSS and its political wing BJP leaderswhip perhaps worked to a plan – if not a conspiracy. Here comes the crux of certain issues. According to BJP insiders, Vajpayee knew the ‘pulse’ of the Kar Sewaks and their numbers swelling up at Ayodhya. He decided not to go to Ayodhya and in his own irreplaceable style had forewarned L K Advani: “.....aap Ayodhya ja rahen Advaniji, Lanka nahin (Remember you are going to Ayodhya and not Lanka)”. Lord Ram and his army of ‘monkeys’ had attacked Lanka to get back Sita, who was ‘kidnapped’ by the demon king Ravana.
It is argued that the Babri Masjid demolition was brought about by well worked out planning. Amid supposed nervousness in the Union Home Ministry then presided over by S B Chavan, who often called himself a God fearing individual, the RSS and Sanghparivar leadership had deputed Prof Rajendra Singh popular as Raju Bhaia to ‘talk’ to Rao himself. “The brotherhood (Rao and Raju Bhaia) was continuing to keep up the farce of negotiations....,” commented ‘India Today’ in an article in December 1992 – post demolition.
In the name of Babri Masjid -- Were the Muslims fighting a losing battle? - A Critical analysis :: Why 'right to riot' by Muslims were encouraged by Congress ??
My personal conviction has been that ‘numbers’ do not favour Muslims. The overwhelming Hindu population means in the game of numbers that is votes, ultimately all political forces would have to fall back upon Hindu voters.
I was proved right yet again. In the run up to the 2019 polls, political parties like the Congress, the CPI(M) and even Mamata Banerjee-led TMC had tried to win over Hindus.
I often give the reference to my interaction with Mohammad Qayoom in Godhra --- who during the height of 2002 mayhem -- had said: “It is in the interest of minorities that there is peace and harmony. All communal disturbances in the country have only harmed Muslims more than anyone else”.
Maybe, Muslims should learn to live as 'younger brother. The Indian constitution and the secular character of the nation, most importantly the majority Hindus, would always cherish the Muslims brethren to stand on equal footing. Still it goes without saying that they should shun the confrontation line which only provides ‘oxygen’ to the Hindu fundamentalist forces.
 |
| Top leaders during last rites of Vajpayee |
Many years later in an informal chat at his office in Parliament, Advani had told me (in December 2014) – “the flexibility of a journalist, political activism as a BJP man and RSS discipline” had combined together to make the man that he is. I humbly bowed down to him in agreement. This interaction was informative in the context of trying to understand the politics of the great personality called L K Advani.
K R Malkani, an eminent Sanghparivar ideologue, said once, “The BJP’s and Advani’s political essence is tolerance. But that tolerance is not a sign of weakness when it came to safe guarding the rights of majority of Indians. We do revel in the spirit of Hinduism, but that does not mean we fall for a theocratic state or Hindu Rashtra”.
Echoing the spirit of these words, in fact in 1992 Advani had admitted while interacting with Janata Dal leaders and others – that included George Fernandes – that he was at times getting concerned about ‘rabid Hindu militant elements’.
But Advani also said – firstly this group was in 'minority' and Hindu political and social leader could checkmate and ‘discipline’ this section.
Secondly, but crucially – he had reportedly said that this fundamentalism was only a backlash against minority appeasement and blatant Hindu bashing. Not surprisingly, he blamed the communists and pseudo-secularism for the same. Even Atal Bihari Vajpayee had complaint against the Leftists.
During 1996 parliamentary debate on his Trust motion as all BJP detractors had ganged up to bring in a mofusil leader H D Deve Gowda as India's Prime Minister, Vajpayee told Somnath Chatterjee and other Left members, "aap ne sab se jyada taang adai (It's the communists who misguided everyone else the most".
It's true the communists game plan kept Vajpayee and BJP out of power between May 1996 and March-April 1998; it did not help common masses among Muslims at all.
Post-1984 when BJP could win only two seats and Vajpayee also lost in Gwalior; L K Advani worked hard to analyse things in more pragmatic manner that in order to fight the Congress, mere combination of Hindu card that set to benefit BJP and ‘anti-Rajiv Gandhi card’ which set to gain V P Singh was not enough.
Hence, he insisted yet another crucial factor – this was called opposition unity both at the national and state levels.
In ironical twists of the body polity – many years later, Advani’s onetime acolyte Narendra Modi benefited of two primary cards – ‘the Hindutva’ and also ‘anti-Congressism’.
None other than Modi realises the importance of these two planks and hence – no where the Prime Minister has been found 'compromising' even iota of an inch as far as fundamental pro-Hindu card and aggressive anti-Congress cards are concerned.
Comparing Vajpayee and Advani, one can say the former PM reportedly tried to clip the wings of Modi and during visit to a Shal Alam relief camp in 2002. He had ad lamented ‘with what face’ he would go abroad. The context of Vajpayee’s anguish was post-Godhra and anti-Muslim mayhem. In contrast Advani had backed Modi and stonewalled Vajpayee’s moves to replace the Gujarat Chief Minister in 2002 and later also in 2004.
This brings us to the issue of democracy in India. As the world’s largest democracy, India is known for being deeply troubled at heart. Hindus have one way of looking at politics. Modi represented their aspiration and the symbol of ‘fight’ against the politics of minority appeasement. On the other hand, the challenge before the Muslim electorate is only deep rooted as alleged political appeasement without really helping the community makes them vulnerable.
The Muslims have often walked towards destructive journey; and importantly the thought process have only frustrated a sizeable youths who fall into the trappings of sectarian leaders and self-seeking Madrasas.
Having said so and also highlighted how the Muslims ought to play a larger game than merely insisting on a Masjid, one must say the onus is equally on the Hindus to ensure peace and harmony.
Some Hindutva organizations have for long wrongfully treated Muslims differently from the ‘true Indian citizenry’.
While a section of the pre-1947 Muslims could be blamed for the partition; but it is also true that that’s a gone phase. Muslims have themselves paid an immense price for partition.
Of course Hindus too have suffered but the Muslims became a sort of a pariah in the eyes of many. But it will be crucial now to underline that the Hindus ought to give up that prism of ‘suspicion’ to look at their Muslim brothers.
Both the verdicts – September 30, 2010 and November 9, 2019 on Ayodhya rightly opened up a new chapter for purposeful and harmonious living.
This is something ‘the oldest Muslim litigant’ in the case Hashim Ansari laid emphasis and of course the locals in Ayodhya-Faizabad region also do not want any confrontation or the politicization of the issue.
 |
| Hashim Ansari |
Why 'right to riot' by Muslims were encouraged by Congress ??
Hindutva ideologue S Gurumurthy says: "The right to riot by Muslims was encouraged and accepted as part of minority riots in India". And in this context, even hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan or some problems in Alaska triggered communal tension in India practically for no reason or rhyme.
The fact of the matter is so much importance is today given to Ram Temple in Ayodhya in 2023-24 is because as a matter of fact 'Ram' became a symbol under which Hindus in India shedding caste and even linguistic differences 'united'.
It's not that the BJP launched the temple movement. It was started in 1983 by VHP and Hindu Sadhus. Only in June 1989 -- that is six years later - the saffron party entered the movement. Thus, between 1983 and 1989 there was no politics associated with the temple movement. It was in 1989 yet again, Rajiv Gandhi pushed his 'Shilanyas card'. Hence, an entirely socio-religious and cultural movement was turned political and pseudu-secularists contributed in brinking in political polarisation in the country.
The BJP did not 'initiate' it per se; but it is true they benefited. Look at BJP's growth trajectory. It had 2 seats in 1984. The BJP vote share saw quantum leap taking its tally in Lok sabha from 85 in 1989 to 120 in 1991.
“In establishing electoral alliances, the BJP was in a class of its own. In its bid for government, it decided that it would not be constrained by any inhibitions of principle with regard to whom it chose as allies,” said ‘The Frontline’ magazine once.
The saffron outfit tally in Lok Sabha leaped to 161 in 1996, 178 in 1998 and 182 in 1999.
But in 2004, the BJP tally decreased by as many as 44 seats and it nosedived to 138.
In 2009, it further came down to 116. In contrast, the Congress number strength was 145 in 2004 and it shot up to 206 in 2009. In 1999, when BJP had won 182 seats, the Congress tally was only 114.
Sociologists argue that a sentiment was spread albeit deliberately that the onus to be tolerant lay with the Hindus only. The more tolerant -- even tolerant of injustice and Muslim hegemony you are -- you are a better Hindu. This was almost like a conspiracy. Hence many say what happened on Dec 6, 1992 -- Babri demoliiton - was the 'culmination' of one phase of Hindu patience/tolerance.
Hence also comes a near convincing argument that under the Nehruvian secularism (I call it Sickularism); Hindus often became cultural and religious 'orphans' in their own country.
This is what the Moditva phenomenon has changed. It is pointed that even Congress leaders in 1950s and 1960s had said that while the Hindu communalism is 'dangerous'. the Muslim communalism is 'aggressive'. Was it a ploy to justify Islamic radicalim?
"When the five-judge bench sat to deliberate on the judgment as we all do before a judgment is pronounced, we all decided unanimously that this will be a judgment of the court. And, therefore, there was no authorship ascribed to any individual judge," the CJI D Y Chandrachud said.
"The case has a long history of conflict, of diverse viewpoints based on the history of the nation and all those who were part of the bench decided that this will be a judgment of the court. The court will speak through one voice....," he said in an interview.
".... and the idea of doing so was to send a clear message that all of us stood together not only in the ultimate outcome but in the reasons indicated in the judgment," he said, adding "I will close my answer with that."
The 2019 decision by the Supreme Court bench acknowledged the belief of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site, effectively recognising him as the symbolic owner of the land.
However, the court also noted that the demolition of the 16th-century Babri Masjid by Hindu activists was erroneous.
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment