On 2010 Ayodhya Verdict

Raziuddin Aquil 

(My article on 2010 Ayodhya verdict, The Bengal Post (Kolkata), Wednesday, 6th October 2010. 

I am a law abiding citizen of India; culturally, Urdu-speaking Muslim of much-despised Bihari origin, and, professionally, a historian of medieval India, a field devoid of any credibility insofar as any contentious issues of public interest are concerned. There are moments in modern Indian history when it is difficult to be a Muslim or a historian or both, with a sense of helplessness and vulnerability looming large. The aftermath of the verdict on Ayodhya is one such moment. The professional historians are not an innocent party and have often failed in public; their intervention based on reason and empiricism has few takers. Secularism does offer some hope, but it is hardly practiced in society and is frequently set aside even by the state only to face some terrible consequences.

Our society is not modern enough. The faith and religious sentiments of the ‘majority’ of the people are often privileged over any objective, or empirical scrutiny of a social or historical reality. The vulnerable ‘minorities’ are, by contrast, ‘pampered’ with the occasional lollypops. Take one-third of the disputed property at Ayodhya and be happy about it; it could have been worse. Imagine the law and order situation in the country, if the verdict would have been to the effect that a historic mosque was destroyed by a violent Hindu mob on that dark day in December 1992 and that justice must be done by rebuilding the mosque at its original site, even if an appropriate space should be set aside for the Ram-lalla temple, as per the traditional belief and practice of the Hindus.

The point is neither the judiciary nor the Indian state has been able to assert its authority to contain the sentiments of the so-called majority of the population; instead, it now appears as if the sentiments of the people are above law. The dissatisfied party, of course, has the option of going to the Apex court, which has a better sense of justice, especially as we have all seen the results of its proactive interventions in cases relating to the brutal killings of Muslims in Gujarat, both in state-sponsored mob violence and in fake-encounters of ‘terror’ suspects. The saving grace also is that Muslims of India have not turned to terrorism yet; the separatist violence in Kashmir should not be conflated with any Islamic terrorism in India.

The right-wing Hindu parties might spread all kinds of canards on a sustained basis for them to eventually acquire some semblance of truth or as legitimate grievances against Muslims. Rhetoric for secularism notwithstanding, the leftist regimes are no better for Muslims, except that they are not killed in riots sponsored by the state to garner Hindu votes. The limitations of the centrist politics of the Congress and its terrible haplessness keep coming to the fore as in the present situation. However, if the Indian state has to have some credibility for ably and justly managing relations between its diverse ethnic and religious communities, it will have to take some hard decisions in the near future.

Even if Muslims, no matter how much hurt or uncomfortable they might be, decide to forget about the Babri Masjid, which is no longer there, and cooperate in the making of a grand Ram Temple, the problem does not end here. Some members of the aggressive Hindutva brigade have already begun talking about reclaiming contentious sites at Mathura and Kashi also, not to mention a number of other lesser-known sites of contention between Hindus and Muslims. The courts will not have sufficient historic data to come to an objective position and even if the reliable data is available the politically motivated Hindu groups will not accept a judgment which goes against the sentiments of the people they purportedly speak for.

It is true that a number of temples were desecrated by Muslim rulers in medieval India – may be 40 if not 40,000. The places of worship were also vandalized in ancient India, either for political reasons or on account of the use of political power by the resurgent religious groups. A sensible argument would be that even though political power was misused to destroy places of worship of religious or political minorities in ancient and medieval India, such abuses should not continue in modern times. The religious violence and madness should give way to reason and peace in society. Surely, some wily politicians cannot be allowed to behave like ancient empire-builders and exploit religious sentiments and symbols for political gains.

In this context, the role of the state is important. It will have to be seen if the modern Indian state remains hostage to the fanaticism of sections of the population or its administrative and judicial machineries will rise above the emotional blackmails of the people to be able to govern it equitably, justly. Otherwise, intolerance and violence will be the order of the day and the government would continue to be seen as clueless about resolving community relations as it has been till now, constitutional guidelines notwithstanding.

Unfortunately, as the clitche goes, the society deserves the rulers it gets. Muslims, as also Hindus, need to get their priorities right. The country is faced with far greater problems – illiteracy, joblessness, poverty, starvation. The construction of a mosque or a temple for that matter is not going to solve the problem of the survival of the millions of poor people, and their everyday struggles to eke out a living do not move religious and political leaders to file petitions. The intelligentsia and the civil society remain tied to the petty interests of primitive or primordial groups to which the members concerned belong. Consequently, the people on positions of power and authority are unable to distance themselves from their social backgrounds to be taken seriously for their integrity; this is as true of a minister as of a judge, or an archaeologist for that matter. The country needs better intellectuals and better rulers than what we have today.

We certainly need better historians, who enjoy not only some credibility within the profession but are also heard in public contestations over troublesome historical legacies and whose testimonies are seriously considered by the court of law. Such historians will, first of all, have to recognize that there are problems in the society that need to be confronted head on. A sanitized account of the past presented by the historians, especially of the kind by a motley collection of secularists or pluralists no matter how legitimate their intentions might be, is of little value in resolving religious and political issues of crucial import to history and society. At the same time, the right-wing Hindu political propagandists and Islamic fundamentalists masquerading as historians need to be exposed for their divisive agendas. It is time to call the bluff.

(New Footnote: Meanwhile, with the change in the government at the Centre, the aggressive party is further emboldened to claim it will construct the temple at the same site, irrespective of the impending Supreme Court's judgment. The country is heading to a major crisis that will require sanity from those in power).