Yogi faces first big challenge

When the Supreme Court advised the parties involved in the Ayodhya dispute to sit together and sort out the issue as it is an issue of sentiment and religion on Tuesday, it was rather no different from what the Allahabad High Court said a few years ago.

Sixty years after it first went to court, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court pronounced the judgment in September 30, 2010 in the Ayodhya title suit, saying Hindus and Muslims were joint title holders and the land must be shared 1/3 each by the Ram Lalla Virajman, Nirmohi Akahra and Sunni Wakf Board. It was a majority judgement 2:1.

The three member bench did not stop at that, but went ahead to hint at the larger picture involved in the dispute. The learned judges sought to invoke the very spirit of the religions of the world. They were also clear in taking a view that if the spirit goes missing either from the teaching of the Holy Quran or from the Ramayana and life of Lord Rama, it would lead to only fault-finding and wild accusations.

Justice S U Khan, an erudite scholar, was in full understanding of the emotive issues involved and the politics behind those who supported such issues. He invoked both Lord Ram and Prophet Muhammed (Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) to proclaim to the world the larger picture of tolerance, peace and friendship as the core values of consideration.

Justice D V Sharma too sought to dispel some of the notions about legalities involved in the verdict in opining "the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Rama....it is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as (the) birthplace of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for anyone to invoke in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.”

It seemed then that they did not deliver a strictly legal judgement based completely on evidence on hand. They were more relying on the ground realities and their own innate wisdom in delivering a compromise formula.

Justice Khan highlighted while asking parties involved to “share it" and that, "Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others.” Asking Muslims to explain the word Muslim meant conflict or peace, he continued, "the Muslims in India enjoy a unique position.

They have been rulers here, they have been ruled here and now they are sharers in power (of course, as a junior partner). They are, therefore, in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand.

They are not a majority, but they are also not a negligible minority...In other countries, either the Muslims are in huge majority, which makes them indifferent to the problem in question, or in negligible minority, which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge.

They are, therefore, in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand." Unfortunately, very few understood the wisdom in these words properly. Print media lunged at it then terming it a travesty of justice while the majority celebrated it and the minority was confused.

The resolution thus landed in the Apex Court which froze the verdict. On Tuesday, when the appeal of Subramanian Swamy, came up, Chief Justice J S Kehar sounded no different. "It is an issue of sentiment and religion. We can come into the picture if you can't solve the issue. If you want some principal mediator, we can arrange. If you want me, I can, but will not sit in the bench,” he added in a lighter vein.

If politicians do not prefer intervention, a peaceful resolution could be possible. But, will they keep quiet At a time when the BJP looks invincible having swept the UP elections? It has even gone ahead and installed a hardline Hindutva man, Yogi Adityanath, as the Chief Minister. Naturally phone lines must be working already to raise the heat.

For that matter, the petitioner, Subramanian Swamy himself is not seeking a meaningful resolution, but a 'Bhavya Mandir" on the disputed site and promises to build a 'Bhavya Masjid" on the banks of Sarayu river.

The very suggestion of the Apex Court coming at this point of time, when the UP CM is planning "Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas", is the first real big challenge to the government. Being an advocate of the Mandir politics all these years, whether the Yogi relies on politics or wisdom will be tested severely.

Who will advise the politicians that the need of the hour is neither a 'Bhavya Mandir' nor a 'Bhavya Masjid', but a “Bhavya Bharat''?
Justice Khan observed in his verdict then: "The time to act is now and now alone. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly."

There are any number of external forces ready to dabble in it and not just the religious and political hardliners (committed to both secular votes and Hindutva votes) within the country. This is a challenge to Modi's vision of 'Naya India" too.

By W Chandrakanth