डच भाषा में श्रीरामचरितमानस

"पाञ्चजन्य" साप्ताहिक, अंक 26 दिसम्बर 2010, में प्रकाशित

The Undermining of Justice

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its family compris-

ing the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad,

Bajrang Dal and others managed to bring down the Babri

masjid in 1992 through a clever use of administrative control,  

legal duplicity, the complicity of the Congress-led central govern-

ment of the time and with the exercise of goondaism. The de-

struction of the Babri masjid was a defning moment in a dispute

that caused extensive damage to the secular and democratic

foundations of India’s state and society. It has been nearly two

decades since the destruction of the mosque and, even today,

many of the wounds have not healed.

It was for these and related reasons that there was much ex-

pectation and a fair amount of trepidation about the eventual

judgment of the Allahabad High Court on the suits fled before its

Lucknow bench to decide the owner of the land where the Babri

masjid once stood. The expectation was that the Allahabad High

Court would deliver justice to the minorities by undoing the

usurpation of their mosque and thus help restore the faith of  

Indian citizens in the rule of law, not to mention, secularism.

And it is for these very reasons that the judgment the court  

fnally delivered on 30 September fails on almost all counts. Even

though the majority judgment has tried to be “fair” and has given

each of the claimants an “equal” share of the disputed land, it has

erred by treating the trespasser, transgressor and aggressor on the

same footing as the victim. It is well known that a strictly “neutral”

legal position, without giving any weightage to the political and

social contexts of the claims, always favours the aggressor and the

stronger party. It is essential, and by now an accepted part of juris-

prudence worldwide, that such neutrality leads to further victimi-

sation of the weak and oppressed. It is strange, to say the least, that

the judgment has taken cognisance of the contested “fact” that fve

centuries ago the mosque was built after breaking a temple, but has

been blind to the very recent demolition of the mosque in contempt

of court. The judgment has accepted the faith claims of the Hindu

litigants going so far as to put a legal stamp on the violent takeover

and destruction of the mosque, and the installation of a makeshift

“temple” at the spot. On the other hand, the judgment has been

totally blind to the faith of the Muslim side and their claims to their

place of worship, which was so brazenly usurped and then destroyed.

It is not apparent that the biases contained in the judgment are

based on a deliberate attempt to discriminate against the Muslims.

Far from it, since the court has gone out of its way to accommodate,

in a manner that it may think is “fair”, the claims of the Sunni Wakf

Board and has given it an “equal” share in the property. It is for the

frst time since the mosque was snatched from the Muslims of  

Ayodhya in 1949 that the court has given them legal title to that land,

even if one small share. (The fact that the Sunni Wakf Board has

legal title to a part of the disputed land and can build a mosque on

its land may seem like no small matter, given that just a few years

ago Hindutva groups had been insisting that no mosque will be al-

lowed inside the town of Ayodhya. But the Hindutva groups are

even now asking for this land for the temple and have proposed that

their Muslim “brethren” support the construction of a temple indi-

cate that court ruling or not they will not countenance the estab-

lishment of a new mosque at Ayodhya.) It is evident from histori-

cal records that both Muslims and Hindus of Ayodhya have consid-

ered the building and areas around the Babri masjid to be sacred

and have used these areas in common before the disputes arose in

the 19th century. Therefore, it is correct for the court to give them

an equal share in the property, since the disputants are not in a po-

sition to use the area in common. Whether two-thirds for the Hin-

du claimants and one-third for the Muslims is equal and fair is de-

batable, but this situation has arisen since the court has agreed to

include the interloper – the pan India Hindutva movement – as a

valid claimant to the property. This has happened since much of

the Hindutva understanding of Indian history and culture have,

over time, become part of our “common sense”.

Of the three judges, justice B V Sharma’s judgment reads more like

the submission of a lawyer arguing the case for Ram Janmabhoomi.

The judgments of justice Sibghat Ullah Khan and justice Sudhir

Agarwal, though they have made an attempt to fnd an amicable

solution, remain coloured with the biases listed earlier. That these

biases appear inbuilt into their understanding and “common

sense” is what makes them so much more disturbing. It is because

the fnal order is based on such an understanding that the sense of

justice appears missing from it. Communal harmony and the

rights of the citizens, especially those from the minorities, cannot

be achieved as long as our understanding is handicapped by preju-

dices and predispositions which tilt towards the majority commu-

nity’s self-conceptions. It is for this reason that the verdict of the

Allahabad High Court has failed to achieve justice. It is now up to

the Supreme Court of India to restore the foundations of justice.

(Courtesy : Economic and Political Weekly, 9/10/ 2010)

First Or Last?

Vinod Mehta 

Surprise is the first reaction. After 60 long years, we have a judgement which may not bring closure. But here it is. And we must see how the legal process proceeds from here. If you have been reading newspapers and watching television in the past week, you could be forgiven for thinking that India is a rationalist’s utopia. So much goodwill, so much wisdom, so many calls to move on and put India first have been delivered by our politicians and concerned litigants that it would be logical to surmise that duplicity and deceit have vanished from our shores. The honourable judges of the Allahabad High Court have posed a challenge to these lofty sentiments.

Now that we have a verdict which has gone unequivocally in favour of the Hindu litigants, we will wait to see how the goodwill and common sense translate into action on the ground by both the winners and the losers. It is important to state that the judgement undeniably throws up both categories. The expectation that all the litigants would be satisfied—with something for both the Hindus and Muslims—has proved false. To remind the nation that the temple dispute for the last 20 years has not been about “faith” but about “politics” is not necessarily an act of treason. Neither is it an act of treason to remind the nation that the ‘Hindus vs Muslims’ description of the dispute is a gross fallacy. This is an altercation between the Sangh parivar (and its supporters) and the Muslims.

In 1999, when the BJP came to power on the back of the mandir wave, the party got 23 per cent of the vote. Which means 77 per cent of Indians did not vote for the temple. In 2009, the BJP got 18 per cent of the vote. Which means 82 per cent of Indians did not vote for the temple.

Of all the non-issues facing our country, the Ramjanmabhoomi issue is top of the list. For an overwhelming majority of Hindus, it is no big deal. If it can be built peacefully, fine. If it can’t, Hindus will not be overly disappointed. How and why this non-issue came to occupy such criticality in the national consciousness, I will leave the historians to answer.

The nervousness and anxiety of the Indian State over a minor flare-up turning into a major flare-up is understandable. We should not forget that, in the real India, there exist political parties, individual politicians, media houses and allegedly pious NGOs who do not subscribe to the fine thoughts expressed in the last few days.

The verdict delivered in the court on Thursday must find acceptance within the prevailing good-bad environment. Our masters remain what they were yesterday. Self-interest generally trumps national interest in their scheme of things. India and its citizens must learn to resolve disputes wrapped in blood and unhappy historical memory in the real India. How both the parties conduct themselves after the verdict will determine whether India comes first or last.

(The writer is the editor-in-chief of Outlook Group)

(Courtesy : Outlook Magazine, 11/10/2010)

Who Stands Where On Ayodhya Verdict

Those Unhappy With The Verdict

VHP: Wants to go in appeal so that the entire plot is allotted for a temple. "The 3,500 sq ft of land allotted to us is not enough to house even the garbha griha of the grand temple which is proposed to be built. We are confident the SC will set aside the high court ruling," says VHP leader Ashok Singhal. 

UP Sunni Central Waqf Board: Against any out-of-court settlement. Will appeal against Allahabad High Court order. "This is not the end. The verdict will be final only when the Supreme Court decides so,” says its counsel, Zafaryab Jilani.

Samajwadi Party: Is opposed to the judgement. "The country is run by the Constitution, not by faith," says Mulayam Singh Yadav. 

MIM: All for going in appeal. "We have a strong legal ground. The best way is to move SC," says MIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi.

Possible Scenarios

• Apex court upholds the Allahabad High Court order. Will be a double blow for a Muslim side already on the backfoot.
• SC quashes high court verdict. Would be construed as minority appeasement by the Hindu side, with attendant problems.

Those For A Negotiated Settlement

Hashim Ansari

First Muslim litigant. Says if the issue can be sorted out through talks “today, tomorrow or after two months”, it must be done.

Mahant Gyan Das, head, Hanuman Garhi. Backs Ansari for an amicable settlement.

Mahant Bhaskar Das, head, Nirmohi Akhara. Says it's pointless to drag the case again to court. 

Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, Shia cleric and senior vice-president of All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Claims he has a compromise formula but declines to divulge details before October 16.  

Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangimahali,

member, AIMPLB executive. Says no point in starting yet another court battle. “The title dispute which just ended took six decades to be resolved. How many more years would a fresh court battle take?”

Possible Scenarios

• Aware of the pitfalls of appeal, mosque and temple are built side by side on the disputed land that has been trifurcated.
• The Muslims give up their one-third allocation and are given alternative site to build mosque.

---

Those Who Want To Respect Court Verdict

BJP: Does not favour going in appeal. "BJP is not in favour of taking the high court judgement on Ayodhya to the Supreme Court. If through consensus and reconciliation with Muslims, a temple can be built at the site, it would be very good,” says party president Nitin Gadkari.

Congress: Respects the verdict but says those who want to appeal are free to do so. "The judgement is indeed an important document. But it is not operational. It is a fair assumption that appeals may be lodged," says Union home minister P. Chidambaram.

RSS:The organisation is for a negotiated settlement and is not inclined to go in appeal. The judgement is not a win or loss for anybody, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat said after the verdict. “We invite everybody, including Muslims, to help build the temple."

 Possible Scenarios

• Evolve a formula which will satisfy Muslims and Hindus.
• Muslims find the dice loaded, allow construction of temple on entire site.

(Courtesy : Outlook Magazine, 18/10/2010)

अयोध्या मसले के हल के बिल्कुल करीब थी वाजपेई सरकार

 

(साभार : दैनिक जनसत्ता, 03/11/2010)

A Mosque here and there

Gautam Adhikari

Another mosque, another time, another argumentative democracy. In the US, a dispute has erupted over a proposal to build a mosque; in India, 18 years ago it was about tearing one down. A controversial issue in both cases is: Which central idea forms the essence of any multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation? Must such a society uphold a particular culture that defines the core values of the nation? Or, must it not merely tolerate diverse cultures, but actually celebrate diversity as a defining value?

In December 1992, a band of Hindu militants destroyed an old mosque in Ayodhya, the Babri masjid. Bloody riots broke out between the two communities in several towns, chaos engulfed the nation for days and a fierce argument ensued over what we should understand by the idea of India.

There were those who argued that with the partition of India in 1947 and the establishment of the Islamic nation of Pakistan, specifically created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims, the republic of India was free to become a nation primarily for Hindus, with its core values – including tolerance and secularism – embedded in ancient tradition. In this view, the demolition of the mosque had been a symbolic act to re-establish Hindu primacy in a nation long misled by “pseudo-secularists”.

And there were those of us who countered by pointing out that India was imagined by its founding fathers to be what Pakistan was not. It would be a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, democratic republic, in which a carefully crafted Constitution would guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The argument continues with the Allahabad high court weighing in with its judgement on Babri masjid.

It is a complex debate, not least because the idea of a diverse, multi-religious democracy is a modern concept incorporated legally, and in writing for the first time, in the American Constitution as updated in 1791 with a Bill of Rights. The framers of India’s Constitution studied the US Constitution closely and inserted similar fundamental rights in our document. Those rights have ensured for every citizen the right to be different from every other citizen, and in what we can say or do and in pursuit of religion.

Although on the surface the argument over the proposed Islamic cultural centre in Lower Manhattan is over protecting citizens’ constitutional rights versus the raw emotions of those who see it as an affront to the memory of victims of 9/11, the issue is larger. Lurking in the strands of the debate are key questions: What does it mean to be an American today? Is it enough to swear to uphold the Constitution, to enjoy all legally guaranteed freedoms, and to lead life any way you please within the generous limits outlined in the Constitution? Or is it also necessary for all citizens to defer to the preferences and habits of a dominant culture, which is Protestant Christian or, as commonly described nowadays, Judeo-Christian?

The argument has been on for a while. When Irish Catholics began to migrate to the US in large numbers they were not initially welcomed with open arms. It took decades before Catholics could become fully accepted within the mainstream. Ditto for the Japanese; and for the Jewish migrants who escaped European intolerance for a more hospitable society but had to wait a few decades of uneasy coexistence with devout Christians before the term Judeo-Christian could become the preferred way to describe Euro-American civilisation. Hispanic migrants today may be Christian but to many they are the Other.

For Muslims of all hues the case has become immensely more complicated post-9/11. On one hand, they are asked to prove their moderate credentials and condemn the jihadi radicalism of a few. On the other, they are greeted with fury when reformers, like Imam Feisal Rauf, want to set up a cultural centre – that will encourage interfaith dialogue, promote moderate Islam and will have a prayer room – because it is two blocks away from Ground Zero. A majority of Americans don’t want the centre there. They somehow hold, even as they say they don’t, the entire Muslim community responsible for 9/11.

The idea of America, like the idea of India, remains a work in progress. For many Americans, national identity is synonymous with a cultural identity; for others, multicultural coexistence forms the essence of American nationalism. But to gain an insight into what the idea of America was to those who founded the nation, we could study the far-sighted spirit embodied in the Bill of Rights. With its guarantee of free speech and the separation of religious preferences from the conduct of public affairs, the US Constitution offers a fine set of principles by which to live in a diverse and rapidly evolving world.

Those who dreamt up the vision of America found no contradiction in endorsing tolerance while remaining true to their faith. Wrote Thomas Paine in his 1776 pamphlet ‘Common Sense’: “I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness.” Today, going by nationwide opinion polls, American common sense seems surprisingly reluctant to accept such ideas.

(The writer is a FICCI-EWC fellow at the East-West Centre in Washington, DC)

(Courtesy : TOI, 31/09/2010)

Beyond Mandir & Masjid

Salman Rushdie

The Allahabad high court judgement may not bring closure to the Ayodhya dispute. The Sunni Waqf Board has indicated that it intends to move the Supreme Court on the judgement, which says that the land where the Babri masjid stood must be divided between Hindu and Muslim groups. The court has ordered t hat there must be a status quo at the site for the next three months. All must respect the verdict and due process must be followed in seeking redress. It’s welcome that political parties and religious groups have stressed the need to maintain peace and have appealed to cadres not to take to the streets.

     

The court appears to have used non-legal categories like faith to come to conclusions about Ram’s exact birthplace. The reasoning and evidence used by the court is hidden in the 8,000 pages that constitute the threebench judgement. But we hope the judges have based their conclusions on sound legal principles. In any case, the court judgement can be a first rather than a final step in resolving the dispute. If any party feels aggrieved, it has the right to go up to the Supreme Court. Both sides could come to a mutually satisfactory out-of-court settlement as well.

   

It must also be kept in mind that the HC ruling doesn’t condone the act of demolition of the Babri masjid carried out by the sangh parivar on December 6, 1992. The demolition wreaked havoc on the country’s multireligious fabric. It divided communities and set us back by many years. The wounds are healing, slowly. Any act that threatens to reopen old wounds must be avoided. A new resurgent India has emerged from the debris of the violent 1990s. A new generation has come of age since then and it doesn’t want to be tied down by ancient hatreds. Simply put, a mandir at what is believed by some Hindus to be Ram’s birthplace is not an existential issue for this country, especially its youth.

   

Political parties must recognise the shift in ground, which is best evident in the twin cities of Faizabad and Ayodhya. Local people, especially the youth, insist that their concern is not a mandir or a masjid at the disputed site but facilities that’ll enable them to improve their material conditions. People have had enough of pitting Ram against Rahim. We need to move on and the onus is on the state, political parties and community elders to ensure that the issue is not kept simmering for too long.

(The writer is a renowned author)

(Courtesy : TOI, 1/10/2010)