The Man In The Middle

First things first, the Shankaracharya of Kanchi, is as far removed from theVHP's assorted sadhus and sants as chalk is from cheese.

The Kanchi Math truly symbolises the spirit of Hinduism, and takes pride in away of life more tolerant, philosophical and non-didactic than any otherreligion in the world -- with a huge hulking white mosque looming in front, andas Anita Pratap reported a few weeks back, "allegedly built over a Hindutemple. Many years ago, there was a campaign to tear it down. But the 68thpontiff, Jayendra Saraswati's predecessor, the late Chandrasekharendra Saraswati,a venerated Hindu philosopher, put his foot down. The movement withered away andso today, math and mosque coexist peacefully."

The Shankaracharya doesn't find the mosque offensive. "It's not a symbolof division. It is a symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity. It shows we can and mustcoexist peacefully. If there is love in our hearts, it doesn't matter how closethe mosque is to the temple, there will be peace. If there is enmity, it doesn'tmatter how far the mosque is from the temple, there will be strife." Doesn't he find the muezzin and namaaz five times a day an invasion, adisturbance? "No, not at all. We do our prayers and rituals at our time,they do theirs at their time. God is not deaf, dumb or blind. The almightywatches and listens at all times. So what does it matter?"

So that's the man who has stepped in now to "mediate". Correction,he is not "mediating", he claims, but that as the religious leader ofthe Hindu community, he believes he has an exalted and higher status than theself-appointed assorted sants and sadhus; that he is here to direct theVHP to take a particular course, and in case they remain adamantine, surely healways has the option of appealing directly to the Hindu community at large...

Plain Speaking Does The Trick

The process apparently began more than six months ago when the VHP leadersvisited Kanchi to brief the acharya about the grand sant sansad decision,taken at the Maha Khumb mela, to start `mandir' construction from March 12.

The Shankaracharya had then just returned from a tour of the north, and toldthe VHP types that he was distressed to find so many temples in a dilapidatedstate and nobody seemed to care for them. What was the need for building anymore temples when the existing ones could not be looked after? There should beatleast a ten-year freeze on all temples construction, he is supposed tohave told them.

He is said to have also enquired  how the VHP types could keep invokingthe name of "maryada purushottam Ram'' but adamantly refuse torecognise the jurisdiction of law? Isn't Lord Ram the embodiment of the ruleof law?

His good offices were made available, he spelt it out, on the explicitcondition that VHP would undertake the requisite commitment over the "courtjurisdiction'' formulation.

The powers that be in Delhi thought he would be a useful instrument inbreaking the impasse, but then 911 and its attendant distractions cropped up. Nomore was heard of a possible Kanchi role till the George Fernandes met theShankaracharya a few weeks ago.

So What Has He Achieved?

Apparently, the acharya has managed to make the VHP give not one but twowritten undertakings. One, the much publicised one, that the VHP will abide bythe court verdict. Seen by many to be a "major climbdown" because,hithertofore, it was being argued that the courts did not have any say in amatter of "faith.''

But what is really significant, it is being claimed, is that the VHP has alsogiven a written undertaking that it would abide by the court judgment even ifthere were to be an "adverse'' verdict over the `"disputed'' area. Inthis second written commitment, the VHP has undertaken to provide, "honestlyand sincerely, access and right of way in case the final verdict restored the 'disputed''site to the Muslims."

Once the VHP seemed amenable with the Shankaracharya line, it became possibleto make the Muslim leadership consider some kind of a proposal. The PMOalso became involved only after the VHP leaders agreed to the idea of a "legal''framework of the dispute.

Following talks with VHP and other Hindu religious leaders, the pontiff hadannounced earlier in the day that the Ram Janambhoomi trust and the Sanghparivar outfit have agreed to maintain status quo at the disputed site atAyodhya but demanded hand over of the "undisputed land" for beginningprayers on March 15.

"They have agreed that till the final court verdict comes, they will notnot interfere in the matter (disputed site). They will not not even talk aboutit. They will do rest of the things."

There is no legal problem for the government to accept the Nyas demand togive the undisputed land to it, the acharya proclaimed. "Government is inthe process of consultation with its 21-party alliance," he said. "Thispiece of undisputed land has no connection with the disputed site as the landwas acquired by the Centre one year after December 6, 1992, when Babri Masjidwas demolished."

He claimed he had a "written undertaking" from the Nyas, whichincludes VHP, assuring that no activity would be undertaken on the disputedsite.

"Nothing will be done in secret. Everything will be done in open,"he said. On the response from Muslim leaders including the Personal Law Boardand the Babri Masjid Action Committee, the Shankaracharya said "I amhopeful that their response will be positive".

The acharya said there were "all kinds of cases" on the disputepending before several courts, including the Supreme Court and Allahabad HighCourt.

The VHP, he said, would carry out 'bhoomipujan' on March 15 followed by100-day long religious ceremonies including 'havan' and chanting of religiousscriptures.

Asked whether any construction on the undisputed land would hamper the entryinto the disputed site, he said "No. All constructions will be done withina boundary wall, keeping a passage for entry and exit". He, however,asserted that "status quo will be maintained at the disputed site".

The problem is not that simple, though, for the dispute, at present, is overwhat is "disputed".

Hectic Parleys

But stepping into negotiating a matter as complicated and deadlocked asAyodhya is no walk in the garden. The acharya had a busy day -- separately andcollectively he had a series of meetings with Advani, Fernandes, Joshi, Vajpayee,the VHP leaders and the Muslim leadership, rounding it off with a meeting withPrime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to apprise him of his talks with leaders ofVHP and All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Defence Minister and NDA ConvernorGeorge Fernandes and Home Minister L K Advani were present at the meeting.

The ball has thus been effectively lobbed into the AIMPLB court and muchwould depend upon the fine-print of the "written undertakings" theacharya claims to have obtained from the VHP.  This is perhaps the firsttime that a moderate and liberal Hindu functionary has got involved innegotiations involving the vexed issue. Understandably, it carries the risk ofhis authority and prestige getting tainted.

The Muslim leadership also was uncertain how to deal with this latestdevelopment, not knowing whether "his ecclesiastical prestige was alsobacked by any temporal voices" and agreed to formally meet with the acharyaonce they were reassured of the involvement of others -- former President, R.Venkataraman, the former Chief Justice of India, Ranganath Misra, and the formerUttar Pradesh Governor, Romesh Bhandari. The AIMPLB was represented by SyedNizammudin, general secretary, S.Q.R Ilyas, convenor of the AIMPLB committee onBabri Masjid and eight others -- Syed Jalaluddin Umri, Abdul Kareem Parekh,Ahmad Ali Qasmi, Yusuf Hathim Muchala, Mohammed Jafar, Abdul Wahab Khilji,Manzoor Alam and Kamal Farooqui.

Another AIMPLB member, Syed Shahbuddin who called on the acharya separatelysaid, however, that no understanding had been reached. What remains to be seenis the fine-print in the two "written undersandings" and theconstruction map that the AIMPLB would want to examine in their March 10meeting.