For An Act Of Faith

The general elections looming ever larger on the horizon, Ayodhya is back on the centrestage. In what appears to be a carefully orchestrated two-pronged strategy, the government continues to harp on a negotiated settlement of the dispute, while the RSS and VHP insist on the legislative route. Demanding a law to facilitate the construction of the Ram temple, the VHP has virtually given notice to the Central government, to either hand over the disputed site to the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas or face a countrywide agitation.

The demand comes at a time when the government's claim that there's historical evidence of an ancient Ram mandir at the disputed site hasn't been borne out by recent ASI's progress report submitted to the Allahabad High Court. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had made the claim at a public meeting earlier this year. Later, the ministry of home affairs submitted an affidavit to the same effect before the Liberhan Commission.

When Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani said last fortnight that the Ayodhya dispute could be resolved through negotiations, the RSS responded by saying that neither a court verdict nor negotiations would suffice. "A Bill must be brought before Parliament. Even a mere resolution would be meaningless," its spokesperson Ram Madhav observed. Likewise, the VHP clarified that it had no faith in negotiations, including those sponsored by the Kanchi Shankaracharya, Swami Jayendra Saraswati.

Indeed, RSS sources said 'Swamiji' had been told, politely but firmly, that he ought not to embroil himself in Ayodhya and take a line contrary to the Sangh's. The RSS leaders had gone to the extent of saying it would not like to "commit the sin" of not following the Shankaracharya's dictates. Significantly, the RSS which has always reined in the VHP and tried to temper its rhetoric against the government, is now backing it openly. It sees two legislative options: either an Act revoking the acquisition of the disputed site and surrounding land (in 1993), or one which permits the handing over of 40 acres of undisputed land surrounding the site.

While the Shankaracharya had claimed last week that "secret negotiations" between Muslim and Hindu leaders were on to resolve the dispute, that claim has been debunked by both the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) and the VHP. Last year, the VHP had given an undertaking that it would not disturb the disputed site until the title suit was resolved on the seer's behest. "We compromised our stand thanks to the Shankaracharya but the Muslims refused to negotiate. We can't give him a chance again and again," says VHP secretary Surendra Jain.

The Shankaracharya's five-point plan found no favour with any of the concerned parties. His suggestions were: that a Ram temple be constructed at the site by a government-appointed committee; the masjid be constructed at a distance of 10 km; all legal suits be withdrawn; the claim to the Kashi Vishwanath temple at Varanasi and the Krishna Janmasthan at Mathura be given up and 100 mosques under ASI control be opened up for namaaz. AIBMAC convenor Zafaryab Jilani said there was no question of yielding its claim to Ayodhya. Likewise, the VHP and RSS have ruled out any compromise on Mathura and Kashi.

While BJP leader and Faizabad MP Vinay Katiyar denied there were secret negotiations, RSS-backed efforts to sound out the views of other dharmacharyas are under way. This is partly to avoid fragmentation among the Hindu leadership, as the Shankaracharyas of Puri and Prayag have jumped into the fray by promising their own peace plans.

The AIBMAC says that while it is open to talks, it will abide by a court verdict, even if it's negative. In any case, says Jilani, "We have not received any proposal.If they are not talking to the aimplb (All India Muslim Personal Law Board) or to the AIBMAC or to any of the other significant Muslim bodies, then who are they talking to? The likes of Shahnawaz Hussain or Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi?" Even Maulana Kalbe, whom the Shankaracharya met last fortnight and who resigned from the AIBMAC last week reportedly because of differences on holding talks with Hindu leaders, hadn't agreed to any concessions, Jilani pointed out. AIBMAC member Syed Shahabuddin denied there were divisions within the Muslim leadership on the issue of negotiations. "The resignation of one person does not represent a division in the Muslim leadership."

If the Shankaracharya's peace initiative has created minor fissures among the Muslim leaders, it has also given "certain sections of the BJP leadership a chance to settle scores with the VHP leaders by sidelining them", says a BJP leader. Bringing Ayodhya back in focus also serves the BJP's electoral compulsions: at its election committee meeting last week, it was decided that Ayodhya would feature in its poll campaigns.

The Congress has kept away from the Ayodhya imbroglio, with party president Sonia Gandhi refusing to meet with the Shankaracharya last year when he wanted to discuss the issue. She did make it a point to attend his golden jubilee celebration last fortnight though. "She's sending the message that she respects him as a religious leader but does not want to discuss the Ayodhya issue with him," explains a senior Congress leader. So far, the party is sticking to its stand that it will await a judicial verdict.

On the ASI report too, the Congress is walking on eggshells. Earlier, it had decried the home ministry's affidavit before the Liberhan Commission. "The terms of the commission do not include determining the birthplace of Ram or the existence of the temple. And what was the basis of that conclusion?" asks party spokesperson S. Jaipal Reddy.

The VHP's response to the report was typically strident, with Acharya Giriraj Kishore saying, "It does not matter what structure is unearthed at the site, be it a mosque, a Jain temple or a Buddhist stupa. The Ram temple will be built there because it's a matter of faith." The RSS said much the same thing but in far more decorous language. Said Ram Madhav, "The final report of the ASI will only be one more piece of evidence among a hundred others. There are historical records, literary sources, the GPR (ground penetrating radar) report of the Tojo-Vikas International."

CPI(M) politburo member Sitaram Yechury said the ASI's preliminary report had exposed the VHP "charade". "After getting the court to order excavation on the basis of the GPR report which indicated the presence of "structures" under the Babri rubble, they now go back to the "matter of faith" argument because the findings haven't favoured them".

The ASI report is a bald one, with no attempt at interpretation. The eminent archaeologists who examined the site from June 10 to 15 at the behest of the Sunni Central Waqf Board (Suraj Bhan, Shireen Ratnagar, D. Mandal and Sitaram Rai) have yet to submit a report on their findings. But sources said they had arrived at some preliminary conclusions: that it was unlikely that a grand structure had existed at the site because the pillars found weren't load-bearing ones.

What lies beneath the ruins of the Babri Masjid, however, is likely to prove less relevant to the outcome at Ayodhya than the compulsions of electoral politics.