The olive branch from Kanchi

A shaft of light has broken through after the horrors of Gujarat. And, I suppose, we must be grateful for small mercies. In fact, a great opportunity has offered itself in the form of the Shankaracharya of Kanchi’s intervention in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute which must be seized by all those who do not wish to see tragedies like Gujarat recur. It is particularly important for all Muslims of the country to take advantage of his offer which the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas will accept if they do.

Let elements in the VHP strike discordant notes in an attempt to play spoilers. Ultimately they will not be able to defy the Shankaracharya’s edict. I implore the Muslim leadership not to be provoked by the spoilers into a rejectionist mode. This is precisely what the VHP spoilers (as distinct from the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas) want: blame the Muslim leaders for rejecting an offer which is so reasonable.

Why am I so positive about the Shankaracharya’s intervention? For five years I edited a newspaper chain from Chennai where I was acquainted with the present Shankaracharya’s late guru, the great Paramacharya, a saint and a scholar. One of his charming suggestions to every Muslim who called on him was to visit the mosque adjacent to his abode in Kanchi. Adi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati is part of that tolerant tradition. After the fall of the Babri Masjid some RSS leaders drafted for him a statement which they thought would please him. He put a pencil through the statement and said: “Hindus and Muslims must live in this country like Ram and Lakshman.”

Three days ago when I reminded him of the statement, he laughed: “Minds have been so poisoned in recent years that if I make the same statement the communities demand clarifications as to which of the two is Ram and which Lakshman.”

He told the prime minister (as he did earlier the VHP leaders) that “building a Ram temple illegally was an insult to Maryada Puroshottam”. After a tour of temples in north India he remarked, “There are so many important temples in disrepair. Do we need new temples or is it important to light lamps in great temples lying in neglect?”

This, then, is the mind of the religious leader of the Hindus as he has come to the capital to address himself to the Ayodhya issue. The formula being considered by the prime minister, the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas and various Muslim groups involved in the issue is on the following lines. The case relating to the disputed site, on which the Babri Masjid once stood, is before the Allahabad High Court. The prime minister has asked the appropriate authorities to hear the case on a day-by-day basis. To help speed up the legal process some Muslim leaders have even agreed to cut down the number of witnesses so that a verdict can speedily be arrived at. The Janambhoomi Nyas, which includes some VHP leaders, will abide by the court verdict on this. The Shankaracharya is willing to give a commitment to this effect in writing. This itself is a historic shift by the Nyas and the VHP.

The Supreme Court in its 1994 directive said that temple work should not begin on the undisputed 67 acres acquired by the government until the title suit is decided. What is the point of this stay? The site plan for the temple shows the disputed site as the garba griha, or the sanctum sanctorum, of the proposed temple. Just imagine what the implications are. Should work begin on the site plan, in case the two communities by consent get around the 1994 Supreme Court stay, the temple will proceed up to the outer edges of the disputed site and then stop until the Allahabad High Court settles the issue of the disputed site.

The incomplete temple will then be hovering over the disputed site which as per the circulated site plan is the garba griha. This image, this frightful status quo, will be much more provocative than the current stalemate.

What is the answer? To have an alternative site plan on which work can begin by common consent. This site plan will leave out the disputed site. The Nyas will also leave sufficient land around the disputed area so that access to it is sufficient.

Indeed, the alternative plan can be a flexible one: embark on the revised site plan until the court decides and keep room in the plan to include the disputed site should the Hindus win the case. In the event of the Muslims winning the case the entire community will rejoice over the rule of law having prevailed. Having won the case will any right thinking Muslim actually build a mosque at the site? The Shankaracharya then says with a smile, “Maybe I can ask the Muslim brothers for a bhiksha.”

But what is the guarantee that the Nyas and the VHP will abide by the agreement being negotiated by the Shankaracharya and the government? A valid concern. My suggestion to Muslim leaders would be to have the agreement and the site plan registered in the Supreme Court. I can promise you the Shankaracharya will back them on this also.

Earlier Columns