Post- Allahabad High Court ‘Ayodhya Verdict’, Indian media had a field day in plastering its pages and its colourful screens with what can be divided as a ‘Hindutva Narrative’ and a ‘Left liberal Narrative’. The glaring omission was that of a ‘Muslim Narrative’, which has always been gagged by the non-Muslim owned media and could hardly get any mass audience.Times of India, that claims to be the leader of the pack in English language media, has finally decided to bring in the Ulama and had strategically selected a writer whose credentials as a peacenik is most admired by the aggressive Hindutva elements while Maulana’s own community by and large has completely sidelined him.His article is a regurgitation of Maulana’s old stand for Muslims to follow the spirit of Prophet’s Hudaibiya peace agreement with the idol worshipers of Mecca, when he agreed to refrain from any violent engagement for which he had come prepared and preferred to negotiate for a peace treaty, giving him a foot inside a closed door. His stand is sound as a broad guideline, but alas Maulana cannot be a patch on the charisma and leadership of the Prophet while Muslims too are not united and so committed to the Hudaibiya peace initiative, given great differences in time, place and the composition of the adversaries.
In his article, Maulana has cited the case of Caliph Omar, who was offered space by the Church authorities to pray his Salaat in the Church of Resurrection of Jerusalem, when Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim forces and the citizenry insisted that any surrender treaty with rights and responsibilities should be signed by the Caliph Omar himself. Caliph declined, saying that that indiscretion may be become an excuse for future Muslim generations to claim the right to pray in Christian churches.Maulana writes:“The Christian bishop told him he could offer his prayers inside that very church. But the caliph refused. He said that he would offer his prayers at a stone's throw from the church.
If he offered his prayers right there inside the church, it would create a controversy in the future. The Muslims of later generations would say that they would build a mosque there because their caliph had offered prayers there.Notwithstanding this historic example, Mir Baqi built a mosque adjoining a Hindu sacred place. This was bound to create problems.
”Maulana is trying to compare the two situations, which are as different as oranges from apples. After Muslim takeover, the Church became a dhimmi of the Muslim state. Muslims in India are full citizens of their country: India and are not dhimmis of a Hindu state.A small minority of politically motivated and ideologically committed violent group of Hindutvadis are not the ruler of this nation.
If they had been the rulers, they would have ruled India for the last 63 years, instead of Indian National Congress. Even after Babri demolition, they could not realize their dream of ruling India on the strength of their own committed vote bank. Some feel, they are surviving on Congress complicity. Muslims should not bow to their aggression.
They do not represent the real ethos of Indian society.It is another matter that Congress party with all its protestation of being secular had been riddled with the presence of highly communalized Hindutva protagonists.Unlike Omar, these Hindutvadis, who pose as rulers of the country, did not offer to build their proposed Grand Ram temple away from the 500+ year old Babri Masjid.Their contrived excuse about Ram Janambhoomi, (the place where their Lord Ram was born) being the same spot where the Masjid was, falls through, as in Ayodhya town itself, within stone throw of each other, there are scores of Ram Janambhoomi Temples, all claiming to be the birth place of Lord Ram.To compound their mischief, they collected hundreds of thousands mobsters, through L. K.
Advani’s Rath Yatra all over India and with the connivance of a Congress President and Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, demolished a Mosque in full view of a world audience glued to BBC’s live telecast, with its ace correspondent, Mark Tully as the prime witness to the mob mobilization and the destruction of the Babri Masjid.L. K. Advani did not act like Caliph Omar, holding a far-sighted vision to avoid trouble in future generations; in fact he was the very anti-thesis of Caliph Omar as he went on to create trouble and division between Hindus and Muslims who had been living in peace for hundreds of years, even in the city of Ayodhya, with Masjid/Mandir as next door neighbors in hundreds of towns, cities and villages.L. K.
Advani had a political agenda and had nothing to do with the religious aspect of the Ram legend. His former daughter-in-law’s affidavit submitted to Liberhan Commission, details how irreligious Advani could have been.Maulana accuses Muslims of provoking Hindutvadis in demolishing Babri Masjid, by not following Prophet’s example of Hudaibiya and handing over the Babri Masjid to Hindus.The present context, with L. K. Advani’s political agenda of taking over Indian government by stirring up mob aggression, did not offer Muslims any choice but to resist the political mobilization against their community’s interests.
The prophet had means to ensure his victory on the battle field and he chose to sign a treaty out of his magnanimity and his negotiation position of power equation. Muslims are not in power in India, to be offering such generous terms to a group of law-breakers. That would be submitting to blackmail and would be opening Pandora’s Box for further blackmail. Maulana is not into Applied Islamics, as envisioned by Dr. Javed Jamil of Saharanpur, or he would have taken into account all aspects of the imbroglio, before coming out with his facile advice to Muslims and become part of Muslim problem.
Maulana cites the goodwill and sagacity of Congress led by Narasimha Rao, when it passed the legislation called the Places of Worship Act, 1991, binding Government of India to maintain the status quo of all places of worship on the Indian soil as it stood in 1947. However, the sting is in the tail. The status quo ante for Babri Masjid as publicly promised by the same Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister of India was cleverly and exceptionally excluded from the ambit of the Act, with the spacious argument that the case is the courts.Congress has a long history of countermanding courts decisions with instant passing of amending legislation.
The only reason that Babri Masjid was kept out of the Places of Worship Act- 1991, was Congress policy of hunting with the hounds and running with the hare. Besides, P. V. Narasimha Rao was an old RSS cadre that got infiltrated into Congress, thanks to his Brahmin identity and had extensive contacts with RSS as well as BJP and could be seen as sabotaging the permanent dynastic rule of Congress, in favour of a Hindutva alternative.In fact, all the acts of omission and commission by this Congress President and Prime Minister during the Babri Masjid/ Ram Janambhoomi negotiation leading up to demolition of the Masjid, did damage Congress so much that it has never come back to its previous pre-Babri position of ruling India single-handedly, without the crutches of coalition partners. Muslim voters who had tolerated all adverse Congress moves like opening of the lock of the Babri Masjid for Hindu prayers et al.
could see the hidden hand of a Congress President behind a blatant attack on their constitutional right of freedom of religion and consequently jilted Congress in droves. It is hard for them to trust Congress again.Maulana further holds that Muslims subsequently took the very impractical line that the Masjid should be rebuilt on the same spot. Maulana gives the example of the relocation formula in some Arab countries. Maulana is fully aware that the majority of Indian Muslims follow Hanafi school of jurisprudence, which is in many ways different from Ahle-Hadith school of thought. The Gulf countries with Muslim rulers at the helm are influenced by Wahabi doctrines and as such are not acceptable to majority of Indian Muslims.
Maulana cannot come out with solutions from one school of jurisprudence and impose it on adherents of other school of thought and that too to appease black-mailing adversaries. Besides, Indian Islam has its own distinct nuances and ethos, reflecting different level of adjustments with their compatriots, who are not Muslims. Such adjustment problems do not exist in Muslim countries and as such their alternatives are irrelevant to Indian context and polity.Maulana holds that Muslim rejection of Allahabad High Court’s Ayodhya Verdict is an emotional reaction and not well-considered response. He feels that by their own mass mobilization on Shah Bano issue, when they forced the government to overrule a Supreme Court judgment, they have give others a precedent to follow.
He poses a hypothetical question and offers a hypothetical answer. He wants to know that even if the Supreme Court gives the verdict in their favour, how the problem will be solved (to their satisfaction).Maulana again errs when he compares Muslim mobilization on Shah Bano to the Hindutva mobilization on Babri Masjid. Shah Bano mobilization was peaceful and within the limits of India’s democratic tradition. That cannot be said about Babri Masjid/ Ram Janambhoomi mobilization of hundreds of thousands of Kar Sevaks demolition a 500-year old Mosque.
They got away as they had an old RSS hand at the head of the Government. That may not be the case, next time around. The deciding factor is not the Court as all realists realize. It is the ground politics. Post Babri, a big change has occurred in Muslim mind, and their right to full empowerment in the affairs of their country, may result in different equation; say a decade or two from now.Some optimists in Muslim folds, would like to cross the bridge, when they come to it.
As long as Muslims consider India their own country, they will be prepared for all sacrifices to legitimize their rightful identity. If only Maulana could realize that this is not merely fight for Babri, it is a struggle to remain an Indian.
