|
Open
Forum
New Delhi, 9 November 2018
Ayodhya’s Ram Temple
A SYMBOL OF PEACE?
By Dr S.Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
A nationwide stir is being planned by the
Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti (ABSS), an organisation of 127 Hindu sects to
pressurise the Government of India to adopt a law for construction of Ram
Temple at Ayodhya. It convened a meeting of sants
in New Delhi on 4th November which was well attended by over 3,000
seers from across the country.
The meeting passed a resolution demanding that
the government bring in a law or an ordinance for construction of the Ram
Mandir. ABSS, said to be close to the RSS and the VHP, is planning to hold
rallies in Ayodhya, Nagpur, and Bengaluru and finally a mega rally at New Delhi
to gather support for the law and conduct meetings in 500 districts across
India. The Temple Movement led by the ABSS is expressing its protest against
the inordinate delay in the construction of the Temple while conveying its
expectations that the present government at the Centre could fulfil its demand.
The Samiti is evidently irked over the
postponement of the hearing of the Ayodhya case, originally scheduled to begin
on 28th October 2018 to January next year and is of the view that
construction of Ram Temple cannot be left at the mercy of the judiciary. That
this case is not a matter of priority to the apex court to be settled by day-to-day
hearing is an important admission in the settlement of the Ayodhya dispute and seems
to have provoked the Sant Samiti to bring pressure on the government while it also
disappointed many people anxiously awaiting the court verdict. Even the date of
the next hearing is not decided and left to the appropriate bench as it is
considered to be politically sensitive to affect even 2019 election.
The Government’s proposal to erect a tall Ram
statue may be a temporary solace to the disappointed devotees, but cannot be a
substitute for a full-fledged temple. It will serve to affirm BJP’s commitment
to build the temple and keep alive the enthusiasm as part of politics.
BJPs Rajya Sabha member Rakesh Sinha is to
bring a private member’s bill for construction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya in the
winter session. Its fate in the Upper House would be in the hands of political
parties adept in creating ruckus and blocking proceedings leading to frequent
adjournments and even wastage of whole session. But, elections are approaching
and it will be suicidal for political parties to assume positions likely to
offend sentiments of large sections of electorate. Ram Temple issue will then
be not just an issue for promises, but one for propaganda against one another.
The move compels all parties to take a clear
stand on the Temple -- an issue which all parties are politically, particularly
in the vicinity of a General Election -- obliged to refrain from opposing. Opposition
has to be based on some technical grounds and not on the principle.
Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities
Rizvi, is reported to have come out strongly in favour of construction of the Ram
Temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya on the basis that it would help lessen
communal tensions. The Commission may consider appealing to the Supreme Court
for an early hearing of the case. Rizvi has said that Temple’s construction is
the only solution to end the dispute and safeguard the Muslim community from
fear and tension.
The Commission’s stand takes us back to 1993.
On 7th January 1993, the Union Government issued an ordinance and
then passed an Act under which the right, title, and interest in respect of
certain areas near the site of Babri Masjid were transferred to the Government
of India. The Bill introduced by SS Chavan declared as Objects and Reasons
that, “As it is necessary to maintain communal harmony and the spirit of
brotherhood amongst the people of India, it was considered necessary to acquire
the site of the disputed structure and suitable adjacent land for setting up a
complex, which would be developed in a planned manner wherein a Ram Temple, a
mosque, amenities for pilgrims, a library, museum, and other suitable
facilities can be set up”.
Some critics wish to simplify today’s problem
by referring to the reconstruction of Somnath Temple in Saurashtra in 1951 soon
after Independence. But, the fact that it was a relatively easy task as no
destruction preceded reconstruction to give room for opposition is overlooked.
On the contrary, objections came from Hindu political leaders professing secularism
to keep the government away from any religious activity or policy particularly in
support of the majority community and actively following minority appeasement
policy as the duty of the majority community.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had pledged that the
Somnath Temple, one of the eight Jyotirlinga Temples, plundered by Ghazni
Mahomed in the 16th century would be rebuilt. The idea was approved
by Mahatma Gandhi on condition that rebuilding should be funded by the public
and not the government. When President Rajendra Prasad agreed to inaugurate the
temple in 1951, Prime Minister Nehru raised objections on the ground that
association of government authorities in any manner would go against the principle
of secularism. The President, however, stuck to his stand and said he could not
cut himself away from his religion.
Rajendra Prasad’s profound observation that
“the power of reconstruction is always greater than the power of construction”
has acquired deeper and deeper meaning with passage of time. Destruction of monuments, places of worship,
important buildings, towns and cities is characteristic of victors to establish
their suzerainty over the vanquished. In many places, religious places become
targets of destruction by the invaders to spread their religion. No wonder, the
vanquished want to revive their lost treasures.
The Supreme Court’s stand virtually postponing
Ayodhya verdict to post-2019 poll has added more political than religious
content to the issue and may further complicate the situation. It has become a
poll issue. The contenders may not be divided openly on the line of pro and
anti-Ram Temple, but on the basis of the speed of construction and magnificence
of the structure. Events are proceeding in such a manner that sentiments are
raised to a high pitch that even non-Hindus are joining the Mandir Movement.
At this juncture, UP Chief Minister Yogi
Adityanath’s announcement of development projects like airport, hospital, and
medical college in Ayodhya deliberately avoiding Mandir has come as a big
surprise to friends and opponents of the BJP. It is in fact, no surprise, but
repetition of an earlier policy.
In 2003, Ayodhya was in the news after a
decade of silence with new efforts for a settlement. VHP and associate organisations were pressing
the NDA government to pass a legislation to facilitate temple construction.
Then Deputy PM LK Advani ruled out the possibility of any legislation on the
subject holding that a “blend of pragmatism and ideology” was necessary to
govern the country. He reminded Ayodhya enthusiasts that much of governance had
nothing to do with ideology, but with economic development, education, and
providing good infrastructure.
Ram Temple should come as a symbol of peace
and progress and not force and authority.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
