Ayodhya dispute: 25 years on, shift in political ground reality; resolution does not look far away

Former Uttar Pradesh chief minister ND Tiwari had an interesting anecdote about the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue. In 1989, when Tiwari was at the helm in Lucknow, the dispute peaked following posturing and counter-posturing by the RSS-BJP-VHP combine and the Babri Masjid action committee. Rajiv Gandhi had gambled on Hindu consolidation big time by unlocking the disputed site in 1986. But he was equally not willing to let go of the Muslim constituency. His then home minister, Buta Singh, became his chief strategist and drew up a plan which goaded Rajiv into making a Hobson’s choice. A too-clever-by-half move was thus planned. [caption id=“attachment_4243153” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File image of activists of the Babri Masjid re-building committee. Reuters[/caption] Tiwari was apparently averse to the idea of exploiting the dispute politically. But Buta, ably assisted by an IPS officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre, took Rajiv to a venerated saint from eastern Uttar Pradesh , Deoraha Baba. As his wont, the Baba used to perch himself atop a tree and shower his blessings by touching the foreheads of his devotees with his feet. He did the same to Rajiv, who asked Baba how he should go about it. Baba, from his perch, ordained: “Bachcha, ho jaane do (child, let it happen).” “Aur bachcha ne ho jaane diya (And the child allowed it to happen),” recounted Tiwari, clarifying his position with a mischievous smile in a conversation with this writer soon after his rebellion against PV Narasimha Rao, before the 1996 General Elections. Perhaps no political episode in Indian history is reflective of the collective ambivalence of the Indian polity as much as the Ayodhya dispute. It is a saga of indiscretions by constitutional entities, Judiciary and political personalities. Rajiv was not alone in handling this issue in a manner not expected of the prime minister’s position. Soon after, VP Singh followed suit as he was quoted by Arun Shourie as having told a VHP delegation: “Arre bhai voh masjid kahan hai, voh to Ram Lalla ka mandir hai (But that is not a mosque, it is the temple of Ram Lalla).” However, Singh’s public conversations had a secular content radically different from what he said privately. The only exception was Chandra Shekhar, who in his brief stint as prime minister in 1991, made a serious attempt to resolve the issue. But Rajiv toppled him within three months of taking charge as the prime minister. So, as far as the BJP is concerned, the party has always had a consistent approach to Ayodhya. In party manifestos, the BJP’s commitment to building the Ram Temple is seen as an article of faith that cannot be contested. But it’s something that is easier said than done, as seen whenever BJP acquired a position of power. For instance, the Ayodhya issue is still dealt with like a title suit in the court of law. Obviously, the courts are not equipped to decide on issues of faith. During Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s term as prime minister, this dilemma came up squarely before the government. And Vajpayee’s government couldn’t do anything different except for relying on the courts. From 1999-2004, the NDA government encountered its worst face-off with VHP and RSS on the issue. In the BJP’s scheme of things, the Ayodhya issue practically relegated to background after the demolition of the mosque on 6 December, 1992. However, the verdict of a three-member bench of the Allahabad High Court tried to address the complexities of the problem in the given social context. But, it raised serious questions on the legal tenability of the judgment. That’s the precise reason why the Supreme Court has started hearing the case . It will be pertinent to bear in mind that today’s political situation is radically different from the past. For instance, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not coy about wearing his Hindu identity on his sleeves. His unflinching commitment to the Ram Temple construction may seem in conflict with his abiding loyalty to the Indian Constitution, but there are indications that he has managed to navigate through these political landmines.

And one of those indications came in the form of anointing Yogi Adityanath, a Mahant of the Gorakhnath Peeth, as chief minister of the country’s most populous state. Yogi belongs to a genre of religious leaders who are most vociferous in their demand for the Ram Temple at Ayodhya.

Of course, Yogi is a much-mellowed person now as his constitutional responsibilities far outweigh his religious incendiarism. At the same time, it would be extremely difficult for Hindutva hardliners to find fault with Yogi. There are indications that the Ayodhya imbroglio is headed towards a different course, probably a resolution at best, with effective political and judicial interventions in the coming months. It would be a tragedy for the Indian polity if the issue is allowed to fester.