Some revolutions come with a whisper. The Kanchi Shankaracharya’s ultimately unsuccessful mediation in the Ayodhya imbroglio is a momentous happening, because it has somewhat diminished the State’s absolute right to dictate the agenda on matters pertaining to the deeply held religious convictions of the people. For the first time since the departure of the British in 1947, the Leviathan-like power of the State has subjected itself to the spiritual authority of a religious divine with the stature to attempt to bridge a prickly, politically-fuelled, communal divide.
By whatever yardstick we apply, this is not a small development. With deft, quiet strokes, Swami Jayendra Saraswati has resurrected the dormant sceptre of dharma in a rabidly secular public domain. With this, he has brought the nation’s hitherto-banished civilizational ethos centrestage. All this will have myriad repercussions in days to come; yet even at this nascent stage, some points may be made.
Swami Jayendra Saraswati’s initiative to resolve the deadlock caused by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s determination to construct the Ram mandir on land previously acquired by the Narasimha Rao government, has resulted in a tacit acceptance across the politico-secular spectrum that the Hindu community has a locus standi on the issue. Regardless of which organization receives the disputed land if the title suit is won, Hindus are legitimately concerned with the issue and as such are party to the dispute.
The Shankaracharya’s assertion that the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas would be the recipient in such an event has been seen as a snub to the VHP for its belligerence on temple construction even after the Godhra carnage and its bloody aftermath. My view is that the Shankaracharya has politely debunked the practically defunct Ramalaya Trust set up by his Sringeri counterpart at the behest of the then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, with the aim of dividing the Hindu community. That deception stands rebuked, and it will henceforth be impossible to set up rival trusts, as Swami Swaroopanand has realized. This has, unfortunately, not deterred a self-proclaimed Shankaracharya from jumping into the fray at the behest of the secular fraternity, though it is a safe bet that he cannot go far (how many Hindus have heard of the Govardhan Peeth?)
Swami Jayendra Saraswati put his moral authority behind the Hindu position on Ayodhya when he suggested that the Nyas be permitted to conduct a single-stone puja on March 15 (an issue now pending before the apex court). The VHP was told to keep away, though its leadership would be present as Nyas associates. Thus, Mr. Ashok Singhal’s climbdown – agreeing to respect the court verdict whatever it may be, and promising not to annex the disputed land at any stage – may well be interpreted as a setback to the VHP. But it is not a defeat of the Hindu community as a whole.
This is a matter of some satisfaction because, even before the unexpected mayhem in Gujarat, many Hindus were apprehensive about the VHP’s decision to up the ante on the temple. It is not that they were lukewarm to the temple; media surveys have shown that the groundswell in this regard has grown exponentially. But there was fear that failure to deliver after rousing the emotions of the people would demoralize the entire community. The Shankaracharya has saved Hindus this humiliation. Even though there has been no tangible forward movement on this occasion, the Hindu commitment has undoubtedly firmed up. There will be no going back on the issue, despite the wishful thinking of some commentators.
The Muslim Personal Law Board’s failure to rise to the occasion and avert a stand-off with the majority community is along expected lines. Even before the Board met, it was clear that the moderates had been snubbed and a hardline decided. Secular political parties also encouraged the Muslim leadership to be inflexible on the Ram Janmabhoomi. Still, it is unfortunate that the Board should have said that a compromise on Ayodhya would divert attention from Gujarat, as it gives an impression that the Board wants tensions there to simmer. Overall, as in the case of the Chandra Shekhar Government’s initiative, we are left with the impression that neither exchange of evidence nor dialogue can dissolve the community’s insistent identification with medieval marauders.
Interestingly, by inviting the Shankaracharya to mediate between two sides in a religious dispute (reportedly at the behest of the Muslim Personal Law Board!), the secular State has slightly distanced itself from the sacred realm. Regardless of the immediate aftermath, the nation’s foundational ethos will henceforth have a say in the terms of engagement on religious-spiritual matters. For the first time since Rammohan Roy took the legislative route to reform (sati abolition), the Hindu tradition has achieved a measure of autonomy in deliberating matters of critical concern to it.
Another notable development is the Centre’s decision to ask the courts to hasten adjudication in the case. The hearings have dragged on for over five decades, a sad commentary on the judicial system.
A few points about the painful situation in Gujarat are in order. The Kanchi Shankaracharya visited the state, but there were no reports about his trip. An all-party delegation went, but till the time of writing, Congress president Sonia Gandhi had not seen fit to expel the prime suspect behind the Godhra train carnage from her party. As is well-known, the principal suspect arrested by the police is local Congress leader and president of the Godhra municipality, Mohammad Hussain Kolota.
Indeed, the facts about Godhra have been so quickly and efficiently established by the local police that even a well-known Hindu-baiter has been forced to acknowledge that “admittedly, the murderous assault on the kar sevaks was planned in advance, and the Godhra incident, caused by some Muslim miscreants, triggered the violence in other parts of Gujarat.” Yet, across the political spectrum, only Dr. J. Jayalalithaa has had the gumption to condemn the premeditated assault in unequivocal terms. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister even obliquely, but pointedly, suggested that there cannot be a separate criminal code for communities when such acts are perpetrated.
My point in raising this issue, however, is to question the assumption forced upon the nation by a hostile media, that the fifty-eight persons burnt alive in the Sabarmati Express, mostly women and children, were kar sevaks. I contest the hypothesis because of the mischievous corollary that the victims were “Hindu activists” and hence invited the tragedy upon themselves. Actually, there is no evidence that this is the case.
A friend, Dr. Bal Ram, whose ancestral village is barely thirty miles from Ayodhya, has pointed out that throughout the year, men, women and children regularly go there on pilgrimage as simple devotees. Moreover, the Magh Purnima, one of the major dates for Saryu snaan (bath) and pilgrimage to Ayodhya, fell on February 26. It is, therefore, more than likely that the pilgrims killed at Godhra were Purnima pilgrims and not kar sevaks.
From the point of view of the law, this does not materially alter the case. But, if Dr. Bal Ram’s contention is true, our secularists loose the fig-leaf with which they have sought to justify the mass murder. It is to be hoped that in future they will exercise some restraint when they report such massacres, even if they do not feel any empathy for the victims.
The Pioneer, 12 March 2002