Issue :   
May 2017 Edition of Power Politics is updated.  Happy Diwali to all our subscribers and Distributors       May 2017 Edition of Power Politics is updated.   Happy Diwali to all our subscribers and Distributors       
Issue:May' 2017

MARCH OF AYODHYA

New twists and turns

Malladi Rama Rao

bjectively speaking , the Ayodhya dispute has two aspects. One relates to a tiny spec of 2.77 acres (1.12 ha) in Down Town Ayodhya on the banks of Saryu River. It dates back to 1885, the year Mahant Raghubar Das sought permission of the British authorities to build a Ram temple on the land adjoining the Babri Mosque that had been built after pulling down a temple to mark Babur's triumphant march into India from the battle fields of Panipat in 1525. Built by Mir Baqi, one of Babur's generals, it came up over the remains of a 10th century temple, according to a report of the Archaeological Survey of India, (ASI), submitted to the Allahabad high court.
"Human activity at the site dates back to the 13th century BCE. The next few layers date back to the Shunga period (second-first century BCE) and the Kushan period. During the early medieval period (11–12th century CE), a huge but short-lived structure of nearly 50 metres northsouth orientation was constructed. On the remains of this structure, another massive structure was constructed: this structure had at least three structural phases and three successive floors. It was over the top of this construction that the disputed structure was constructed during the early 16th century", the 574-page ASI report said about the proof of temple at the disputed Ayodhya site, where a Masjid stood in isolated splendour from 1528to 1992.

Lal Krishna Advani, Uma Bharti and Murali Manohar Joshi The second aspect relates to demolition of the 'structure' at the disputed site in 1992; it involves conspiracy theories besides the allimportant question- whether Lord Ram was actually born at the place considered by the faithful today as his birth place.
Simply put the Ayodhya issue is no more than a Molotov cocktail- an improvised incendiary weapon that can set targets ablaze.
The Supreme Court came to grips with both aspects of the issuein just under one month, between March 21 and April 19 to be precise. Its first conclusion was a judicial counsel, which, infact, was a reiteration of its 1994 advisory – a call for "a give and take approach to arrive at a consensus" andto "reach an out --of -court settlement" since "these are sensitive issues involving religious sentiments".
The second conclusion was the order for a time-bound two year trial of Bharatiya Janata Party leaders Lal Krishna Advani, Murali Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti among others on the charges of criminal conspiracy to demolish the "structure" at the disputed site.

Consequences

Kapil Sibal For this ruling, the apex court invoked Article 142, like it did in many recent cases - 2G scam, coal mine allocation mess, liquor sales along highways- in its desire to make wheels of justice to move.
But this is free-wheeling use of Art 142 without attention to consequences, says, legal eagle, Kapil Sibal.
"The telecom sector is reeling under the after- effects of the Supreme Court judgement. The consequences of cancellation of all allocations of coal mines have adversely impacted the balance –sheets of public sector banks"he wrote in an edit page article in The Indian Express on Apr 21, 2017.
As a member of the Congress-led UPA government, Kapil Sibal was an interested party; his views on scams that had pulled down the Congress from the high pedestal of national ruling partyshould be taken with caveats in place.
But while on Art 142, his plea, "Circumspection, My Lord" makes a pitch that demands attention since there is no court above the Supreme Court, and people are looking to the bench for deliverance on even mundane issues.

Ram to Rajiv's rescue

VP Singh and Rajiv Gandhi As a journalist working with All India Radio, I covered various aspects of Ayodhya imbroglio –Chandrasekhar–led negotiations, VHP campaign ("garv se kaho hum Hindu hain" -say it with pride, we are Hindu), Advani Rath Yatra, kar sevaks' march to Ayodhya, and so on.
Long before Advani mounted his chariot – an air-conditioned Toyota vehicle- to undermine the Mandal plank invented by VP Singh, the seventh Prime Minister of India (1989- 90), Ram temple came to the rescue of the Rajiv Gandhi regime after it came under Muslim pressure in the wake of Shah Bano case.
Rajiv ordered the locks on the Ram Janmabhoomi - Babri Masjid to be removed, and all Hindus were given access to worship Ram Lalla. In Nov 1989, he allowed the Shilanyas ceremony to take place symbolically though.Subsequently, he also launched his election campaign from Ayodhya promising "Ram Rajya".

Rohinton F. Nariman and P.C. Ghose PV Narasimha Rao too played around the Ram temple issue. His acolytes claim that the wily Telugu bidda (son) had deprived the BJP of its emotive issue through masterly inaction on the fateful day.
He toyed with the idea of constructing a temple in Ayodhya, and his Information Advisor PVRK
Prasad talked at his best with several Muslim and Hindu leaders. The Arjun Singhs and the Chidambarams of the day accuse Rao of collusion with Kar sevaks. The last word on the Rao saga is yet to be heard.

Two benches

But it is not germane to the retrial that has been ordered by the Apex Court.Nor is the question why two different aspects of the same issue landed up before two different benches to end up in two different way outs.
The Bench of Justices P.C. Ghose and Rohinton F. Nariman has agreed with the CBI that the actual demolition case and the speeches made by BJP top brass(from the dais at Ramkatha Kunj prior to the razing of the 16th century Masjid) are pari materia or part of the same action.

But it is not germane to the retrial that has been ordered by the Apex Court.Nor is the question why two different aspects of the same issue landed up before two different benches to end up in two different way outs. The Bench of Justices P.C. Ghose and Rohinton F. Nariman has agreed with the CBI that the actual demolition case and the speeches made by BJP top brass(from the dais at Ramkatha Kunj prior to the razing of the 16th century Masjid) are pari materia or part of the same action.

Lalu dig at Modi

Lalu Prasad Yadav Luck rarely favours the CBI. A case in point is the Jain hawala scandal of 1991 that placed Advani, Shiv Shankar, Sharad Yadav, Balram Jakhar, and Madan Lal Khurana among others in the dock. The prosecution failed to prove its conspiracy theory and the case collapsed by 1998.So much so whichever government is in power on the Raisina Hill, the CBI finds itself hailed as the "Caged Parrot".

Lalu Prasad Yadav, the RJD chief, referred to this CBI flips side when he targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi after the Supreme Court's verdict in Babri Demolition case. He linked the CBI's advocacy of the case against Advani with the forthcoming Presidential election in July 2017.
Lalu's remarks don't square up with reports that Modi's guru dakshina would be elevation of Advani to Rashtrapati Bhavan. Even veteran BJP leader Dr Murli Manohar Joshi's name has been making rounds in the corridors of power. It is said that he has the RSS leadership's support for the Republic's highest constitutional post.

Conspiracy theories

In these days of Kejriwaleperfected shoot and scoot politics, logic and reason have no place.
What all matters is the ability to hit the target like Lalu did thus: "Advani supported Modi during the Gujarat riots (in 2002). Vajpayee asked Modi to follow the Raj Dharma, but Advani saved Modi. Yet a conspiracy against Advani has been hatched, and Modi through well-thought-out politics struck out his (Advani's) name (from Presidential race)."

GVG Krishna Murthy F o r m e r E l e c t i o n Commissioner, GVG Krishna Murthy, has an interesting take on Delhi. "The city has not grown beyond its H a s t i n a p u r a moorings; it remains still the grand old kutraprastha", he told me once. He should know because he has been a long-time resident of the national capital.
Whatever be the Lalu-Speak, the reaction of Vinay Katiyar keeps the powder dry in a manner of speaking. "Maybe his (Lalu's) statement has truth to it, don't know", the BJP Rajya Sabha member, said. He is also facing criminal conspiracy charges in the Ayodhyacase.
Whatever be these ifs and buts there is no denying the need for a speedy end to the Ayodhya tangle, the conspiracy charges including.

CJI–SPEAK

J S Verma "…. It is in the national interest that there is no loser at the end of the process adopted for resolution of the dispute so that the final outcome does not leave behind any rancour in anyone. This can be achieved by a negotiated solution …," Justice J S Verna said in 1994 as the CJI in a case related to the constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 and the maintainability of the Special Reference made by the President.

D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul Roughly 3 years later in March 2017 the Supreme Court echoed the same views. Chief Justice of India, CJI, R. S. Khehar, said. "If the parties want me (CJI) to sit with mediators chosen by both the sides for negotiations, I am ready." Hearing the title dispute appeals along with Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, he also offered to spare any other judge of the court if required.
If the offer was not followed through, well, blame the maverick Subramanian Swamy, though he deserves credit for putting in judicial focus the pending appeals against the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict that said the portion under the central dome of the demolished three-dome structure (Babri Masjid) was the birthplace of Lord Rama "as per faith and belief of the Hindus." This judgement divided the disputed land into three parts and awarded one part each to Lord Ram, Nirmohi Akhara and the Waqf Board. On March 21, in an urgent mentioning, Swamy urged the Apex Court to post the appeals for early hearing. Instead, the Bench told him "You (Swamy) must make fresh attempts to arrive at a consensual decision."
Brushing aside his references to past mediation efforts, the CJI-led bench asked him to consult the litigating parties and report back on March 31, 2017. But on the appointed day, and things turned out different- all because the court had learnt from the press that Swamy was not a petitioner in the title suit and thus lacked locus standi.
"We thought you were a party (to the dispute)", Justice Khehar remarked. A crestfallen, Swamy said he was not happy. "So don't be happy," the top court said, and moved on to the next listed case.

Middle ground

Probably left to themselves, the residents of Ayodhya could have had no problem in finding a middle ground, with no concern for conspiracy theories – present and past and the very distant past. But going by the latest turn of events, the title suit appears set to linger on for long. The judiciary's advice for negotiated settlement has met with a firm no by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB).

"No out-of-court settlement is acceptable to us," the Board said in a resolution adopted at the end of a two-day meeting in Lucknow on the 16th April. "On the Babri Masjid issue, the board would only accept a decision by the Supreme Court", it said.
This resolve may have something to do with the experience of the Muslim Personal Law luminaries with the negotiations held in the past. Also the fear that the talks could become a smoke screen for a majoritarian exercise.

No fast tracking

J S Khehar and Subramanian Swamy The Supreme Court, on its part, is unlikely to fast-forward the Ayodhya dispute. "We don't have the time right now", Chief Justice of India (CJI) J S Khehar told Subramanian Swamy curtly on March 31, and declined to fix a date to hear the case that has been making rounds of various courts for some 68-years.
Political leaders of all hues have played enough politics with Lord Ram. It is time to bottle the gene of vote banks in the true 'Sabka Saath, Saka Vikas' spirit since Jonathan Swift had said long years ago, "We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another".
Moreover, while looking at the Babri Masjid in its historical perspective, we should think beyond the restricting, communal or secular terms of today, as Audrey Truschke remarks while evaluating Aurangzeb.

Future imperfect

Secularism cherished in India, is not atheism. It is respect to all religious practices- ancient and modern alike. Indian secularism does not see the country's rich cultural and religious diversity through a borrowed prism, even if it is the much fancied Saudi variety. Nor does it have a place for mobocracy. It is this reality check that makes Indian future imperfect till the time we learn to live as one nation, one people willing to sit across the table to come to grips with the challenges of the day through talks and more talks with the image of argumentative Indian dumped in the glaciers high on the Himalayas.