I read Ms Seema Chisti's article:"Remains of the day" in the Indian Express of December 5, on the 20th anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, with deep dismay. It seems to have been written not by a sensitive, understanding Indian commentator; it was a piece appeared to have been driven by parochialism and one-sidedness of a Muslim communalist. She refused to accept despite the tell-tale evidence that the structure was super-imposed on a Hindu temple by a foreign Muslim invader to humiliate Hindus. All attempts to persuade the Muslim leadership to respect the majority Hindu sentiment in regard to the shrine to their epic icon Ram and his wife Sita(Sita ki Rasoi-Sita's kitchen) and make a brotherly gesture to hand over the structure to the Hindu community, failed. Instead, there was a display of aggressive posture of confrontation by its bigoted Islamic leadership.
Even with this background, kar sewaks who assembled at the venue on December 6, 1992, were not expected to take the law into their hands and undertake the demolition. However, a group of kar sewaks' act appalled and deeply saddened the movement leaders like LK Advani who along with his associates were opposed to the unilateral destruction of the disputed structure. But, looking at the dispute in hindsight, one cannot avoid the unhelpful attitude of the minority leadership in the stalemate that unfortunately led to the tragic denounement. With mutual accommodation and understanding, a temple could have been built as also a new mosque some distance away as a symbolic manifestation of inter-community harmony. Even a High Court verdict accommodating both sides' viewpoints was looked down upon.
Ms Chisti's strong plea is not to forget the event of the demolition. Even at the distance of twenty years of the tragic happenings, she does not see the need for the leaders of the two communities to jointly, peacefully come to an agreement to forget the past and built a temple on the iconic spot and a Muslim place of worship nearby. There are several examples of the majority gestures, for instance, Gandhiji's support for the Khilafat movement. Ayodhya was one case when the minority generosity and broadmindedness could have done wonders. Given the right attitude, it can still happen.
Even with this background, kar sewaks who assembled at the venue on December 6, 1992, were not expected to take the law into their hands and undertake the demolition. However, a group of kar sewaks' act appalled and deeply saddened the movement leaders like LK Advani who along with his associates were opposed to the unilateral destruction of the disputed structure. But, looking at the dispute in hindsight, one cannot avoid the unhelpful attitude of the minority leadership in the stalemate that unfortunately led to the tragic denounement. With mutual accommodation and understanding, a temple could have been built as also a new mosque some distance away as a symbolic manifestation of inter-community harmony. Even a High Court verdict accommodating both sides' viewpoints was looked down upon.
Ms Chisti's strong plea is not to forget the event of the demolition. Even at the distance of twenty years of the tragic happenings, she does not see the need for the leaders of the two communities to jointly, peacefully come to an agreement to forget the past and built a temple on the iconic spot and a Muslim place of worship nearby. There are several examples of the majority gestures, for instance, Gandhiji's support for the Khilafat movement. Ayodhya was one case when the minority generosity and broadmindedness could have done wonders. Given the right attitude, it can still happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment