Ayodhya and Politics of India's Secularism

8/4/2019 Ayodhya and Politics of India's Secularism

1/21

Ayodhya and the Politics of India's Secularism: A Double-Standards DiscourseAuthor(s): Ramesh ThakurSource: Asian Survey, Vol. 33, No. 7, South Asia: Responses to the Ayodhya Crisis (Jul., 1993),pp. 645-664Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2645353Accessed: 18/08/2010 16:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AsianSurvey.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2645353?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2645353?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/21

AYODHYAAND THE POLITICSOFINDIA'SSECULARISM

A Double-Standardsiscourse

Ramesh Thakur

... if one day the Babrimasjid s dismantled, y faith n HinduCatholicisminforms e that large ection f he Hinduswillbe as pained theywant hetemple obe built, ot he mosque obe destroyed)s the Muslimsn ndia ndPakistan ill be.

Ironically, n the very day that the above was pub-lished, the Babri Masjid was destroyed y a 300,000-strong mob inAyodhya. The demolition f the mosqueplunged ndia nto he worst ut-break of communal violence ince partition, ith 1,700 dead and 5,500

injured. The savage communal riots n Calcutta, eat of a CommunistParty government or more than a decade, and Bombay, home to theLaxmiputras sons of Laxmi, the wealth goddess), sent shock wavesthrough country naccustomed o seeing uch eruptions n its principalcosmopolitan ities. Scenesof Muslims n the thousands rowding ailwaystations n a desperate ffort o escape from Bombaywere reminiscent fthe massexodus fter hepost-partition iots. Other osts ncluded eriousdoubts bout the capacity f the political ystem ocopewith he crisis f

confidence nd the fright iven o international nvestors ust when theywerebeginning oaccept hegovernment's ommitment oeconomic iber-alization nd reforms.

The militant indus gloatover he venging f past centuries f Muslimrule, while he verage ndian Muslim s sullen, rustrated, nd bitter. TheEnglish anguage press n India reported nd reacted o the events n thelanguageof secularism, onstitutionalism, nd rule of law. I shall arguehere that the communalization f politics by the Bharatiya Janata Party

RameshThakur s Professor f nternational elations nd Direc-tor of Asian Studies,University f Otago, New Zealand.? 1993by The Regents f the University f California

1. Saeed Naqvi, "Musings of a Muslim," unday Times of ndia, 6 December 1992.

645


3/21

646 ASIANSURVEY,VOL.XXXIII,NO.7,JULY1993(BJP) is the proximate ause of the Ayodhya risis. But the cataclysmicevents f December 6, 1992, and after re also symptoms f a pervasiveregime ecay that has slowly been eating way at the Indian state. Theappeal of fundamentalism n a religious ommunity hat has no history fzealotry as grown longside demise n the moral uthority f the state.By the same token, he crisis ffers new opportunity o retreat rom hediscourse f doublestandards, bandon he search for vote banks" basedon promoting onfrontational roup rights, nd return o the notion ofrights hat every ndian qua Indian has.

Constitutional ecularism

While most religions reach universal rotherhood, eligion has been asourceof friction hroughout uman history. The Subcontinent asbeenespecially nfortunate n this respect. Secular and sacred authority ereseparated n the traditional indu social order hrough he varnashrama-dharma system: "The Indian socio-political orm was characterized yorthopraxy n observance f similar ustoms nd social distance etweencastes rather han by orthodoxy n terms f identical eliefsheld by allindividuals."2 his enabled ocial cohesion o be maintained ithin pat-tern f diversity; tate-enforced rthodoxy as neither ecessary or possi-ble. Islam by contrast s distinctive oruniting he spiritual nd temporalaspectsof social order.

Yet historically, onflicts nd alliances between rulers n India werebased on political lashesof nterests nd expediency ather han religiousdivisions. The most mportant oncept was "loyalty o the salt" and themost despicable etrayalwas disloyalty o the salt namak haram). Rul-ers, n establishing ynasties, ound t expedient o promote hisconcept,in return ccepting esponsibility orguarding ll the faiths f their ub-jects. Loyalty was reciprocal, mposing ights nd obligations n bothruler nd subject. Akbar, he greatest Mughalemperor 1556-1605), pro-jected such an imageby forging matrimonial llianceswith Hindu Rajputclansand by merit-based ecruitment f people of all faiths nto high tateoffices. n 1563 he abolished he tax that had long been exacted by kingsfrom ilgrims raveling o worship t sacred Hindu sites. In 1564 he re-mitted hehatedjiziya non-Muslim oll tax), "and with hat ingle trokeof royalgenerosity on more upport rom hemajority f ndia's popula-

2. Surjit Mansingh, State and Religion n South Asia: Some Reflections," outh AsiaJournal :3 (1991), p. 297. Varnashrama s the Hindu classification f society nd life ntofour ivisions nd orders; harma refers o the duty pertaining o a particular aste or order.


4/21

RAMESHTHAKUR 647tion than all other Mughal emperors ombinedmanaged to muster bytheir onquests."3

The British olicy of divide nd rule hardened ertical ivisions long

sectarian ines. The Government f ndia Act of 1935 ntroduced he prin-ciple of communal epresentation hroughout he political ystem, levat-ing religious dentity bove all elseand providing eparate lectorates orHindus and Muslims. Political oalitions eganto be built longcommu-nal lines; religious eaders cquired vested nterests n demonstrating u-merically arge followings s the surest path to political power;accommodation nd consociationalismost any politicalutility. Moham-med Ali Jinnah, the father f Pakistan," laimed nd wasconcededpolit-ical importance p to 1947, not as the eaderof a major political arty utas the eader of the Muslims iving n the Hindu majority rea of the Sub-continent. The problem f religious minorities as not solved by parti-tion-a policy of divide nd leave. Governments n Pakistan ontinue oseek sanctification f political ule n religious egitimacy. GeneralZia ul-Haq tried o harness slamicrevivalism n order o equatehis military ulewith Pakistan nd Islam; political pposition ould then be dealt with streason o the nation nd the community.

AlthoughHindus formedmore han four-fifths f the population f n-dependent ndia, this till eft ignificant umbers f Muslims, Christians,Sikhs,Buddhists, nd Jains. The religiousminorities ere pprehensive fbeing swampedby Hindus if the majority ommunity hose to act as avoting loc in a representative ystem f government. ecularism, ne ofthe major principles f the ndian Constitution, an mean one or both oftwo things: qual and due respect or ll religions nd faiths, xpressed nSanskrit s sarva dharma amabhav let all religions rosper); r separa-tion of the state from he church. But in its secondmeaning ecularismmilitated gainst he historical elationship etween tate and church nIndia in both the Hindu and Islamic contexts. The Preamble o the Con-stitution eclaredone of the objectives o be to secure to all citizens fIndia the freedom f faith, elief, nd worship. The chapter n fundamen-tal rights rovided constitutional uarantee o minority roups hat heirsensitivities ould not be overridden n a majoritarian emocracy. Theframers, elieving hat this was insufficient ssurance o religiousminori-ties, ncorporated separate roupof rights n Articles 5-28 focusing n

the right o freedom f religion.Constitutionally, here s no state eligion n India. No religious enom-ination s accorded any special privilege r discriminated gainst; the

3. StanleyWolpert, NewHistory f ndia (New York: OxfordUniversity ress, 1977),p. 127.


5/21

648 ASIAN SURVEY,VOL.XXXIII,NO. 7, JULY 1993rights onferred y the Constitution re equally vailable o every itizen.The right f any citizen o aspire to, and seek the highest ffice f stateembodies ecularism n the political ealm. The constitutional rotection

of religious ights xtends rom reedom f religious hought nd obser-vance to the maintenance f charitable nd educational nstitutions y allreligions. Positive" eligious reedoms re underpinned y a set of "nega-tive" religious ights. The state s enjoined ot to discriminate gainst nycitizen n the basis of religion n any matter, nd in particular n regard oaccess to, or use of public places, employment, nd admission nto anyeducational nstitution aintainedwholly r aided by the state.

But the Constitution oes circumscribe eligious freedom with threequalifications: ublic order, morality, nd health. Infanticide

ndsati

(widow-burning), or xample, annot e practiced n the nameof religiousrituals anctified ycenturies f custom. Similarly, he tate was permittedto enact measures f social reform, or example, pening up Hindu reli-gious nstitutions f a public haracter o all castes, lasses, nd sections fsociety. This was a corollary o the abolition f untouchability, nsuringthat ocial nequalities ould not be legally erpetuated nder he cloak ofreligion. The scope of freedom f religion onferred y the Constitutionhas been widened y udicial nterpretation o the effect hat t guaranteesnot ust the right o practice nd propagate eligious aith nd belief, utalso all rituals nd observances hat are regarded s integral arts of areligion y its adherents.

The Retreat rom ecularismJawaharlalNehru was a major architect f the Constitution. uring histenure s prime minister 1950-64), he tried o give "flesh nd blood" tothe constitutional rinciples.His government as inclusive, epresentativeof the myriad trands f ndian society, ommitted o promoting ecular-ism, ensitive o conventions overning elations etween he governmentand opposition enches, nd generally areful not to intrude pon staterights. The fact hat tate governments ere lmost ll under he controlof the Congress arty helped. Sincethe 1960s,however, oliticians avegradually ecome ess cosmopolitan nd more provincial, hilefederalismhas become more complex, equiring argaining nd accommodation e-tween governments unby different oliticalparties.

In time, ome parties egan to attack Nehru's egacy of tolerating eli-gious diversity s "pseudo-secularism" nd "appeasement" f Muslims.Their attacks gained credence with attempts y Prime Ministers ndiraand Rajiv Gandhi to build "vote banks" along sectarian ivides. Therewas a seriesof laws, decisions, nd policies that cumulatively eemedtodemand dherence f the majority ommunity o secularism hile onced-


6/21

RAMESHTHAKUR 649ing to the Muslim minority heright o live by other norms. By insistingthat on some matters Muslims houldbe exempt rom he requirements fsecularism,Muslim nd government eadersprogressively roded he very

secularism n which he security f Muslims depended n a Hindu-major-ity country. Permitting uslim men to have four wives,for nstance, sgrist o the Hindu chauvinist's ropagandamill that ndia eventually illbe overrun y Muslims.

The Shah Bano ControversySimilarly, heHindu SuccessionAct of 1956 gave Hindu women he rightto inherit share of their atrimony, hile Muslimwomenremained ub-

ject to anachronistic eligiousaws. Indianshad already ecome onsciousof women's nequal position n the eyesof slamic aw in neighboring ak-istan. Under he ordinance ntroduced y President ia ul-Haq, for xam-ple,rape had to be substantiated y four male witnesses nd the victimwasrequired o identify he rapist. Safia, 16-year-old lindgirl, ave birth sa result f doublerape. To the Pakistani ourts hismade her n adulter-ess and she was sentenced o 16 public ashes and three years n ail.4 Themost celebrated ase in India is that of Shah Bano, an elderly Muslim

woman who sought recourse n the civil courts for maintenance upportfrom her former usbandwho had divorced her. Some Muslim eadersconverted he obscure ase into causecelebre y turning t from strug-gle for ndividual ustice nto n issueof group ights-namely, he right fMuslims in India to regulate heir own affairs. They won, despite aSupreme ourt ruling n 1985 n Shah Bano's favor n the grounds hat nthis nstance ndia's secular aw took precedence ver slamic aw.

The Muslim cabinet minister, rif Mohammad Khan, was asked tospeak n Parliament n defense f the court's decision, ut the governmentlost ts nerve when Muslimsorganizedmass protest emonstrations. heWestern-educated, utatively iberal Rajiv Gandhi caved in to the de-mands of the Muslim fundamentalists nd passed the Muslim Women(Protection f Rights n Divorce) Act n 1986. Rights uaranteed oShahBano by the Constitution f India were taken away by a constitutionalamendment nacted with the specific urpose of overturning he udicialverdict f the SupremeCourt, nd that with etroactive ffect. Arif Khanresigned rom he cabinet. P. V. Narasimha Rao was not only memberof the Gandhi cabinet t the time but also a member f the key CabinetCommittee n PoliticalAffairs hat ook the fateful ecision o negate hecourt verdict. Other abinetministers ere V. P. Singh, rime minister n

4. Mary Anne Weaver, Women Fight slamic Abuse," Sunday Times London), as re-printed n the New Zealand Times, 8 October 1984.


7/21

650 ASIAN SURVEY,VOL. XXXIII,NO.7,JULY 1993

1990, and S. B. Chavan, home minster n 1992. None of them opposedGandhi on the ssue.

The Muslim ommunity n India has paid a high price for hat political

victory n 1986. During two weeks of extensive ravel n India in Decem-ber 1992-January 993, did not have one discussion n which he ShahBano case was not brought p as the ultimate roof f the discrediting fsecularism. The Congress government s widely perceived o have re-treated rom publicly tated point f principle or rass political easons:an effort o shore up crumbling uslim bloc support or party hat wasclearly n deepelectoral rouble. To the Congress, eople aid contemptu-ously, secularism meant endless appeasement y the Hindus of never-yieldingMuslimfanaticism. he BJP exploited his enseof Hindu griev-ance to the full, rguing hat when Muslim nsisted n his rights, e waspraised for standing p for minorities, ut when a Hindu spoke of hisrights n a Hindu-majority ountry, e was called a bigot. Party eader L.K. Advaniacknowledgedater hat he Shah Bano case was "a watershedevent" n mobilizing indu sentiment ehind his party.5 The danger wasrecognized y a number f Muslims, ne of whom argued that efforts fthe All-IndiaMuslimPersonalLaw Board seemed directed t creating nexclusive onsciousness mong ndian Muslims, keeping hem backwardand encouraging eactionary orces.The 1986 Act captured rthodox ndfundamentalist uslim support for the Congress without having to ad-dress the economic nd politicalmarginalization f Muslims.6

The SatanicVerses ControversyThe next nail in the coffin f secularism n India was the banning f TheSatanic Verseswritten y the ndian-bornMuslim, alman Rushdie. Thisis a rich, powerful, nd complex novel n which a migrant's aith n thereligion f his birth s broken but not replaced by faith n the dominantreligion f the host society.7 The controversy urrounding t brought othe fore he question f the proper onstitution f a multireligious ociety.The political community s not coterminous with the religious, ndproblems f adjustment eed to be addressed where ne political ommu-nity mbraces everal religious ommunities. olitical rights may not bedistributed qually mong group-definedndividuals venwhen, n princi-

5. Sunday Times of ndia, 14 October 1990.6. Hasan Abdullah, Muslim Personal Law: Case for n Optional Reform Act," States-

man Weekly, 5 January 992, p. 11.7. A fuller iscussion s by Ramesh Thakur, From the Mosaic to the Melting ot: Cross-

National Reflections n Multiculturalism," n Multicultural itizens: The Philosophy ndPolitics f dentity, handran Kukathas, d. (Sydney: Centre or ndependent tudies, 993),pp. 107-12.


8/21

RAMESHTHAKUR 651ple, they re distributed qually among all citizens. The disjunction e-tween individuals' membership n discrete political and religiouscommunities ttracts he nterest f political heorists ecause of a tension

between onceptions f how to treat ndividuals ustly s members f reli-gious communities nd as citizens.Westerners an have difficulty oming o terms with the dea that the

self s embedded n its social environment; any non-Western ocietieshave difficulty onceiving f ndividual dentity utside ts cultural ontext.The paradox of ndividual ersus ollective ights an be illustrated y theright o self-determination. ndividuals xercise he right; he outcome fthe exercise s to determine hefate f collectivities. imilarly, heright f

freedom f religion s simultaneously n individual ight-the right f anyperson to choose between eligions-and a collective ight-that of themembers f any religion o maintain hebeliefs, ractices, nd symbols ftheir aith. The individual's ight wouldbe an empty oncept f unaccom-panied by the right f the group. A Muslim n India has the right o be-lieve n and practice slam; the Muslims n India have the correspondingright o maintain he slamic community. either s complete without heother.

The Rushdie affair hrew p four different onceptions f equal treat-ment n law in a multireligious ociety:

* the orthodox iewthat hestate may not persecute r suppress ny religionbut remains ree o reflect he dominant eligion n society, .e., blasphemyagainst he Hindu faith wouldbe illegal n India;

* the notion hat ll religions houldbe equallyprotected y the aw, .e., blas-phemy gainst ny religion hould be banned;

* the belief hat ll religions houldbe left qually unprotected y the aw, .e.,there hould be no blasphemy aw;

e the legal equivalent of affirmative ction: anti-discrimination egislationseeks o provide pecial protection owomen nd minorities ecausethey reperceived o be under pecialthreat. Similarly, particular eligion nderexceptional hreat n a givenpolitical r social climate ould be given x-traordinary easures f protection.

Structures f belief re not common o all religions. slam s distinctivein its concept f treason o the universal ommunity f the umma faith-ful). In reality, s in Satanic Verses, he custodians f absolute ruth oseup in defense f the divinenature f truth s revealed ia the prophet. Thestatus of truth s not easily nvestigated n religiousmatters, ut belief nsuch truth s heldcrucial othe dentity f self-definitionf Muslims ivingin India (as in the West). An assault on beliefs, herefore, ecomes anattack on their persons. This is a dangerous game to play and it wasturned gainst he Muslims n the Ayodhya ontroversy. indu funda-


9/21

652 ASIANSURVEY,VOL.XXXIII,NO. 7,JULY1993mentalist eaders nsisted hat the actual historical ecord was irrelevant.Religion s a matter f faith nd belief, nd if Hindusbelieve hat templeto Ram once stood on the ite, his belief ave extraconstitutional anction

to their program. The continuing xistence f the mosque on a site sosacred to Hindus, they rgued, was a continuing ssault on every Hindupersonally.

The Rusdie affair nd the Ayodhya ontroversy emonstrate he diffi-culty of basing public rules n a plural society n religion. n a societycharacterized y moral and religious iversity, egal restrictions ust begrounded n reasons that everyone an share. The force of religiouslybasedarguments ill be rejected y adherents f competing aiths, ut the

faithful re not prevented rom recognizing he validity f argumentsgrounded n secularism. Hence, the mbalance n the recognition f reli-gious nd nonreligious alues n the publicrealm f multicultural ocieties.

The Satanic Verses may have offended uslimsbut none was therebyprevented rom practicing he faith.. Freedom of religion" means thefreedom o live and worship ccording o one's religious eliefs. Freedomof expression s functionally eaninglessf t doesnot nclude hefreedomto offend. f it s inoffensive, hen t doesnot need safeguarding. qualityis the right obe critical f anyonewithout iscrimination n grounds frace, creed, or gender. Secularism predicated on religious pluralismshould not be confused with religious elativism. A variant f culturalrelativism ould mpose imits n the freedom f expression y proscrib-ing ttacks n beliefs hat ould ead to public disorder. This was the basison which he Satanic Verseswas banned n India, and it has two deleteri-ous consequences.Practically, t can lead to threats o create disorder yany group that wants to stop anything t dislikes; philosophically, tamounts openalizing he victims ather han he perpetrators f disorder.

In June 1992 Professor Mushirul Hasan of the Muslim Jamia MilliaUniversity aid in an interview hat while he disapproved f the SatanicVerses, e was opposed to the book's banning. The goal of a ban is toprevent eoplefrom eading book. But the very ct of banning ivesbook notoriety, xcites eople'scuriosity, nd leads more peopleto read tclandestinely. n his view, those who disagree with the contents ormessage f a book should engage he author n debate nd attempt ode-molish his arguments. The interview roduced violent reaction fromfundamentalist tudentswho beganan agitation orMushir's resignation.A lecturer who disagreedwith heir emands was beaten up by the agita-tors; other dissenting eachers about half he total taff t the university)were threatened ith rapes of their aughters.

Asghar Ali Engineer, irector f the nstitute f Islamic Studies, om-mented hat this "is not mere ntolerance, t is degenerate onduct." He


10/21

RAMESHTHAKUR 653disagreedwith Mushir on the question f whether he book should havebeenbannedbut nsisted hat Mushirhad the right o express is opinions.The ensuing torm f protestmerely einforced erceptions f slamic llib-

eralism nd intolerance. Asghar Ali argued further hat former rimeMinister . P. Singh, by pandering o the demands f some opportunisticMuslimpoliticians" n oining he demand or Mushir's esignation, iskedcausing "immense harm to the cause of Muslims n this country. Suchstances ive redibility o the BJP charge hat ome parties ee in the Mus-lims nothing ut a tempting ote-bank." n Asghar Ali's view: "Anymovement romoting ntolerance an only be harmful or the minoritycommunity. t provides egitimacy omajority ommunalism."8

The Bharatiya Janata PartyIf secularism s understood s the gradualdisplacement f ascriptive iesofreligion, aste, and ethnicity y achievement-based alculations, hen theoppositehas happened n India. Far from eing confined o the privatesphere, aste and religion ave come forcefully nto the center tage ofpublic ife, nd the BJP has been a major beneficiary f the progressiveattenuation f secularism. The party, which held only two seats in the

Eighth ok Sabha, ncreased ts tally o 85 in the 1989 electionwith 11.4%of the vote, nd to 119in 1991 with 19.9% of the vote.Although he BJP's successeshave a manifold xplanation hat ncludes

organizational nd leadership kills, ts 1989and 1991 triumphs erebuiltmainly n two factors: n unapologetic dentity asedon nationalism ndpatriotism nd an exploitation f Hindu sentiments. n its own version fliberation heology, he BJP decided to liberate he Hindu god Ram,whose supposed birthplace ite in Ayodhya was occupied by the BabriMosque. In September 990, party eader Advani aunched nationwidecampaign n support f the movement or heconstruction f a temple oRam in Ayodhya. He engaged n a 10,000-km athayatra chariot our-ney) n a jeep painted o look ike war chariot, alling upon the peopletodemonstrate am bhakti Ram worship) nd lok shakti people power).The slogan adopted by the party was mandir wohin anayenge we willbuild the temple here, nd only there). In contemporary ewspeak, heprogram was ustified n grounds f maintaining ationalunity nd inte-gration. n reality, hen he 100,000-strong athering f kar sevaks holyvolunteers) ried o storm heBabriMasjid n October 1990, bout 30werekilled by police in the attempt nd hundreds more died in the ensuingcommunal iots.

8. AsgharAli Engineer, Liberal slam under Challenge,"Hindu Weekly, 0 June 992, p.9.


11/21

654 ASIANSURVEY,VOL. XXXIII,NO.7,JULY 1993In addition o its good performance t the national evel n 1991, the

BJP won power in four states: Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,Rajasthan, nd Uttar Pradesh UP). Ayodhya ies in UP, India's most

populous tate, where ensions werenever ntirely bsent fter he nstalla-tion f BJP government. ut the BJP, having rovoked Hindu-Muslimpolarization efore he 1991 election, ealized afterwards hat failure omaintain aw and order would invite central government ntervention.Chief Minister Kalyan Singh used the absence of widespread ommunalriots s evidence f fair government, ut in reality he relative alm wasattributable o a refusal y Muslims to be provoked nto an unwise on-frontation ith an unsympathetic dministration. While not inflicting

reign f terror n the tate's Muslims, he BJP government ubjected hemto much harassment, ncluding ressures o convert o Hinduism. As aresult, he Muslimsbecame sullen nd suspicious.

The Ram Janambhoomi-BabriMasjidControversy

The Babri Masjid was built n Ayodhya n 1528during hereign f Babur,founder f the Mughal dynasty-hence, he name of the mosque. The

courts took possession f it in 1950in response o cross-petitions romHindus and Muslims oncerning small altar to Ram that had been builtinside hecomplex. The two chief rotagonists n the controversy re theVishwaHindu Parishad World Hindu Councilor VHP) and the All-IndiaBabriMasjidAction Committee AIBMAC). Two separate ssues re en-tangled n the ontroversy: sAyodhya he birthplace f Ram, and was themosqueconstructed n the ruins f a temple? The VHP relies n archeo-logicalfinds, olklore, istorical vidence, evenue ecords, nd records f

legal proceedings o argue that the mosque was constructed n top of aneleventh entury emplemarking hebirthplace f Ram. But n the end tsmain argument s the unanswerable ogic of religion: Hindus believe heanswer o both questions o be in the affirmative. he AIBMACpoints ohistorical nd other ecords, uch as Babur's ast testament, oargue thatthe mosque was not built on the remains f a temple. ts leaders, uch asMember of Parliament yed Shahabuddin, were on record to the effectthat f t could havebeenconclusively roven hat he mosquewasbuilt nthe ruins f a temple, hen he ite would have been conceded oHindus.9"Moderate" Hindus committed o the construction f a temple t the dis-

9. In May 1991 four istorians-three indus nd one Muslim-submitted report o thegovernment n the Ayodhya dispute tating hat there was no historical r archeologicalevidence o suggest hat ny spot n Ayodhya was venerated s the birthplace f Lord Ramprior o the 18th entury Hindu Weekly, 5 May 1991, p. 6).


12/21

RAMESHTHAKUR 655puted ite wereprepared o accept nd pay for careful ismantling f themosque and its reconstruction t a different ite n Ayodhya. ModerateMuslims ecognized he religious alue of Ayodhya o the Hindusand also

acknowledged hat he structure ad not been used as a mosque for verylong time. But some Muslims nsisted hat the mosque had to be leftwhere t stood nd the Hindu mage removed rom nder he central omewhere t had lain since 1949. They argued, orrectly, hat the structurehad not beenused as a mosque becauseMuslimshad not beenpermitted ouse it. The VHP, too, rejected moderate olution o the dispute.

PoliticalProfit rom ReligiousTension

Politicians f both communities aw political rofit n promoting eligiousmilitancy hat mobilized ntire ommunities ehind them. Few IndianMuslimsknewof the existence f the BabriMasjid in 1980; few wereuna-ware of it by 1990. In the decade, the mosque had been elevated nto asymbol f Muslim dentity, uslim security, nd Indian secularism. Anastonishing umber f ndians of all religions elieve hat eligious ntoler-ance and militancy s provoked nd exploited y politicians or personaland party ain. If the BJP was exploiting indus, Abdullah Bukhari, heShahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid, was doing the same with Muslims:"His ambition o emerge s the sole leader of Muslims has done enoughdamageto the safety nd security f Indian Muslims."'0

When the gates to the disputed hrine n the Babri Masjid were un-lockedon February , 1986, yed Shahabuddin ook the ead in organizinga Muslim gitation n protest. At the forefront lso in demanding ban onThe Satanic Verses, e was to become a favorite arget f the Hindutvabacklash. The agitation, oming lose on the heels of the Shah Banocon-troversy, layedright nto the hands of VHP efforts o communalize n-dian politics. Calls on Muslims to boycott India's Republic Dayobservances nd setting ff irecrackers n Muslim ocalities o celebratePakistan's ricket eam victories urther nflamed indutva assions. TheShahi Imam went on the offensive n 1988 and outmaneuvered yedShahabuddin n hard-line esistance o Hindu demands. n the tensepost-demolition tmosphere, he Imam was once again in the forefront, e-manding he right f Muslimsto offer amaaz (Muslim prayers) t thedisputed ite.

Having appeased Muslim fundamentalism n the Shah Bano andSalman Rushdie cases, Rajiv Gandhi responded n like manner o the ris-ing tide of Hindu anger. The doors of the Babri Masjid were openedforworship t the Ram shrine n 1986, nd in 1989 Rajiv permitted heper-

10. Engineer, Liberal slam under Challenge."


13/21

656 ASIAN SURVEY,VOL. XXXIII,NO. 7,JULY 1993formance f hilanyas laying f foundation tone). Indeed, he performedshilanyas imself earAyodhya t the tart f the 1989 election ampaign.The Janata Dal government lected that year seemed to believe that tcould forge n unbeatable lectoral lliance of "backward" castes andMuslimsby expanding ffirmative ction programs or he former nd en-couraging undamentalism mong he atter. As a former abinetministercommented, solution o the Ayodhya roblemwillremain lusive s longas the government s seen to be "appeasing he minority undamentalism.Majority undamentalism annot e contained y pampering minority un-damentalism." 1

Increasing ommunal ension uring he econd half f the 1980s flaredinto periodic iots nd killings n Meerut, Ahmedabad, nd Bhagalpur. nthe 1980s, more than 7,000 people were killed n some 4,500 communalincidents,12 lmost quadrupling he figure or he 1970s. The last majorriots efore he Ayodhya emolition ere n Sitamarhi n Bihar n October1992. There s a fitting istorical ymmetry ere: Ayodhya s the mythicalbirthplace f Ram; Sitamarhi s the mythical birthplace" f Ram's con-sort, Sita (legend has it that Sita was found n an earthen pot in theploughing ields). The Babri Masjid controversy lared p dangerously nJuly 1992 when the Uttar Pradesh tate government howedgreat reluc-tance to stop the kar seva holy volunteer ork) t Ayodhya. On July 1the Sant Samaj congregation f holy men) rejected proposal from rimeMinister ao to suspend he ongoing ar seva for onstruction f the tem-ple and enter nto dialoguewith he central overnment. he followingday the VHP askedthe kar evaks o gnore he Supreme ourt's ommen-taries on the dispute. As far as the VHP and the Sant Samaj were con-cerned, he dispute was beyond the competence f any court to decide.The BJP government f the state refused o countenance he use of forceagainst hekar sevaks nd prepared nstead or entral overnment nter-vention o enforce he court's orders.

Indian federalism s distinctive orgranting he central overnment hepower o dismiss lected tate governments nd replace hemwith dmin-istrations un directly romNew Delhi. The president may declare anemergency n a state f atisfied hat ts government annot e conducted naccordancewith he Constitution. n the past, governments n NewDelhihad been peremptory nd authoritarian n dealingswith tate dministra-tions. But in the Lok Sabha debate on December 21, 1992,NarasimhaRao argued hat Article 56of the Constitution as too restrictive ohave

11. Arun Nehru, Pampering Minority awks Won't Work," ndian Express, January1993.

12. India Today, 15 January 990, p. 34.


14/21

RAMESHTHAKUR 657permitted im to dismiss he BJP government efore he mosque'sdemoli-tion nd that perhaps t needed o be amended. Students f ndian politicswere thus facedby the novel situation f a prime minister ustifying on-

use of Article 56. Constitutionalists ejected he primeminister's onten-tion that he could not have acted sooner.13 The deployment f centralforces an be ordered n a situation apidly rifting oward narchy nd, fnecessary, gainst he wishes f the tate government. he National nte-gration ouncil had met on November 3, and the central overnment adreceived ntelligence eportswarning f specially rained quads being r-ranged during he kar seva for purposes nimical o the security f theBabri Masjid structure. Hence, the disenchantment f many with Rao's

inaction rior o December 6.Post-Ayodhya

The BJP, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak angh (RSS), the Hindu Ma-hasabha, the youth-based ajrang Dal, and the VHP are known ollec-tively s the angh Parivar the Sanghfamily). The Bajrang Dal, RSS, andVHP (and two Muslim organizations) erebannedby the government f-ter December 6 as communal rganizations. But the RSS, with a five-

million-strong ase of former olunteers, as operated s an undergroundorganization efore, s during he 1975-77 emergency eriod.The dismissal f the BJP government n UP was expected fter he dem-

olition f the mosque. Some Congress eaders, ndeed, had demanded tsdismissal ven before, nd believing heyhad been vindicated y the eventsof December6, they were ritical f the prime minister's utative nactionin not heeding heir all and putting is faith n the words of the BJP.This was also the basis of criticisms f the ndian government y foreign

governments. ut it remains ifficult o see how Rao could have actedotherwise onsistent ith ndia's democratic-federal olity. The BJP gov-ernment n UP had been given popular mandate t the ame time s theCongress overnment n New Delhi. The BJP was also the argest pposi-tion party n Parliament. To impose entral ule on UP in anticipation fconstitutional mpropriety y its government ould have been untenablelegally nd unsustainable olitically. he Rao government asguilty, otof indecision nd vacillation n tolerating he Kalyan Singh governmentuntil December6, but of haste and panic afterwards n dismissing hreeother BJP state governments. tung y allegations f having eentoo cau-tious n UP, Narasimha Rao took the extra-precautionary easure f dis-

13. For example, A. G. Noorani, Rao's Credibility hattered n Article 56," StatesmanWeekly, 6January 993,p. 1.


15/21

658 ASIAN SURVEY,VOL. XXXIII,NO. 7, JULY 1993missing ll BJP state governments-Madhya radesh, Rajasthan, andHimachal Pradesh-after he Ayodhya demolition.

The dismissals ttracted onsiderable riticism. hey were an alibi for

inaction y a Congress arty bereft f deas on how to confront he polit-ical challenge f the BJP. Having failed o seize the nitiative n cleansingthe Congress f ts nherited orruption candalson a variety f fronts, heprimeminister as in no position o claim the moralhighground rom heBJP on any issue. Before he dismissal f the BJP governments nd thearrest f about 5,000 senior nd middle-ranking arty officials, he BJPparliamentary eadership n New Delhi had been on the defensive ndapologetic bout the ncidents f December 6. Afterwards, heparty wenton the offensive, idiculing hecentral overnment's ourtship f the ntel-ligentsia nd the foreign ress t the expense f majority entiments n theHindi heartland. Psephologists alculated hat had elections een held atthe end of 1992, the BJP would have increased ts representation n theLok Sabha from 19 to 170 seats. 4

RegimeDecayThe political xploitation f Hindu sense ofgrievance as thus he proxi-mate cause of the Ayodhya ragedy. But the ultimate ause was the creep-ing malaise fflicting ndia's constitutional emocracy. For this, he chiefresponsibility ies at the door of the Congress arty. An independent ndpowerful udiciary s one of the chief nstruments o the attainment f theliberalgoal of freedom rom nrestricted tate uthority. ut Indira Gan-dhi argued hat n independent udiciary was the most powerful ulwarkof an entrenched lite gainst he democratic emands for quality. Dur-ing her emergency ule (1975-77), the Supreme Court effectively uc-cumbed o governmental ressure nd abdicated ts role as the guardian findividual ights gainst the state. Other nstitutions f state also facedgrowing olitical nterference. ndian commentators ave ong pointed othe unholy nexus between oliticians, riminals, nd the police. With asteady riminalization f politics, t is hardly urprising hat there houldnow be a politicization f crime. Politicians re corrupt nd held n gen-eral contempt, ut feared or their ruthlessness n wielding tate power.The policeare held n private idicule or heir mouse-like imidity owardpolitical uperiors nd lion-like rrogance n dealingswith he general ub-lic.

In Ayodhya he policewere aught etween heir egal role of protectingthe mosqueand the political eality f a state government hat was com-mitted o destroying t. This, and not the narrower onsideration f sym-

14. India Today, 15January 993, p. 16.


16/21

RAMESHTHAKUR 659pathizingwith he sentiments f the Hindu mob, was the arger dilemmaconfronting he guardians f law and order on December 6. For everyseniorpoliceofficer n India, there s an imbalance etween n impartial,

professional edication o duty nd partial ervice o the group n power.If an officer eals with riotousmob withoutworrying bout ts relation-ship with he tate government, edoes little o enhancehis prospects ndaccepts substantial isk f career amage. Cabinet ministers illdescendon him, not to praise him but to bury him. Sothe police n Ayodhya,wellawareof the BJP state government's olitics,were ilent nlookers o thedestruction f a mosque that was under the protection f the SupremeCourt. The Congress arty, aving reated hisdilemma or he police, s

in no position o complain f having o reap the whirlwind.Like Shakespeare's hylock,15 he Sangh Parivar bettered he lessonslearned from he Congress. Showing ncreasingly pen disdain for theconstitutional nd judicial correlates f Indian democracy, he SanghParivar hoseto fight ts sectarian attles n the streets ather han n thecourts. The people of ndia would appear to have an intuitive rasp f thejoint culpability f the BJP (the proximate ause) and the Congress theultimate ause). In an opinion ollconducted fortnight fter hedemoli-

tion ofthe

mosque,30.2% of the respondents lamedthe central overn-

ment for the demolition, 9.8% blamed the UP state government, nd17.9% blamedboth.16 Regimedecay was accompanied y governmentalennui nd policyparalysis. Havingalloweda major problem o fester ormore than forty ears, New Delhi responded o the multipronged hal-lenge of December 6 with characteristic ix of bluster, neptitude, ndconfused etreat. Rao beganby talking ough; long with dismissing tategovernnments nd banning rganizations, e promised hat the mosquewouldbe rebuilt. But n the meantime, heHindu mobthat had destroyedthe mosquehad built makeshift emple n the ruins nd installed magesof Ram. A newmosque ouldnot be built n the ite without irst estroy-ing the temple nd the mages. In a religiously harged tmosphere n aHindu-majority ountry with an elected system f government, hichpolitical arty was going odare to tamper with hetemple? On January2, 1993, he district dministration f Ayodhya ifted he ban and permit-ted Hindus to worship t the Ram shrine n the site of the demolishedmosque.

The BJP was in a win-win ituation. The government's ecision o re-build he mosque, nnounced n the first lush f post-demolition uilt,was

15. "The villainy ou teach me I will execute; nd it shall go hard, but I will better heinstruction"; he Merchant f Venice, Act 3, Scene .

16. India Today, 15 January 993,p. 18.


17/21

660 ASIAN SURVEY,VOL. XXXIII,NO.7,JULY 1993supported y only 35.7% of ndians. Hindus disapproved f the decisionby a margin f 59:30.17 When reports tarted oming n from arty ctiv-ists ll over he country hat Hinduswere olidly pposed to removing he

images nd tearing own their ew temple, he government egan o back-track n the pecifics f ts promise. The mosquewouldbe rebuilt, ut thetiming nd the precise ocation f the new mosque were ubject o furtherdiscussion.So the Congress, long with ts brand of secularism, ost polit-ical points with he Muslimswhile he BJP won plaudits rom Hindus. Atthe time f writing, ates for resh lections n the former JP-ruled tateshave not been announced. A mass BJP rally n Delhi at the end of Febru-ary 1993was thwarted y a massive olice deployment. series f power-ful bombblasts n Bombay nd Calcutta n March further omplicated nalready onfused ituation, ith he government lleging n internationalconspiracy nd the BJP rushing o pin the blameon Pakistan n the prin-ciple of guilty ntil proven nnocent.

Is There Way Forward?The government ust trive or balance between he rights f ndividu-als, the nterests f collective ntities, nd the nterests f the state. Judg-

ments n the proper balance between ompeting laims must nclude nevaluation f their elative rgency nd importance. offer wo proposi-tions:

* A resolutionf he undamentalism-secularismilemma ay ie nthe rite-rion f llocativefficiencyhen here sno other chievableesult y whichboth artiesna dyadic egotiatinget rebetter ff. 8 An ncreasentotalwelfare ccurswhen ome eople rebetter ff s a result f change ith-out nyone eing worse ff.

* The bove riterion equireshat or policy obesocially eneficial, o oneshould eworse ff han efore he hange nd omeonehould ebetter ff.Forthose ases where oss s unavoidable,conomistsring n the ompen-sation rinciple, hich tates hat policyssocially esirablef hosewhogain romt remain etter ff ven fter ully ompensatinghosewho ose.

The challenge o secularism n India has come from xternal ourcesand from within. With Southwest nd South Asia infected with slamicrevivalism, he task of delegitimizing ecularism n India became easier.Opponents ould simply oint o Islamicfundamentalism s sufficient us-tification f the need for Hindu Rashtra polity). Can religious ervorand secularism ohabit within democratic overnment? emocracy re-

17. Ibid., p. 20.18. The criterion, irst roposed by V. F. D. Pareto 1848-1923),is also known s the

Pareto criterion nd the solution s the Pareto-optimal olution.


18/21

RAMESHTHAKUR 661quiresnegotiation, ccommodation, ompromise, olerance f dissent, nda willingness o live together n the temporalworld. Religiondecrees ub-servience o authority, on-negotiable ogma, and a willingness o bear

any sacrifice nd pay any price n pursuit f paradise n the world beyondtime. Events of 1992 in India suggest he risks of getting he mixturewrong: hell on earth s well as eternal amnation.

India is fabled for ts resilience. n today's ndia, religion s the firstrefuge f coundrel oliticians, atriotism he ast retreat f the baffled nddefeated. f the diagnosis f the rottenness fflicting he Indian state scorrect, hen t follows hat recuperation f the Indian body politic re-quires nstitutional egeneration.Whatever indus might hink n the first

flush f the nstallation f Ram idols n Ayodhya, he sobering act s thatit was accomplished y mob rule of the worst ort: defiance f constitu-tional authority ith the passive connivance f the police and the stategovernment. own that path ies total anarchy.

Second, f ndia wishes o avoid a "Khomeinization" f ts politics, henit must leanse he political rocess f the growing nfluence f adhus andsants. The manner nd speed of the destruction f the mosque uggest hatthe episode was more than a spontaneous urge by an excited crowd.Tools, mplements, nd skills uited o the task wereright n hand. If thedestruction f the Babri Masjid was part of a calculated ampaign, henHindusmust decideon the anctity f a temple uilt n deceit nd duplic-ity. Repeated ppeasement f fundamentalist uslimdemands n the pastundercut eligion-blindecularists n the Hindu as wellas Muslim ommu-nity. t is time for he moderates o reassert eadership n both communi-ties.

Third, f Muslims re not permitted o integrate nto the national main-stream, hen a major new terrorist movementwill feed on the sense ofdeprivation f the country's argest minority. unjab and Kashmir havecreated problems nough for he Indian state even though hey re geo-graphically ocalized. Muslims re spread hroughout hecountry. arge-scale terrorism y Muslims would destroy heir community irst ut itwouldeventually estroy ndia too. This is where practical pplicationof the compensation rinciple might rove helpful.

Fourth, ndians of all faiths must accept the reality f their history,cherish t, and take care to preserve t instead of engaging n efforts orewrite t. Trying o undo the past and remedy wrongs hat go back sev-eral centuries n timewillonlywreck hepresent or ll concerned. ndianculture oday s a composite malgam f the assimilation f successive n-vaders n the past. Modern ndia and Indians, ncluding indus, wouldbeunrecognizablef omehowMughaland British ndia could be wipedfromthe collective onsciousness. he task of righting ast wrongs s generally


19/21

662 ASIAN SURVEY,VOL. XXXIII,NO. 7, JULY 1993doomed; far better o have the self-confidence o take pride n one's pasthistory o matter ow ignoble t might eem by contemporary tandards.Guilt s not collectively nheritable. he Muslims n India cannot be held

to account for he atrocities f Mahmud of Ghazni 971-1030), AllauddinKhalji (1296-1316),and Aurangzeb 1658-1707). Even the actions ofthese rulers have to be judged by the prevailing orms nd practices ftheir imes. But there s no religious asis or historical elevance or rans-ferring he charge of religious leansing rom hem o present-day us-lims.

On January 4, 1993, the government romulgated presidential rdi-nance to acquire almost 68 acres of land in and around the Ram

Janambhoomi-Babri asjid complex at Ayodhya. The land is to behanded over to two trusts, ne to build a temple nd the other mosque.The BJP's reaction was mixed. The government's ction was a capitula-tion to long-standing JP demands; t the same time, he BJP was con-cerned bout the politicalprofit hat would accrue to the Congress romthe decision. The Naib Imam of the Jama Masjid, Syed Ahmed Bukhari,rejected he and acquisition rdinance, nd the All-IndiaMuslimPersonalLaw Board, he highest ody of Muslim heologians nd scholars, irectedall Muslims o condemn nd oppose the package.

The probability s that both temple nd a mosque willbe built, ut at adiscreet istance rom ach other. The soft ption or hegovernment s todelegate heconstruction o separate Hindu and Muslim rusts nd to referaspects f the dispute o the Supreme ourt under Article 143 of the Con-stitution. Unfortunately, ince there s no legal point as such at issue,there s a danger that referral o the Court will politicize he udiciaryinstead f resolving what s essentially politicalproblem. The judiciarycannot decide upon questions f belief, pinion, r political wisdom,norpronounce pon questions f history, rchaeology, nd mythology, nd acabinet annot shift he responsibility o the courts ormatters orwhichthe government s too weak, too timid or too confused o decide for t-self."19The udiciary annot ompensate or he nadequacies f govern-ment r the failure f the political process.

Pragmaticmagnanimity ight have suggested course of deferring oHindus on Ayodhya, nd perhaps Mathura and Varanasi as well. Longbefore he destruction f the Babri Masjid, it was clear that the Ramimages could not be removed rom within he mosque structure y theMuslimsor by the government n order to make way for a functioningmosque gain. The Muslims ould deny he ite o the Hindus ndefinitely,

19. Nani Palkhivala, Are We Misusing he Judiciary?" llustrated Weekly f ndia, 2-8January 993, p. 9.


20/21

RAMESHTHAKUR 663but only at the cost of keeping live the dispute nd poisoning Hindu-Muslim relations ndefinitely. nce religion was politicized y the BJP-VHP and the Muslims, compromise olution ecamepolitically mpracti-

cable. The final rror was to believe hat the dispute ould be solved byreferral o the udicialprocess. The Muslims ould have acknowledged hefundamental mportance f the three ites o Hinduism;none of the threesites s of major religious ignificance o Islam. They could have soughthelp from he majority n shifting heBabriMasjid to another itewithoutdesecration, nd gaining ssurances hat resolving he tensions temmingfrom he mosques n the three holy Hindu citieswould put an end to thechallenges o mosques. The Hindus could then have been held to a posi-tion of secularism nd preserving he sanctity f Muslimreligiousmonu-ments.

"Principled" dogmatism prevailed over expedient pragmatism. Theprice has been destruction f the mosque n the most consequential way:by a crazed mob taking he law into ts own hands. Hindus have beenawakened o their umerical uperiority nd the power f numbers n elec-toral politics, nd the Muslims have been boxed nto a lose-lose ituation.Reduced to a "position f self-imposed arginalization," ith no bargain-ing power eft, Muslimshave thrown way the capacity o influence heoutcome.20They can insist hat he mosque must be rebuilt n the exactspot where t stood, n which case the dispute will simmer while ndiabecomes n armed police state fighting ajority entiments nd the senseof Muslim nsecurity eeps ncreasing.Rebuilding mosquewillnot bringback the historical ignificance f the Babri Masjid;at a time when theneed is to build bridges etween Hindus and Muslims, t will widen thegulf between he two major communities. And the act of removing hetemple y forcewill ead to killings n the thousands,mainly f Muslims.To reverse n earlier omment, resort o terrorism y Muslimswilleven-tually destroy ndia, but t willdestroy heMuslims n India first. Or theMuslims an now agree to the mosque being rebuilt n a different ite, nwhich case they will be seen to have caved in to Hindu militancy fteryears of ntransigence gainst hevoicesof Hindu moderation.

The cataclysm f Ayodhya has enabled moderateMuslimvoicesto beraised. A prominent uslim eader n Gujarat writes f the need to aban-don the steady diet of non-issues nd focus on the real issues of poverty,

illiteracy, nd unemployment.21 ore than half f ndia's Muslims, om-pared to about one-third f Hindus, ivebelowthe poverty ine. Dr. Rafiq

20. Girilal Jain, Beyond Ayodhya's Watershed: MuslimsHave to Reckon with Reali-ties," Times f ndia, 14 December 1992.

21. J. S. Bandukwala, Let's Give Peace a Chance,"Sunday Times f ndia, 20 December1992.


21/21

664 ASIANSURVEY,VOL.XXXIII,NO.7,JULY 1993

TABLE 1 Position f Muslims n India, 1980 (in percent)

Central Govt. State Govt. Private ectorPopulation IAS IPS IFS Services Services Executive

11.4 3.3 2.7 3.4 4.4 6.0 1.5SOURCE: RafiqZakaria, "The Indian Muslims: Are They Really Pampered?" The llus-trated Weekly f ndia, 2-8 January 993, pp. 19-22.NOTE: IAS= Indian Administrative ervice; PS = Indian Police Service; FS = IndianForeign ervice.

Zakaria, he administrative ecretary f the Panel on Minorities ppointedby Indira Gandhi n 1980,has reproduced ome very elling tatistics oshow the great gap between hepolitical eality f Muslims perceived s aprivileged roup nd the social reality f their ituation n the public ndprivate ectors see Table 1). The Babri Masjid Committee alled for heannual RepublicDay celebations n January 6, 1993, obe boycotted yMuslims,but theologians n the All-India Muslim Personal Law Boardand the modernist ll-India Milli Council declared they would observeJanuary 6 as a call for espect or he Constitution. Many Muslims, is-mayedby the ntransigence f traditional eaders during he years of theAyodhya ispute, maybe preparing o assert ommunity eadership n or-der to reclaim hemiddleground.

In the spirit f give and take, the Muslimsof Ayodhya ould build amosque at an alternative ite where he truly aithful an pray. Muslimsmust ake special care to respect Hindu sensitivities nd to wrench hem-selvesfrom ny ingering motional ttachment o Pakistan. Considering

the fate of mohajirs-those who emigrated o Pakistan fter artition-and of the Bihari Muslims from Bangladesh, ndian Muslims are notoverjoyed t the prospect f having o move o Pakistan. Said one after heAyodhya demolition, Even those who went over n 1947 are still beingtreated s second-class itizens."22 nstead, far better o rebuild ndia asone nation, ne society, ne people.

22. Quoted n Sunday, 3-9 January 993, pp. 34-35.

Documents

Ayodhya and Politics of India's Secularism