It’s time suspense ends and court gives verdict
Many conjectures can be drawn from the sudden decision of the oldest plaintiff in the Ayodhya Babri Masjid-Ram temple dispute, Hashim Ansari, to withdraw from the suit and suggest the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site. He may have done it out of plain exhaustion, having fought the case for decades now. Or he may have been disgusted by the conduct of some of his colleagues fighting in favour of the mosque. Or he possibly believes that an out-of-court settlement can best resolve the issue, which is why he has appealed to the Prime Minister to take the initiative.
There are whispers that he had recently met some Bharatiya Janata Party leaders, following which he has had a change of heart. But those who see a conspiracy behind those alleged meetings overlook the fact that Mr Ansari had back in 2010 — the year the Allahabad High Court had ruled a three-way division of the disputed property — advocated a similar position. It would, therefore, be an over-simplification to look for political conspiracies in his recent stand. What is clearly evident is that his statement threatens vested interests who have made careers out of the long-festering dispute. He has called for an end to litigation and recommended the path of reconciliation.
If that were to happen, the Babri Masjid Action Committee, the All India Muslim Personal law Board and the Sunni Central Board of Wakfs would be rendered jobless. So would others such as the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sri Ram Virajman (though as a deity-litigant, it couldn't care less!). However, to be fair, it must be said that the pro-temple litigants have been relatively more willing to accommodate. Even while in Opposition, and now when it is ruling at the Centre, the Bharatiya Janata Party has maintained that the issue could be resolved either through a mutual out-of-court resolution or through a definitive court verdict. But ‘secularist' politicians, who had their interests to promote, goaded the litigants to stay away from a settlement and keep dragging the matter in the courts. The Allahabad High Court verdict had come as a shock to them, because it meant that the final decision was now just one step away — at the Supreme Court.
Mr Ansari's interesting observation about Uttar Pradesh and senior Samajwadi Party leader Mohammed Azam Khan demonstrates how politicians have played the minority card by exploiting the Ayodhya issue. like Mr Khan, many other leaders of the same feather have been basking in the glory of the uncertainty and communal tension that the issue has sustained. While the subject no longer inflames passions as it did two decades ago, secularists don't forget to ‘remember' December 6, the day the mosque fell, by communal sabre-rattling. Mr Ansari has decided to abstain from such events this year.
In retrospect, one wonders how things would have played out had the parties concerned accepted the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict. The Ayodhya dispute is not just about property but inter-faith harmony. Had the contestants embraced the judgement, that harmony would have been further strengthened. But it's not too late even now. However, if parties want to go strictly by the apex court's ruling, let's hope that comes soon.