'Ayodhya verdict has opened doors for reunion'-Oct 10, 2010

'Ayodhya verdict has opened doors for reunion'

Karan Thapar , CNN-IBN

Posted on Oct 10, 2010 at 14:07 |

Updated Oct 10, 2010 at 15:06



Share In the wake of the Allahabad High Court's verdict on the Ayodhya dispute, what is the Congress party's view on it? That's the key issue we are going to explore with Congress General Secretary and former chief minister of Madhya Pradesh Digvijaya Singh.


Karan Thapar: Many Muslims have said in last week the Ayodhya judgement is in the favour of the Hindu position. In fact, the scholar Ram Guha has said it's one sided. How do you view the judgement yourself?


Digvijaya Singh: Let me put it like this. The Congress party's stated position has been that we shall go by the court verdict. And I think in the present circumstances, there was no other way but to accept it. The Congress party has always been saying this contentious issue should be resolved out of the court. But if they can't resolve it out of the court, we should all accept the court verdict.






Karan Thapar: So when you say the Congress party's position is to go with the court verdict, you are saying you endorse it and it's the best verdict possible?


Digvijaya Singh: Well, I would not like to comment on the court verdict as such. But under the circumstances, it has opened up doors for reconciliation.


Karan Thapar: I want very much to talk about the manner in which it has opened the door for reconciliation. But before that, let me briefly talk of some of the contentious aspects. To begin with, all three judges have accepted that the site of the Babri masjid is in fact the Ram Janmasthan. Two judges have actually located the Ram Janmasthan specifically under the central dome of the mosque. Now given, we don't know when Ram was born, how can we know precisely where was he born?


Digvijaya Singh: But the issue is which court can deliver a judgement where Lord Ram was born? The issue was not that. The issue was the title suit on that piece of land. In fact the title suit has been rejected of all the people who have been asking for it.


Karan Thapar: I believe the Ram Lalla virajman title suit has been accepted.


Digvijaya Singh: Ram Lalla suit was not for the title suit. It was for darshan.


Karan Thapar: So in being asked to adjudicate in a title suit, the court actually has gone on to opine and confirm where the Ram Janmasthan is. Do you think they should not have gone into that territory because it has given Muslims the feeling that the court put faith ahead of fact.


Digvijaya Singh: At this moment I would not like to comment on the judgement by itself. But, the judgement has accepted the fact that there has to be some kind of a judgement where the people of this country will accept it by and large and there won't be any contentious issue arising out of it.


Karan Thapar: What the Ayodhya court has established is that you need an end result that is reconciliatory and compromise that everyone can accept?


Digvijaya Singh: In 1994 the most eminent CJI retired. CJI Swadesh Verma had said that in this kind of a case there are no winners and there are no losers. It can't be decided by the court in one's favour or against the other. There has to be some kind of a judgement with a win win situation for all.


Karan Thapar: And the end result which is a three way split is a win win situation for all?


Digvijaya Singh: I would say it doesn't tilt either to the Muslims or to the Hindus. They have established the fact that the idols were placed in 1949. Again the ASI finding has been quoted, I don't know how far it is correct. But the fact remains that the demolition of the Babri masjid cannot be condoned and it has to be taken to its logical end.


Karan Thapar: You mentioned two things that are causes of concerns to the Muslims. First the ASI report which is highly questioned by different groups of historians. Some even refuted to establish that actually a Hindu temple existed under the mosque. Two judges said that a Hindu temple was demolished to build the mosque. And, once again, the use of the ASI report and the conclusion that there was a temple below the mosque, have disturbed the Muslims. Although you like the end result, this is one finding that worries the Muslims.


Digvijaya Singh: The ASI report which has been put before the court was open to cross examination by all sides. If there is an issue, it can be disputed again in the Supreme Court. But again I am coming to the fact that this issue, decided in one against the other, will not really create an environment of communal harmony.


Karan Thapar: You are saying that if the court had entirely decided in favour of the Hindus or entirely in favour of Muslims, there would have been communal disturbance. A compromise on equal sharing is the best way of handling this awkward situation.


Digvijaya Singh: If you see the history of Awadh there are innumerable instances where the Hindus and the Muslims prayed side by side. And you should also remember the Nawab of Awadh had given land to the temples. Even the math of Gorakhnath where there is the temple of Gorakhnath in Gorakhpur, the land was given by the nawab himself. So the fact is the history and the culture of Awadh has been of communal harmony.



Karan Thapar: Both history and culture suggest that a sensible compromise is the best solution. But once again, in the process of coming to that compromise, they have come up with no real criticism of the demolition of the Babri masjid in 1992. In fact, for too many Muslims, the reasoning of the judgement appears to justify the act, even legitimise that demolition. That's again a third cause of concern for Muslims.


Digvijaya Singh: There is no question of legitimising the criminal act of demolition of Babri masjid. This has to be taken to its logical end and the guilty have to be punished.


Karan Thapar: So when the Muslims say this judgement is not upfront and open in critising the demolition in 1992 what do you say to Muslims about that?


Digvijaya Singh: That was not the issue. The issue was the title deed of this land. And this title deed of this land, no one could prove to their advantage.


Karan Thapar: But you see it is very interesting. You say it was not the issue to go into demolition the issue was the title deed. Muslims can turn around and say to you that this was not the issue which was the Ram Janmasthan, but the court goes out of its way to establish it is Ram Janmasthan. It was not the issue to really try and use the ASI report which is contentious and disputed to verify one party's position that there was a temple underneath but again the court does that. Where the court finds it convenient it goes into issues before it and where it doesn't, it doesn't.


Digvijaya Singh: This case had been registered much before the demolition of the mosque. The case of demolition of the mosque is going on in another court. So that will continue and that should be taken to its logical end. This issue was quite different.


Karan Thapar: I have heard your arguments about faith being converted to fact, about the court's claim that there was a legitimate temple under the mosque and even about the fact that there was much criticism about the demolition of 1992. How then do you respond to the fact that many Muslims are despondent, some are actually dispirited by the judgement. You can't deny that there is a sense of disappointment. What do you say about that?


Digvijaya Singh: Faith cannot be a fact in a court of law. Of course, this is something the Supreme Court will deliberate. But I think there is no need for despondency. The right of the Muslims has also been recognised and one third of the land has been given to the WAKF board.


Karan Thapar: Even on that one third decision, it's based upon the fact that the court believes that historically all three parties used to pray at the site. But Kapil Sibal, your colleague and one of most eminent lawyers of the country, says that just because you pray does not give you the right of possession. Hindus in Punjab have regularly and historically prayed in gurudwaras. They have a right to pray there. But it does not give them the right to possession of the gurudwara. Similarly, how does the fact that you pray at the Babri masjid historically give you the right of possession?


Digvijaya Singh: Well again, the possession has not been recognised by the court. And that is why the title suit has been dismissed. What they have suggested is that because of the request and demand by the different parties they have found a way out where some kind of a compromise be struck by giving one third to each one of them.


Karan Thapar: You clearly are in agreement of a compromise with the reconciliation attempt. But in the process of reaching that compromise there are certain findings that the court has adjudicated on which wary Muslims. And where faith has become fact and it should not have. Is that not a mismatch between the two?


Digvijaya Singh: Let them go to the Supreme Court and let it be decided there. But in a issue like this, what can a judicial pronouncement say? Faith cannot be taken as a fact. Of course faith is quite something which is personal.


Karan Thapar: Twice you have said faith can't be taken as a fact. Therefore, shouldn't have the court said we can't determine whether this is the Ram Janmasthan. This is not for us to do. We don't have the capacity. They should have avoided this, but they didn't.


Digvijaya Singh: You see the perception is this that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Bhagwan Ram. And there are a number of temples in Ayodhya which claim that lord Ram was born there? The idols have been placed there. It may lead to more kind of dispute if the idols are disturbed. At the same time, in the present circumstances there couldn't have been a better judgement because it has recognised the rights of the Hindus and the Muslims both.


Karan Thapar: In the end the most important thing is that they have recognised the rights of the Hindus and the Muslims both and as you see it there is no seriously aggrieved party?


Digvijaya Singh: There may be aggrieved parties otherwise they won't go to the Supreme Court. But let us also understand that demolition of mosque is an act which happened after the case was registered. Therefore let us not link one with the other.


Karan Thapar: What do you say to Muslims who say this has actually muddied the water and made the situation more difficult for the Supreme Court?


Digvijaya Singh: I don't think so. After all, they have a right to go to the Supreme Court and this can be argued there. But at the same time I must reiterate that the best way to resolve this is to come to some kind of reconciliation between the two parties and for God's sake let the politicians and political parties remain out of it.


Karan Thapar: Politicians have no role to play?


Digvijaya Singh: We should not involve ourselves with this.


Karan Thapar: Let's come to Rahul Gandhi's recent comment comparing the RSS with the banned outfit SIMI. I put it to you that this was ill-timed, immature and provocative.


Digvijaya Singh: It is neither ill-timed nor immature. These are the two groups with an ideology of fanaticism and facism. They have been spreading the ideology of hatred. So they can be equated together.


Karan Thapar: How can they be equated when SIMI is a banned organisation while RSS is a legal organisation which functions well within the law. How can you equate the two?


Digvijaya Singh: Because, in SIMI, there were activists who were involved in acts of terror. Similarly, there are number of activists in RSS who have also been involved in acts of terror.


Karan Thapar: That I must tell you is a very bad argument. One of the newspapers had gone on record to say that Deven Gupta who is charged in the Ajemr Sharif case is an RSS person and Sunil Joshi. But then if these two people taint the RSS then what about the fact that senior Congressmen like Jagdish Title and Sajjan Kumar are charged in the 1984 killings, are you saying similarly Congress is charged as well?


Digvijaya Singh: As far as Jagdish Tytle and Sajjan Kumar cases are concerned it was in the aftermath of the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi. They have been tried in the court. Tytler by and large has been acquitted. Sajjan Kumar's case is going on in the court. We are not going to protect them.


Karan Thapar: RSS is also not trying to protect Gupta and Joshi.


Digvijaya Singh: Devendra Gupta, Sunil Joshi, Pragyan Singh, Col Purohit, Devki Nandan Pandey all of them have RSS background. They have been implicated in bomb blasts in this country which is an act of terrorism.


Karan Thapar: Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar have a much longer and totally indisputable Congress background. If your logic taints the RSS, then the same logic taints Congress.


Digvijaya Singh: They were never involved in any bomb blasts.


Karan Thapar: They were involved in, by accusations, in the killings of 3000 Sikhs.


Digvijaya Singh: Tytler has already been acquitted in one case. As far as Sajjan Kumar's case is concerned, it is under trial. And they have not been involved in any act of terror.


Karan Thapar: But they are involved in act of genocide.


Digvijaya Singh: That did happen. We are very sorry about it. But these people were tried in court of law and you can't equate a bomb blast of Malegaon, a bomb blast of Ajmer Sharif with incidents that took place after the assassination of Mrs Gandhi.


Karan Thapar: Many people will say that the genocide in killing of 3000 Sikhs was worse, not less.


Digvijaya Singh: It was a very sad thing which happened. We have condemned that, we are sorry for that and we have said let the law take its own course.


Karan Thapar: Let me put it like this. At the moment India is going through a sensitive period. The need is for peace, harmony and calm. By saying these things Rahul Gandhi is provoking trouble. Was it wise to do so?


Digvijaya Singh: No he is not provoking it. The fact remains that both are communal organisations. Both have been spreading communal hatred.


Karan Thapar: But is it the time to make these charges publicly? Surely, you need cooperation from the BJP to maintain harmony.


Digvijaya Singh: Well, Congress party has always been fighting against these fanatics and the communal ideology even before the country became independent. So we have been consistent on this that we are against communal Hindus and communal Muslims both.


Karan Thapar: Many people believe this assertiveness of Rahul Gandhi under your guidance and tutelage. Is he your chela?


Digvijaya Singh: I have nothing to do with this. He has got a mind of his own. He reads a lot. There is no question of chela or guru or something like that. He is my leader.


Karan Thapar: In other words the blame is entirely his?


Digvijaya Singh: It is not correct. You can't blame him for this because it is the Congress ideology.


Karan Thapar: Digvijaya Singh, a pleasure talking to you.


Digvijaya Singh: Thank you.