A time to let history go-03/10/2010

03/10/2010

A time to let history go

Like other opinionated hacks, I travelled between Delhi’s TV studios on the day the Ayodhya judgment came last week. So I heard many views. Of these the one I found most intriguing was that Muslims were on the side of history and Hindus on the side of myth. So if Muslims were upset with the judgment, they had good reason.



That this is a subterranean sentiment in the Muslim community was confirmed when Mulayam Singh Yadav, ever sensitive to his Muslim vote bank, pronounced against the judgment. In his view, it is tilted in favour of faith rather than reason. Countries are run on constitutional rights and laws, he said, not on faith.

Serious historians, political pundits and legal experts have expressed the same view. The decision of the Allahabad High Court to divide the land on which the Babri Masjid stood into three parts, giving only a third to the Muslims, is flawed they say because it appears to be based on the myth that Rama was born here.



Having followed the Ayodhya problem closely since 1986 when Rajiv Gandhi revived it by opening the Babri Masjid for Hindu worship, I have always been puzzled by this myth and history argument. Its proponents say that since Rama is a figure from Indian mythology and the Prophet Mohammed a historical figure, Muslims have a stronger claim in Ayodhya.

This is a tricky argument. The Prophet is indeed the only major religious figure with a place in modern history but there is as much myth attached to his life and message as there is to the Hindu belief that there was once in Ayodhya a just and noble king called Rama. The Prophet's conversations with God in which the Koran was revealed to him orally, is that myth or history?



It is this myth versus history argument that has dragged this dispute on and on and on. In a TV studio last week, I ran into Syed Shahabuddin who in the eighties was a big star in the Babri Masjid discourse. I reminded him that he had once argued that if Hindus could prove that an ancient temple lay under the mosque, then Muslims would willingly hand the property back to them.

Well, all three judges agree that there are ruins of a non-Islamic nature under the remains of the mosque. This kind of argument will get us nowhere. The way to move forward is to acknowledge the wounds of history and put them behind us. Wherever Indian civilisation travelled in ancient times, it took along the story of Rama and Ayodhya. It does not matter if his story was myth or history.

As someone who always finds myself in direct conflict with Lefties and their fanatical fellow travellers, it pleases me that they appear this time to be on the wrong side of history. All this talk of nationalism and putting India first has thrown them into confusion. If things carry on this way, they could find themselves out of business since it is only in situations of chaos and violence that their defeated political ideas find space. In the new, changed India they seem headed straight for history's dustbin.



And, India has changed. In 1992 when GDP growth rates rarely crossed 2% and most Indians lived in destitution and despair, it was easy to spread hatred and violence. Easy to make people believe that the most important thing in their lives was religion. It is harder now when younger Indians believe that education and aspiring to a higher standard of living are more important than building (or demolishing) a place of worship.

The Ayodhya judgment gives us a real chance to put the grievances of history behind us once and for all and start thinking of more important things. Religious Hindus who want to honour Rama, must as part of their 'kar seva', take up the cleaning of the Ganga and the Yamuna. Then when they go to Ayodhya to build their temple, they can set to work on the Saryu. Religious Muslims who want to honour their Prophet should do it by helping his followers achieve a better life through education. Muslims are among the most educationally backward communities in India, so this would be a noble task.



Meanwhile, as a country we need to use last week's judgment to start a serious inter-faith dialogue that would help Hindus and Muslims overcome the grievances of history without needing to tear down mosques or temples. Instead, would it not be a real sign that India has changed if a mosque and temple are built side by side in Ayodhya? It could become a modern symbol of India's ancient idea of tolerance in matters of faith. Sarvadharma sambhava in the real sense of that thought that is fundamental to the Indian idea of religion.

Follow Tavleen Singh on Twitter@ tavleen_singh

Source: The Indian Express