CIVILISATIONAL REVIVAL

If there is one section which was greatly disappointed over the verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabd High Court on the vexed issue of the ownership of the disputed land in Ayodhya, it is not the contending parties to the dispute, nor the general public but the secular fanatics of the vocal minority who were, in a way, responsible even in the eighties and nineties to push the faithfuls in the majority community to the wall.

Yes, Sunni wakf board is not happy over the partition of the land and so is the case of the Hindu Mahasabha. But their displeasure is basically confined to the issues related to the ownership and they are not trying to pick holes in the judgement. They said that they would respect the verdict of the High Court before the delivery of the judgement and they are sticking to that stand. But, as the law provides for an appeal to the apex court, they would like to exercise that right. Fair enough.

Even the Communist parties which do not spare any occasion to deride the majority community in the country were more restrained in their reaction. Of course, there were one or two discordant notes from the lawyer community whose allegiance to the ruling Congress is well known.

However, that is not the case with the secular pretenders in the media and a miniscule section of the so-called intellectuals. And that is where the danger lies because they succeeded in the past in ridiculing the aspiration of the majority. They are in a position, once again, to mislead the public at large with their warped thinking and borrowed concepts of secularism.

This section can be broadly divided into three groups. One is plain non-believers and according to them talking about religion in public discourse by itself is anti-secular exercise. Second group is anti-Hindu historians whose business is to distort Indian history and to lampoon Indian civilisational ethos, beliefs and culture. And the third group is those in the media who would like to compete with each other about their “secular” credentials.

Let’s take a few examples of these groups which are bent upon thwarting any negotiated settlement. They were appealing to the people, pre-verdict, that every one should respect the judicial verdict because they were hopeful that the judiciary cannot oblivious to the fact that a mosque did exist at the disputed site and hence the outcome of the judicial process could be in favour of the Muslims at least in parts. But when the Allahabad High Court felt that one should respect the faith and belief of the majority community on the issue of Janmasthan, they are unable to digest it.

That is the reason one could hear statements, immediately after the verdict was delivered and even before one could lay his hands on the full text of the three judgements, that the judiciary has exceeded its brief and has treaded on an area that belonged to faith. In a way, the secular lobby wanted the judgements in terms of their definition of secularism and faith. It was said that “secular” court tried its hands on “non-secular” areas. The very same section might not find anything wrong in shariah courts. Had the verdict been wholly in favour of the Wakf board, the “secular” lobby would have been in its orgasmic best.

A national television channel said that the verdict is an “assertion of Hindu majoritarianism”. The majority judgement said that the land should be divided into three parts and one part should go to the Muslims. On one hand the media was crying hoarse that there should be no attempt to wrongly interpret the verdict or make any statements that could be provocative, but on the other, what they were doing in practice was just the opposite.

Yet another “intellectual” who once edited the “most powerful daily in the world”, reacting to the statement of RSS sarsangchalak, said “how can we accept Ram as a symbol of national identity in a secular democracy?” According to him, it was quite “disturbing”. These are the people who vitiated the atmosphere two decades ago with their statements that “Lord Ram” was only a myth and there was no historical evidence for his existence. In fact, they should be taken around the countryside to know what exactly is the soul of India. Lord Ram is not just an idol worshipped in temples, but part and parcel of social, and spiritual life of the population even centuries before they were enslaved by invaders.

Strangely, people were also trying to find a difference between Gandhiji’s “Ram” and “Lord Ram” worshipped by others. A secular fanatic also suggested that there should be a multi-faith centre in the disputed area. Remember? In those days, there was a suggestion from the same lobby that we should construct a “urinal” in the Janmasthan. It is not the reluctance or absence of “generosity” on the part of Muslims alone that drove the majority to go to the extreme. What frustrated them was the public discourse of these secular fundamentalists questioning the existence of Ram.

And now there is action re-play. A political analyst says in a national daily that “force of faith has triumphed over law and reason in Ayodhya case”. He also suggests that “if left unamended by the Supreme Court, the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgement are likely to be extremely damaging”.

Historians of Aligarh Muslim University and Jawaharlal Nehru University - I don’t have to be explicit about their mindset - are rubbishing the Archeological Survey of India report on the existence of the temple prior to the mosque. They attributed motives to the ASI since the excavation was done during the NDA regime. For them, ASI report was not foolproof and inscriptions found in debris might have been planted.

Biased historians and secular fundamentalists can go on arguing whether Tulasidas talked about Ramjanmasthan or whether the central dome of the mosque was the exact place where Ram was born or whether faith can be the basis for judicial resolution of disputes. But civilisational issues cannot be settled by such inane discussions by those who have no respect for India’s civilisational values.

As Girilal Jain wrote some twenty years ago, “Civilisational revival is a gradual, complex and many sided affair...The heart of the matter is that if India’s vast spiritual energies, largely dormant for centuries, had to be tapped, Hindus had to be aroused, they could be aroused only by the use of a powerful symbol; and that symbol could only be Ram, as was evident when Mahathma moved millions by his talk of Ramrajya” To quote Jain again, “it is natural that Indiana culture should seek to recover its genuine self. Surely this is neither an anti-Islamic nor anti-Western activity”