A monument to reconciliation

These statements can easily be dismissed as election tactics. But those interested in promoting better Hindu-Muslim relations would lose little from giving serious thought to the BJP’s repeated disclaimer on Kashi and Mathura and to the Shiv Sena Supreme’s new-found reasonableness on Ayodhya.

Those who would not entertain the idea of a dialogue with "New Hindutva" would be guided by their experience of sterile dialogue and the present division of work among various Hindutva outfits, the BJP playing the role, in their eyes, of running with the hare and huntingwith the hound. These cynics are not wrong in recalling that Advani’s claim that his proposal about "one instead of three temples" in 1990 was ignored by Muslims belies the facts. Badr-Ud-Din Tyabji, Col. B H Zaidi and Syed Hamid, all ex-Vice-Chancellors of the Aligarh Muslim University, jointly sent Advani a letter on 23 August 1990, saying his suggestion held "the promise of an amicable settlement". They expressed readiness for an exploratory discussion. The reply they expected was never received. The VHP killed the idea the moment it was publicly pronounced, making Advani eat humble pie. In view of such ingredients of recent history, the cynics may well be justified in sneering at the deceptive mask of soft-Hindutva and pointing to the unchanging real, hard Hindutva. The BJP and the Shiv Sena do have revanchist, obscurantist or anti-secular elements. But even hardliners are prepared to learn from the democratic electoral experience.

For cynical critics of the Hindutva political formations not to have aveto on dialogue, the BJP-Shiv Sena will have to undertake a more sustained ideological dialogue with the Parivar to evolve a consistent perspective on issues that have divided Hindus and Muslims for more than a century. These relate to a homogenised-Hinduised national culture, conversions, religious processions, community-based family law, the Persian script of Urdu and Muslim loyalty to homeland versus the religion-based solidarity of the Umma.

The present votaries of Hindutva with a human face have to realise that no humanist perspective can emerge without questioning the basic tenets of the ideology that permanently divides people on the basis of indigenous and non-indigenous origin of religions. Moreover, by a blatantly communal reading of Indian history, especially of the medieval period, and one-sided version of the events that led to Partition, the entire Muslim community has been permanently put in the dock. By association, it has been held responsible for all the real and imagined sins of theMuslim rulers of medieval India, notwithstanding the fact that the bulk of present-day Muslims are of indigenous origin who were as much a subject people as Hindus. The stigmatisation of Muslims was abetted by agents of British imperialism who shamelessly divided to rule to consolidate their power. They later encouraged Muslim elites to treat Hindus as their rivals.

It is a great pity that Hindutva forces reorganised themselves on the same questionable ideological basis and undertook an active campaign to demonise Muslims, especially from 1980s to the 1990s, mounting a venomous propaganda offensive which caused no less hurt to Muslims than the demolition of the mosque. The task of the promoters of goodwill will be facilitated if the intra-Hindutva dialogue results in reconsideration of their basic assumptions and in a decommunalised reading of history.

Muslims however cannot just keep their fingers crossed, waiting for the emergence of a perfectly reformed Hindutva. They cannot lose by responding toreasonable gestures. They should initiate a process of conciliation not only with politicised Hindu forces but the entire range of Hindus on social and religious issues which have been with us for a long time. They can, for example, announce their readiness not to slaughter cow for food even where it is not prohibited by the law.

On Ayodhya, instead of just waiting for another decade for the judiciary to give a verdict which the political executive may not have the will to enforce, it would be far better for Muslims to accept the proposal for a national monument at the site of the demolished mosque and donate the adjacent wakf land for the Ram temple. Since the place has no special religious sanctity for Muslims, they may even forgo their right to build a mosque in the vicinity of the monument, as proposed by Bal Thackeray. Those who want the proposal to be accepted must undertake confidence-building measures, crucial among which are a commitment to multi-culturalism and ensuring impartial law enforcementduring a communal conflict. Muslims must be made to feel that in future their life, property, places of worship, honour and dignity will not be at the mercy of cynical players of the game of power. Muslims must also dispel the fears of sections of Hindus who perceive Islam as a rival for political power in India from forces within the country as well as from neighbouring contiguous land stretch to the North-West of India.

The writer was a professor at AMU