Seen within the narrow confines of the Sangh Parivar, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad's manoeuvre at the Kumbh Mela is a master stroke. If it proceeds with the Hindu mobilisation plans announced at the Mela, the Bharatiya Janata Party will have a much tougher political dilemma next year than it did this year. All the noise and bluster of the last few months have ended without a date being set for commencing construction of a Ram temple at the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. As a result, any immediate threat to the unity of the National Democratic Alliance from coalition partners uneasy about the temple movement has been removed. But the BJP's relief will be short-lived. BJP leaders cannot but be unsettled by the VHP-sponsored dharma sansad's new ultimatum which means the price of peace this year is heightened tensions next year and possibly a confrontation just as Uttar Pradesh goes to the polls.A March 12, 2002 deadline has been announced for the government ``to remove all obstacles'' to temple construction. Between now and then the VHP proposes countrywide religious mobilisation ceremonies which, if successful, will put the BJP on the mat. The choice this year was, save the Central government and lose support within the temple construction movement. Next year the choice may be, save the Central government and lose UP. That at any rate seems to be what Paramahans Ramchandra, president of the Ramjanmabhoomi temple trust, meant when he said he will compel the authorities to hand over the disputed land to the trust. One way of outmanoeuvring the VHP is to call early UP Assembly elections, perhaps as early as this April. From the point of view of the state that may not be a bad idea because the sooner the people get a chance to bring in a strong government, unlike the indecisive ones of the last few years, the better.VHP president Ashok Singhal's plans to mobilise the ``faithful'' who demolished the masjid has consequences far beyond UP since it threatens the peace everywhere. A negotiated settlement of the property dispute at the heart of the Ayodhya imbroglio should be sought. It is the best option. Failing an amicable agreement between representatives of the Hindu and Muslim communities the matter will have to be decided in court. The prime minister has clarified that he supports these two processes and no other. That is good. But by arousing emotions and exacerbating differences, an activist temple construction movement vitiates the atmosphere for a negotiated settlement and makes compromise impossible. As for a court decision, one is not expected any time soon nor would temple activists accept one that went against their interests. The government should, therefore, concentrate its efforts on getting a dialogue started. Government initiative is essential for several reasons: Without it the problem will fester, alimited degree of government involvement would lend seriousness of purpose to the exercise and, importantly, bind the parties to the dispute to whatever agreement they eventually come to. Inaction is the worst option for the government because it allows rabble-rousers to take over the stage.
