As G20 beckons and India assumes a larger global role, the legal battle over the Gyanvapi mosque and now the Shahi Idgah in Mathura and the almost daily tu-tu main-main between hardliners on either side, amplified by social media, have the potential to drag the nation back. There are hardly any examples in the world with similar disputes from the past that always threaten the present and of a constant simmering of religious tension. One reason is that religion in India is not treated as a personal prerogative, but as being available on sale to vote-bank traders across all political parties. Like in Ayodhya, where the apex court cleared the way for the Ram temple, the law will take its course. The constitutional sanctity and legitimacy of due process is crucial to a resolution of the conflict.
That said, there is also a strong case for both communities to put their heads together to resolve contentious issues out of the court, avoiding any kind of belligerence, venom or protests. Undoubtedly, the current polarised atmosphere and irresponsible statements by the likes of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and the Owaisi brothers make this easier said than done. The demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992, was a violation of the law of the land and led to bloodshed across the country. But had Muslims, with their large heartedness, in reverence of Maryada Purushottam Lord Ram, offered or gifted his birthplace to the Hindu brethren, this gesture would have cemented mutual understanding and goodwill among both communities.
If the Muslim community had done this, would the Hindu community have closed the door on this issue and refused to re-open any of the 40,000 other claims they make? This question is fraught and so is the answer but there’s a gilt-edged opportunity for Muslims to board the bus that was missed last time. On Varanasi and Mathura, can Muslims be more accommodating? Can Hindus tender a written assurance that no other Muslim place of religious reverence, will be claimed?
If the shrine at Gyanvapi and the Shri Krishna Janmasthan go to the Hindu side after litigation, as was the case with the Ram temple, the Muslims would be portrayed as narrow-minded and insular. The Hindu community, by way of litigation, would also leave no stone unturned to reclaim the hundreds of other monuments it says were taken away. But if camaraderie becomes a possibility, fears of the Muslim community will be allayed. As a progressive, moderate and liberal Muslim, who believes in the voice of reason and sanity, let me assure my co-religionists that most of the Hindus of India are calm, cool and composed — it’s the fringe that remains unfettered and unregulated.
That’s why Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, whose 134th birth anniversary was marked last month, remains more relevant than ever. The intellectual history of Islam in India has long been described in terms of two contrasting currents: One tending towards confrontation, the other towards assimilation with the Hindu milieu. Azad coalesced with endogenic creativity, the Vedantic vision of many parts of truth with the Islamic doctrines of Wahdat-e-Deen (unity of religion) and Sulah-e-Kul (universal peace).
Azad is revered without really being understood because to a large bulk of people he has been reduced to a noble “totem” of the political breed called the “nationalist Muslim.” Azad remains a shining example of the fusion of the rationalist heritage of Islam and the compassionate heritage of India. His watchword was assimilation and communal concord at all levels.
A major concern of Azad was the revival and reform of the Indian Muslim in all aspects of life, and his political hopes for them were within this context. Seen through the prism of Azad, the solution is not to raze Gyanvapi and recreate the Vishwanath temple as is being demanded by some zealous Hindu brethren, but to allow daily Vedic prayer and the continuation of namaz and azan at permissible decibels. Let the “wuzu khana” (ablution place) not be the one where the Shivling was found and another arrangement be made. What hardliners are saying is what Aurangzeb did during his time — that will never let us arrive at any solution.
In 2017, sitting next to Zafaryab Jilani, the Babri Masjid Action Committee lawyer, on a flight from Pune to Delhi after a discussion on Ayodhya, I suggested that he take the lead in making a “friendly offer” to the Hindu brethren for building the temple of their most important deity, Lord Ram. But the heartbreak for progressive, moderate, liberal, God-fearing and nationalist Muslim voices of sanity and reason is that their voices aren’t heard; the rabble-rousers are the ones most heard, helped, of course, by prime time TV.
Both Hindus and Muslims, as Sir Syed Ahmed Khan said, are the two bright eyes of a beautiful and bewitching bride — India. Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS supremo and Sarsanghchalak has underlined that without the contribution of Muslims, one can’t even imagine India. In the same way, Prime Minister Narendra Modi too dreams of handing to each Muslim, the Quran in one hand and a computer in the other.
The Urdu poet Afzal Manglori said it best: “Mandir bhi lelo, masjid bhi lelo/ Insaan ke lahoo se magar ab na khelo!” (Take the temple away, take the masjid away, With innocent human lives, let us not play!)
The writer is former chancellor, Maulana Azad National Urdu University
