Opinion No closure,yet

Italian Marxist and political theorist Antonio Gramsci had provided a very interesting insight in this respect. Gramsci said history followed its own tortuous ways and that there was no “sociological thumb rule” that determined how various contesting forces of society played out. The possibilities are many. Force A could overwhelm Force B or vice-versa. It is also possible,Gramsci said,that both Force A and Force B bleed each other over a long period,and this would result in the emergence of Force C. So,it cannot be taken for granted that progressive forces of material development will completely subsume the politics of traditional faith and religious identity.

Seen in this somewhat longer frame of history,all events relating to the Ayodhya dispute since 1949,when idols of Ram Lalla miraculously materialised inside the Babri mosque,are but twists and turns in the bigger contest between forces that are causing a constant churn in a modernising India. Indeed,it is as much a churn of ideas as of an evolving consciousness.

The Allahabad high court order,however,would appear to represent an important inflexion point in the contest between forces which various political parties claim to represent. The judges may have gone beyond their legal brief by conflating matters of religious faith with legal facts on the ground,but they have at the same time thrown a major challenge before the political parties on both sides of the divide by forcing a compromise on the issue. Indeed,this will fully test the sagacity of the leadership of both the Congress and the BJP in the next few years,especially until the Supreme Court pronounces on the appeal.

Both the main parties will strive to be on the right side of objective history as it plays out. But the problem is,as Gramsci said,there is no knowing which set of forces will emerge dominant after years of conflict and compromise.

The Congress and the BJP appear to be infused with self-doubts over how to re-position themselves in the aftermath of the Allahabad high court order. They perceive a certain national mood for a compromise represented by the much-talked-about desire on the part of the people to just “move on” and not get trapped by a dispute over a 16th century structure.

Both Congress and BJP leaders,even by their own standards,are choosing their words ever more carefully,and trying to appear reasonable. BJP leader Arun Jaitley,who is always sure of what he wants to say,responded ambiguously to a query on whether the BJP will give up its claim on other disputed religious structures. He said the party will formulate a response on these issues.

Similarly,Congress leaders like Digvijaya Singh,who otherwise rush to prove their pro-Muslim credentials,have so far refrained from making any strong statements on behalf of the minority community which certainly appears more disappointed with the court order. Only Mulayam Singh Yadav was open enough to say Muslims were feeling cheated and he was promptly castigated by others for playing politics. Well,even if you hate Mulayam’s provincial politics,isn’t it pretty obvious that,over a longer period,the mainstream national parties have played more cynical politics over Ayodhya,starting from the opening of the lock at Babri Masjid 24 years ago?

So,it is the two national parties,the Congress and the BJP,who will be under tremendous pressure to politically nuance their responses to the new situation thrown up by the Allahabad high court order. The Supreme Court is not likely to come to their rescue until the next general elections in 2014. A major worry for the Congress will be how it would prove its commitment to Muslims in terms of vigorously pursuing the rule of law to book the guilty for the heinous act of bringing down the Babri mosque.

Congress leaders’ instincts are normally driven by considerations of how to remain in power. Their preference,in normal circumstances,is to be ideologically ambivalent. Already,some Congress leaders are privately saying if the government moves to expedite the criminal case against the BJP leaders in the Masjid demolition,it could give the Sangh Parivar a big handle to consolidate the Hindu votes. The Congress could paint itself into a corner on this one. The Congress’s unfinished project of Muslims returning to its fold,especially in Uttar Pradesh,will be particularly under threat now.

The BJP too has tasted power and would want to play the issue of “mandir wahin banayenge” in a more creative way. They will try to calibrate their mandir politics to appear reasonable and win back allies who had left the NDA,many of whom are now with the UPA. The BJP will use the court order to mitigate its “untouchability factor” with its former allies. So the desire to come back to power may force the BJP to temporarily follow a somewhat middle-of-the-road approach. In short,we could witness a slow-burn polarisation of votes as political parties re-position themselves in the light of the Ayodhya judgment.

This churn will be interesting to study in the context of the larger play of forces representing “faith and reason.” A nation-state,after all,represents a compromise,a social contract between ethnic communities and the need for modern societal and institutional requirements.

The writer is Managing Editor,‘The Financial Express’

mk.venu@expressindia.com