Author: Sunnah Fitratullah
Publication: The Daily Pioneer
Date: April 3, 2002
When the Shankaracharya of Kanchi,
offered a formula for resolving the Ayodhya tangle, all were anxious to
know the decision of Muslim organisations. However, even when the formula
was not yet formally proposed, discordant voices from Muslim political
elites could be heard questioning the authority of All India Muslim Personal
Law Board (AIMPLB) as a party to the dispute.
The Imam of the Jama Masjid was
quick to announce the needlessness of any formula at that stage and that
Muslims would abide by the court verdict. GM Banatwala of the Indian Union
Muslim League was also opposed to any settlement with the VHP. Syed Shahabuddin,
convener of Babri Masjid Coordination Committee, was strongly in favour
of court verdict, too, saying that it was a matter between the Government
and the VHP and it was "the Government's responsibility to maintain law
and order and follow the order."
Amidst all these differing voices,
Babri Masjid Committee, a body under the AIMPLB, was grappling to carve
out a role for itself as the main negotiator, hoping for settlement "either
by negotiation or a court verdict." However, even as the talks were going
on, AIMPLB leadership became skeptical of the outcome.
Meanwhile, on March 13, when the
three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in its interim judgement, prohibited
symbolic bhoomi puja even at the acquired land, the Muslim Personal Law
Board was issued notice making it a party to the litigation before the
larger bench.
Ironically, the Court forgot that
it was the same Muslim Personal Law Board which, in the mid- 1980s, along
with many fanatic religious outfits, had rejected the Court's verdict in
the Shah Bano maintenance case. Oddly, this time the Board has chosen to
abide by the Court injunction. While everybody remembers that Muslims had
refused to accept Court's verdict, the role of Muslim Personal Law Board
as ring-master is hardly a part of public memory. The Board set precedence
and now it is not surprising that the VHP is demanding construction of
Ram Temple at Ayodhya through legislation, fearing that Court's verdict
might go in favour of the opposite party.
Besides this, the whole episode
raises many questions about the sincerity of the Muslim leadership. Shah
Bano case had brought the little-known Personal Law Board in the limelight,
turning its leaders into media stars. However, when the controversial Shah
Bano case was settled in favour of fundamentalists, AIMPLB leadership lost
the opportunity of hitting headlines every now and then. Hence, they found
another opportunity in being a party to another controversial issue. Its
leaders lost no time in setting up a Babri Masjid Committee under their
patronage when differences between the Babri Masjid Action Committee and
Babri Masjid Coordination Committee could not be resolved in the aftermath
of Babri Masjid demolition - a lucrative issue to gain political edge.
Apparently, the Board has simply refused to learn from its past errors.
It must be remembered here that
it was after stooping to the demands of Muslim Personal Law Board that
Rajiv Gandhi's government enacted law reversing the Court's verdict; but
at the same time he was advised to harness the anger of Hindus by opening
the doors of the Masjid to the devotees for worship of the idols of Ram
Lalla. The decision proved most crucial in the history of Babri Masjid-Ram
Janmabhoomi dispute.
Thus one comes to the conclusion
that the political leadership of Indian Muslims has failed to show up because
once in Parliament they keep quiet even on common issues of education,
social and economic backwardness and employment among Muslims for fear
of being branded "communal". They always look towards their non-Muslim
secular friends to speak on their behalf - no wonder the clergy comes forward
to fill in the void. This space provided to the clergy becomes total for
common Muslims because the clergy always tends to legitimise its own pivotal
role by inciting most emotive issues of religion, and that too pitching
it against an unseen enemy. Clergy or the traditional leadership on the
other hand, engages itself in doing the most bizarre things - the former
Imam of Jama Masjid, Abdullah Bukhari, is its fine specimen.
Ironically, these imams have not
changed a bit. What is worse is that they are projected by the establishment
as the "leaders" of the Muslims as they are the most suitable choice in
furthering their interests. The media too has not been any better.
Therefore, the question of leadership
will remain unsolved till the leaders resolve to get rid of their fears
of being branded as communal for addressing the problems of their own community.
We must not forget that in the past common Muslims have thwarted the aspirations
of politicians playing the card of fundamentalism and communalism. They
have, for instance, refused to be part of Adam Sena of Muslims - a replica
of the Shiv Sena or Bajrang Dal - thus averting a dangerous bifurcation
of society along communal lines. The time to realise the role of these
leaders has come. They must be denounced by every sensible Muslim before
it's too late.