Author:
Publication: Outlook
Date: June 30, 2003
URL: http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20030630&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=3
Introduction: The overwhelming sentiment
among Muslim intellectuals is for a negotiated settlement
Liberal thinkers among Muslims are
strongly of the view that the Ayodhya dispute be resolved once and for
all through negotiations between Hindus and Muslims. A section among the
intellectuals, albeit a hopeless minority, has gone so far as to suggest
that Muslims "gift" away the disputed land in a "grand gesture of generosity",
thus eliminating the biggest source of friction between the two communities.
Says eminent political scientist
Professor Imtiaz Ahmed, "The Muslims should form a trust and build a temple
at the site, with no preconditions, purely out of respect for Hindu sentiments."
He does not see much point in waiting indefinitely for an ideal solution
to the dispute. "Let's not freeze history. Perceptions change."
Few Muslim intellectuals are willing
to go that far, but they do feel an amicable, negotiated settlement will
go a long way in enhancing bonhomie between the two communities. Says Maulana
Kalbe Sadiq of the AIMPLB, "If a solution is arrived at through a compromise,
it will generate love and fellow feeling among Muslims and Hindus...whether
or not a masjid should be built at the disputed site is no longer that
important. Justice is what matters."
Others, however, feel the government
has not gone about the negotiations credibly. Maulana Wahiduddin Khan of
the Islamic Centre says the government ought to have done its homework
before embarking on talks: "The romantic notion that Muslims should gift
the land is not practical. Who is the owner and who the recipient? Besides,
"gifting" away the disputed site for the construction of a temple is not
possible. Under Islamic law, a mosque is waqf-i-allah, the property of
god."
However, a solution can be found
within Islamic law. "You must have a proper framework for negotiations.
Relocation of the mosque is possible under what can be termed the 'law
of necessity'. This has been done in hundreds of cases in Islamic countries.
As for the distance at which it can be relocated, we can refer to the second
Caliph, who said namaaz may be read or a mosque constructed 'at a stone's
throw' from another place of worship," he says.
Former diplomat Hamid Ansari observes,
"No one in the community has said he is not interested in discussions and
negotiations. But in a negotiation, you don't start by putting your cards
on the table. To start off by saying gift us the land is unrealistic and
unfair. And how did Kashi and Mathura land up in the bargaining basket?
The law says status quo must be maintained on all places of worship. It
seems that the Shankaracharya's proposals were intended to create a sense
of shock and awe." He's positive that the average Muslim will not buy the
"let's surrender the land" argument. "A unilateral gesture of generosity
won't work. It would convey a wrong message."
Zahid Ali Khan, editor of leading
Urdu daily Siyasat, also supports the government initiative for talks but
is sceptical about the outcome: "If there is a sincere effort that involves
both communities, it has to be supported. In 1987, the Kanchi Shankaracharya
and Muslim leaders like Ali Mian and Yunus Salim came up with a proposal
for a meditation hall for all religions at the disputed site. But now positions
have hardened and we'll have to find a solution to fit the times."
Dr Fakhruddin Mohammad, secretary
of the Muslim Educational, Social and Cultural Organisation, says, "It's
the duty of everyone to give the AIMPLB and the Kanchi Shankaracharya time
and space to resolve the issue. Islam stands for peaceful co-existence.
So, let the community put Ayodhya behind it and move on."
A substantial section of Muslim
leaders still believes that, for practical rather than ideological reasons,
only a judicial verdict can resolve the dispute. Says Maulana Margoob-ur-Rehman,
Deoband vice-chancellor, "Only the court can give a permanent solution.We
are bound by its verdict. So should these Hindu organisations be."
Mohammad Salim, West Bengal minister
for youth welfare, agrees that the legal route is the only one which will
work. "To suggest that people should make sacrifices and not go by the
court verdict smacks of sabotage." Muslim Intellectual Forum convenor Feroze
Mithiborwala agrees: "I'm not for negotiations because there is no guarantee
that those negotiating will conduct things in an above-board way."
Prof Ahmed agrees that the absence
of credible negotiators is the biggest stumbling block. "Neither the VHP
nor the AIMPLB has any right to negotiate or receive the land. The consensus
has to come from the average Hindu and Muslim."
