It is obvious that the district magistrate of Faizabad could not possibly have taken so momentous a decision as to allow public darshan of the Ram Lalla and other idols on the site of the demolished Babri structure without the consent of the UP administration which in turn could not have acted without the consent of the Union government.
Three points are notable in this regard. First, the decision could not have been postponed further in view of the satyagraha launched by the sadhus, which began in Ayodhya on Saturday, without aggravating tension all over the country. Second, a decision earlier when the district magistrate first recommended it to the UP administration could possibly have obviated the threat held by the Babri Masjid groups to start namaz there. The All-India Babri Masjid Action Committee and the Babri Masjid Coordination Committee decided to merge and issue this threat last Friday.
The decision meets the immediate Hindu demand. For precisely the same reason, the initial Muslim reaction, as expressed by Syed Shahabuddin, has been highly critical. This is an interesting turn in the course of developments. The Muslim leaders associated with the Babri Masjid agitation will be meeting on Monday to decide on a further course of action. If they decide to adhere to the namaz decision, the act of provoking tension will shift to them. This places them in a situation which they have not faced so far.
To the extent it is possible to judge Muslim opinion, it is not interested in a confrontation with the government which is what the namaz decision involves. But the leaders have to do something to save their face with the community which has been showing signs of being disenchanted with them.
The Union government has taken decisions regarding the disposal of the basic dispute as well. Though the decisions have not yet been promulgated in the form of an ordinance, the scope for amending them is virtually non-existent. They stand or fall as they have been announced.
The BJP’s first response has been noncommittal. At the time of writing this piece, at 11 pm on Sunday, all its spokesman KL Sharma is reported to have said is that a number of clarifications are necessary. This is understandable. The BJP leadership does not need to rush to a clear cut decision. It can await the Muslim response which will in all probability be negative.
It is highly premature to assess the merit or otherwise of the government’s decisions. We have first to wait and see if the necessary ordinances are promulgated at all. The VP Singh government withdrew an ordinance in this connection after it had been issued. That may be one reason why the present government has been cautious. It has announced its decisions and said that the necessary ordinances are in preparation.
But, whatever the future course of events, it is obvious that the Hindus have been aroused and that this fact cannot be ignored, not only by those who rule in New Delhi but also by those in charge of the states.
It is significant that Bihar chief minister Laloo Prasad, so far virtually invulnerable in his gaddi in Patna on the strength of the support of ‘other backward castes’, especially of the powerful Yadavs, has felt so shaken by the turn of opinion in these castes that he has resorted to a desperate plan to win over scheduled castes and tribes to compensate for possible loss of support among them. The plan provides that certain mandirs and maths would be earmarked for them and turned over to them, and that the law would be amended to enable them to function as pujaris and mahants (The Hindu, December 26).
Finally, one point may be made. True to their record and the record of their ilk all over the world for over 70 years, communist parties and leftist intellectuals remain determined to aggravate problems. While the latter have been busy casting doubt on the origin and authenticity of the archaeological evidence in support of the existence of a Vaishnava temple on the Janambhoomi site which has come up in the wake of the demolition of the structure on December 6, spokesmen of the CPI(M) and the CPI have been as quick as Syed Shahabuddin in condemning the decisions and far more forthcoming in the scope of their criticism. These are the parties and individuals whose support Mr Rao has been seeking.
The Observer of Business and Politics, 28 December 1992