New Delhi, Sept 17: Muslims should be magnanimous to resolve the Ayodhya dispute. A laudable idea! Compromise is better if it brings peace. Three questions need to be addressed to attain this worthy aim: Sanctity of religious beliefs; compromise with whom; and will the compromise hold? Religion is a personal realm. Personal belief is sacrosanct in a free society. Governments should keep out of it. When one claims someone else’s property in the name of one’s religion, it becomes a temporal, legal dispute. Barring honest mediation, the only solution is a legal solution.

This is not to say Muslims did not suppress Hindus and Hindus were not cruel to Dalits. Oppressions of a bygone era, the detritus of history, should not be allowed to destroy the present. ‘‘Might is right’’ was the norm of an unenlightened past, rejected by civilised, secular India’s Constitution. Indians are legitimately proud of it.
Ayodhya is the birthplace of Lord Ram, incarnation of Vishnu. That Lord Ram was born exactly at the site of the Babri Masjid is difficult to prove. Archaeological evidence at best is contrived. The Sangh family has the upper hand at the moment. If Muslims were politically in a stronger position, presenting the Masjid property as a goodwill gesture would be an act of magnanimity; but from their present weak position, it would be perceived as capitulation. One cannot be magnani- mous from an utterly weak position.


Still, a negotiated compromise is desirable to achieve a sustainable peace, in the interest of humanity. Presenting the Babri Masjid site for a temple would be desirable if it is the root of the Hindu-Muslim divide.



But, compromise with whom? No individual can guarantee that compromise, even the Kanchi Shankaracharya was maligned and had to back-pedal. It is, in any case, a political agenda for the Sangh parivar.



Even if the RSS-VHP agree to the settlement, later the Shiv Sena or the Bajrang Dal may renege, saying they were not a party and their claims are steeped in religion. Similarly, Muslim organisations may renege as well. The negotiating party atrophies and a new behemoth takes its place.



A government cannot be relied upon either. It is the government’s complacency and complicity that has brought the contrived dispute to such a horrible impasse. The only party accountable as well as temporally lasting is the people of India, represented by the Constitution of the Republic. In effect the Constitution should expressly guarantee that such disputes will not be allowed in the future.



Will the compromise hold? Who will guarantee that it will not be violated? One could argue that the Constitution provides guarantee of life and property but the government, in the last few years, has given it short shrift. Unfortunately it is true. Yet it is the strength of the Constitution that allowed the dispute to go to the courts. Otherwise the Sangh Parivar would have built a temple there, as well as other places, by brute force.



The only sustainable course is for the secular parties to propose a constitutional amendment on the lines of Article 49 of the Constitution, saying, ‘‘No public or religious structure can be contested that was not in dispute before August 15, 1947, the birth of modern India.’’



Thus Muslims could donate the Babri Masjid site, as the dispute pre-dates 1947, and constitutionally it would outlaw other mischievous claims.



Should such an effort be made? The mechanics are difficult; thus the will needs to be fortified. The Sangh Family cannot be trusted; they have their eyes on more then 2000 other places (political capital). The downward spiral into the abyss of hatred will continue.



A major share of credit for India continuing to be a democratic republic goes to secular enlightened Hindus. A majority of Indians — Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and all other religious and ethnic communities — will support an intiative towards compromise, if the political leadership of the secular parties take this as a mandate to bring peace to an old and proud civilisation.