Daily Times

In defence of LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti, what is wrong in saying that we abetted and demolished the 15th century mosque at Ayodhya? After all, the party to which these souls belong have the erection of the temple as one of the trinity points in their holy sanctum, in addition to the uniform civil code and the article 370. Why should they shy away from coming out of the jungle of judgments, trials, hearings, files and sections of the law, and affirming the belief that they hold close to their hearts, and announce before the court and the whole world that yes they wished a ram temple to be constructed and therefore the mosque had to be demolished? They do not come forward with the same, with the courage required of a person who believes in his public convictions. The reason being a crisis of conviction. On the one hand, some of them are on record saying that the day of demolition was the saddest day of their lives, and on the other it was a lifelong mission to have the temple put up where Ram was born.

With the kind of ‘yatra’ that was led prior to the destruction of the mosque, it was but natural that the demolition was only a matter of time. It was a logical end of the yatra with the blood trail it had left behind. Yet the staunch advocates of the temple let various kinds of covers to hide them from facing the law.

From the belief in an idea, to the activation of the wheels of demolition and the actual demolition, there is an unbroken rational chain. The challenge for the conspirators is to accept this chain and not evade the inherent connectivity. To claim before the judges that you were not involved in the actual demolition is to fool those who possess a modicum of common sense. You cannot take a thirsty horse to the stream and then expect it to not drink water. The trio, among many others, whipped up the thirst of zealous masses and drew them to the site of disputed structure, not to sing paeans to the Himalayan gods, but to make sure the domes become a thing of the past. When the domes came down, and there were celebrations in many circles, especially in those to which the trio owed allegiance and commanded a large following, many got some snap in the heart, some sort of feeling emerged that perhaps razing down was not a good idea or at least not in this fashion. Only the Muslims should have been called from their homes on that day and encouraged to bring the domes down of their own volition, in the greater interest of India, and in deference to the sentiments of the majority community.

To claim before the judges that the trio was not involved in the actual demolition is to fool those who possess a modicum of common sense

These feelings got more latitude as the law came calling and regimes of power thought of taking their own sweet revenge against their rivals. With more time, and the wisdom of age dawning some light inside their heads, some guilt also penetrated and proclamations of the ‘saddest day’ were heard. There was then talk of the wrong method having been used. Instead of the congregation of the violent masses around the structure and their eyes set on mosque, perhaps a better way would have been to convince the Muslims to participate in the common frenzy. All of this continued until someone suggested that it is better to state that ‘we’ were not party to the ‘actual act of demolition’ and that we were only trying to stop the masses, who were unwilling to listen.

Recall the example given of horse. The person takes the thirsty horse to the stream and then appeals him to stop drinking water. The horse does not listen so why the person should be blamed for drinking the water?

The fact is that the kar sevaks had not been taken from different parts of India to Ayodhya for some holy picnic with planned vegetarian feasts and performance of the contortions of yoga. There were prior rehearsals, training, and more so decades-old inculcated conviction that Ram was born at the place where Babar made a mosque. A historical injustice had to be avenged. The mission of preparing the masses was complete and the goal was set. Someone had to take the lead. The trio led the yatra to its logical conclusion. But now, to invert the logic of the whole plan, the story goes that lakhs of kar sevaks have to be convicted but not those who drew them like rats of the Pied Piper to break the secular canons of the constitution of India. The led are true convicts and the leader is free of blame. This speaks of many things, not to mention the infirm conviction of those who believe god Ram deserves a temple at the place of his birth. If it is not in-firmness, then why blame those whom you led, and seek to drag them to the court (if at all that will happen) and try to free yourself from the action which he conceived, and any sensible person could attest to the reasonable end of the ‘yatra’?

The writer can be reached at javjnu@gmail.com