MASJID DEMOLITION
ANNIVERSARY- Playing politics with
an emotional issue
by R Upadhyay
Ever since the demolition of "Babri Masjid" at Ayodhya on
December 6,1992, the politics of the day has become a ritual of the
political representatives to exploit the issue with an eye on their vote
bank. This year the situation was no different though Vajpayee’s
statement on that day created a furore in the parliament.
In his informal talk to
pressmen in Parliament House, Vajpayee while rejecting the demand of the
opposition to drop three ministers charge sheeted in the case said that
the Ayodhya movement was "an expression of national
sentiments" and "Ram temple could be built at the disputed
site where a temple already exists and the Masjid at an alternative
site".
In fact the Prime Minister did
not say any thing new on Ayodhya issue. To him the issues of demolition
and construction of temple are different. While the former was
"unfortunate," for the latter, he had always maintained that
people’s sentiments should be respected and that a temple should be
built.
Vajpayee would have been aware
that his statement on the Ayodhya issue on the anniversary day of
demolition would create a controversy. If he had to speak on the issue,
it could only be for a specific purpose which could be none other than
the issue of the forthcoming UP elections.
The forthcoming UP elections
are important for the BJP for many reasons. Besides being the biggest
electoral constituency, it was the state which pushed the party to the
central stage of Indian politics in the election that followed the Babri
Masjid issue. With the votes of Muslims, Scheduled castes and Backwards
being consolidated by the Samajwadi party and the BSP, the only issue
that could cut across caste lines was the Ayodhya otherwise called
"Ramjanam Bhoomi" issue. It is an emotional issue for the
majority community in UP and cannot be ignored.
If UP is lost to the BJP in the
state elections, the credibility of the BJP may be endangered.
Similarly, if the BJP is seen as weak even in the Hindi heartland, other
allies in the NDA may also look for a review of their relationship with
the party.
It is too early to say whether
the revival of the temple issue would bring back BJP to power in UP. But
it certainly has not helped the opposition parties, who, unable to take
a clear stand on the temple issue have only been driven to a corner. It
is no wonder that the BSP leader Mayawati after all the fulminations
abstained in the voting on the issue in Parliament.
The Congress despite a
challenge thrown by the BJP could not make their stand clear either on
the construction of the temple or for an alternate solution to the
controversy. They were more confused and more they raise this issue the
more they would harm themselves politically in the forthcoming UP
elections
The leaders of the Congress
party with the support of other opposition members persistently demanded
resignation of three charge-sheeted Union Ministers in "Babri
Mosque" demolition case namely L.K.Advani, Dr. M. M. Joshi and Ms
Uma Bharati. When they paralysed the proceedings of the Parliament,
which was consecutively adjourned for the third day, the Prime Minister
had to intervene and his statement put them in a fix.
If the strategy of the
opposition was to malign the image of Vajpayee and to sow a seed of
discord within the NDA to destabilise the government, they had not
succeeded. It has rather helped strengthen Vajpayee’s position with
the RSS.
The war cry raised by the
opposition against the controversial statement of the Prime Minister
even at the cost of damaging the prestige and credibility of Parliament
for a week could only be resolved when the Government agreed to have
discussion on the demand of the resignation of three Union Ministers and
the statement of Vajpayee on Ayodhya issue under rule 184.
A section of media tried to
project that the loud voice of Telugu Desam leader Yerra Naidu and
Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee against the alleged confusion
created by Vajpayee was a warning to the Prime Minister and he was
forced to state that the Government was committed to NDA’S agenda. In
fact the allies are having their own political compulsion to maintain
their secular image and as such they had to maintain an aggressive
posture during the debate even though they voted against the motion
along with the BJP.
As expected, the motion was
defeated with a convincing margin. But the two-day discussion on the
motion could hardly bring any positive result. It might have satisfied
the ego of the opposition leaders, who baked their political bread by
igniting the fire on the anniversary of December 6 but the people in
general, remained confused as it could not do anything for the
resolution of the dispute, which is still pending in the court.
The only outcome if any of this
high voltage uproar in parliament was that the Ayodhya issue, which was
kept in back burner by the NDA in its national agenda of governance has
once again been brought back to the political centre- stage of the
country, which may further widen the communal hiatus between the Hindus
and the Muslims. The Congress party, though moved the motion, had to
face the aggressive attack of another opposition leader Mulayam Singh of
the Samajwadi Party. Similarly, the Muslim MP Syed Shawnawaz Hussain of
the BJP ridiculed the Congress, while pointing out the landmarks of the
communal history of the country since Independence and accusing the
party to be responsible for them. Even Jaipal Reddi, who was projected
by media as a man of the match remained quiet, when the young and first
time MP Shawnawaz, who is representing a constituency from Bihar with
70% of Muslim voters – wanted to know as to who were the Prime
Minister of the country and Chief Minister of UP (Ayodhya is in UP),
when the temple in dispute was discovered in 1948. He questioned as to
who was in power at centre and UP, when the locks of the temple were
removed in 1986 and also who performed Shilanyas in Ayodhya in 1989.
Since all these events took place, when the Congress was in power both
at centre and in UP, the Congress leaders had no reply to the question
of the MP, who belongs to the community for whose cause the party had
moved a censure motion against the Government.
Keeping in view the loss of
seven working days of Parliament, people of the country may like to know
from their representatives whether they could compensate this national
loss by taking a pledge that no more they would try to play politics
with such historical events, which can surcharge the people emotionally?
Is it too much to ask?
18.12. 2000
