In the glossary of post-Independence Indian politics, Ayodhya is a volatile item. A decade ago on December 6, it was the site of religion's radical claim, and the consequence was less religious, more political. Ayodhya has come a long way since then, though no permanent Ram temple has come up on the site. All the while, Ayodhya has remained a flexible, politically utilitarian and religiously sensitive slogan for its protagonists as well as antagonists. For the fanatical fringe of Hindu politics, it is a divine right. For the cautious nationalists of the BJP, it is a dilemma trapped between identity and pragmatism. For the pseudo-secularists of the centre-left, it is the end of tolerance and the beginning of Hindu dictatorship. Ayodhya is here to stay more than in a geographical sense. The renewed determination of the VHP to build the temple "any time after

March 12" has now brought Ram to the forefront, and the construction will not be affected by decisions of the Government. The VHP attitude is: governments, even if they are the BJP's, may come and go, but Ram cannot forever remain disputed. The trouble is, the BJP cannot afford to go on account of Ayodhya, though there is a hard core Hindu constituency for which Ayodhya cannot be so remote from the BJP vision.

The larger trouble is something else, which the VHP can ignore only at the cost of its further marginalisation in the politics of Hindu nationalism. That is the mood of the times. Since 9/11, religious radicalism has become the enemy of civilisational order. India of the BJP Government, like other victim states of radical Islamism, has taken a decisive position against the so-called New Evil. The position is in tune with the global zeitgeist. So the fundamentalist agenda of the VHP, a member of the Sangh Parivar, is not compatible with the Government's position on the radical expression of religion. The Centre is not unaware of this, and that is why it has that added responsibility to do whatever it can to prevent another radical eruption in Ayodhya. Then there is the reality: Ayodhya is no longer what it was in 1992. It is more of a VHP agenda rather than an overwhelming Hindu nationalist agenda. True, Ayodhya should not forever remain a problem without a resolution-judicial or legislative. Religious as well as political sanity demands that the VHP should not take upon itself the contentious task of finding a final solution to Ayodhya.