The status of a mosque in Islam is crystal clear. A place once consecrated as a "masjid" is a masjid in perpetuity. It acquires eternal sanctity. The ownership vests permanently in Allah and the dedication to the Almighty is irrevocable and absolute. Perpetuity, irrevocability and inalienability are the essential features of a masjid as ordained by the Shariah. The eternal sanctity of a mosque is an article of faith for Muslims.

Cover Story

BJP Saffron Quicksand MEN OF THE MOMENT Praveen Togadia Ramchandra Das Paramhans Sorabjee: Fall Guy GUEST COLUMNS G.M.Banatwalla Tarun Vijay Prakash Karat

A series of developments led to the demolition of the Babri masjid on December 6, 1992 despite all assurances that status quo would be maintained. The Central government acquired the disputed area along with some "suitable adjacent area". The Supreme Court in its 1994 judgement held that the acquisition of the adjacent area "is necessary to ensure the final outcome of the adjudication should not be rendered meaningless by the existence of properties belonging to Hindus in the vicinity of the disputed structure, in case the Muslims are found entitled to the disputed site". As such, it is obvious that the status quo needs to be maintained throughout the acquired area including the disputed one. Any puja-symbolic or otherwise-on the acquired land in the course of the temple-building movement must await the final judicial verdict. The forcible temple-building movement is totally unlawful and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE:"The Shankaracharya's formula was primarily aimed at facilitating the VHP's plan to go ahead with the temple construction, come what may."

Then came the "peace initiatives" of the Kanchi Shankaracharya. There was resentment among certain sections over the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) engaging in parleys with the Shankaracharya. His formula was hardly a solution to the issue. The proposals were only meant to ensure the success of the VHP movement for "bhoomi puja". The dubious proposals were just a response to an SOS by a government in distress. Indeed, AIMPLB was led up the garden path by engaging it in talks that seemed primarily aimed at facilitating VHP's law-defying plan to go ahead with the temple construction, come what may.

The Muslim position that all must abide by the final court verdict on the pending title suits reflects respect for the rule of law. This respect is despite certain risks. Legal decisions in our country appear to take the view that the full protection that the Shariah grants to mosques may not be available under the laws applicable in India. The protection stands circumscribed as, for example, the title to a mosque may be lost by adverse possession and the general laws of limitation.

In the Ramayana, the chapter on Ayodhya gives a majestic description of Ram Rajya, where peace, prosperity and tranquillity reigned, for there was no one to challenge the seat of Ayodhya, literally the land without wars. Ironically, Ayodhya is now associated with struggle, anger and challenges abound. The Supreme Court, whose supremacy we saw being challenged amidst full media glare with the payment of a token fine of Rs 2,000, has stopped a puja and pilgrims are banned from entering the birthplace of Ram. So much hate has been heaped on the Ayodhya movement in the media that the real issue has got totally drowned. The Marxist-Mullah combine has used the media in a manner that a Hindu would feel ashamed at the mention of Ayodhya and would say, how does it matter to me if no temple is built there. Please maintain peace!

A typical Hindu reaction. How does it matter if the nation is partitioned and Pakistan created amidst an unparalleled massacre of Hindus, if that brings peace? How does it matter if a few terrorists are released to bring air passengers home safe? How does it matter if Agra is decorated and we get a little romantic with the villain of Kargil? And how does it matter if we lie low and let peace prevail ... after December 13 ... and after February 27?

Now, if a large section of Hindus decide that it really matters to say no to humiliation, they are the hoodlums of Hindu society, known for its "tolerance". The message is: as long as you continue to accept humiliation, you are a good secular Hindu. But the moment you stand up for your dignity and faith, you are bad.

Defending Ayodhya is like defending Bharat. Bruised, humiliated and condemned, we stand just for underlining what we are and what we have been. The temple is a symbol of a civilisation waking up. It stands for our vision of a glorified, prosperous and proud Bharat, which sheltered all those driven out by fanatical rulers the world over. Like the Statue of Liberty. It's like unfurling the tricolour over the regained Tiger Hill.

They ask us to obey the court, and yet justify amending the law to stop payment of Rs 25 a month to an old woman. All the big temples have been taken over by the government and Hindu religious funds are misused. Can it dare to even suggest taking over Haji Ali or St Xavier's? Compare how the government treats Hajis and Hindu pilgrims? Should we recall Meenakshipuram? The past 20 years have seen more than 50,000 Hindus killed by Islamic jehadis and more than 2,00,000 driven out of their homes. And still, Hindus get sermons to "keep restraint". Ayodhya is against this secular Talibanism.

T

METHOD IN MADNESS: "The March 15 ceremony is to be a prelude to the next phase after June 2. Only this time the kar sevaks are in the Central Government too."

In 1992, the VHP was allowed to conduct a peaceful "kar seva" on the assurances given to the Supreme Court by the VHP leadership and the BJP chief minister of Uttar Pradesh. The result was the demolition of the masjid. The BJP and the RSS combine would like the country to forget what happened in 1992. This is the meaning of the A.B. Vajpayee Government's submission to the Supreme Court requesting for a token puja on the acquired land. It is good the Supreme Court has not forgotten the 1992 episode.

It is impossible to forget the lessons of the past. The July 1992 kar seva was a dress rehearsal for the fateful one in December. The pattern is sought to be repeated. The March 15 ceremony is to be a prelude to the next phase after June 2. Only this time the kar sevaks are in the Central Government too.

There is no other way to meet this assault on secularism and democracy except by mobilising all citizens and people of all religious communities to take a firm position that using religion for political purposes is unacceptable.