When it comes to Kashmir, some Indians like to invoke the memory of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel with a wistful ‘what if’ question. But they seldom remember Sardar Patel when arguing on Ayodhya.
As the Supreme Court kick starts a mediation process to resolve the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute, it is worth recalling how Sardar Patel wished to resolve the issue ‘amicably in a spirit of mutual toleration and goodwill between the two communities.’
More importantly, he was on the same page with former Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru on how to tackle this issue. Sardar Patel, who is remembered today as a tough Hindu Hriday Samrat – and hailed for his role in rebuilding Somnath temple – did not want Ayodhya to be politicised. In fact, he did not want a solution without the ‘willing consent’ of Muslims. (Sardar Patel’s Correspondence, Edited by Durga Das, Vol.9)
Trouble in the graveyard
The trouble started in November 1949 as graphically noted in ‘Harijan’ by its editor and veteran Gandhian philosopher Kishorelal Mashruwala. He quoted Akshay Brahmachari’s account at length. Brahmachari was a sadhu from Ayodhya, a Gandhian and secretary of the Faizabad district Congress committee. According to Brahmachari, on 13 November 1949, the tombs in the burial ground were being dug out. He himself went to the spot. ‘In the middle of the graveyard, there was a foundation, known among Muslims as Kanati Masjid. A platform was being raised on its site.’ (Harijan, August 19, 1950, p. 212. Muslims of Ayodhya, K. G. Mashruwala)
Also read: Ayodhya’s moved on from Babri demolition but ‘outsiders’ keep taking it back
Muslims petitioned to the City Magistrate in vain. Brahmachari also met the Magistrate. But instead of this leading to any preventive official measures, Brahmachari was attacked in his house on the night of November 15, 1949.
Following the digging of the tombs, there was a nine-day recitation of Ramayana followed by feasting and distribution of food in front of the Babri Masjid for some days, according to Brahmachari. It was during this time that an aggressive propaganda was mounted to invite people to the site. ‘Speeches were delivered telling the people that the Babari Masjid was to be converted into a Rama-mandir. Some more old tombs and holy places were demolished and the idols of Hindu gods were installed in their places.’ (Harijan, 19 August 1950, p. 212. Muslims of Ayodhya, K.G. Mashruwala)
Even though section 144 was imposed in the city, the district magistrate intimated Brahmachari on 23 December 1949 at 9 a.m., ‘that an idol of Rama had been placed in the Babari Masjid during the night. He himself had visited the place and seen it.’
Brahmachari thought the district magistrate didn’t act swiftly. ‘Till 12 in the noon that day, there were only a few men present at the place and had he (DM) meant it, the removal of the idol could have been easily effected.’
Next day, it was announced with great fanfare that the Lord himself had manifested and people were invited for darshan. During the gathering, ‘the speakers said that there was not a temple left in Pakistan and so in Ayodhya too they should allow no masjid or burial ground to remain.’
Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Congress governments were also the target of attack in their speeches. Brahmachari also noted about the participation of old Congressmen in inciting propaganda. ‘Even some members of the Congress party in the Legislative Assembly indulged in this kind of irresponsible talk.’ (Harijan, 19 August 1950, p. 212. Muslims of Ayodhya, K. G. Mashruwala)
Also read: What about Babri Masjid? How land became more important than the mosque in Ayodhya
Sardar Patel’s letter on Ayodhya
At the time, Prime Minister Nehru sent telegram to G.B. Pant, the premier of Uttar Pradesh. It was followed by a letter from deputy prime minister and home minister Sardar Patel. His instructions were unambiguous. After mentioning Nehru’s telegram, Patel expressed concern about the timing of these incidents because the Partition wounds had just started to heal. Noting that ‘it would be most unfortunate if we allowed any group advantage to be made on this issue’, Sardar Patel said that ‘the issue is one which should be resolved amicably in a spirit of mutual toleration and goodwill between the two communities.’
Patel wrote emphatically that ‘such matters can only be resolved peacefully if we take the willing consent of the Muslim community with us. There can be no question of resolving such disputes by force. In that case, the forces of law and order will have to maintain peace at all costs. If, therefore, peaceful and persuasive methods are to be followed, any unilateral action based on an attitude of aggression or coercion cannot be countenanced.’ (Sardar Patel’s Correspondence, Edited by Durga Das, Vol.9, p. 310-11)
Sardar Patel was completely against making the matter ‘such a live issue’, but he could not douse communal propaganda that was underway in the name of Ram Temple. Akshya Brahamchari commenced fast from August 22, 1950 and ended it after 32 days only after assurances from UP Government as well as persuasion by Vinoba Bhave and Kishorelal Mashruwala. (Harijan, September 30, 1950, p. 262, Shri Akshaya Brahmachari’s Fast). Lal Bahadur Shashtri, then home minister of Uttar Pradesh, wrote to Brahmachari that the ‘Government have (sic) made all efforts to set right the conditions in Ayodhya. If, however, there is anything still lacking, it is our duty to make it good. This requires co-operation and help of everyone. The greatest need is that the atmosphere should be so cleared that all people residing there live in amity and goodwill.’ (Harijan, September 30, 1950, p. 262)
Ayodhya as a political issue, not religious
Communal politics in the later years has made Ram-mandir at Ayodhya a symbol of so-called Hindu resurgence and a tool for anti-Muslim tirade. When some Gandhian workers, including noted Gujarati journalist-activist Ramesh Oza, tried sincerely to find architectural solutions to the dispute in 1990 with the guidance and support of veteran socialist Madhu Limaye, BJP veteran Lal Krishna Advani told them that they should stop wasting their time because the issue was not religious, but political. He added that he would not lose the opportunity to unite Hindus politically on communal plank. (Sunday supplement, Sandesh, 10-3-19, p.8)
There’s a popular saying in Gujarati: even stones float in the name of Lord Rama. Who knows it better than some political leaders who have exploited the Ram mandir-Babri Masjid issue endlessly to boost their careers.
Also read: Media can’t cover Ayodhya mediation, but SC put no bar on BJP from using it for votes
The author is a senior columnist and writer based in Ahmedabad.
Ayodhya issue is now essentially a political issue but has religious context and title to the property ownership as the legal basis. It is best settled by mutual accommodation of all parties, failing which by a court decision and finally by law. Mediation ordered by Supreme Court should be tried earnestly, failing which Supreme Court should give its judgement on the title dispute. If the judgement is not acceptable to the majority, then Parliament should pass the bill as deemed appropriate. Enough time has elapsed on this issue and we must get on with the resolution soonest, even if everyone is not entirely agreeable to the solution. We must find ways to soothe the ruffle nerves of the aggrieved parties.
Anything to hurt Hindu sentiments is par for the ‘ secular ‘ course in India. 80% people’s wishes count for nothing.
The partition in 1947 was very simple. Hindustan for Hindus and Pakistan for Muslims. India to be controlled and managed by Hindus and Pakistan by Muslims.
I think the verdict is clear. Muslims should leave for Pakistan. Muslims have already destroyed Hindus in Pakistan. India can take what remains of Hindus. That is the only way both Pakistan and India will move forward. And PoK remains with Pakistan and India’s Kashmir with India. That is the only way both nations will move forward.
There is no reason for India or Pakistan to do business with each other. They just need to keep out of each others countries and stop playing pawn to the rest of the world.
Ayodhya temple issue is a political issue and such issues are to be solved by give and take by the parties in the conflict. Historical grudges cannot be simply put under carpet and past injustices have to be acknowledged if there is genuine wish for reconciliation. Sad part is that instead of encouraging to reach a compromise secular minded intellectuals appear to stress the legal status of the case, though it is well known that political solutions need political skills and not just activism and legal fight for some cause.