08-18-2004, 07:54 PM
From What If Rajiv Hadn't Caved In To The Zealots?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i><b>What if the Babri Masjid had not been unlocked by Rajiv Gandhi in 1986? </b></i>
<b>MH: </b>Itâd be very hard to dispute the interconnection between the Shah Bano case and the opening of the Babri locks. The sequence of events would have been much different if this dormant symbol was not reinvented by some very clever person or persons and turned into use as a trumpcard. If these two incidents had not happened, the bjp would not have emerged as a political force that it did. Despite very substantial presence of the rss and its very extensive networks, till the mid â80s, the ideas of Hindutva or Sanghâs divisive ideology was not gaining any acceptance in the intellectual climate.
<b>BP: </b>First of all, it has been a functioning temple at least since 1949. The gates were not opened out of conviction but as a counterpoise to having given in to the mullahs in the Shah Bano case. It was not dormant but had always been a live symbol and issue. History shows that Hindus had never given up their demand on the site. Legal cases had been going on, only to be forever delayed. Justice delayed is justice denied. The lid of Hindu patience was blown off which resulted in the demolition of Babri. A section of Hindu society got tired of this snail-paced judiciary and pulled down the disputed structure. The rest is history. Rajiv Gandhiâs opening the doors or leaving them locked would possibly have affected the chain of events very little.
<b>KF: </b>It is very clear that it was a functioning mosque till 1949 when statues were smuggled in. But the fact is that there were no riots between 1949 and 1986 when the then PM was misguided by some over-smart advisors that this act would placate the Hindus who had been fed the lie of "Muslim appeasement". The Congress would not have lost the trust of the common manâMuslim, Hindu or others.
<b>MH: </b>What is certain is that but for this issue, the process of eclipse of the BJP brand of politics would have been complete. From a Congress hegemony, despite the results of 1984, we were headed towards a genuine multi-party system. This mobilisation allowed the BJP to create a substantial constituency that has remained intact to a very large extent because they were able to capture political power in some statesâand thanks to the wider acquired legitimacy because of erstwhile socialists like George Fernandes and other so-called secular leadersâfrom a party of two MPs when the gates were unlocked. This would not have been possible otherwise.
<b>BP: </b>The gates would in any case would have had to be opened at some point in time or the other. It was a historical inevitability. Those who say that the BJP would not have emerged as a political power are living in a foolâs paradise and indulging in wishful thinking. In 1984, the BJP was reduced to two seats because of the Delhi riots and the Congress-sponsored pogrom of Sikhs and the fear psychosis that had been built up in the country. The BJP already was a potent force and its rise to power was inevitable.
<b>KF: </b>Look at the tremendous cost that has been paid by the country. The lives of many innocents, regardless of religion, including children and women, would not have been lost because of resulting riots and chaos.
Apart from the atmosphere of fear and insecurity, the whole countryâs collective energy would not have been dissipated and diverted to a local issue that has not only created a tremendous rift among communities who had lived peacefully for centuries, but also cost us loss of international face. India would have shone even brighter, because real issues such as education, poverty, reforms in personal laws, population, economic growth could have been focused on instead.
BP: The real lesson of history is que sera seraâwhat is to happen, shall happen. Events at an appropriate time will break through a different door even if the first remains locked! The difference is only technical rather than real.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<i>Based on separate conversations. For full texts, please click here: Mushirul Hasan (MH), Balbir Punj (BP), Kamal Faruqui (KF), Syed Shahabuddin (SS) </i>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i><b>What if the Babri Masjid had not been unlocked by Rajiv Gandhi in 1986? </b></i>
<b>MH: </b>Itâd be very hard to dispute the interconnection between the Shah Bano case and the opening of the Babri locks. The sequence of events would have been much different if this dormant symbol was not reinvented by some very clever person or persons and turned into use as a trumpcard. If these two incidents had not happened, the bjp would not have emerged as a political force that it did. Despite very substantial presence of the rss and its very extensive networks, till the mid â80s, the ideas of Hindutva or Sanghâs divisive ideology was not gaining any acceptance in the intellectual climate.
<b>BP: </b>First of all, it has been a functioning temple at least since 1949. The gates were not opened out of conviction but as a counterpoise to having given in to the mullahs in the Shah Bano case. It was not dormant but had always been a live symbol and issue. History shows that Hindus had never given up their demand on the site. Legal cases had been going on, only to be forever delayed. Justice delayed is justice denied. The lid of Hindu patience was blown off which resulted in the demolition of Babri. A section of Hindu society got tired of this snail-paced judiciary and pulled down the disputed structure. The rest is history. Rajiv Gandhiâs opening the doors or leaving them locked would possibly have affected the chain of events very little.
<b>KF: </b>It is very clear that it was a functioning mosque till 1949 when statues were smuggled in. But the fact is that there were no riots between 1949 and 1986 when the then PM was misguided by some over-smart advisors that this act would placate the Hindus who had been fed the lie of "Muslim appeasement". The Congress would not have lost the trust of the common manâMuslim, Hindu or others.
<b>MH: </b>What is certain is that but for this issue, the process of eclipse of the BJP brand of politics would have been complete. From a Congress hegemony, despite the results of 1984, we were headed towards a genuine multi-party system. This mobilisation allowed the BJP to create a substantial constituency that has remained intact to a very large extent because they were able to capture political power in some statesâand thanks to the wider acquired legitimacy because of erstwhile socialists like George Fernandes and other so-called secular leadersâfrom a party of two MPs when the gates were unlocked. This would not have been possible otherwise.
<b>BP: </b>The gates would in any case would have had to be opened at some point in time or the other. It was a historical inevitability. Those who say that the BJP would not have emerged as a political power are living in a foolâs paradise and indulging in wishful thinking. In 1984, the BJP was reduced to two seats because of the Delhi riots and the Congress-sponsored pogrom of Sikhs and the fear psychosis that had been built up in the country. The BJP already was a potent force and its rise to power was inevitable.
<b>KF: </b>Look at the tremendous cost that has been paid by the country. The lives of many innocents, regardless of religion, including children and women, would not have been lost because of resulting riots and chaos.
Apart from the atmosphere of fear and insecurity, the whole countryâs collective energy would not have been dissipated and diverted to a local issue that has not only created a tremendous rift among communities who had lived peacefully for centuries, but also cost us loss of international face. India would have shone even brighter, because real issues such as education, poverty, reforms in personal laws, population, economic growth could have been focused on instead.
BP: The real lesson of history is que sera seraâwhat is to happen, shall happen. Events at an appropriate time will break through a different door even if the first remains locked! The difference is only technical rather than real.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<i>Based on separate conversations. For full texts, please click here: Mushirul Hasan (MH), Balbir Punj (BP), Kamal Faruqui (KF), Syed Shahabuddin (SS) </i>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->