Ayodhya verdict has a message of coexistence: Jamia VC

 

Ayodhya verdict has a message of coexistence: Jamia VC

Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, October 01, 2010

First Published: 20:48 IST(1/10/2010)
Last Updated: 20:50 IST(1/10/2010)

The "underlying message" in the Ayodhya verdict is that of coexistence, because India's Muslims and Hindus have to live together and it is time for them to start praying together, Jamia Millia University Vice Chancellor Najeeb Jung says. "I believe the learned judges have actually presented a cocktail of their own 

belief and a mixture of history and jurisprudence. I think they were wrestling with expectations of the society and they have tried to do a match of statesmanship and matchmaking," Jung told IANS in an interview at his office on Friday. The Allahabad High Court in its verdict Thursday gave two-third of the disputed land to two Hindu litigant parties and a third to a Muslim group.

Not dissatisfied with the verdict that gives a go ahead for construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya, Jung said the judges have passed "a message that you have to live for thousands of years. There is a possibility, try and pray together. There is an underlying message there".

Islam and Hinduism, Jung believes, "are in the DNA of India".

"If any part of the DNA is infected, the body gets cancer. So both communities must see that they have a healthy relationship. That healthy relationship is critical for the motherland."

He said Justice SU Khan, one of the three judges who pronounced the verdict Thursday, had probably kept in mind the Prophet Mohammed's Hudaibiya peace treaty which he signed in the 7th century with then custodians of Kaabah, the holiest of the Muslim shrines in Makkah.

"The Prophet could have fought them to conquer Makkah. But his armies went back and he proposed that they will come peacefully. And the next year they did a peaceful Hajj and entire Makkah was theirs. That is the message of the Prophet. That is what Islam teaches us," the vice chancellor said, "wishing we could travel that extra distance today".

He said that the gesture of peace that Muslims "can make today will wash away all the complexes of the (1947) partition of India. That one gesture will wash away the charges of fundamentalism that a part of you is facing today".

The former civil servant said that there was an opportunity for Muslims "to convert this to a historic opportunity which nobody expects from you.

"But there has to be an equal display of maturity from the rightwing Hindu parties that are interested in building the temple."

He, however, cautioned against any "great demonstration of glee, gloating that we have won this case. There is no need for triumphalism".

He said in law two plus two necessary doesn't make four and "here both parties are dissatisfied".

"The point I am trying to make is that under the present judgment you cannot make anything grand, because what you are forgetting is that the judgment is only about 2.7 acres of land of which you are only getting two-thirds and Muslims only one-third. You can neither build a 'bhavya (grand) temple nor a bhavya mosque.

"There are 70 acres of land near the disputed site which is owned by the central government. Have you ever spoken of that? What can you make in two acres? But it is possible if both communities come together and talk, and tell the government to give us some or all of the land it owns, they can make anything - a magnificent temple, mosque and of course a magnificent history of India."

 

 

.

__,_._,___

 

Verdict makes me feel like a 2nd-class citizen'

By Shobhan Saxena

New Delhi: The Ayodhya title suit was not just a dispute over a patch of land, it was being seen by many, particularly the minorities, as a test of India's commitment to secularism. So, did India pass the test successfully on Thursday? Though there are no shrill reactions to the verdict from the country's biggest minority group, there are many voices of disappointment.

Historian Irfan Habib feels the "compromise judgment" had come at the cost of history and facts. "It is improper (for the court) to accept the ASI report on the historical fact. Weight has been given to belief. One should be careful in historical facts," says Habib.

Though members of Muslim intelligentsia put up a brave face on TV channels, talking in politically-correct terms, in private, many accept that they see the verdict as "anti-Muslim". "The Muslims of India have been told very clearly that they have to live in this country on the terms set by the majority community. From now on we have to live in constant fear," says a former vice-chancellor of a central university.

But others are a bit more forthcoming. Shabnam Hashmi, well-known social activist who heads Sahmat, says the verdict made her feel like a "second-class citizen". "We will not stop the struggle against irrationality and hatred but we can no longer promise to hand over a secular, democratic nation to you," says Hashmi, in her "message to the next generation".

The Muslims are disappointed but they have not given up hope. And the verdict has not shaken their in the idea of India. "My sentiment about this judgment is in this couplet from Faiz. "Ye dil na umeed to nahi nakaam hi to hai, lambi hai gum ki sham magar sham hi to hai (The heart is despondent but not without hope, long is sorrows evening but its an evening after all)," says Syeda Hameed, a member of the Planning Commission.

Such poetic words notwithstanding, there are fears in the community that the right-wing Hindu fanatics may now start raising old issues of "liberation of Kashi and Mathura". "Today the Lucknow court put its stamp of approval on the destruction of Babri Masjid. Can anybody guarantee us that such incidents will not happen in the future? I guess not," says the former VC.

There is no palpable fear and tension on the streets and everybody is talking about "reconcilaition" and "moving on". This, according to some, is a sign of hope. "Despite the feeling of disappointment, this is an opportunity on both sides to use the interregnum before the time for appeals to talk," says Najeeb Jung, an academic from Jamia Milia Islamia. The Mulsims may be seeking a closure of the issue, but it's hard to deny that verdict has left them sad and disappointed.

(Courtesy: The Times of India)

 

__._,_.___

 

Post-judgment, a chance for Hindus & Muslims to forge new ties - By Najeeb Jung

 

 

Post-judgment, a chance for Hindus & Muslims to forge new ties

By Najeeb Jung 

    After a wait of 61 years, the learned judges presented a cocktail of belief, history and jurisprudence in the Babri Masjid title suit. Wrestling with the expectations of society and influenced by their own beliefs the parts of the judgment revealed thus far manifest an attempt at statesmanship and matchmaking that go beyond the issues they were expected to adjudicate upon. As if on cue, the order is to divide the cake into three slices that may satisfy three expectant children. As expected the parties now prepare for petitioning the Supreme Court. 
    The question now is on the path forward. Should the matter go on to the SC where it will perhaps be contested for a further two decades, and even then the outcome may only open sore wounds once again? Or should this be converted into an opportunity, resting upon the understanding that Hindus and Muslims are inherent to the DNA of India, and if parts of the DNA are mutually antagonistic the body turns cancerous? As I write, I comprehend the pain of large sections of Muslim society and the pain of millions of Hindus with regards the judgment. But the deed is done, and is it possible to turn this moment of doubt into one of historical significance when the two communities can forge a new relationship? 
    The answer, at least for Muslims, lies imbedded in Justice Khan's judgment where he quotes the Prophet's (peace be upon him), treaty of Hubaida. The Muslim armies had encircled Mecca having converged on Mecca from all parts of Arabia to perform the first Haj. Undeniably, had a battle had taken place, the Muslims would have conquered Mecca and performed the Haj. This victory would not just be a military conquest over a powerful city, but a payback for the atrocities committed on the Prophet and his followers by the powerful Quraish tribe over the past two decades. But, in the midst of all the hysteria, the Prophet held talks with the Quraish. Much to the dismay and shock of the Muslims, he agreed to withdraw for a period of one year. At the conclusion of the year the Muslims would return for Haj without hindrance. No historic decision is ever easy, and the Prophet was questioned by no less than the tallest of his companions, the second Caliph, Hazrat Omar. The following year, the Muslims not only performed the Haj but were welcomed by the Meccans as their own! 
    The minorities anywhere are sensitive to being overwhelmed by the majority. And therefore there is an inherent zeal to protect their beliefs and culture. But in this case we are aware that a very large section of the Hindu community realizes the ''majoritarian'' aspect of this judgment and sympathizes with the Muslims. To this end this judgment carries a hope that these two communities which have lived in this ancient land for over 1,000 years can now pray together. This moment presents an opportunity to the Muslim community to emerge from the shadows of history, the stigma of partition, the throes of fundamentalism and stand tall in the interest of the future generations and of the motherland itself. 
    But a word of caution is necessary. Because the judgment is being perceived as a ''majoritarian'' one, there is need for care on the part of the protagonists. Perceptions of glee and exaggerated cries of ''grand'' temple to be constructed will muddy the waters. The question of any construction is indeed a very complex one because the adjudicated site stands only on 2.77 acres of land of which one third is with the Muslims. Another 70 odd acres of adjoining land has been acquired and vests with the government. No ''grand'' temple or mosque can be constructed over less than 2 acres of land, and I believe sensing this complexity, spokespersons of various political parties scurried for cover under the excuse of not having read the full judgment. Even if the matter of title is referred to the SC, this complexity shall remain. 
    Perhaps then it is sensible for the government to be more proactive than it has so far been in resolving this matter. This issue is more complicated than Kashmir or the Naxal issue by multiples. However, afraid of the political fallout, successive governments have not attempted a resolution, putting it on the shoulders of the courts. This judgment proves that it will now require a combination of political effort and the legal process if we are to see a peaceful resolution. Unfortunately knowing our system, one can safely presume that the government will continue to play safe till it is forced into action. On that presumption we must rely on the greater sense of the people of India, the religious leaders and the intellectuals of all sections of society to look for a resolution. This is the need of the time. In the words of Iqbal: 
    Watan ki fikr kar nadaan musibat aane waali hai, 
    Teri barbaadiyon ke mashware hain aasmanon main, 
    Na samjoge to mit jaaoge e Hindustanwalon, 
    Tumhari dastan tak bhi na hogi daastanon main. 
    (Think for the country o fool, for disaster awaits, The skies speak of your tragedies Worry for the country, Or you will be wiped out) 
    (The writer is vice chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia)

 

Jamia_Millia_Alumni_directory

__._,_.___

.

__,_._,___