Ayodhya

News flash, flash, flash (madras cut): As per the reports of ASI and the faith and belief of the “Spent My Life Pining Over My Lost Love” Trust, it has been proven that the village of Kanfala in Murshidabad in West Bengal is the birthplace of Devdas. Keeping in mind the sentiments of millions of rejected, dejected and desperate (but cowardly) lovers the High Court has granted permission to the Trust to build a temple at the disputed sight in Kanfala, dedicating it to the iconic Devdas. Since Devdas was a Hindu, the RSS has allowed Valentine’s Day to be celebrated there too. Mr Omkaarhumkaar has told the press that this should be treated as an exception. The 2-1 majority verdict upholds the fundamental right of rejected lovers to drown their misery in high spirits. However, not much attention is being paid to the sole dissenter since she is an atheist single woman considered not having much knowledge of divine and carnal love.

As strange as it may sound, the above is true, or should be, given the Ayodhya verdict that has been received with much pataka bursting fervor in many segments of our society. A few others are calling it the most pragmatic decision and thanking their stars that the aftermath war rather bloodless. There are just so many things wrong with the verdict which is slowly being discussed by the media and some publics, but let’s deal with the bloodless aftermath first. I think it’s only because the verdict is so pro-Hindu. If this was a pro-Muslim verdict then we would have seen cities burn. Surely, I am not crediting the Muslim fanatics to be more sensitive than their Hindu counterparts; however, their numbers are small – or at least smaller than that of Hindus. In any given city, there are lesser Muslim ghettos than Hindu ones for example. The Diaspora of Muslim fanatics will surely rise to this, as they have before. And so, to all my friends who are sleeping tight, beware that this may not just be the end of the aftermath.

Now to begin our enquiry into the verdict. I am at a loss of direction here, not because I have none, but because I can enter it in so many ways. Do I enter this as a liberal, leftist, atheist, feminist, rationalist – well, each could gift me an entire article. So here I will choose to just talk about those issues that irk and exhaust me the most.

History: Historians across the country are seething. To quote one, “This is a verdict of theology, not history”. History says that a Masjid was built 500 years ago, over the ruins of what most probably was temple. History also says that this was most probably built by Babar or his deputy Mir Baqt. Sometime before 1949, an idol put installed in the space that was ‘thought’ to be Ram’s birthplace and the whole Pandora’s box opened. Some crazy people are talking about correcting history. Since Babar destroyed our temple, let us destroy his mosque. Well, for one, historically there is no proof that Babar ‘destroyed the temple’ but of course we did destroy his mosque! Secondly, correcting history this way may well be a dangerous thing and can become extremely convoluted – so are Aryans outsiders and not from this land, and did they write the Vedas, because if they did, then the Vedas must have come from Persia or Iran – and write now Iran is a Muslim country. What would our gurudevs of Hinduism say to that? Correcting history this way would enable one thing only – all of us hang our tails and sit on branches chewing bananas – because that is the one thing we have in common – our ancestors.

ASI and Faith: When ASI was asked to study/ excavate the disputed site, it seemed strange to me. Excavations could prove that a temple might have been there, but how would it prove that it belonged to Ram, a fictional character from an epic! So after all of ASI’s the verdict never even refers to it. Why? Is it because bones were found there which could not have been in a Ram temple or because broken pottery with Muslim motifs engraved in them could suggest that this was a Muslim neighbourhood? So finally our judges latch on to faith and belief of Hindus in claiming this as the birthplace of Ram. I wonder why PC Sarkar could not demand a railway station anywhere he wanted since he could make thousands of people believe they saw a train where there was none. The verdict is populist and political to say the least.

Pragmatism: What does pragmatic really mean/ Does it have to be cowardly too? Does that mean that in reverse any act of courage is foolish? While some people may think this was a pragmatic verdict, I disagree. What if the court said that the dispute cannot be unraveled since neither side can quite satisfactorily prove their claim. Because, that’s what really happened if you see the long list of ‘discoveries’ published in The Hindu. Could they not have then given the site up for a secular facility – park, hospital, bathrooms, whatever? That would have been very foolish? Ok, so what about one third to Hindus, one third to Muslims and one third to the idea of secular. At least let it be known that there are people in this country who have concerns different from whether they are Hindus or Muslims.

I do not want to get into the whole presentation of the verdict to the media on behalf of the lawyers of the Hindu side which was patronizing to say the least, nor how the country came to a standstill that day – but I would like to mention that there is an eerie silence that I feel right now. A silence that is not content, that feels betrayed, moreover, a silence that says “We knew it, how could we have expected anything else”. We need to deal with that silence. Soon.