No end in sight to Ayodhya....

By Tushar Charan

It had to happen, though the liberal minded would tend to dismiss it as nothing more than a mischief or pressure tactics. Some rather little-known Muslim organisations led by 'Tanzeem Aimmal' are reported to have promoted the idea of building up an Islamic 'counter force' to face the growing 'Hindu terrorism'. But the buck does not stop there: a demand has also been made to 'move the United Nations to carve out a safe haven for Muslims in India in line with the Kurdish area in Northern Iraq.' A statement to that effect was printed in a section of the Press just after the latest series on Ayodhya was re-enacted by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in mid-October.

That the statement was not widely reproduced or evoked much comment in the media or political circles may be an indication that it has not been taken seriously. But it may turn out to be a mistake to ignore it completely. At least some attention needs to be paid to factors that led some people to publicly 'demand' another partition of the country. Can it be forgotten that when militancy began to raise its head in Punjab in the 1980s it was also ignored as being inconsequential? It went on to rampage the State and threatened the integrity of the nation as the militancy in Punjab was discovered to be the handiwork of Pakistan.

For whatever its worth, when a section of the people resort to secessionist talk and speak of raising an 'Islamic' counter terrorist force coupled with the threat of demanding another partition of the country for the 'safety' of Muslims, the matter has to be taken seriously. But the exercise has to begin by going to the root of this potentially dangerous 'demand' which would certainly embarrass, if not worry, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the country as the ruling party in the country has often expressed doubts about their patriotism.

And the root cause is enlisted in the 'demand' itself. The 'counter-terrorism' force is needed to combat 'Hindu terrorism' which is a euphemism for the increasingly brazen communal games that the VHP plays with, many suspect, the blessing of the BJP-led Central Government. With the full backing of its 'Parivar', the VHP goes about pursuing its Hindutva agenda with Ayodhya as its spearhead. The VHP has made it clear that irrespective of court decision or the outcome of any talk that might be held with representatives of the minorities, it will build a Ram temple at the 'disputed' site in Ayodhya where the Parivar volunteers, watched by some BJP bigwigs, had demolished the Babri mosque in December 1992. After razing the mosque, the Sangh Parivar has made no bones about the fact that it would like to construct a Ram temple at the 'disputed' site, which they say was the birthplace of Lord Ram.

The demolition of the Babri mosque had stunned the world and shattered the long-held belief that India was a country that treated all its citizens equally, irrespective of their religion. The 'assurance' by the BJP that the Babri mosque (the BJP refused to call it a mosque) at Ayodhya would not be demolished was not honoured. The Muslims felt not only angry but also insecure. The Sangh Parivar's activism in Ayodhya has perhaps ensured that the Muslim community would never trust it. But any hope of 'forgive and forget' act by the Muslim has since been dashed by VHP's vigorous campaign for building the Ram temple at the disputed site at any cost.

The BJP watches all this quietly, though occasionally it plays the charade of being upset over VHP's games. It is only because it is the ruling party that the BJP takes an overt stand of distancing itself from the Ayodhya agitation. But the VHP has no such hassles and keeps its Ayodhya flag flying with programmes varying from rallies and 'yatras' to 'poojas', 'shiladaan' and 'dharma sansad.' The BJP's intentions look all the more suspicious because one of the active VHP members, Swami Chinmayanand, has been elevated to the post of Minister of State for Home. In fact, he is openly described as BJP's bridge to the VHP. The Swami is said to have played an important role in diffusing the latest crisis in Ayodhya, though Mulayam Singh Yadav would also advance a similar claim.

The latest in the series of VHP-sponsored dharma in Ayodhya was the much-hyped 'Sankalp Sabha' (meeting to take a pledge for the construction of the temple) in Ayodhya that had kept the nation on tenterhooks with fears of an outbreak of communal violence. The event did pass off without any untoward incident. But it cannot be said that the 'Sankalp Sabha' had failed to take place: it did a day later has scheduled as the 'Ram Bhakt' volunteers of VHP managed to gather in Ayodhya surreptitiously after their release from precautionary custody.

But after it was all over there was something deceptive about the round of self-applause witnessed in the Sangh Parivar, the BJP-led Government at the Centre and the UP Government led by Samajwadi Party's Maulana Mulayam Singh Yadav. The sigh of relief after the peaceful conclusion of the mid-October 'Sankalp Sabha' may be a bit premature because the VHP has threatened continuation of the endless Ayodhya saga. That the interest in Ayodhya has begun to wane has, in fact, made things more dangerous because a desperate VHP is incapable of going to further extremes.

The Sangh Parivar —BJP included— has acquired a fresh 'impetus' to flog the Ayodhya issue with the so-called findings of the Archaeological Survey of India that a temple existed at the site of the Babri mosque. That the 'findings' are subject to confirmation and have been disputed by many historians and archeologists has not stopped the Parivar from touting the ASI 'findings' as a vindication of its stand on Ayodhya. It has made no difference to the Ram 'Bhakts' that the courts have frowned upon their efforts to twist the ASI report on the diggings at Ayodhya for partisan propaganda.

The Government at the Centre may dream of India becoming a big power and a developed nation in the next few years. But this will also require Indians to be forward looking, and of course, tolerant. No Government would be in a position to wish away the Minorities. The Parivar's antics in Ayodhya needlessly shoot up the communal temperature. Though Ayodhya as an issue is by all accounts no longer a strong rallying point for the Parivar, the Sangh Parivar still clings on to it. Is it because of the communal fallout from it? And which party stands to 'benefit' from communal polarisation in the country?

The Sangh Parivar, which wants India declared a 'Hindu Rashtra' (a nation of Hindus), has been sharpening its attacks on secularism, almost dubbing it a crime. Polarisation of society on the basis of religion may weaken and damages the country, but the Sangh Parivar thinks it appeals to Hindu voters. No matter how 'strained' relations are made to look between the BJP and the rest of its Parivar, if there is any 'benefit' from it, it will go to the BJP, the political arm of the Parivar.

The 'abuses' that the VHP hurls now and then on Atal Bihari Vajpayee or his 'Lauh Purush' Deputy, are nothing more than a trick to make people believe that the BJP does not share the strident policies of the VHP. In reality, the BJP is anxious to get all the 'benefits' that will accrue to the VHP from its agitation in Ayodhya.

Syndicate Features

Need for a new idiom in Indo-US relations

By S.K. Singh

The US Under-Secretary of Commerce, Kenneth Juster, and Foreign Secretary, Mr. Kanwal Sibal held three rounds of "fruitful discussions" to promote high technology cooperation between the two countries, but no deadline has been set when specific agreement could be reached. On export controls relating to nuclear proliferation, the two official said the US favoured "catch all" controls; suggesting that India should license any components that could be used by another country for weapons of mass destruction programmes. There were differences of opinion on providing technology for nuclear rectors, which India needs for making-up demand and supply gap in the power sector. The US has shown its willingness to assist India in providing specific technologies for space applications. Mr. Juster placed the burden of creating a proper environment for trade, "on Indian shoulders", and he insisted that India must reduce Government restrictions and remove non-tariff barriers.

On India’s charges, that trade suffered due to the sanctions imposed by the US after the 1998 Pokhran blasts, but Mr. Juster’s contention was that there is a sanctions’ hangover with continuing misconceptions about sanctions which are no longer in effect. He also asked for India’s compliance with its WTO commitments. But it appeared that the US is inclined towards reviewing the policies and processes of certain category of goods and the two countries are expected to work out an arrangement for authorised transfers of goods and technologies, controlled for nuclear proliferation and missile technology, for civilian applications in India.

With the break-up of the Soviet Union, India and the USA have been trying to evolve a new kind of relationship between the two countries, but differences persist on many regional and global issues. For example, Indo-Pak relations, nuclear and missile control regime and other strategic areas of interest for both the countries. Some of the differences are due to the past cold war equations, where India had refused to acknowledge the US hegemony. Even on the most important issue like Islamic terrorism, differences have not been reconciled.

The Indian contention is that the US Government has adopted double standards in dealing with terrorist menace capable of destabilising the world peace and order. While the Twin Tower strikes on 9/11 "is considered an attack on humanity"; but regular attacks on Indian security forces or innocent citizens has not paved the way for any coordinated action which reflects the US insensitivity in fighting Islamic terrorism. India was assured that no sooner the source of terrorist menace is eliminated in Afghanistan; a joint operation will be launched to eliminate terrorism in Kashmir. Instead, the promoter of terrorism in Afghanistan, the Pakistan Government has been co-opted as a partner to eliminate the menace. This contradiction in approach has bewildered India and New Delhi is left to fight its own battle against terrorism. This issue has been raised time and again by the Government of India, but the US response has been evasive and negative.

The National Security Advisor, Mr. Brajesh Mishra, over the last one year, had held two rounds of talks with his counterpart, Ms. Condoleeza Rice, to evolve a regional security parameters to fight terrorism, be it in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan or anywhere else. But Ms. Rice, though agreeing in principle, suggested selective approach, without committing to prevail upon Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism in J&K.

The subcontinent is India’s exclusive sphere of influence. None other than Jawaharlal Nehru expounded the notion of a Monroe Doctrine, similar to the one proclaimed for the Western Hemisphere by the US in the 19th century. India’s first Prime Minister stressed the importance of keeping foreign powers out of Asia in the context of the attempts by the colonial powers to regain territories after the Second World War. Referring to the fact that America had secured itself from foreign aggression under the Monroe Doctrine, Nehru insisted that foreign armies have no business to stay on the soil of any Asian country.

But the extended Cold War in Asia ensured that foreign armies stayed on. Even after the Cold War ended, there are no signs that they are about to leave. Nevertheless, the notion of the Monroe Doctrine took roots in Indian foreign policy in relation to the subcontinent. While India could not prevent Pakistan from bringing great power rivalries to the subcontinent, it actively sought to insulate the rest of the region from intervention by external powers. The special relationships India had inherited from the British with regard to the security of some of the smaller neighbours reinforced the sense of South Asia as India’s sphere of influence.

During the Indira Gandhi years, the India’s Monroe Doctrine was buttressed by the principle of bilateralism. Under the so-called called Indira Doctrine, India insisted that the problems in the region must be resolved bilaterally and that external powers should have no role in the region. Since then, the principal has been a matter of faith for Indian foreign policy makers.

A number of factors are at work in the new situation India faces. The first and foremost is the reality that the subcontinent today is more integrated with the world. In the past the US and the Soviet Union were not too concerned about the smaller nations of the subcontinent and were quite content to leave it for management by India. But China has always questioned India’s claims for an exclusive sphere of influence in South Asia. As India’s ties with smaller neighbours became complicated, China expanded its influence in South Asia. Not that Beijing had to do much. India’s smaller neighbours were behaving in copybook style–mobilising other powers to expand their leverage vis-à-vis India. All that China had to do was to pat them on the back, say the right things, and throw in a few arms and a bit of economic aid.

The long-standing ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, Maoist insurgency in Nepal, the antics of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the contest between Aung San Suu Kyi and the military regime in Myanmar, the question of the Nepalese refugees in Bhutan can no longer be swept under the regional carpet.

Huge anti-India constituencies have formed in neighbouring countries, and the leaders of these nations have not found it easy to resist the temptation of playing to the galleries by "standing up" against India. Pakistan is adept at manipulating these constituencies.

India needs to take full advantage of natural geographic conditions and the pressures of economic globalisation to quicken the pace of the inevitable reintegration of the South Asian market. India cannot allow political pinpricks from its neighbours to come in the way of pursuing freer regional trade through unilateral action where necessary.

India’s objective is to work with friendly great powers to promote principled and reasonable solutions to the conflict in the region. It welcomes US participation in any effort to bring about peace and stability in this region. INAV