Saeed Naqvi is concerned that “the prime minister is suddenly confronted with at least four issues which could make or mar his place in history: Ayodhya, Kashmir, Pakistan and the whole debate on whether or not India should take up the administration of what is being enticingly described as the ‘Indian sector’ in northern Iraq” (‘Muslims must be generous’, IE, June 13). I have no quarrels with Naqvi over his concerns, opinions and suggestions —including his opinion that “Muslims must be generous” — even if I may have a diametrically opposite perspective on the subject. However, what is worrisome is that the “wide angle” of Naqvi, a seasoned journalist with impeccable liberal credentials, has gone conveniently selective. The fact that he is concerned about the prime minister’s position in history, whereas the country is saddled with serious problems, speaks volumes about his predictions and priorities. The four issues he singles out do not include the basic issues of survival confronting the people. It reminds one of the quote, “the country is doing fine, but the people are not”! Naqvi asks: “Who can fault the prime minister that Ayodhya must be depoliticised?” One, a social issue cannot be “depoliticised”: moreover, who are the people who have “politicised” Ayodhya anyway? With regard to the Ayodhya dispute, Naqvi opines: “The Muslim case is reasonable and logical, but it runs into this irresistible incantation of ‘faith’, which is as much beyond reason as is the Virgin Birth, or the Prophet’s journey on a winged horse.” In a clever, deft and highly despicable move, Naqvi has equated two “innocuous” religious beliefs with a deliberately created political issue for creating religious discord. He has also achieved another objective with this masterstroke — the symbolic issue of supremacy of the Constitution versus the Jungle Law has been converted into a “Muslim versus Hindu” case. This “beyond reason” argument is extremely dangerous — as its practitioners always come and ask for more — for its genesis lies in political strategy! The declared objective of the VHP has been to liberate and restore more than 3,000 sites at present under Muslim control on which, according to it, Hindu temples had been previously standing. In 1992, the Sangh Parivar had given an assurance about the safety of the Babri Masjid, but it was destroyed. The less said about the statements of the leading lights of the Sangh Parivar before the Liberhan commission of inquiry, the better. The Parivar speaks in several voices at a given time, does not keep its word, and is not truthful. If not a “secularist”, I think you do enjoy the reputation of a liberal, Mr Naqvi, and liberals must at least be impartial!
