At the time of writing, both the Shankaracharya of Kanchi and the president of the Muslim Personal Law Board (MPLB)—Maulana Rabay Nadwi— are sunk in deep thought. How should the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi issue be handled so that it yields a resolution?This is not the Shankaracharya’s first effort at peace. He had taken such an initiative in March 2002. Important players, including VHP leader Ashok Singhal, had thrown something resembling a ginger fit and the effort was stalled. Recently, the Shankaracharya has once again initiated a move. But what exactly is it? Apparently, newspapers have discussed proposals that have not been made. On May 30, the seer of Kanchi had spoken, among others, to Maulana Sajjad Noamani of the MPLB. The Maulana has since been appointed the spokesman of the Board. This streamlining of the system itself indicates a seriousness of purpose in preparation for negotiations.When Maulana Noamani informed the Shankaracharya that the president of the MPLB, Maulana Rabay Nadwi, was unwell in Lucknow, the seer indicated an interest in visiting him. Of course, the seer was welcome. But if he had any interest in picking up the thread on the Ayodhya issue, it would be helpful if he sent a copy of his proposal in writing so that the 41-member executive of the MPLB could consider the Shankaracharya’s proposal.On June 4, the Shankaracharya visited the ailing Maulana. A sort of courtesy call. Diverse issues were discussed. Even Ayodhya was cursorily touched. The seer returned, having agreed to send a proposal in writing. Word was sent out to Maulana Rabay Nadwi that an emissary of the Shankaracharya would carry the seer’s proposal for an amicable settlement. By the time this goes into print a proposal may, indeed, be on the table. Should that happen, the executive of MPLB will go into an urgent session. So, keep your fingers crossed.What is the mood in the Muslim Personal Law Board? A senior member of the Board says the consensus is to bring about a settlement which “reduces tensions and brings the two communities together”. What could be the parameters of such a settlement? “We are willing to consider a legal, historical, or a religious solution,” he elaborates. “We are also willing to consider positively, sympathetically, any reasonable proposal the Shankaracharya offers.”A “legal” solution means waiting for court verdicts but there is no insistence on this as the only way out provided a sensible alternative is suggested. Taking the “historical” avenue implies a willingness to be guided by the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India. Here again the MPLB’s position is reasonable: “We shall accept it if you do.” The “religious” route is rather more complicated. Who knows various Muslim sects may begin to cite their respective schools of jurisprudence on the question of compromise. The Shankaracharya, too, will have to take the responsibility of speaking on behalf of the entire community. Needless to say, the proposal will have to be discussed by the MPLB and, later, between the MPLB and the Shankaracharya in secrecy, at least in the initial stages—just to be discreet.Meanwhile a move is afoot to draft a legislation for the acquisition of the land in Ayodhya. This is beset with political and legal complications beyond the scope of this column. Who knows, even the Shankaracharya is grappling with the implications of this one.Why did the Shankaracharya’s efforts fail last year and why is there greater receptivity to his initiative now? The post 9/11 and Gujarat tensions were playing differently on the two communities last year. The relative calm that spread across the subcontinent with the prime minister’s landmark speech in Srinagar on March 18, has created an atmosphere where “problem solving” is the general mood. The capacity of political parties to play spoilers by encouraging Muslims to adopt a hardline position is also limited. Muslims find themselves betrayed by all its previous political patrons and is open to persuasion by whoever can deliver relative peace. The politics of votebanks, as far as Muslims are concerned, is a thing of the past.The decade since the Ayodhya issue loomed large has taught the Muslims a cardinal lesson: Their case on Ayodhya is reasonable and constitutionally correct. But, ironically, the politics that has flowed from it, and an assortment of similar issues, has harmed Muslim interests. The governments of P.V. Narasimha Rao and A.B. Vajpayee have completed their five-year terms without any enthusiastic support from the Muslims. In other words, possibly for the first time since independence, the community finds itself totally marginalised from the nodal points of power. This realisation of the community is also reflected in the way the responsible section of the Muslim leadership is addressing issues. The alternative, for this leadership, is to find itself being pushed into the margins.This explains enlightened voices in Muslim Personal Law Board awaiting the Shankaracharya’s proposal on Ayodhya.
