 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. I am Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay and you are watching Present Past in the Future. Very recently the Supreme Court appointed a three-member committee to mediate on the Ayodhya dispute. Now this raised very important questions. The first question is obviously whether mediation is possible at all or not on a dispute which has gone on for so many decades. The second is that should the Supreme Court try to settle a matter which is essentially a civil dispute related to whose land is it? Should they relate or try to mediate and come out with a settlement by some other means? The third question permits, you know, it pertains to the presence of a member on the mediation committee that is Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who has in the past said that the Muslims should hand over the disputed piece of land to build a temple. There is also this very important question which we cannot avoid at this stage that we cannot ignore the fact that there is a political dimension to this because this is happening right in the middle of elections. The responses of various people have been on fairly expected lines, especially from the Hindu groups and leaders. They have said that there is actually no scope for mediation because Mandir to where he may go. So there is no scope for any mediation. Now very interestingly, most of the Muslim or in fact all the Muslim groups have responded very positively to this attempt to mediate. Obviously, the mediation is going to be held in camera. The process has already started. We will not know till fairly late into the elections as to what is the outcome of it. Now to discuss something which is of such an importance which is actually dogged Indian politics for the last four decades, you know I am joined by two extremely credible and independent voices who also happen to be Muslims. Now I am saying you know I am laying emphasis on credible and independent voices who also happen to be Muslims. Neither of these two are Muslims who have a credible and independent voice. My emphasis is that their identity as credible and independent voice precedes that of something similar to the entire debate that whether you are Muslim Indians or Indian Muslims. I have Zafarul Islam Khan who has been the founding editor of Milligazit and also currently the chairman of the Delhi Minority Commission and Rizwan Kesar, professor of history at the Jamia Milia Islamia. Zafarul Islam Khan Sahib, I will begin with you that this is not the first time that there has been an attempt to mediate between various warring groups as far as Ayodhya is concerned. But this is the first time that it has been done under judicial you know supervised is being supervised by the judiciary. The first question that comes to my mind that something which has been in dispute for so long, what are the prospects of mediation in this? Well, mediation has been tried earlier many times before the demolition, after the demolition and very recently by Justice Palok. Various persons, organizations have tried but it has always been scuttled by this group or that. The first attempt that was made by Maulana Abul-Hassan and Nadevi was scuttled by Muslim groups and other later attempts were scuttled by RSS and VHP people. They don't want any such mediation because it means that they will give something which they do not want to give. The current development that is the Supreme Court's decision to go into mediation, I think it is not the best of choices but it is a possible choice because both sides are adamant that the land in question is theirs. So although it's not the best of choices, I think I personally when this was decided I said that it is a good decision in any way because we want to get rid of this problem. Rizwan Kesar, I will take you back 25 years. It's just a sheer fortune of mine that 25 years ago very close to almost by the date my book The Demolition in the Crossroads came out and you were there at the release of it. At that point I remember very distinctly that we talked about at length after the book was released. Most of us felt that for a large number of Muslims who were just like me in the sense that came from a liberal past in a small town, grew up with a certain amount of personal religiosity but maybe not going beyond the personal domain. The demolition of the Babri Masjid made them feel what it means being a Muslim in India for a large number of my Muslim friends. I am not talking about you personally. 25 years later much has happened. Ayodhya has been milked if I can actually use the word and we now have had for the last five years we have had a BJP government in power with a majority of its own. A very simple question. What does Ayodhya mean for the Muslim today? Very quickly recalling something which is personal and also coming down what is political. I was still a research scholar in JNU and a couple of RSA-minded students shouting and shrieking and saying it in Hindi that we cannot build temples in our own country. I said by all means but you will destroy my mosque in my own country. When Babri Masjid was demolished I mean they didn't break the Masjid. I think they broke the heart of people who had grown in good faith that India's constitution protects them and that is where you realize that the constitution was severely dented. But then given the kind of enormity of hate, conflict, climate that was generated it was possibly the most inevitable consequence that it did. The problem begins from there. Problem does not begin till Babri Masjid was demolished. Problem begins after the demolition of it There is a record promise that Narsimha Rao had assured that Babri Masjid shall be liberated. So the Indian state intervened but then in due course of time the Indian state retrieved the ground and allowed the RSA's kind to occupy the center as regards construction of Ram Tebuli's concern. Now construction of Ram Tebuli must never be in any dispute. Question is that where are you building it? There must be a grand Ram Tebuli but where are you building it? Then everything, it all happened. Finally is a question of ownership of land. Therefore seeing in the long term an immediate perspective I would say, I mean in my opinion I hope I don't indulge in any contempt of court because I hold the court in highest possible esteem. I as a citizen of India would have expected Supreme Court to have delivered its judicial pronouncement on the ownership it whichever way it went. In fact that this brings to let me just ask Mr. Zafrul Islam Khan on this that various chief justices have had various viewpoints. He at one point had a certain position that trying to do it thereafter there was a position with change. So you have had various chief justices one saying that we should stick to matters of law the other one saying that we should look at matters beyond law also because this has become a very sensitive issue which pertains to sentiment. Now when we raise the issue sentiment the word called faith comes in. It was coined very famously right in the 1980s saying that we do not have to prove it was the RSS in the VHP in fact it was Mr. Elki Adwani who coined this phrase that Ram is a matter of faith. We do not have to scientifically establish that Ram was born there. So it is a matter of faith. So if for one community of people it is a matter of faith that their believed God was born to have was born in a certain place then it is a matter of faith for the other community that the tenets of this state of this country which actually considered to be the holy book of this land faith in that. So where does one actually lead to? How does one actually say that there is a mediation possible? Well as I said earlier mediation is not the best course to be pursued but since the problem has been so much the passions have been aroused so much and the issue is now so complicated that even if the Supreme Court and this is my belief and I have said it earlier even if the Supreme Court gives this land to the Muslims they will not be able to build a mosque there. So in this situation what do you do? And do you let this problem linger on and on and on with all the resulting riots and hate and discrimination and othering of Muslims. So it is best to arrive at some conclusion some way and if the Supreme Court does it I think it will have some judicial stamp or some kind of judicial power to impose it whether it is by bifurcation whether it is giving to Hindus whether it is going to be given to Muslims whatever decision is made I think the state and also a large part of Hindu organization of course Muslims are committed all the way that they will accept any decision that is made by the Supreme Court so let something come out of it and let us put this behind us. Let me ask you a question which is actually something pertaining to theology and also related to the issue of Islam. There are a lot of Muslim voices that one hears also which says that under Islam a mosque should not be built on any land which is disputed. It follows from that because this is a disputed land we should actually build a mosque somewhere else let a land be given and let us hand over this particular piece of disputed 10,000, 13,000 square feet odd land to the Hindus that let them build a temple. Following from this first is that whether this is permissible or not there is a certain grey idea. The second issue is actually which I will go to Rizwan to talk about that because this is a political dimension that suppose that yes you feel that yes it can be given and the Hindus do build a temple then will we be able to pull a full stock to that or would this then be raised to every mosque in the country saying that this land is also disputed. We already have that that is still pending disputes over the temple mosque complexes in Mathura and in Varanasi. Varanasi we have also seen very recently some kind of a massive development. But to begin with this entire issue of the interpretation of Islam that whether it can be shifted or not what is your view on it. Well what our Maulanas have been saying is not correct. Mosques can be relocated and this has happened in many countries even in Saudi Arabia they have relocated many mosques because town planning and some other needs demanded that mosques should be shifted and it has happened. So I don't agree with this and I myself Maulana I would tell you I have to study in Alaska. Yes that's why I asked you. I know that this is not correct but these people have been saying and when they are confronted with this that is happening in other countries this is we are not concerned with other countries we are concerned only with India. India is not some other planet in the world in the universe. It is very much in this world and if it's happening in other countries it can happen here. But the matter was complicated by the demolition and people now think that if we agree to any such solution which gives the land to Hindus it means that they are going to demand many other things many other mosques 300 mosques, 3000 mosques, 3 lakh mosques endless. Including Mathura about which there was an agreement signed by Mr. Vishnuq Dalmia I have got a text which it was signed in a court of law after this agreement was signed they were given at least half of the mosque space to build a mosque. So if they can go back on such undertakings which are done in a court of law people don't trust. This is the main psychological problem that the Muslim community thinks that if we concede on this then there will be more and more and more demands. Rizwan Kesar So it means that under Islam shifting of a mosque is possible. It is possible it has happened in the past for town planning. What is the situation in Ayodhya is not related to town planning or modernization it is because of a sustained campaign over decades to push out a community to the periphery it is less of a religious dispute more of a political strategy. The question then which arises is that should one accept it if one accepts it it opens a Pandora's box if one does not accept it then it gives further opportunity to consolidate saying that look at them they are preventing a construction of a Ram temple even though their scholars people like Mr. Islam Khan have said that shifting of a mosque is permissible. So we are actually left with choosing between the devil and the deep sea. Three very quick things number one there is no mosque to be shifted from place A to place B. There is no mosque anywhere. There is no mosque. So where is the question of shifting? Number two the entire Ayodhya issue pertains to three things sentiments, history and legality. The legality involves that let there be adjudication and therefore judicial pronouncement about the ownership of that particular piece of land which the honorable High Court had divided in three dimensional ways. 2010. 2010 and since then the matter has been pending before the honorable Supreme Court at the cost of repeating let the honorable Supreme Court take a final call even though this you know confabulation that is happening is in camera it will be monitored by the honorable Supreme Court and other things. That's another. Whichever party wins that party will have the final call as to what you are going to do with this. Say for instance if that unsolvable gentleman wins the case if somebody wants to buy it from Ansari it will be his personal property it will not be any community's property therefore Ansari will be within his right to sell it off to anybody who wants to construct whatever because then it's not a place sanctified as mosque is just a property dispute about the piece of land. Number three the question that you raise can a mosque be built on disputed land? Now the currently the kind of dispute that you have is not about the existence of a mosque on a disputed land. It was made disputed made to look disputed only in the context of it and it is true a mosque cannot be built on a land improperly acquired or which is disputed therefore there is some litigation etc. So that definitely is an ideological situation. How important is it important for the average Muslim that a mosque must come up at the same spot? Let me tell you for an ordinary Muslim's point of view Babri Masjid is dead and gone right? They all know that despite the promise made by Shri Narasimharov then is not going to come back to life is not going to come back to life in a geographical situation in a physical situation where it is impossible to construct even lay one brick in the name of Masjid. On a larger question honoring the sentiments of Hindu brethren I think that has always been given. One has argued endlessly that Lord Shri Ram was considered Imam by no less a person than Allah How did it help anybody to understand the Muslim psyche about Ramji? No, they have been saying it again and again. Now the problem is that it is only judicial. This judicial thing is being projected as political therefore my request with Honorable Supreme Court with folded hands as a citizen of India for heaven's sake take a call sir give us a judgment whichever one if you if you think that the negotiation that has gone on is not honorable for heaven's sake please intervene give your judgment be done with that let the country march on. So that's my point. Mr. Islam Khan at the time when the presidential reference was made in the 90s by the Narsimara government at that point many people had argued including I had argued that this is essentially a politician's call that you have to decide this is a political dispute this has to be tackled at the political level if you cannot tackle it at the level of a basic civil case. The judiciary obviously did not then expresses you know it did not want to take a decision on which the politician or the political class did not have the courage to take. More than 25 years later how this is still a festering sore on this republic and it is going to continue for years if it is not resolved it is only going to further divide society. If there is an agreement would it be acceptable to the entire community on either side or are we actually doomed to continue living with this problem? No I think if something comes from the supreme court it will be acceptable to the Muslim community but obviously I cannot say about the other side or at least BHP and RSS what they say because they think that it is something which will give them you know victory after victory elections and always you see before six months before the elections the issue becomes really activated and all over the place you will hear slogans about it but after that they will forget it so for them it will be a difficult thing but at least for the Muslim community there is a consensus that whatever comes from the supreme court whether they give it to Hindus give it to Muslims or give it to the state whatever that will be acceptable and I think it is a very civilized choice that they have made. There is one cancer as we come to the concluding part of this discussion you know for the major part of our lives you know so far we have actually seen this dispute continuing to erupt continually in the remaining years that people like you and me have would this also continue the same manner or do you see any signs of hope? Well very quickly very quickly in Nellanjan this time the community is not involved in the dispute is a very much dispute about ownership of land is not the community though Sunni Bach board is involved in the litigation process but then either Sunni Bach board is involved but the kind of heat that was generated in 80s and if you recall I am talking 80s there were community involvement was so apparent right now community involvement from the side of Muslim is not apparent however they are waiting with better breath let the Honorable Supreme Court take a call and give us and the judgment whichever way and I am sure judges will take a call on the legality of the matter whomever it hands over the authority of that particular piece of land will be accepted by all as Dr. Zafarullah Khan is saying and let that be let the matter end and let the country move on because you see so long I mean there is a kind of dispute every other day you can have a dispute how can you hold the march I know that for the last many decades we have actually lived in hope we have never seized to make an effort to try to find a permanent and lasting settlement on Ayodhya this effort is again being made this time Supreme Court which feels that mediation may work there has been so far fairly positive responses especially from the side of the Muslim community and its representatives the Hindu parties have not been as open to the process of mediation despite this in the political class there is hope all I can say is as I wind up this discussion and thank the two of you for coming and joining me on something which is really torn up India apart the last is that let us hope for the best this has actually been an issue which continues to be a mind boggling dispute we really do not know as to how to get out of this crisis you can just hope that politicians stop looking at it as a vote catching device especially because we are in the middle of an elections thank you for watching this program