Thursday, 8 March 2018

Was Sri Sri indulging in fear-mongering?

Can we totally discount the danger of communal unrest in today's polarized milieu?


M Rajaque Rahman

Was Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar indulging in fear-mongering when he raised the bogey of a Syria-like situation in the country if the Ayodhya issue is not tactfully resolved? Or was he expressing an apprehension that’s genuinely lurking on the horizon?

The debate on the prime time national television and social media has gone along the predictable lines of the political and ideological divide. His statement has been twisted, distorted, quoted, misquoted and tweeted as it suits one’s narrative. Unfortunately, we ended up trivializing an issue that is emotive enough to explode any time. Nobody really displayed the depth to see the import of the statement. 

To be fair to Sri Sri, he didn’t say India will burn if a temple is not built. He only said we could witness extremism and chaos like in Syria if we don’t resolve the issue tactfully. 
Sri Sri’s reference to Syria must have been in the sense of a conflict zone where chaos, distrust and civil war-like situation prevail. Can we totally discount the spectre of such a danger in today's polarized milieu? It's very easy to say India is different, but we have seen many communal riots, sometime over trivial issues.

Any court verdict that entails a winner and a loser could trigger passions irrespective of whichever way it goes and is fought with the risk of damaging the social fabric. As an Indian, and more so as a Muslim, I shiver at the thought of a situation where one community will be openly celebrating a court verdict in its favour and another burning inside with a feeling of being wronged. Sitting in the comforts of a TV studio, it might be easy to say the Supreme Court is seized of the matter and we must wait for the verdict. But what such a verdict could entail on the ground is scary.

It’s not to suggest that the Supreme Court will not be sensitive to all these in its ruling. But the court has limitations and has to go often by the later of the law. While no one has the authority to dishonor any ruling of the Supreme Court, its verdict could create distrust in society. Like the system failure to prevent Barbi Mosque demotion gave boost to home-grown terrorism in the country, an unfavorable verdict could trigger revolt against the system. With no dearth of fanatical elements whose existence hinges on wedging a divide among communities, Sri Sri’s apprehension is no more a figment of imagination.

To be fair to Sri Sri, he didn’t say India could burn if a temple or a mosque is not built. He only said we could witness extremism and chaos as in Syria if we don’t resolve the issue tactfully. Any sane Indian will buy this line of thinking. Unfortunately, a word of caution from Sri Sri is being twisted and presented a threat and provocation.

What Sri Sri is saying is a solution through a court verdict may not be in the best interest of the nation. Even the Supreme Court subscribes to this viewpoint and has almost made it clear that issue is best decided jointly by the two communities. This reading of the case by the apex court needs to be taken seriously as the a conflict that has run on rhetoric for decades and got identified with the astitva and maryada (existence and identity) of two different communities.
.
Without a softening of hearts and goodwill, it’s impossible to permanently resolve an emotive and vexed dispute like the Ayodhya. Sri Sri has been saying, courts cannot mend hearts. It’s very much possible that even if the Mandir is built, the problem might come back again in the future as one community is bound to feel alienated. That’s why this national endeavour of an amicable out-of-court settlement is so critical for the nation.

From that perspective, Sri Sri’s pursuit of enlisting anyone and everyone who can influence public opinion in favour a negotiated settlement and create an ecosystem for dialogue must be lauded. That people are willing to talk about it itself is no mean breakthrough and augur well for communal harmony in the country.

As the stakes are high, it’s natural that there will be clashes of egos, mudslinging and even sabotage! But the hard language used by some leaders from both sides to oppose the efforts of constructing a mutual understanding doesn’t send good omen for the country. It appears some people are hell bent to milk the issue as a cash cow. An early and amicable resolution of the dispute is in the interest of the nation as it will also prevent rabble-rousing and polarisation along communal lines.

(The author is a former business journalist and now regularly writes on issues that are relevant to the Idea of India. He tweets @rajaque. He can be reached on rajaque@gmail.com)

2 comments:

  1. All this is good. However what is required is to have atleast one Islamic leader working with him and promoting his out of court settlement proposal to Islamic community. Else to any third party it looks as if a Hindu Guru putting forth a pro Hindu solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. #srisri (guru ji) is not trying to give a pro Hindu solutions ram janam bhumi cannot be replaced this is where he was born ,it is like asking Muslim brothers to shift Mecca and madina to some place else why , because we (hindus) would like to build temple at these places,come on they will not even consider and behead the persons head.Crores of hindu have there sentiments associated with ram there are people who breathe in Nd breathe out ram , the reason behind celebration of various festivals in Hindu dharma is ram . There is so much to ram, cannot our brother respect Nd honour there brothers sentiments.sri sri's efforts for out of court settlement is indeed very commendable and the country should support him.

      Delete