The Ayodhya ordinance is at best a negative achievement for the Prime Minister. The most that Mr P V Narasimha Rao can claim is that he has contained his detractors within his own government and party at least for the time being secured the consent of a reluctant President even if it has meant three visits to Rashtrapati Bhavan and resisted pressure from Muslim ministers, MPs and others to make a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 133(2) of the Constitution (and not under Article 143) and to keep alive the titles to disputed lands till the apex court has opined on the merits of rival claims.
He will be sadly mistaken if he thinks that the ordnance and the reference to the Supreme Court pave the way for a final resolution of the basic issue.
The ordinance will almost certainly be challenged, possibly by both Hindus and Muslims. But that is not the crux of the matter, though it may be rash to take it for granted that the apex court will uphold the ordinance.
As is obvious, the Supreme Court has been handed over a task for which it is ill-equipped. It has to determine whether a Hindu temple existed at the site of the demolished Babri Masjid.
In other words, it has to determine a fact and not interpret the law which is its forte. And it has to do so on the basis of evidence, part of which only extensive digging in and around the site can provide. Such archaeological investigations are generally time-consuming. But this problem too can be set aside for the time being.
Immediately, attention must focus on the possible outcome of the reference to the court. It is self-evident that all hell would break loose if the court holds that a temple did not exist on the site. But this possibility is so slim in view of the evidence which is already available that it can safely be disregarded. The relevant question, therefore, is what happens if the court holds that a temple in fact existed there.
We shall have two different scenarios in case the site is allowed to be included in the proposed Ram temple and quite another if it is not. But let us assume that the site is allowed to be included in the proposed temple. That raises the question: Who is to build the temple?
However inconvenient to the Congress and other anti-BJP parties, the temple has to be built by the VHP if it is not to provoke worse troubles. If denied due credit, which from their point of view they deserve, however distasteful their detractors may find it, its supporters will almost certainly activate claims to the Krishnajanambhoomi in Mathura and the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi. It is not necessary to spell out the consequences in view of the appeal of the Vishwanath temple for Shaivites in South India and for Yadavs of Krishnajanambhoomi.
After all that has happened, no one is now in a position to guarantee that these claims will not arise. Mr L K Advani could and offered to do so at one stage. Now he may not be in a position to oblige even if he is so inclined. All that is now possible is to suggest measures which can help avoid that eventuality. Those measures call not for repetition of slogans such as rule of law, but for winning the cooperation of the BJP and the RSS and through them of the VHP and the Bajrang Dal.
The government was foolhardy when it decided to dismiss BJP governments and ban the RSS and the VHP. It cannot reverse the first decision but it can find a way to annul the second. That will involve some loss of face. But that should be preferable to an almost certain crisis of the gravest proportions. The initiative has to come not from Mr Rao who is known to have been lukewarm towards the two decisions in question but from Mr Arjun Singh who pushed him into a corner with consequences which should be obvious even to him and preferably from Muslim leaders.
Immediately, the government will be well advised not to rush with the establishment of the proposed trusts. While their formation will be provocative, delay can hopefully be seen by BJP, RSS and VHP leaders as a sign of second thoughts.
All in all, the effort should be to freeze the status quo till a viable solution becomes feasible.
The Observer of Business and Politics, 9 January 1993