Babri tangle: Is Swamy right in rejoining Ayodhya with Kashi and Mathura?

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, buoyed by his stupendous success in the 2G spectrum scam and, more recently, the National Herald case, has now set his eyes on the ever-raging and controversial Ayodhya temple issue. Armed with documents, reasoning and conviction, Swamy is confident that the matter will be settled by the end of 2016.

Swamy has had a fairly successful run in the courts. He was also instrumental in the stalling of the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project involving Ram Sethu or the Adam's Bridge. But the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid case is already in Supreme Court, after the Allahabad High Court has already decided that the Babri mosque was built after destroying a temple.

The BJP's fate in the 2017 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections and even the 2019 general elections is intricately entwined with Swamy's success in the case.

In a programme on Aaj Tak on January 10, Swamy acceded to All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Asaduddin Owaisi's demand to have the Ram temple matter heard in the apex court on a day-to-day basis. The BJP leader has declared that he will petition Prime Minister Narendra Modi to request the Supreme Court to this effect. If this happens, a solution to the six-seven-decade-old vexed issue is surely in sight.

Swamy says he prefers negotiation over arbitrations but at the same time, hardens the bargaining. He has offered construction of a mosque across the Saryu river in Ayodhya. Besides, he has clubbed the issues concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura and Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi with that of the Ayodhya temple. His tweet on January 10 reveals as much.

Swamy's optimism springs also from the Supreme Court allowing the repair of covers and providing other facilities at the makeshift Ram Lalla temple at the disputed site. The apex court's ruling came on August 10, 2015 in a petition filed by Swamy himself.

Construction of a temple and a mosque adjacent to each other is fraught with risks to law and order. The temple cannot shift from the place for two reasons - the high court has ruled that a temple existed at the place believed by Hindus to be Lord Rama's birthplace. Since the temple cannot be shifted, will the Sunni Waqf Board agree to build a mosque on the other side of the Saryu river?

Secondly, the Centre had assured that it will help in the fulfilment of the wishes of the Hindus if it is proved that the structure was a temple. In an affidavit on September 14, 1994, the solicitor-general of India, in the matter of presidential reference to the Supreme Court said, "If the question referred is answered in the affirmative, namely that a Hindu temple structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished structure, action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community.

"If, on the other hand, the question is answered in the negative, namely that no such Hindu temple or structure existed at the relevant land, then the government action will be in support of Muslim community."

Thirdly, at that point in time, the Muslim organisations had also agreed to voluntarily hand over the land to the Hindus. That, however, was not to happen. The fight for the title deed goes on.

The same is the case with the Mathura and Kashi temples. The Krishna Janmabhoomi temple was ransacked and destroyed by invaders on a number of occasions - starting from Mahmud of Ghazni in 1018, and later among others, by Sikandar Lodhi, who ruled the Sultanate of Delhi from 1489 to 1517 and had earned the epithet of "Butt Shikan" (meaning the destroyer of Hindu deities), and Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, who built Jami Masjid. Every time the temple was destroyed, some Hindu ruler would rebuild it.

None of the three mosques hold any geographical significance for the Muslim community because they are not tied to the Islamic faith like some mosques in the Middle East. The Swamy argument is that the mosques can be shifted elsewhere but at least these three temples - associated with three most important Hindu deities of Lord Rama, Lord Krishna and Lord Shiva - cannot be relocated to any other place. But in a country where rule of law must prevail, the judgment will be made by the Supreme Court.

There seems to be no chance of Muslims willingly and ungrudgingly handing over the three locations to Hindus. There is every chance, however, that even if Ayodhya is settled, the Kashi and Mathura issues will keep burning and there will always be people adding fuel to that fire.