Not by Faith Alone
Editorial - The Times of India  - Feb 11, 1999

Though Union home minister L K Advani deemed it politic to
decline entry into the VHP's `dharam sansad' through the front
door, he and other spokespersons of the BJP have joined the
congregation through the back gate. Contrary to the expectations
of many, the BJP has not resiled from its earlier, pre-election
position on the Ayodhya issue; several party officials have made it
clear that they fully endorse the VHP's stand that the Ram Mandir
will be built only at the currently disputed site in Ayodhya.
Acharya Dharmendra has emphasised that as the temple's
construction is a ``purely religious matter,'' it was unnecessary
and inappropriate to await judicial sanction on the issue. So far,
the on-going preparatory work on components of the temple has
been conducted at different sites far removed from Ayodhya,
thereby obviating confrontation on legal grounds. However, the
VHP's recent assertion -- combined with the BJP's support of it
-- opens up a fundamental and complex area of debate. In any
democratic society the individual's right to question a particular
law -- on the basis of faith or deep personal conviction -- must
be accommodated, provided the form of dissent is not violative of
public security and order. Any citizen, either as an individual or as
a member of a social or religious group, can protest against a real
or perceived injustice. No one less than Mahatma Gandhi
demonstrated the moral authority of such a position during the
Dandi march and his advocacy of satyagrah; he challenged
colonial laws from the paramount perspective of individual and
national freedom. However, the Mahatma also took pains to
enjoin upon his followers the need to observe such laws that did
not directly impinge upon the core domain of swaraj. Like
Thomas More, Gandhiji saw the need to give even the devil the
right to common legal shelter, lacking which anarchy would be let
loose.

In the present case, a further distinction must be made. Gandhiji's
movement was from outside the government, and he and his
followers paid the price of disobedience through imprisonment
and worse. While members of the VHP or any other
socio-religious organisation can question legal intervention in
matters of faith, those of their sympathisers who hold public office
cannot enjoy the same privilege without subverting their own
official authority and the system which grants it to them. In this
sense, the BJP's stand on Ayodhya is reminiscent of Indira
Gandhi's call for a `committed' bureaucracy; elected
representatives, like bureaucrats, can legitimately be committed
only to effective governance, with all its legal underpinnings, and
not to any extraneous ideology of temporal or spiritual faith. In
fact, the more compelling such an ideology, all the greater the
imperative to relinquish the constraining trappings of public office
in order to more freely and vigorously pursue the holy grail
untrammelled by the mundane duties and obligations of
administration. The BJP has sought to get over its dilemma by
saying it will bypass the legal obstacles through appropriate
legislation, quoting the Shah Bano case as a precedent. The BJP
should remember that at that time it opposed the Congress for
taking such a constitutional shortcut. Moreover, the National
Agenda of the present government makes no mention of
Ayodhya. Constitutional -- and coalitional -- propriety suggests
that the BJP either opts out of government and seeks re-election
or gets its allies to enlarge their Articles of Association to include
Ayodhya.