Indian secularism, dialogue and the Ayodhya dispute

Abstract

Indian secularists compound difficulties for the emergence of a genuinely secular society by relying on an exclusively constitutional rather than a dialogical approach to settle India’s religious disputes as manifested in Ayodhya and elsewhere. There are, however, intellectuals who favour dialogue with religious communities to strengthen secularism but are afraid of suggesting dialogue with contending parties on contentious issues like the Ayodhya dispute for fear of legitimising religious fundamentalism. As a result, the notion of ‘contentious dialogue’ is avoided even while the need for dialogue is recognised. Instead of religious grievances getting resolved through law, they get embroiled over a period of time and result in the rise of religious fundamentalism and terrorism, thereby deepening the crisis of secularism. In the Ayodhya dispute, communities encouraged by the secular state have followed a legal approach to the settlement of their religious grievances since 1950. While the dispute languished in court, the demolition of the Babri Mosque in 1992, the emergence of religious terrorism and the riots in Gujarat in 2002 followed. All these developments are in some way interrelated and need a broad and holistic counter-strategy. Only a dialogic approach will induce communities to comprehend the interconnected nature of problems arising from the Ayodhya dispute and make them seek solutions outside the law. This paper proposes a model of reconciliation based on the themes of recognition of intrinsic faith, negotiation with extrinsic elements of each religion and sacrifice. This dialogical approach ought to be carried out by a non-sectarian political society that must involve ruling and opposition parties, NGOs, lawyers, administrators and contending religious organisations in order to seek a realistic solution to the Ayodhya dispute in the larger and long-term interest of a secular polity in India.