& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Hubli: Another Eye of Controversy

BETWEEN THE LINES

Kuldip Nayar writes from New Delhi
***In view of assembly elections in December, the BJP attempt to raise the national flag at the Hubli Idgah maidan this August uhu more vigorous and boisterous than the earlier occasions It took a violent turn and sis people died of police firing. And thin has provided a grist to the BJP proixiganda machine ..***
HUBLI la an outgrown to wn where the tnunlclp al limits have fallen behind Its oulward push the suburbs of yesterday are the heart of the town today The Idgah Maidan once a far off place. Is now Hubli a prime land, worth crores of rupees even though it Is less than two acres.
The maidan has been an eye of controversy for some years Did avarice ignite it or poll ties? It is both. The Anjuman-e-Islam had no problem till the hollowed walls of Idgah stood in the wilderness The land given to it tn 1921 999 years was used even for public meetings of political parties, includ Ing those of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
The problem arose when the land price soared and when the Anjuman constructed six shops on the maidan after obtaining the Hubli Corporation s permission in 1960. Some local people challenged the Anjumans rights over the land in a court of law. It lost the case, both in the lower courts (1973) and the High Court (1992) The courts held that the Anjuman was given licence, not lease; its rights were confined to holding the two Id prayers in a year, nothing beyond. The High Court ordered the demolition of the shops, allotted by that time to Hindus and Muslims three each.
The ’ Supreme Court gave the Anjuman relief in the shape of a stay order. The demolition of the shops was stopped but the arguments on merits of the case, were deferred. This is the legal position which has been obtaining for more than two years. And It Is anybody's guess when the case will be decided because the Supreme Court's record on disposal is not a happy one. Had there been a verdict tw-
fore August 15. the Hubli tragedy could have probably been averted
Politics came in 1992 when the Rashtradwaja Gowrava Sainrakshana Samftl (RGSS) a BJP outfit, tried to hoist the national flag at the Idgah on August 15 and was prevented by the police By then the par liamentary elections in Karnataka were over and to the surprise of BJP it had secured nearly 29 Ver cent votes. A lit tie more support from the Hindus in a state, where the Muslims are around 12 per cent, could help the BJP form the government at Bangalore This apparently has been the party's thinking because it has made the hoisting of the national flag at the disputed Idgah maidan an Issue from 1992 itself
In view of assembly elec tions In December, the at tempt to raise the flag this August was more vigorous and boisterous than the earlier occasions. It took a violent turn and six people died of police firing. This has provided a grist to the BJP propaganda machine during the pre-elec tion speeches.
Then, there has been no communal tension, no charged atmosphere. The Idgah maidan has reverted to its earlier use. a shortcut for the pedestrians going form the congested Rani Chennamma statue crossing to the less frequented road on the other end of the maidan. But the BNP has taken the debate to houses and huts: whether any organisation or place Is Justified in barring the
hoisting of the national flag. The party is making It look as the violation of an innocent, patriotic act. But it is a well planned strategy to polarise the society, to make the Hindus feel that the Muslims are against the hoisting of the flag. Several organisations, particularly of the youths, have Joined issue with the BJP and look succeeding.
On behalf of the Citizens for Democracy (CFD), some of us met the Anjuman s representatives at Hubli in May to stave
off the situation, which developed Into a clash as expected. We made them two suggestions. One was to shift the Idgah maidan to a distant site, converting the present one into a municipal park, with the Idgah becoming pnly a menu ment. The Aniuman. with an eye on the priceless property did not want to give up Its rights on the land before the Supreme Court's decision
The other proposal was that someone from the Anjuman should hoist the national flag at the fag-end of the maidan, away from the Idgah and the shops, so as to thwart the BJPs moves. The Anjuman s representatives wanted fuller discussion with their members before making any commitment. They did. however.
point out that the purpose of the BJP was to convert the maidan Into a public place where the RSS could hold its shaka They informed us how the BJP — and some of Its sympathisers in the print me dia — had already begun calling the Idgah maidan the Klttur Rani Chennamma ground
The Anjuman was also not sure how the Muslim conunu nlty would react The issue had been taken to a pitch where the hoisting of the flag would mean a defeat for the Muslims
Indeed, the BJP had made them a scapegoat for its can frontatlon against the Congress government. Back In Bangalore, we found that the government did not want to disturb the status quo a few weeks before elections.
The Anjuman never came back to us but it was on the firm ground because the per mission to hoist the flag had been rejected by the court Itself. In the last two years the BJP camp-followers have sought permission twice, but It has been refused both times on the ground that it will lead to a public disturbance.
The BJP or, for that matter. , any other member of the Sangh partwar Is not interested in hoisting the national flag. They are Interested in
raising it at places where they can create a controversy Significantly the RSS the BUR'S seer has never hoisted the national flag at Its head quarters in Nagpur Noe-does it observe august 15 and January 26 as holidays
If on« were to look back on the sequence of events at Ayodhya. one would find that the BJP gave a rehgioua colour Ing to the Babri Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, as it has tried to do in Hubli. Any method is good enough, a temple or the national flag. Nobody had any objection to the building of a temple at Ayodhya but how could the BJP have played with the emotions of Hindus if It had not propagated that Lord Rama was born at the very place where the Babri Masjid stood? The RSS and its allied bodies are always on the lookout for controver sies and disputes which can divide Hindus and Muslims It Is all the time playing a Hindu card so as to build Its votebank.
Many people fear that Hubli may become another Ayodhya. There is no such likelihood because the national flag does not evoke the type of religious or fundamentallstlc response that the Babri Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya did The Idgah maidan may provide a slogan. at best a protest against the Muslims. But It cannot create the frenzy that the BJP was able to raise in Ayodhya because the ingredient of religion Is missing.
The shankaracharyas and the sadhus, who have given credence to what the BJP or
the Vlshwa Hindu Partshad said regarding the Ram JanmabhoosnS at Ayodhaya. are not there is Hubli What the new government will do to set tie the controversy is difficult to predict It car. possibly request the Supreme Court to speed up the judgment on the Idgah maidan SUH. it cannot spoil the situation to the ex tent the Centre has done at Ayodhya
It is however strange that the Centre should now give an undertaking to the Supreme Court that it will abide by the advice it gives on the Ayodhya r ase whether there was a temple pt the place where the Babri mas]ld stood before the demolition Why did ft not do so In the first instance? Several political parties and the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee had demanded at the time of refer ence to the Supreme Court that it should be made under Article 138 (2). which makes the advice binding. The gov ernment preferred Article 143 where the advice is not binding. Therefore. It is not sur prising to find that some polit leal parties and the Babri Masjid Committee have said that they will not respect the advice
Sometimes one wonders whether anyone In the central government applies his mind before taking steps on controversial matters It seems that it allows itself to be pushed from one situation to another, not knowing what to do And when ft intervenes. It does so unin telligently The mess in which the government has landed the nation on the temple at Ayodhya makes one fear that ft may further complicate the Idgah maidan dispute Probably it suits both the BJP and the Congress party to orchestrate tension and violence.