Diplomacy, many believe, is the art to say and do the nastiest thing in the nicest way. Is it true by any yardstick in the ongoing Indo–Pak relations? Or are there any distinct correlations to be worked out? What is the difference between casting aspersions on Pakistan in India particularly during elections and the renewed efforts of building bridges with Pakistan? What kind of change of heart is it? Is it merely an illusion or a good note to begin with at least on some issues?
The country which was until yesterday a synonym of hate is being offered floral tribute much beyond expectation. Does it look quite simple and clear? Many believe, even if it was merely a show off , it was indeed a positive step forward because at times it becomes even difficult to pretend when one is a loggerhead with another. Is the new rapport building measures followed by our Prime Minister by stepping out of the periphery of the Sangh’s predefined boundary a genuine and positive sign or merely aimed at winning headlines in India and abroad. Believe it or not, better Indo–Pak relations would be the best gift to this region. Because when relations become conducive, the boundaries cease to exist.
Many analysts believe that our Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visits to Afghanistan and other Muslim countries and now his surprise visit to Pakistan to wish Nawaz Sharif on his birthday were a step forward in his aspiration to become an international statesman – which he also did during his oath-taking ceremony – but his actions back home did not match his aspirations. To some it was aimed at driving home a point by Modi: Look! if I can move forward to make good rapport with the most hated entity in India viz. Pakistan, why can’t I try to build bridges with Muslims in India? To me it seems a misplaced conception because on the one hand when efforts are on to build good rapport with Pakistan, at home they are doing just the opposite not only by allowing hate speeches and subjugating minorities but also by raking up once again the Babri Masjid dispute when they are aware that the matter is sub judice.
Our Prime Minister on the one hand is trying to build bridges with Pakistan to make a good rapport while his coterie in India are carrying stones to build a Ram temple on the debris of Babri Masjid – a move that would breach trust and cordial relations. Why we must not have faith in our Judiciary on this issue and welcome its judgment wholeheartedly. The party has already made enough politics and reaped highest dividend during the height of temple movement when its tally increased to 182. Now they are even above that. What else do they want to achieve by raking up the issue time and again? Both the communities should remain vigilant and not to become a political prey in the hands of the people and the leaders who want to disturb peace and tranquillity in the country.
The historical significance of Ayodhya suggests that the place should have been known as a uniting factor but unfortunately we have made it come what may a dividing factor; and once it even divided the country, theoretically if not geographically. The place has been misused for political reasons and continuous to be so. Ayodhya, known as a temple town, is once again in the news after the arrival of two truckloads of stones for the proposed temple. Even if these stones may not be used for the proposed temple, it is likely to be used to build up and stoke communal passion aimed at polarising the masses before the advent of Uttar Pradesh Assembly Polls in 2017. Seeds of hatred are being sown to reap the fruits afterwards. But at the same time, a small model of Babri mosque, which is believed to be apparently in retaliation to ferrying of stones into Karsewakpuram, is also uncalled for and should have been avoided.
In the midst of VHP’s call to restart the Ram Temple movement in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Akhilesh Yadav sacked party man Om Pal Nehra for suggesting that Muslims should give up their claim and lend a helping hand in rebuilding the Ram temple in Ayodhya. Nehra was serving as advisor to the UP government’s entertainment tax department and enjoyed the status of a minister of state in the UP government. Nehra, while addressing an official function of the agriculture department in Bijnor on 23 December, had said, “Where can a Ram temple be built if not at Ayodhya? Muslims should help in building a Ram temple in Ayodhya and a Krishna temple in Mathura and give up their claim on mosques there. In fact, I would say that Muslims should join Kar Seva for the Ram temple.”
Political developments are on in Uttar Pradesh and efforts are on to make political arithmetic with renewed efforts and promises. It seems the BJP-led NDA has failed to introspect seriously after the Bihar polls. The BJP is now trying to move back to its basics because they feel that Uttar Pradesh is different from Bihar. Caste here is also dominant but not the social justice as that in Bihar and it would be easier to polarise here than in Bihar. But I fail to understand as to why the BJP cannot stick to its promise made in the manifesto. What about the disenchantment of the people who only voted for development and nothing else.
A new equation is likely to be in the making if we go by the reports available. Recently in the backdrop of the function in the capital where a book on JD-U president Sharad Yadav was released and which was attended by many tall leaders of different parties, Nitish Kumar held an exclusive meeting with Rashtriya Lok Dal leader Ajit Singh. Many believe that this could be the emergence of anti-BJP front in Uttar Pradesh. The more we move closer to elections the greater will be the number of developments hitting headlines. Let us hope peace prevails at any cost in Uttar Pradesh and in the rest of the country because without peace the idea of India cannot be envisaged.