Secularism vs Nationalism

It was a coffee break discussion about politics and the talk went from one event to another till it reached the most controversial one. The demolition of the Babri masjid. Then the group of four split into two with two each. One group trying to look at it from a logical, rather technically confined to the law; perspective and the other trying to show the bigger picture which includes history, heritage, faith and other important and equally valid aspects.

A little while into the discussion, there was clearly separation of opinion and there were the Secularists and the Nationalists. The debate continued on various points and taken to logical arguments; some of them being as follows:

History vs Mythology
Illegal vs Eventual
Location vs Reclamation
Proof vs Belief
Democratic vs Undemocratic
Secularism vs Nationalism

History Vs Mythology
The secularists argued that Babri was history and the birth of Rama is mythology. And that history is worth more to be given away in favor of mythology. They demand a testimony to something which is being believed by a billion people for centuries. The nationalists question the definition of mythology and that just because it is too ancient to have been documented doesn’t not make it a myth. Also the standard that the secularists consider, to call something history or mythology. If it is the period of Jesus, which is 2000 years ago or of Mohammed which is 1300 years ago, which have documentation then the period of Rama which would have been anything between 4 to 5 thousand years old, would no wonder would not have been documented then, but the tradition and the belief lives on till date. Mahabharata which is again as old as Ramayana is called 'itihaas' in Sanskrit which literally means 'it so happened'. Just that this event is a lot older than what they consider history does not make it a mythology, though the events like wars and weapons could have been exaggerated so as it make it an allegorical narrative.

Illegal Vs Eventual
Sticking to the law, the secularists proclaim that the destruction of the structure was totally illegal in a democratic nation and assume that this very act is enough to quash all rights of the nationalists on the site. To this, the nationalists take the wind off the sails of the secularist by accepting that the particular act was surely illegal and deplorable but they also remind that the legal channels of arbitration that were undertaken and which bore no fruit can not be discredited. The case was in the hands of the court for well over than five decades and still no judgment was made. The judicial machinery of the nation was neither determined enough nor authoritative to edict the truth lest it should hurt the party against whom the judgment goes.

Location Vs Reclamation
Then came the point about the location and why the Nationalists are bent on having the exact spot of the structure and why could they not build a grand temple at a little distance without disturbing the structure. Well, this sounds nice, easy, practical and unbiased to that section of people that hopes to solve the issue somehow; and that keeps a very myopic view of history and also the future. The Nationalists believe it is not just about solving the problem somehow, but it should be an assertive retort to the oppression of the invaders and the scars they left that remind the nation of their aggression and bigotry. The only fitting act would be to reclaim the same land. Anything less would be a meek acceptance of the shame and disgrace the invaders put the people and the cultures of our nation to. This argument can not be rubbished as emotional as the world politics has been rooted in ‘Which God rules which land’. It is such a belief and emotion that keeps the Jews together and assert for their promised land.
This should not remain a liability to our posterity as it was to us.

To be continued....