VIEW
Such third party mediation should be welcomed
The mandir-masjid issue has been so contentious that despite many years and many attempts to resolve it, it continues to remain as tangled as ever. The recent attempt by the Dalai Lama to help settle the matter is finally a step in the right direction.
As a Buddhist spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama has no religious or political stake in this tangle. On the other hand, both the Hindu and the Muslim religious leaderships are inevitably perceived to be constrained by the dictates of their respective constituencies.
This initiative by the Dalai Lama can truly be seen as the opening of the third front, a neutral voice in a situation which has, so far, only had interested parties trying to broker a solution. The inability of the Kanchi Shankaracharya, Jayendra Saraswati, or the Shahi Imam of Delhi ’s Jama Masjid to bring the two sides to an amicable conclusion is a case in point.
That this may be the best way forward is evident from the fact that for once all the warring factions have welcomed this third front unanimously. L K Advani, the sangh parivar, the VHP, the Shahi Imam and the Muslim Personal Law Board have all come out in favour of the Dalai Lama’s effort. The use of words like “mature, farsighted and open-minded” by the Dalai Lama to prescribe an approach to Ayodhya reflects the middle path as preached by the Buddha.
This is what makes this solution viable as opposed to all the earlier attempts. Buddhism preaches non-aggression, turning old animosities into friendships, and a dispassionate detachment from worldly compulsions.
The Ayodhya conflict needs the healing touch of a man like the Dalai Lama, who is seen as being free from any political or religious baggage, and endowed with a philosophy whose central tenet is peace.
COUNTERVIEW
It’ll only add another twist to the mandir-masjid tangle
To imagine that the Dalai Lama will succeed in resolving the Ayodhya dispute where community leaders like the Shankaracharya of Kanchi and the Shahi Imam have not is naive to say the least.
But irrespective of the outcome, it is a moot point where the Tibetan leader in exile should associate himself with the contentious problem at all. As an honoured guest of the government of India , he is expected to refrain from using Indian territory for any activity which would militate against New Delhi ’s interests. Ayodhya is a highly emotive issue and regardless of what stand he takes, he is likely to appear partisan.
The mandir-masjid controversy is divisive in nature and a third party like the Dalai Lama clearly has no locus standi in it. Any proposal he makes towards conflict resolution would be used as a political tool and would not be acceptable to all the parties concerned.
It is entirely plausible that the sangh parivar hopes further to muddy the waters by involving the Dalai Lama, in the hope that he will rule in favour of its position. Either way, it would erode the Dalai Lama’s stature and lay him wide open to political attacks. Besides, as a Buddhist leader, his primary concern should be his own flock. Time and again, the parivar and its allies have used the conversion charge to attack minorities like the Buddhists, who are already in a vulnerable position and can do without any more unwelcome attention.
As we have seen in all conflict resolution mechanisms across the world, solutions cannot be imposed by third parties. For the Dalai Lama to act as a sort of third front who will hold two warring parties apart would be to play into the hands of those who are determined to keep the dispute simmering. It would provide a convenient excuse for such vested interests to throw the ball in the Dalai Lama’s court, a development which can only be detrimental to his interests and those of his followers.
