One enduring dogma of our age, especially prevalent in democratic societies like Bharat, is the desirability of dialogue between the various sections of society that disagree with each other over fundamentals. The stated intent is the peaceful resolution of conflicts as opposed to a violent fallout. Now, there are certain prerequisites for an effective dialogue to take place, in the absence of which, there can be no serious conversation. Indo-Pak talks? Tibetans talking to China? Wife talking to abusive husband? Yeah sure.
Ignoring the meaningless noise about hospitals and libraries made by teenagers-for-life ignoramuses and dull atheists, can we hope for a realistic resolution of the Ayodhya conflict by encouraging the warring factions to talk to each other? Are the necessary conditions being met for an effective dialogue to take place between the rival camps?
If that were indeed the case, the courts would have already given a decisive verdict. What else are the courts supposed to do than facilitate and mediate a dialogue along the contours of the law? Those who have been following the case know very well that we are in the middle of a communication breakdown – several layers deep and many centuries old. Yet, we are being told that the way to resolve the matter is to talk about talking about why we must talk about talking about it.
Ah, such faith in the power of dialogue! Touching, really. But what are those conditions that make a genuine dialogue possible? A common currency of values that both sides care about. More importantly, a similar degree of aversion to violence, which would make the route of dialogue equally valuable to both.
I don’t want to flog a dead horse by commenting on the theologically motivated violent tendencies of one side. It is great that it works for them and I am not in the business of social reform, especially when it doesn’t concern me. Rather, I am interested in describing what seems to be a serious illness on this side of the divide, marketed by desi intellectuals as some gift from outer space… Faith in dialogue!
It cannot work. It has never worked. But when has reality ever got in the way of fantasies? For you, a dialogue is a means to resolve tension. For them, it is a means to build it. You want to talk peace so that you may weave a fragile web of meaning around your sorry person. They have found meaning in the collective pursuit of power and will go to any extent to amplify that power. You are waiting for the right explanation to satisfy your cognitive itch. They are waiting for the right moment to act. You are dazed and apologetic. They are sure-footed and proud. The difference is profound.
If not dialogue, then what? Am I suggesting violence? One may anticipate violence but only a politician or a crackpot would hope for it. My ambitions are modest. One, I just feel like thanking the good folks who brought down that dreadful symbol of oppression in 1992. Second, I want to publicly reaffirm my commitment towards the cause of the temple for Shri Ram. Third, this is just to show the pre-emptive middle finger to the holier-than-thou progressive secularist. Because I am not interested in a dialogue. Jai Shri Ram.
-By Ashish Dhar
(This article first appeared as a post on the author’s FB page)
Is the Shri Ram Mandir at Ayodhya a case of ‘Land Dispute’ or does it relate to a wider civilizational aspiration and national ideals? What were the real motives of Babur when he destroyed the temple in 1528 CE? How have the communist intellectuals played the devil with the peaceful resolution of the issue? Why should we ask political parties to resolve the issue through a legislation? Shri @Bharat Gupt, former professor at Delhi University, explains the case for Shri Ram Mandir in this short yet succinct ‘Upword’ video.
Did you find this article useful? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.