We need to recognize a few basic facts about Indians. First, there is zero difference between Hindu fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists, except that the latter look more washed. Second, the vast majority (defined as ones without religious ferocity) often interprets religious fundamentalism to mean fascism, and does so correctly. Third, a large proportion of Hindus misinterpret democracy to mean majority rule, when in fact it can only mean the preservation of minority rights. Fourth, and most unfortunately, we are not a democracy, at least according to the ideologues of the party that is presently ruling India; witness their latest edict that the minorities in India are dependent for their survival upon the ‘’goodwill” of the majority Hindus. The same fundamentalist Hindus who, with decade regularity, prove to themselves and the world that genocide not only survives, but flourishes in their version of “Hindu” India. This, these so-called Hindus brazenly, and shamelessly, call an ancient civilization.

The same civilization that produced Mahatma Gandhi, an Indian philosopher fond of morals involving the turning of cheeks. But Gandhiism can only succeed when the adversary is human; what is going to happen to your cheek if you are confronted with a mob of Rottweilers? Gandhi also hailed from Gujarat, the state that provided the latest example of this animal-like behavior. Correct that insult to animals - only humans, are capable of inhumanity of the fundamentalist Hindus (hereafter referred to as Fhindus) of Gujarat, or the fundamentalist Muslims of the Taliban.

There was a building called Babri Masjid which used to be a mosque, but is actually the birthplace of one of several gods that the Hindus believe in. It does not really matter whether this is the actual birthplace or not, just like it does not matter whether this epic god ever took the form of a human. The only thing that matters, and this should appeal to the Muslim zealot, is that the Hindu devotee believes so, and has bullied, with active support of large elements of the present government, a large majority of the areligious Hindus into believing so. So the reality is that a non-descript and non-used mosque (for most of the twentieth century it was used as a temple) is the prized possession of the poor fanatic Hindu. What great good fortune for the oppressed Muslim minority, one would think.

But the definition of a fundamentalist is one who is paid not to think - and who acquires and enjoys celebrity status because of an unthinking persona. (Ever heard of a thinking fundamentalist?) These fMuslims are creating a problem for the ordinary Muslim, and preventing the learning of lessons from the experience of the other minorities in India - the Sikhs, the Christians, and the Buddhists (the ones Hindus failed to massacre 2000 years ago). Thankfully, all the Sikh fundamentalists live outside India, another great export of the entrepreneurial Sikh. The lesson is to concentrate on economic betterment, and avoid the path of the fHindu - learn to co-exist, and occasionally throw a bone when necessary, and especially when you have a prized bone.

This is where the ordinary Muslim comes in - he should drive home some fundas into the heads of the Fundas. Be gracious, be intelligent, be foresighted, strike a blow for imagination, for security of your people, and for your own benefit - give away, and do so graciously, the rights to the Babri Masjid.

There are several benefits to the Muslims of such an action. First, is the element of surprise - the templewallahs do not expect this to happen. Their bluff will be called, and the support that they can gather for future conversions will be heavily diluted. Indeed, the demand for a stop to future mosque, or gurdwara, or church, conversions into temples should be part of the secular give for the Hindu take. Second, the Muslim Indian will be rightfully credited for being even more Indian than most Hindu Indians. Third, by accommodating the whims of a childish sibling, the Muslims will be acting in a elder brotherly fashion. Fourth, the Muslims would be striking a political goal on their own, rather than being seen as acting through those politicians who can only benefit from their continued misery. The vote-bank politics will now become a sophisticated affair. Fifth, the Muslims can rightfully demand to be treated as an oppressed minority, and hence the beneficiary of affirmative action programs in education and health; actions that will certainly benefit Muslims, and Muslim children, much more than having one of several hundred places of worship to pray at.

Contrast this set of advantages with the disadvantages of the present Fmuslim position. Most individuals (Hindus and Muslims) believe that religion is a private affair; further, most believe that the Masjid is only one of several mosques, whereas the Hindus believe that the Masjid is the place where Ram was born. So what, besides, fanatical obstinacy, is behind the Muslim persistence with the Babri Masjid? Possibly that once the Fhindu is allowed in, he will increase his demand for more conversions.

This is what the so-called secular zealot believes - there will be a domino effect as non- Hindu cultural and religious places will be converted into the birthplaces of Hindu gods. There are two problems with this objection. First, even the Hindus do not have enough gods whose imaginary birthplaces need to be identified. Second, assuming that the fHindus want to convert other mosques, how will defeat on Babri Masjid defeat their belligerence? There is nothing in the Hindu history, or its politics, or its constitution, that says that the Hindu majority will not "legally" take away the non-Hindu temples of worship on demand. If the legal system fails (and by now the non-Hindus should realize that that is a reasonable expectation) there is always the deadly possibility of a rent-a- spontaneous-pogrom being engineered.

Is it therefore not a lot cleverer to know thy enemy and play the bone accordingly? Why not extract a promise from the Hindu community (for whatever it is worth - remember that you do not hold all the cards) that after this, no more. To make your case secular, why not demand that no places of worship will henceforth be converted? And to make your case truly secular, why not also demand, in exchange for the gracious give-away of the Babri Masjid, that provision be made for the upkeep of all places of worship in India, and that a special fund be created for the maintenance of clean temples?

The reason the give-away of Babri Masjid makes sense is that there is no other solution that can benefit the Muslim community. If the court acts in their favor, Hindu inhumanity will not. If the court acts in favor of the Hindu position, the Muslims would have lost a major negotiating weapon. A no-win situation. Instead, give away the rights to the Masjid, and witness the justice of democracy - the only justice in India. Once elections are held, the fundamentalists will be defeated; because, ultimately, humans care a lot more about a roof over their heads rather than a roof over Gods head.