'I am not advocating violence, I am advocating the decision of the law', Dr Subramanian Swamy

It was a sparring match worthy of its opponents. Speaking on the contentious issue of Ram janambhoomi Rajya Sabha MP and Harvard professor Dr Subramanian Swamy jostled with Lok Sabha MP and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi on Saturday at the Times Lit Fest. Despite their differences they agreed on one thing: accepting the Supreme Court verdict on the Ram Mandir case.
Attended by a boisterous audience spilling out of the India Habitat Centre main lawns side cheered its own in the debate on “Does India need a Ram temple? Building a multi-religious and inclusive societies” moderated by India Today consulting editor Rajdeep Sardesai.
“I will accept anything the court decides,"Swamy said. "I am not advocating violence, I am advocating the decision of the law," Swamy said with Owaisi agreeing to abide by the court verdict.
Swamy cited the Directive Principles (DPs)of the Constitution to justify a ban on cow slaughter, and to justify the call for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
Owaisi reminded the audience that UCC and cow slaughter were issues propped up before elections. “After elections PM says stand up, start up, queue up, and if you die in a queue, you are a nationalist...If you are so serious about cow slaughter why don't you ban beef in Goa where you are in power,” Owaisi asked.
Taking a dig at the recent concern over plight of Muslim women given triple talaq Owaisi said the number of such divorces were negligible. “What about the Ishrat Jahan, or Najeeb’s mother? There is no concern for them,” he said.
Swamy, on his part, talked about Hindu civilisation always being accepting of other religions. He spoke of how India welcomed Jews, Christians and even Muslims way back in the day, in Kerala.
"The Jews were even allowed to build synagogues. This is the only country in the world where the Jews were not persecuted. Violent Islam disrupted this society," Swamy said.
At this point, moderator Rajdeep Sardesai asked whether it was right to avenge in 2016 (or 1992 when the Babri Masjid was destroyed by Hindus) an act of violence that occurred in the four or five centuries ago. He also made a veiled accusation that Swamy is communal.
Swamy rejected the moderator's accusation that he is communal, by talking about his pluralistic family.
"My credentials...see, my wife is Parsi, my son-in-law is Muslim, I have Jewish brothers-in-law and a Christian sister-in-law. None of them finds me communal," Swamy said.
Still, he added that India is a Hindu majority country and that faith trumps law, so if people "believe Ram is born there" that should take primacy.
It is precisely this kind of "majoritarianism" that Owasi took issue with and said he has a problem with.
"Nehru also said that the greatest fear is majoritarianism. If you believe in plurality and diversity we have to ask that question," Owaisi said.
On being asked why development was not a poll plank but Hindutva was used as vote bank politics Swamy said,” Narasimha Rao brought in liberalisation of the economy, Atal Bihari Vajpayee spoke about ending poverty with India Shining, Rajiv Gandhi’s term saw great economic growth, Moraji Desai brought prices to an all time low but they lost. Development is he's essay but not sufficient to win elections. For sufficiency you need emotion.”
With both leaders agreeing to disagree the charged debate ended with Sardesai asking the gathered audience if they thought a hospital should be built in place of the disputed site in Ayodhya to which a majority raised their hands in approval.