Now there is a difference between both. We Indians are grown up in such a mindset that sometimes we put a mask of practicalism on the escapism and let the things happen as they are happening. We famously call this approach – “chalta hain approach” in India. But actually this type of approach increases the problems in the longer run instead of eliminating them.

Looking at the past of India as a person from younger generation, I can say that the approach of Nehru was escapism. While that of Sardar was practical. And due to this escapism or “chalta hain” approach only, we are facing encroachment of around 10% of the total land mass of India by Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Republic of China in various parts of our country – J&K and Arunachal to name a few. We invited these problems because our leaders were (and are) escapist and not practical. They just suffered from the great Indian mentality – we the Indians just want to arrive at the solution at any end, it does not bother us how much we have to let go, we just want solution - the solution to put an end to the problem. Not the solution to solve the problem.

Yesterday the Hon. Allahabad High Court pronounced its judgment over the Ayodhya issue. The case (in fact cases) were pending since 60 years. And when finally the date of judgment arrived, instead of allowing the judgment, the some (especially younger) fractions of India began chanting that the judgment should not be delivered. Or that there should be some hospital or museum or monument on that site. (In fact I read one girl posting on facebook that rather than a school/hospital, should build a mall on Ramjanmabhoomi!!! All I can say is “He Ram!”)

Now this is escapism. This approach will only keep the problem latent for sometime but will not solve it. The advocates of this approach say if there is a verdict in any one party’s favour, there will be communal tension. Well, sorry but I don’t agree. India is not that immature these days. And I am of the favour that even if there is some tension, let the clear verdict come. Because then, this will put an end to this at one time. There may be some tension for some days but then for the coming decades there will be lasting peace. If the clear cut judgment is not pronounced, then yes there will be peace for now but who can guarantee for the decades to come?

If they build a hospital/school/monument there, do you feel there will be an end to the issue?? No. This issue can end only if there is a uni-directional judgment regarding the ownership right of that place. Otherwise people who can break temple/mosques, why can't they break the hospital? They can obviously. Who has seen the future? After some decades, some ambitious political leader will arise; will gather mob and people will again fight for their mosque/temple. This can end only if there is a clear judgment leaving no space for such people to fight over it.