THE REAL WINNER OF THE AYODHYA VERDICT

On 30th September around 4-15 PM when the first set of lawyers stepped out of the court and got caught in the media cacophony, the only sense one could make was the victory sign flashed by half a dozen lawyers in that large contingent indicating that it was a decisive victory for one party. But thankfully even before the audience could decode the judgment, the news channels started to flash: 2-1 the judges rule in favour of dividing the land in to three equal halves.

On the face of it the judgment has something for both the Hindus & Muslims. Even though many critics have slammed the verdict and termed it as a legal disaster & the Muslims groups feel that it is tilted in favour of the Hindu groups, yet they all have accepted the verdict with dignity & humility.


But there are five important factors that emerge from this verdict-

Statesmanship displayed by the Court

From a nation’s point of view there could not have been a better judgement. The court bearing in the mind the sensitivities involved in this case has delivered a verdict that has left something on the table for everyone at the same time denying comprehensive victory for one party. But by this verdict the court has also shown the government what it could have done many years back even before this issue devastated our nation. So in that sense even if this verdict is ‘panchayati’ as termed by many critics, it still is the most spirited verdict and highlights the statesmanship displayed by the court.

Legal questions

From a legal point of view, this judgement has fundamental flaws. No doubt the court with the best of intentions to keep the nation calm has approached the case in an extraordinary manner but even then the basic fundamental question it has given birth to is that whether the court can place ‘faith’ over evidence to pronounce its verdict. The cause of concern is as pointed out by many legal experts that this can set a wrong precedence for future legal cases pertaining to places of worship. These are valid concerns as the judiciary of this country has always been seen as a symbol on unbiased justice. And without doubting the intention of the court in this case the problem is that there could be far reaching ramifications if this verdict has legal & constitutional flaws.


Supreme Court’s critical role

In all likelihood the case will move to the High Court as some groups have already announced. The Supreme Court’s role is significant for two reasons- 1) The Supreme Court will give the most impeccable decision based on legal grounds which is expected to address the legal loopholes which have emerged after this verdict 2) The decision of the Supreme Court will also put to rest the fate of this issue legally at least which may lead to a closure. Which means that all parties involved in this case will either have to accept it and hopefully with dignity given that all the parties have maintained so far that they will respect the judiciary. The Supreme Court verdict will also give a clearer picture of the constitutional aspect of this case which could set the blue print for any out of court settlement.

Verdict cannot validate 6th December demolition

Another concern for the Muslim community & secular forces are that does this verdict validate the demolition of the mosque on 6th December 1992? Constitutionally & legally the demolition was a criminal act and shameful for our democracy and there are no two ways about it. And there is already a separate case under trial which is dealing with demolition issue. So mixing both the cases is the wrong way to look at it. This case was entirely a civil case fought for the possession of a private land. On the other hand the demolition case is a criminal case and pertains to the failure of law & order.

Out of court settlement

This case has possibly given a good foundation to reach an out of court settlement which would be the ideal solution. Because frankly, other then the parties involved, an average Hindu or Muslim really doesn’t care. All the parties can now adopt a more pragmatic approach that can pave way for an out of court settlement. No party can have it their way completely as is evident by this verdict. So working out a middle way can solve it once and for all, which is possible post this verdict.

The biggest winner: Our Indian secular faith

As I had mentioned in my prelude to the Ayodhya court verdict that this judgment will test the real faith of this nation. Is the fundamental religious faith still stronger than the secular democratic faith was the big question? And the average Indian has displayed they have moved on and realized that the 1992 time was a dark phase of our democracy and that will only make us regressive. No doubt that barring a few diluted politicians like Mulayam Singh, all political parties reacted in a very mature fashion which made this verdict even sweeter. This reaction has reinforced the belief that we are a nation that is ready to accept mistakes and rectify them for out larger good. The battle that was fought for 60 years in the court between Muslims and Hindus finally has a clear winner- and that is ‘the Indian secular faith’.

AYODHYA VERDICT: THE BATTLE OF FAITHS

On September 24th the Allahabad High court bench will pronounce the Ayodhya title suit verdict after sixty years. The title suit case was first filed in December 1950 by Mahant Ramchandra Das Paramhans which was followed by several more suits filed by other parties including the Sunni Central Boards of Waqfs, UP, in December 1961. A total of four suits were clubbed together and brought before the Allahabad High Court which began recording oral evidence in July 1996.

The interesting point is that the court will decide whether Lord Ram was born at that very same disputed piece of land where the Babri mosque structure stood. The whole Ayodhya movement began as a socio religious issue in the

19th century and became a burning political issue by the late 1980’s which changed the political landscape of this nation. BJP’s LK Advani spearheaded the whole campaign via his Rath Yatra that bolstered BJP’s electoral strength.

‘Faith’ was the single most important factor on which this issue was carried forward. Many middle class average Hindus also subscribed to the belief that Lord Ram was born there and Mughal King Babar in the 16th century demolished an existing temple and constructed a mosque which was known as the Babri Masjid post independence. On 6th December 1992, the Babri mosque was demolished by Hindu activists, which led to one of the worst communal riots in different parts of the country which claimed thousands of lives.

Without getting into different versions of history advocated by either side, the real issue is that the court will decide whether Lord Ram was born there and if a temple existed before the Babri mosque was constructed on that site. An issue which never got solved through an out of court talks that will be decided in the court of law on the basis of ‘material’, evidence & documents. Though all parties involved in the case which includes the right wing Hindu groups, Muslim groups and the political parties have appealed to maintain peace and accept the court verdict, almost all of them have suggested that the legal option of going to the Supreme Court is still open to them if either side is unhappy with the verdict. The irony of the situation is also the stand of two principle political parties which have been at the heart of the problem. The BJP which captured power on the back of this issue is now in a situation where it is trying to reposition itself as a moderate right wing party in order to strike a chord with the new generation. On the other hand the Congress which has never taken a clear stand on the issue and has changed its position depending on the prevailing political environment and is now in the process of regaining the confidence of the two opposing sides in this case-the Muslims which had deserted the party after the demolition and upper cast Hindus which traditionally supported the cause of the temple. In a sense everyone wants to avoid the verdict to prevent any communal disharmony to resurface.

A majority of average Indians today are of the opinion that the verdict really doesn’t matter now. India has moved on and there are more important issues that matter rather then a mosque or temple. Faith is a matter of trust in an idea. So the response of an average Indian irrespective of the religion after the verdict is something that will shape our faith in the idea of secularism. Majority of Hindus in India are secular in their thoughts and this has been proven by the previous few general elections where they did not vote for the right wing parties like the BJP which fought elections on the Hindutva plank. It has always been politicians (even in this Ayodhya issue) that have used religion to create disharmony by mixing politics with religion. But time and again post 1992, the secular faith of Indians have stood out against hard-line religious faith. Barring the Gujarat riots of 2002, Hindus & Muslims have stood united even when fundamental groups have targeted places of worship.

The ideal solution for this particular issue would be to construct a hospital at the disputed site which would do service to the society irrespective of religion. But no matter how romantic this idea of secularism may sound, the fact remains that history has been a testimony that even though India has changed from time to time, communal violence has been a constant part of our post independence history. And that is why cynics are worried that the Ayodhya verdict might just put the lid off the volcano and destroy the communal calm & peace that has prevailed for the last one decade. The court verdict on September 24th will not decide the winner between Hindus V/s Muslims but between the ‘Hard line Religious Faith’ V/s the ‘Indian Secular Faith’. And let’s hope that Gods of all religions bat for the latter.