In the past few hours, some people have asked me what I think of the judgment pronounced around the Ayodhya dispute. Firstly, like most Indians, I am relieved that it didn’t result in violence. But I am also left wondering whether this is what rule of law means? And strangely enough, I seem to be among the few people who don’t have a clear opinion yet. Perhaps its because I am so confused, and I am somewhat ignorant of legal intricacies. So all I am left with, is a bunch of “common man” questions. The best I can do is to put down these questions, and maybe someone else can make better sense of it than me?
1. What is so ground breaking and statesman like about this judgment? Divide the bread equally and throw it to each of the clamoring parties… its the oldest, most simplistic trick in the book? Did we really need 60 years to come up with this?
2. Is it practically feasible to force a mosque and temple to exist side by side? Both parties have tried this formula for over a century and it has only led to friction, tension and cycles of violence. Why should it be any different from here on?
3. What is the logic behind rejecting the title suits of two out of the three aggrieved parties, and then deciding to divide the land between the same people whose titles have been denied already?
4. How can the lawyers representing one side rush out, start flashing victory signs and conveying their own interpretations of victory, before the formal communication from the court comes out. Is this not contempt of court?
5. Was this really designed to be a standalone judgment, or was it designed to be a baton passing exercise to the Supreme Court, with an attempt to force reconciliation in between?
6. Is reconciliation ever possible unless the BJP is in power? Politically they cannot allow any other party to take the credit for having resolved the issue. And practically, they are one of the parties who has to agree to a solution?
7. Can the title suit actually disassociate itself from the documented illegal acts of installing statues by stealth in 1949 and the major criminal act of demolition in 1992, for which FIR’s have been lodged? Does the law actually say that the cases are in such separate compartments, that we can actually hand over the land to the perpetrators of the crime in this case?
8. What does the Sunni wakf board really want out of the legal process? Does it believe that it is practically possible now for the Ram Lalla statues to be moved from where they are? Is a leap of imagination ever possible, where the muslims say “ok, we will build a temple around those statues, and invite our Hindu brothers to offer prayers there!” Will they ever get such a smart leader, who can think of the moral high ground they could take for decades, after a move like that?
9. What is the empirical evidence, based on which the court has decided that this is indeed the very spot based on which Bhagwan Ram was born? Do the ASI excavations show anything more than “a temple” having existed there?
10. Can the court conclude whether a mythological god takes priority, or a brick and mortar edifice? Can the law take decisions based on belief, or only on hard evidence?
11. How has the Sangh Parivar concluded that Ram is a symbol of National integration, and that the court verdict sanctions a grand temple to be built there? And that Muslims should help build the temple? Will the parivar help build a mosque on 1/3rd of the land in return? Or does it hope to slowly squeeze them out, based on sheer force of numbers?
12. Is there any real ideological difference between the statement “a path has been cleared for a grand temple” and the old war cry “Mandir wahin banaenge”, except for more slickness in communication?
13. Why is it that the government can kick a 1000 tribals off their land by force, and build an aluminum plant there. But they can’t take over a 60×40 site and build a hospital on it?
14. Will the BJP accept the court verdict with equal enthusiasm, if Advani and co are found guilty in the separate criminal case ongoing for the Babri Masjid demolition?
15. Has India really “moved on” or is that just an urban, middle class, “pseudo-secular” desire?
16. Was the press briefing following the verdict, organized and planned by Suresh Kalmadi? 🙂
17. Even after winning, Ravi Shankar Prasad ko itna gussa kyon aata hai? 🙂
WOW, didnt realize there could be so many questions to this. I was just happy that there was no chaos or violence and content about it.
I think the best solution would have been to make a park or a recreation center on this piece of land.
You’re right. Did the court really need 60 years to come with this? Khap Panchayats can do the same. Forget a hospital, the least the court could have ruled is that as all other historical monuments, this too is nobody’s property, and as other archeological and historical sites, everybody has access to it. Agree this can sound naive, but playing into the hands of majority, and absolutely disregarding the violations committed in 1949 and 1992, and delivering a verdict that clearly condones it, well how is that win-win, as most media call it?
On your question no 10. quoting a friend — theism is a ‘leap of faith’, which means there cannot be a valid/logical/rational explanation for it. Which means you can’t apply science or law to it. So wasn’t it stupid in the first place to make the courts consider the questions? Conversely, if court is not basing its verdict on laws laid down in letter based on empirical facts, the next alternative is arrive at a compromise, a formula that is acceptable to all.
Habib pointed out the court’s observation based on ASI report, that there existed a five storey structure that predated the mosque, which it said could be the temple/Ram’s palace/his mom’s cowshed. But Habib said it cannot be so coz the binding mortar was introduced to us by the Mughals!
OK, let’s assume that there was the temple before the mosque. And they say, it stood at where Ram was born, and his house, which he being the king was a palace. It was only after Ram became whatever the myth he was the temple would have come up, right? What are the chances of a palace being demolished to make way for a temple? Not even a panchayat councillor loses his piece of land to God himself. The Raghus would have taken over some prime land, did some pooja to ward off the dalits’ spirits and constructed a swanky structure there:)
There is a child in every man..We all know this..
Why do we need a mediator in most discussions? The UN will be rendered almost useless if not for that job (Not that it is of much use even now!!). Why do we need umpires in cricket? (Just use the third umpire for everything, Flash the messages on the board-No-ball, Leg-byes, wide etc etc and of course the all important, OUT).
Anywayz, my take Sandy is that we all need monitoring and controlling. If not, we would all just be happy excelling in processes and thereby rendering a team-lead or a manager useless. We know we have to share everything with our siblings. But how many times have we had our parents step-in and solve the fights. Make us share forcibly. You are grumpy for some time..But get back to normalcy in no time. And with such consistency in repeating the same act over and over again..Sometimes even when you are adults 🙂
They have been fighting since the dude Babar came in. 2, 3 defendants it really doesn’t matter. Wakf board will go to the supreme court. Another 5-10 years on it. Most of the people in the equation would be dead and gone by then (not counting the politicians…They don’t die..You see Yamraj values his life up there).
This suit would lose its value and steam by then. Look what happened to it in 18 years.
Most of us were born towards the fag end of the 45 years of independence. The religious tensions and divides post the partition and rioting had eased slightly. Then Babri happened followed by Bombay and Gujarat. Give it another 10-15 more years. And you can hear people form pour generation talking ” In those days….”; while the generation of that time, would say ” Duh, dude….go get a life ” (hopefully!!)
Sandy, many questions are very pertinent and thought provoking ! nice one 🙂