MY AYODHYA VERDICT

On 30th September, 2010 the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) announced the verdict in the long pending and hugely controversial Ram Janm Bhoomi – Babri Masjid case.

While on the face of it, the litigation is nothing more than a title dispute on a plot of land admeasuring ~2.7 acres situated in Ayodhya, it assumes much greater significance on account of the religious, historical, political and ideological issues which are interwoven into the fabric of the case and go to the very core of the fundamental principles on which the Republic of India was founded.

At the heart of the dispute lies the conflicting contentions of the Hindu and Muslims groups, represented by the respective bodies (read Wakf, Akhada & Lord Ram himself) regarding their possessory rights to the site in view of the usury entitlements which got established on account of the existence of the religious monuments of each of the respective religions.

While the Muslims’ claim rests on the Babri Masjid which was constructed in the 16th Century at the site and came to be demolished on 6th December 1992 at the hands of the Hindu fanatics led by Shri L.K. Advani, the claim of the Hindus arises on account of Ayodhya being synonymous from time immemorial as the birthplace of Lord Ram (a fact that has become ingrained in all of our recollections, having grown up on the staple diet of Ramayana and Ramleela).

The dispute came to a head when in 1949 there was the apparition, mystically or stealthily, of the idols of Lord Ram, Sita and Lakshman in the  very heart of the mosque. This was followed by the Hindus seeking not only unfettered access to the mosque’s innards for worshipping said idols but also seeking prohibitory orders from the Courts with respect to the removal of the idols.

Not unlike Jerusalem, the site in question does boast of bonafide religious antecedents for both the religions and thus becomes a logical hotbed for protracted clashes (both legal and otherwise) amongst the members of the religious groups. Add to that the vote bank politics and propaganda of extremist groups, the fight does not remain merely religious or judicial but goes far beyond.

In this background and shouldering the unenviable responsibility to decide the matter in a ‘judicious’ manner, the Hon’ble justices of the Allahabad High Court delivered the judgement on the date mentioned hereinabove, writing three separate judgements and being unable to reach a unanimous verdict, rendered a judgement by majority.

The majority judgement, oft repeated and debated in the media over the last few days, seeks to carve out the site in three parts with one part going to the Nirmohi Akhada (a Hindu Group), one part to the Muslim Wakf Board and the last part to the Ram Lalla temple. While the Hon’ble justices have refrained from delving into a partition of the site by metes and bounds and carving out the specific tracts which would belong to each (for obvious reasons), they have given certain guide posts/comments alluding to the direction in which the partition ought to travel…with the situs of the Ram Lalla idol going to the Lord Ram (a deity being a juristic person recognized in law), the portion pertaining to the Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabootra to be included in the portion to be alloted to the Akhara and the rest to go to the Wakf.

The judgement, with its finer nuances aside, has been largely lauded for its balanced approach and for being reflective of the secular sentiment which forms an essential pillar of the Republic of India as per our constitution. Hearing all sorts of politicial and legal gurus voice their satisfaction on how the judgement paves the way for the Hindus and Muslims to co-exist, one cannot help but have a momentary lapse of idealistic illusion that all is in fact well that ends well.

But you are quickly (and abruptly) brought back to reality not only by the bickering and protestations of the representatives of the religious groups who persist with their original contentions, apparently dissatisfied and poised to challenge the order before the gods of the Indian judicial diaspora (read the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India), but also by the politicians who pick on the aspects of judgement to pander to their vote bank constituents and continue their policy of milking the votes out of this holy cow of an issue (pun intended).

But I do not begrudge the religious groups or the politicians or even the Hon’ble Justices for their respective actions, for each has done what was but logical of someone in their predicament. The religious groups will continue to fight for the superior rights of their respective religion to the site for the foreseeable future and the politicians will continue to politicize. Similarly, the Hon’ble Justices have adopted the middle ground as there was no other choice for them to do (with lots of respect to the minority verdict of Hon’ble Justice Sharma).

What boggles the mind is the lack of secularity the judgement betrays. Despite our Constitution making secularity a fundamental premise of the Republic, few have managed to fully grasp the significance of this concept. For secularism does not mean the peaceful co-existence of different religions together…it means transcending religion and not letting religion govern the matters of state, matters of public dealing or even matters of property.

In my humble opinion the Ayodhya verdict is a wound on the soul of the country much like the partition in 1947. In both instances the territory of the country was carved up in the interest of religion. In both cases the religious interests overrode the interests of the sovereign. In both the cases, rather than agreeing to ‘peacefully co-exist’, we agreed to segregate and exist separately. There is surely nothing secular about dividing the land between the Hindus and Muslims and having them exist in their own compartmentalized zones.

The true implementation of  the secular sentiment would have been to not let the religious interests divide the land but to let the site remain intact and give a go by to the religious interests…to transcend!!!

At the risk of sounding blasphemous, let me put the big question out there…Why is there necessity to have a temple or a mosque at the site?

The religious import of the site is not detracted even if the site was to be taken over by the sovereign and converted into a national monument or say a park or just let be without any religious structure built thereon. The religious antecedents would still remain intact. The members of both communities, or any other community for that matter would still be able to equally access and pay tribute to the site and derive inspiration from it.

I do not think having ‘title’ over the piece of land or building a structure thereon enhances the position of either religion or testifies to the devotion of its followers. After all isn’t God supposed to be exist beyond the temporal rights in a piece of land? Aren’t rights in land anyway a mere illusion and we all are mere custodians of the earth holding it in escrow to pass on to the next in line?

Since time immemorial, the world over, religion has transcended nationalities and not the other way around. From the era of Christ to the crusades to the Holocaust and the Partition, religion has managed to divide and rule. Even today the Palestinian and Kashmir problems bear testament to this phenomenon. We continue to relegate our sense of humanity and nationalism to the religious sentiments and motives. And so long as we continue to let this happen, the materialistic issues of possession over patches/strips of land (which ironically tend to be at the forefront of all ‘religious’ disputes) will continue to divide humans and create a barrier amongst us while we all continue about in denial and illusions of secularity!!!