The three judges gave three different verdicts. The majority decided to split the disputed site at Ayodhya 3 ways – two parts to the Hindus, and one to the Muslims. It seemed a win-win situation. The nation collectively heaved a sigh of relief.
On Judgement Day, 30th September, a TV channel invited me to express my views on the Ayodhya verdict as soon as it came in – breaking news! With me was a motley group of Muslim and Hindu leaders known for their secular views. Since the judgement was to be delivered on a title suit (to determine the ownership of the land in question) the Muslims were quietly confident that they would win. This is why they had made repeated announcements that they would abide by the court verdict.
As the lawyers burst into the media centre at Lucknow it became apparent that the Hindus had won. There was a palpable silence in our group. The Muslims were devastated, and took recourse to the face saving statement that they respected the court verdict. In a surcharged atmosphere, before whirring TV cameras, reactions were muted. But what was simmering under the surface?
The day after Judgement was a Friday, when Muslims congregate for prayer. There was a strong undercurrent of anger, and a sense of betrayal. The next day was Gandhi Jayanti. Perhaps Gandhiji’s spirit of non-violence pervaded the nation. The third day was the gala opening of the Commonwealth Games. Every Indian’s chest swelled with pride, and attention was diverted from Ayodhya. The press, TV, political and religious leaders, for once, also played safe, mouthing politically correct platitudes to peace. A strong security blanket deterred troublemakers. Had the storm blown over? Would peace prevail?
What peace? Like that of the grave – an ethereal silence? Or that of a dormant volcano, with rumblings deep below? While on the one hand the Muslims felt let down, what of the Hindus? I daresay that there are three types of Hindus, whose responses varied. The first are the devout Hindus. They revere Sri Ram, and respect the law of the land. They were happy that Ram Lalla was given judicial sanctity, that the Muslims also got something, and above all, that peace prevailed. The second category is the fundamentalist Hindus. They ran a strident campaign for demolition of the Babri Masjid (BM), and for building a grand temple at the Ram Janam Bhoomi (RJB). They were ecstatic that the court recognised the sanctity of Sri Ram and his birthplace. It was of little consequence that the Muslims were also given a bit of open land. In due course they could be bullied out of that too! The third category is the secular minded Hindus, whom the fundamentalists would quickly label “pseudo-secularists”. This third category has expressed grave concern about the judgements and their fallout. Why, now that everything seems “normal”?
The concern stems from the court seemingly exceeding its brief, going beyond the purview of law, into the nebulous realm of faith and belief. The court was expected to determine the ownership of the disputed land, on the basis of documentary records. Instead, it ventured into unchartered seas, by declaring that the central dome of the demolished mosque was the exact spot where Sri Ram was born. This was not borne out by facts but by myth and conjecture. Justices Agrawal and Sharma based their decision on popular Hindu belief. Justice Khan took it as an “informed guess”, and also conceded that Sri Ram’s birthplace was as claimed by the Hindus.
Soon after the demolition of the BM in December 1992, noted jurist Nani Palkiwala had opined that in no other country is the highest court asked to answer questions of pure history or archaeology. It would be improper to thrust upon the Supreme Court a task for which it is not qualified by training, knowledge or experience. It cannot be asked to decide questions of opinion or belief, history or mythology. His opinion holds even truer for the High Court.
Some years ago, when former Indian cricket captain Mohd Azharuddin filed an appeal in the High Court against his dismissal, the court itself ruled that it was incompetent to adjudicate on a specialised subject like sports! There is also the example of the Jain Commission (again headed by a retired judge) that spent years and crores of rupees to investigate the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Despite eyewitnesses, photographic and forensic evidence, it ended up as a damp squib. So how competent was the High Court to judge matters of faith, belief, history and mythology? Other that competence, was it also legally maintainable?
Assuming, without admitting, that the court was also called upon to determine the exact spot of Sri Ram’s birth, how could it have done so? Hindus believe that Sri Ram lived in the Trethayug, 9,00,000 years ago. He ruled for 11,000 years, while his father Dashrath ruled for 60,000 years. However, recorded history came with the advent of writing in the Early Bronze Age (circa 3200 BC). So how could it record with pinpoint accuracy the exact place of birth? Where is this recorded, if at all?
Padmabhushan Rev Dr Camille Bulcke SJ did his doctoral thesis in 1949/50 under the guidance of Dr Dhirendra Prasad Verma, head of the Hindi Department of Allahabad University. His thesis “Ram Katha”, establishes that the Ram of history (Ayodhya) is not the same as the Ram of mythology. When there is no certitude about the time and place of the person, how can anyone, let alone a court, determine his exact place of birth? In contrast, the Muslim claim that Mir Baqi built the mosque in 1528 AD, and named it after his emperor, Babar, is historically accepted. The Muslims remained in physical possession of the premises for over four centuries, till it was locked by the Govt in 1949, and subsequently demolished in 1992. There is no conclusive evidence that the BM was built after demolishing the RJB, or that the ruins of such a temple existed at that site. All that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) could assert was that the BM was built over the ruins of an earlier temple.
Would such slender observations merit a clear-cut decision, based on faith, to award the central dome portion to Sri Ram? Let us take a hypothetical situation to understand the implications of a judgement based on faith alone. My family has been living in Kanpur at a particular spot for over 150 years. Supposing, during excavation, some religious artefacts of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Dravidians or Adivasis were found buried there; would that suffice to grant legal sanctity to such religious or ethnic claimants? Again, supposing one night a religious fanatic plants a pipal tree in one corner of my residence, and a few days later surreptitiously puts up a makeshift temple with an idol ensconced there; and subsequently, on the basis of his belief alone, claimed my property, would that be legal? The implications of such flawed reasoning and actions would be horrendous. Perhaps it was for this very reason that the Govt enacted the “Places of Religious Worship Act of 1991” stating that the religious status of a premises as on 15/8/1947 would have legal sanctity, and the status quo ante would have to be maintained. Unfortunately, section 5 of the Act exempted Ayodhya from its purview.
When there is an apparent deadlock, it is good to look for a precedent to follow. Infact all courts follow precedence set by earlier judgements. Let us look at the international precedence of Jerusalem, which I was privileged to visit in 1980. It has been a bone of contention for three major religions – Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The Temple of Solomon, including the Holy of Holies (sanctum sanctorum or garb grih) was destroyed and over it now stands the Al Aqsa mosque. Only the western wall, now known as the Wailing Wall, remains of the Temple. Despite political and numerical strength, the Jews have maintained the status quo.
For Christians, Mount Calvary is most sacred. By a decree of Muslim emperor Saladin in 1187 AD it vests in a Muslim family, and another Muslim family has the right to open and close the doors. Till today these rights are respected. Even the Holy Sepulchre (the tomb of Jesus) is divided between three churches – Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox. A six-foot grave is divided into three parts! A shameful reality. Nevertheless, the rule of law prevails over sentiments, beliefs, astha, iman or whatever. Nobody is allowed to cross the Lakshman Rekha as it were.
Can we not evolve a similar consensus over Ayodhya? It is not enough to say that the law will take its course. This is passing the buck. The law in India is meanderingly slow, enforcing the adage that justice delayed is justice denied. It is the duty of the Govt, the people of India, civil society, religious leaders and the media to look for a solution.
Just as with Kashmir, the Govt should appoint a panel of interlocutors, that includes seasoned members of both communities, as also some neutral figures, statesmen and jurists. Let the Govt send this delegation on an all expenses paid trip to Jerusalem, to find a solution to the vexed Ayodhya issue. But like the reality show, Big Boss, they should be locked in, until they emerge with a tangible and just solution. We don’t want another split verdict or edict! May lasting peace prevail in our beloved motherland. Jai Hind!
* The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union.
No comments:
Post a Comment