Curtain call
What does one do when faced with a problem that has no real solution? One looks for a compromise, whereby each party loses a little and gains a little. When done artfully enough, it creates a ‘win-win’ solution. One does not know whether the Allahabad High Court’s verdict on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi imbroglio – delivered yesterday afternoon – will fall into this category. Probably not.
But one thing is clear. Yesterday, the entire nation heaved a collective sigh of relief. The three judges on the bench gave three judgments that, when put together, ensure that none of the three parties to the dispute is either a winner or a loser. It is a masterly judicial compromise-of-sorts, after the parties to the dispute would not or could not reach one themselves.
The Ayodhya judgment practically forces the contending groups to go in for an amicable resolution of what has been indisputably the most challenging national political dispute since Partition. The judgment removes any ambiguity over the site being the birthplace of Lord Rama, but reserves a space within the disputed area for the construction of a mosque.
For a people wearied by two decades of communal tension and bloodshed, it is like balm. Everyone’s sentiments have been assuaged, and no one’s ego has been massaged. The people of India have reacted maturely; no one has any wish to revisit the nightmares of the past. All eyes are now on the future.
Justices Sibghat Ullah Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and Dharam Veer Sharma delivered split verdicts in the 60-year-old Ayodhya title suit filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board.
Justice Khan ruled that all three parties – the Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara – were to be considered joint title holders of the 10,800 sq metre disputed property. He said that the portion below the central dome of the Babri Masjid, where the idol of Ram Lalla (the infant Rama) is kept in a makeshift temple, goes to the Hindus. The Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi go to the Nirmohi Akhara.
Justice Agarwal too held that the area under the central dome was the place of birth of Lord Rama as per the faith and belief of the Hindus. The area within the inner courtyard, he ruled, belonged to members of both communities, since it was being used by both for centuries, while the Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi go to the Nirmohi Akhara. The share of the Muslims shall not be less than one-third, he declared.
Justice Sharma held that the area under the central dome is the birth place of Lord Rama. He said that the mosque said to be constructed on the orders of the Mughal Emperor Babar in 1528, was built against the tenets of Islam, and could not be considered a mosque. He held that neither the Sunni Wakf Board nor the Nimrohi Akhara had any valid claim on the land, as their claims were time barred, and that the entire property belongs to Lord Rama.
By a careful process of putting the operative parts of the three judgements together (one cannot have any real idea of the full judgments, as they collectively run into 8,300 pages), the consensus verdict that emerges by majority is that the site is the birthplace of Lord Rama and the existing idols of Ram Lalla cannot be shifted (unanimous), that the Nimrohi Akhara retains control of the Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi (two out of three) and that the site is divided into three, and that the Muslims must get one-third of it (two out of three).
While most parties to the judgment have either expressed satisfaction with it or declared that they will accept it, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has announced that it intends to appeal to the Supreme Court. But it has not shut its doors on an amicable settlement. May God grant them the wisdom to choose the latter. This is one dispute that India can well do without.
