Ayodhya Verdict: Questionable Doctrines
The Allahabad High Court has avoided the main issue of title to the disputed property, says PRABHAKAR TIMBLE
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has dumped in cold storage the main issue that was placed before it for judgment – of the title to the disputed properties at the site of the erstwhile Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. A look at the court’s now well-known three-way verdict makes it appear as if the Court took a non-adversarial and friendly approach, almost acting as an arbitrator rather than the law giver it is supposed to be.
This is a fit example of judicial appeasement, akin to what a committee of Indian bureaucrats would have done if they were asked to find a way out of the impasse. If this was the final determination that had to come, one fails to understand how it could have taken as long as six decades to reach a decision.
Or is this a judicial innovation to heal wounds, cool tempers and comfort the litigating groups? They say that justice delayed is justice denied. But, in some cases, delayed justice sucks the expectations of litigants and facilitates acceptance of judicial orders. Maybe, this is a new judicial drug put on a sample test.
The whole nation was put under the siege. Military and security forces were called out in large numbers everywhere. There were frequent appeals to the people to maintain calm and peace. The Prime Minister made a personal appeal through the newspapers as well as television channels that the verdict should be accepted with good grace.
These extraordinary measures were a result of apprehensions that this particular ‘minor’ property dispute, over a 2.77 acre plot in a UP small town, could flare up communal tension and, possibly, even violence, throughout the country. It did just that in 1992-93, when the Babri Masjid was brought down, leading to tragic consequences that are felt every now and then in different parts of the country.
Undoubtedly, the judgment (or, rather judgments) of the three-judge bench provided comfort and a huge sense of relief, all of which arose from a no-profit-no-loss feeling to both the communities on account of its terms. But, though the decree has caused not a single serious community disturbance in the entire country, the basis adopted by the judges for their verdicts is most disturbing.
I have nothing to say on the formula of one-third sharing by the three parties to the petition – the Hindu Mahasabha, the Sunni Wakf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara. In fact, I would be most happy if all the parties agree to convert the entire disputed area into a national monument.
But I know this is wishful thinking, because we all are Hindus and Mussalmans first, and Indians later. This is the ‘patriotism’ that we espouse. If we give a decent burial to the Mandir-Masjid issue, what other agenda do our politicians, as well as religious and community leaders have? We need all our leaders. They need us as followers. So, this issue has to remain for the centenary celebrations of our Independence!
To my mind, it is only a feigned maturity that the political parties have shown on the day of the Ayodhya verdict. All are guarded in their reactions. In a couple of months, you will see the mobilisation by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The Congress will reinforce itself as the saviour of secularism and minority interests. Come election time, and we will have the ‘action replay’. The uncommon wealth of the Commonwealth Games will soon be forgotten.
Let me turn to the negative precedents of the verdict.
I do not know whether the birth place of Lord Shree Ram was a subject for determination by the High Court. However, the honourable judges have attested that Shree Ram was born at the disputed spot. This is an exceptional example of judicial ratification of faith and belief, which can mark the beginning of falling faith in the judiciary itself. Was the judiciary invoking a new principle in jurisprudence, namely, the doctrine of faith?
One of the three judges also ruled that there was no mosque existing at the disputed site, since the Mughal emperor Babar built the structure “against the tenets of Islam”. Admittedly, this structure was built sometime around 1528. But there is no evidence that Babar built the structure by destroying an existing Hindu temple. There is only evidence of the ruins of what seems to be a Hindu religious structure below the structure of the erstwhile Babri Masjid.
The Court has given legitimacy to the unauthorised entry and placing of Hindu idols at the disputed structure on 23 December 1949. However, the Court has remained completely silent about the demolition of the structure by a planned and organised mobilisation of ‘kar sevaks’, in full gaze of the public, the media, law enforcing agencies and the top brass of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Is this an attempt by the High Court to invoke the doctrine of retribution? Can a wrong committed in 1528 be set right by another two wrongs committed in 1949 and 1992? Is this a judicial recognition to rewrite historical incidents and accidents by deliberate wrongs in modern times?
The ruling on the distribution of the properties has no link to what is prayed for by the petitioners. Probably, the High Court has initiated its own doctrine of compromise. The High Court has offered a formula providing properties to all the three parties. Here also, the distribution is equal. But the real question should be; is it equitable? Probably, the High Court thought it fit to close the issue in view of the failure of the litigating parties to come to an amicable settlement despite several attempts.
Granting the credit to the High Court for evolving what appears to be an acceptable formula for settlement of a dispute having national (and even cross-border) importance and ramifications, such rulings on matters beyond the legal brief should have been avoided. It is these rulings that will now be contested in the Supreme Court by all the parties. The myths of Shree Ram and the ghost of Babar will continue to reign in the political skies for a pretty long time to come.
It is a largely a verdict on Shree Ram. The basis is the age old faith, belief and worship by Hindus all over. The High Court has set a questionable precedent by ruling on figures from ancient Indian history, mythology and the epics.
(The writer was Principal of the Kare College of Law in Margao as well as the Government College, Quepem. He was also the Goa State Election Commissioner. This article first appeared in www.goanews.com)
++
Walk The Talk
By Auriel Ribeiro Sa
Children are more in need of models than critics. A teacher was exasperated with a certain student who rarely completed class assignments and never did his homework. When questioned, the child always gave the same excuse, “I just never got around to it.” So, she decided one day to visit the boy’s home. There, she was cordially greeted by the mother and invited into the living room. Because it was already February, she was startled to see a bare needled Christmas tree still draped with ornaments. Seeing her surprise, the mother apologised, “I just never got around to taking it down.”
Standing behind a young mother and her small daughter in a supermarket checkout queue, a lady overheard “Mummy, can I have a bar of chocolate?’
“No darling. Too much chocolate is bad for you.”
“Oh please mummy.”
“No dear. If you have too many sweets, they’ll make you fat. When you get home, you can choose a special piece of fruit. That way, you’ll have a beautiful complexion when you’re older and you’ll be healthier.”
What a sensible woman she is, the lady thought, instilling healthy lifestyle thinking into her child.
As she reached the cashier, the mother said, “A pack of cigarettes, please.” As parents, we are in the habit of preaching but sometimes we do not walk the talk ourselves. Wise as they are, our children can spot a phoney a mile away.
“You cannot steer a car with the horn.” It doesn’t matter how long or how loudly we shout; if we don’t show them the right way by our good example, we are doomed. I may tell my son not to beat up his little brother, but if I whack him on the head every time I get upset with him, what do you think he’s going to do? I can tell my child not to scream and shout, but if I scream and shout when I am telling her that, what chance have I got of making her behave? No bad words, we tell our kids, then watch a movie full of taboo words. And there seated in the front row is our little Johnny, educating himself with our blessings.
Our children watch our every move. My little daughter learnt to comb her hair and sit on the potty just by watching how I did it. My eldest son grumbles exactly the way I do when I am frustrated. He leaves the house at the last moment just like his father does, earning himself the title of late Latif.
When children are small, we are amused with the way they imitate us. Little do we realise that they could embarrass us one day! I distinctly recall the shock we got once when the son of one of my distant cousins used a ‘forbidden’ word at a wedding. He was only three years old at the time! Well, you can rightly guess what word his father loved best.
A teacher once told a parent who was in the habit of constantly overfeeding her son “See that your boy is not only well fed but also well bred.” The boy used to bully the younger boys during recess, grabbing their tiffin boxes and if they resisted, he would throw the contents on the ground. Later, she learnt that the mother was the village toughie, using her influence as the sarpanch to get illegal work done. Little wonder then that her son was a mini Gabbar Singh in school.
A mother and father who create a home wherein the virtues of charity, modesty and honesty abide, where God is boss at all times and where hard work and sacrifice are honoured, need to be crowned as the Mr and Mrs Perfect Couple, don’t you think?
I end with a final story, which I hope, will put a seal to my appeal to all parents to ‘Talk the Talk, Talk the Walk, Walk the Talk then Walk the Walk’. A boy was left alone with his father at bedtime. After some horseplay, the father got the little fellow into his nightclothes and told him to say his night prayers. The little boy knelt down besides his bed, joined his hands, raised his eyes to Heaven and prayed his usual prayer. Then he looked up at his Dad, raised his eyes to Heaven again and said “Dear God, make me a great big good man like my Daddy.” In a moment he was in bed, and in five minutes, asleep. Then his father knelt by his son’s bedside and prayed “Dear Lord, make me a great big good man like my boy thinks I am.”
