The Muslim community carved a win in the otherwise defeat expressing acceptance at the compensation of land. The mythological hero Sri Ram of the Hindus succeeded to catch the birthplace. It is a triumph of the people of India as a whole if this brings the conflict based on faith, belief and sentiment further fuelled by ‘hindutva’ politics to a conclusion. The win will last long or may be abruptly chopped depending on the future course that the fanatical elements within the Hindu community take in their agenda of hostility to rewrite and reconstruct what they perceive as historical wrongs. It is gains to all, loss to none except the institution of judiciary which is held with awe and reverence as the third pillar of democracy.
The calls to maintain peace from the VHP, Sangh brass and PM was a sufficient indication that the operative lines of the judgment suffered a leakage. The Muslim community is mauled as intolerant signaling likelihood of a fall out in terms of law and order. Whether those who demolished the Babri Masjid and abused it as a ladder to rise in political power would have maintained public order and tranquility had the judgment being the reverse is anybody’s imagination. The slogan of “India in danger” would have originated from Nagpur and the saffron flare up could not be ruled out if the alternative five acre land was awarded to the Hindu side.
Legally speaking, the judgment is unfair and unjust to the Muslim community. The Hindus get the mosque property and the Muslims accept the verdict. Probably, it is the invisible coercive force of majoritarian violent sentiment and inducement through mediation that explains the respect accorded to the verdict. The judicial recognition of the faith in the birthplace of Sri Ram has definitely traded the faith of citizens in the dignity of the apex judiciary. The declaration that the Supreme Court is answerable only to the law and the constitution has received a beating. If this judicial order was publicly acknowledged as an out-of-court settlement by consenting parties merely ratified by the court, the dignity and honor of the judiciary would have stayed without discoloration.
The mosque existed since 1528. It was demolished in 1992. The Court refused to entertain claims and enforce rights based solely on the existence of an underlying temple during the 12th century. It is from 1856 that the Hindus started offering religious services at the disputed site. The Court has answered in the negative that the dispute has roots in the Mughal times and underlined that the judiciary could stretch up to the colonial regime and not further in history. Asserting that the attempts of the courts would be restricted to protect religious nature of a place of worship as it existed in 1947, the Supreme Court has maintained that “history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future”. There was an opportunity to maintain Ayodhya as a medley of faiths thereby reinforcing the Indian tradition buttressed in the Indian Constitution that religions can co-exist on land at same locations. However, “mandir wahin banayenge” got the blessings of the Supreme Court despite not being backed by law, evidence and reason. The judgment displaced the victims of demolition and enthroned the criminals. Maybe a victory of ‘hindutva’ but it’s a defeat of the essence of Hinduism.
Though a setback for the institution of judiciary, it is a good omen for the Indian Muslims. The Muslim public image fuelled more by the Muslim religious managers and political leaders is of a fanatic community when it comes to their beliefs, customs and personal laws. The fundamentalist Hindu has grabbed the opportunity to milk it by portraying them as “Babur ki aulad” and illustrating their disdain for secular constitutional values. The Hindu public image is two-fold. It is held as an ocean of secular and progressive community with a mix of fundamentalist ‘hindutva’ forces. This is what gives weight to the belief that “India is secular because a Hindu is so”. This becomes a shield as well as a propaganda material for the right-wing organizations to instigate and prick the free and liberal Hindu mind. That the Hindus used the most inhuman and brutal practices of ‘Sati’ (wife burning on funeral pyre of husband); Untouchability (ostracizing specific caste groups) and bear the taint of destroying Buddhism gets buried in the laboratory of years. Even today, there are Hindu groups who hold the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi in esteem. Despite all this, the secular and liberal voice continues to dominate the community. These traits are rather dim amongst the Muslim community as a whole. Hence, though the Ayodhya judgment is unkind to the Muslims, it has the potential to spark a turnaround in the public perception of the community.
The five judges decided in one voice. The absence of dissent is striking. It reminds of the highly publicized Habeas Corpus case during the Indian Emergency where in a similar five-member Bench, the majority agreed with the governmental view that even the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution stand abrogated during the period of national emergency.
It was the dissenting opinion of Hans Raj Khanna which became the forerunner of judicial activism in the days to come keeping the right to life and personal liberty on the highest pedestal. In the Ayodhya case, probably there was none of the mettle of H. R. Khanna. A dissent would have kept the flame burning in the Supreme Court though the glitter had gone.
(The writer is an educationist and political commentator)
