In another three days, we shall be celebrating as children’s day, the birthday of the maker of modern India, who also played a stellar role in the freedom movement, founding of our republic and the one who gave us a new brand of secularism our composite culture, designed to keep together different religions under one umbrella.
The Supreme Court has pronounced the unanimous Ayodhya verdict. The dispute is over a plot of 2.77 acres in a small UP town. The SC has decided to hand over the plot to the members of the Hindu faith who believed that it is the birth place of their Lord Ram and the Muslim section would get if 5 acres plot at a suitable prominent place in Ayodhya.
Mir Baqi a general of the first Moghul emperor Babar is supposed to have built a mosque destroying the Ram’s birth place temple. Mir Baqi’s medieval time Islamic justice was undone by a riotous mob in the latter half of 20th century when the country followed the rule of law and professed secular principles. The riotous mob was aroused by the one who went on to become the PM and led by the one who later became the Dy PM. Not forgetting that the logistics were managed by a young activist, who is the current PM!
1992 changed the course of India’s pluralist democracy. India’s composite culture was thrown out of the window. The scars of that event run deep in the Indian mind even today. It was believed that the violent unconstitutional act would be undone through the process of courts.
What is a dispute all about? In 1987 the chief priest of the Hanumangarhi temple annexed the eastern part of the mosque now called the Ram- chabutra alleged to be the actual birth place .A title suit was filed by a mahant of the birth-place temple. That suit was dismissed. After independence Ram idols found place inside the mosque (the Supreme Court has now held the placing of Ram idols to be illegal). A suit for right to worship and a seeking prohibition on removal of idols came before the court. In 1959 Nirmohi Akhara a Hindu sect brought another suit claiming the entire mosque. In 1961 the Sunni Waqf Board filed a third suit claiming rights over the mosque.
The Allahabad court split the plot into three sub plots and giving the most sacred place under the dome of the mosque to the Hindus. It clearly accepted faith and belief as a measuring rod to decide the dispute over that small plot.
When the matter came up before the Hon’ble SC in appeal, justice RM Lodha said “The High Court’s judgement is something strange. It has to be stayed. It’s strange order… Such kind of decree cannot be allowed to be in operation. It is difficult situation now.
After Babri Masjid was demolished the matter was referred to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion with the question “whether Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid … in the area on which the structure stood”. The Supreme Court refused to answer the reference. It did not adjudicate on the questions of religious nature.
The Ramjanam Bhumi/Babri Masjid was actually a symbol of our composite culture and had to be guarded by all. When the riotous mob brought down the disputed structure, it was a major failure of all the institutions including the SC, the then Central and State governments and the civil servants to uphold the constitution.
The demolition of the masjid in 1992 was seen as an asserting the legal rights based on faith and belief. Thankfully the Supreme Court has held the demolition to be of the Masjid in 1992 to be violation of law!
Twenty-seven years after the demolition, a constitution bench of the SC has decided the matter over that plot by holding that Hindus believe that Lord Ram was born right below the central dome of the disputed structure.
The Supreme Court stated “both Hindu and Muslim witnesses indicate that Hindus and Muslims were offering prayer at the disputed site. Whether a belief is justified is beyond judicial inquiry. Once faith is established, courts should defer to it… “Once the court has the material that the faith is genuine, the court must not interfere and acknowledge it.”
Belief and faith shall decide the future of India unique identity as a pluralistic democracy. In India we repose more faith in the unelected – be it the courts or the election commission. Times are changing. Questions are raised over whether the highest court has failed to stand up to the aggressive executive.
It is good that a festering dispute has ended. In case the verdict had gone the other way, it is unlikely that a mosque could be rebuilt without major repercussions taking into consideration the division in society. Building the temple at the very spot where the mosque once stood was seen as the only thing that could happen under the present regime. It would have been much better if the unanimous verdict came at a time when the institutional integrity of the highest court was high enough to ward off any criticism. No doubt the unanimity amongst the five judges brings in an element of acceptability.
Seventy years after the constitution was adopted what is at stake is not one mosque or temple, it is the question of the country’s composite culture branded as being secular and accepted as a basic structure of the constitution. Whichever way the Supreme Court decided it was bound to bring in an element of religious emotions. Having failed the constitution in 1992, will the 2019 verdict heal the existing fissures in a multicultural society?
(The writer is a practising advocate, senior faculty in law and political analyst)
