Faulty Ayodhya verdict rules out reconciliation Featured

The Ayodhya judgment, undoubtedly, has set a very bad precedent. As per renowned Indian historian Romila Thapar, it has annulled the respect for history and replaced history with faith. Other historians like Irfan Habib are categorical that the so called archaeological report referred to by the court is the hand maiden of the then BJP-led government. Further, the judges have not referred to the crime of December 6, 1992 when the Babri Mosque was destroyed which gives respectability to vandalism, though this is being dealt with in another criminal suit. All this would give a wrong message to the future generations that anything can go in the name of faith and courts would only arbitrate, rather than judge based on facts.

While these are undoubtedly very disturbing, the judgement should also be viewed from certain observations made by Justice Khan, who refers to an unenviable task of dealing with a dangerous land mine, i.e. a dispute pregnant with all divisive and dangerous communal portents to create social mayhem . While a judgement cannot and should not be based on such considerations, all the same it cannot be denied that there are certain intriguing quagmires   surrounding the environment engulfing the societal fabric at the ground level. How do we bring a closure to this socially divisive volcano? Should not some creative and visionary decisions be taken by the informed sections of the society, to permanently douse the flames? 

It cannot be denied that  a major section of the Hindu community in India is secular, though they are believers. Naturally, they are bound to have a belief in their scriptural myths as the Muslims do. Over and above this, the  Talibanist like fundamentalist rabble-rousers, who are not in short supply in both communities, do keep reminding about the myth of the birth of Ram in Ayodhya like the Quranic revelation to the Prophet  Muhammad through Gabriel. Are any of the believers exempt from holding such beliefs firmly, in-spite of lack of scientific proof. If this factor is sensitively considered, does it not make sense for the Muslims to take a magnanimous view of giving way to the construction of Ram temple, now that a decision has been given by the Court and not by any coercion? While a mosque is simply a prayer hall and can be shifted anywhere as done in many Islamic countries, why can’t the belief of Ram’s birth place of Ayodhya be seen to be respected by the Muslims by acceding to satisfy the Hindu psyche? When such a magnanimous step is taken by the Muslim community, will not the Hindutva extremists lose all their potency against the doubly strengthened secular might of the majority secular Hindus? Should this opportunity not be taken with both arms by the minority community to remove the potential for a national divide? Will such a step not be applauded by the majority of the Hindus who are basically secular, without giving a chance to the Hindutva brigade to poison the atmosphere? If so, is it not prudent on the part of Muslims not only to respect their belief but also to appear to do so? How can such accommodation be termed as acting on coercion when the curt has provided an opening? 

It is the toiling, impoverished masses who comprise about 80 per cent of the population, irrespective of the community they belong to, who are the sufferers in these disputes created by the feudal elements in all communities. According to the Sengupta Commission, appointed by the Union government, 78% of Indian earn less than Rs.20/day. Yes 86% of Muslims earn only this much per day. Though a larger percentage of impoverished Muslims do outnumber that of  Hindus, all the same a gigantic 80 crore among the Indian population is impoverished. In such a scenario, should not the focus be on bringing systemic changes so as to address the questions of the extreme inequality existing in the whole society? Are not diversionary issues like Ayodhya a very handy tool in the hands of the feudal and capitalist society ? How can these elements be allowed continuously to divert the attention of society to divisive issues revolving round mosque and mandir. Closure should be applied by taking advantage of this judgment, faulty though it may be in legal terms. 

In my view, several Muslim leaders who are in the business of leading Muslims are only building their own wealthy dynasties and they should be disempowered from taking decisions to arouse the community. The Supreme Court should be approached to implement the existing legislation guaranteeing the status quo of all existing places of worship. Also these gross anomalies in the Ayodhya judgement, like the faith superseding fact in legal matters, should be corrected by the Highest Court of the land at any cost, irrespective of the decision it makes on appeal, or through a settlement between the contending parties.