The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has made judicial history by deciding a long pending legal dispute over a piece of property in Ayodhya on the basis of an unverified and unsubstantiated reference to the “faith and belief of Hindus.”
The irony is that in doing so, the court has inadvertently provided a shot in the arm for a political movement that cited the very same “faith” and “belief” to justify its open defiance of the law and the Indian Constitution. That defiance reached its apogee in 1992, when a 500-year-old mosque which stood at the disputed site was destroyed. The legal and political system in India stood silent witness to that crime of trespass, vandalism and expropriation. Eighteen years later, the country has compounded that sin by legitimising the “faith” and “belief” of those who took the law into their own hands.
The three learned judges of the Allahabad High Court may have rendered separate judgments on the title suit in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi case but Justices Sudhir Agarwal, S.U. Khan and Dharam Veer Sharma all seem to agree on one central point: that the Hindu plaintiffs in the case have a claim to the disputed site because “as per [the] faith and belief of the Hindus” the place under the central dome of the Babri Masjid where the idols of Ram Lalla were placed surreptitiously in 1949 is indeed the “birthplace” of Lord Ram.
For every Hindu who believes the spot under the central dome of the Babri Masjid is the precise spot where Lord Ram was born there is another who believes something else. But leaving aside the question of who “the Hindus” referred to by the court really are and how their actual faith and belief was ascertained and measured, it is odd that a court of law should give such weight to theological considerations and constructs rather than legal reasoning and facts. Tulsidas wrote his Ramcharitmanas in 16th century Ayodhya but made no reference to the birthplace of Lord Rama that the court has now identified with such exacting precision five centuries later.
The “faith and belief” that the court speaks about today acquired salience only after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bharatiya Janata Party launched a political campaign in the 1980s to “liberate” the “janmasthan.”
Collectives in India have faith in all sorts of things but “faith” cannot become the arbiter of what is right and wrong in law. Nor can the righting of supposed historical wrongs become the basis for dispensing justice today. In 1993, the Supreme Court wisely refused to answer a Presidential Reference made to it by the Narasimha Rao government seeking its opinion on whether a Hindu temple once existed at the Babri Masjid site. Yet, the High Court saw fit to frame a number of questions that ought to have had absolutely no bearing on the title suit which was before it.
One of the questions the court framed was “whether the building has been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same.” Pursuant to this question, it asked the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a dig at the site. This was done in 2003, during the time when the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government was in power at the Centre. Not surprisingly, the ASI concluded that there was a “massive Hindu religious structure” below, a finding that was disputed by many archaeologists and historians.
The territory of India — as of many countries with a settled civilisation as old as ours — is full of buildings that were constructed after pre-existing structures were demolished to make way for them. Buddhist shrines made way for Hindu temples. Temples have made way for mosques. Mosques have made way for temples. So even if a temple was demolished in the 16th century to make way for the Babri Masjid, what legal relevance can that have in the 21st century? And if such demolition is to serve as the basis for settling property disputes today, where do we draw the line? On the walls of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi can be seen the remnants of a Hindu temple, perhaps even of the original Vishwanath mandir. Certainly many “Hindus” believe the mosque is built on land that is especially sacred to them. The denouement of the Babri case from agitation and demolition to possession might easily serve as a precedent for politicians looking to come to power on the basis of heightening religious tensions.
Even assuming the tainted ASI report is correct in its assessment that a Hindu temple lay below the ruins of the Babri Masjid, neither the ASI nor any other expert has any scientific basis for claiming the architects of the mosque were the ones who did the demolishing. And yet two of the three High Court judges have concluded that the mosque was built after a temple was demolished.
From at least the 19th century, if not earlier, we know that both Hindus and Muslims worshipped within the 2.77 acre site, the latter within the Babri Masjid building and the former at the Ram Chhabutra built within the mosque compound. This practice came to an end in 1949 when politically motivated individuals broke into the mosque and placed idols of Ram Lalla within. After 1949, both communities were denied access though Hindus have been allowed to offer darshan since 1986. In suggesting a three way partition of the site, the High Court has taken a small step towards the restoration of the religious status quo ante which prevailed before politicians got into the act. But its reasoning is flawed and even dangerous. If left unamended by the Supreme Court, the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgment are likely to be extremely damaging.
The positive things of our society is that there do exist people who talk on the basis of facts and logic and not merely on the basis so called "popular sentiments" which unfortunately court has chosen to base its verdict upon.
REF: "So even if a temple was demolished in the 16th century to make way for the Babri Masjid, what legal relevance can that have in the 21st century? "
I contend above logic. History is always relevant & it is guiding force of present & future. If people like to refer to 1992 or 1934, why do they shirk from going back till 1528? or even before that?
Today, in 21st century, we HAVE to repent the wrongdoings of past 16th century. Its just like we try to repent & undo the wrongdoings of past by providing reservation in 21st century to those who were downtrodden & humiliated in olden days.
The so called 'sin' committed by the judiciary in dividing the disputed site into 3 divisions and giving one division to one party and the other two to two similar groups had been done based on a report submitted by a committee to probe into the history on the ownership of the site. The committee was comprising all religious people and it was a body that cannot take any decision without a proper unanimous mandate.
I cannot understand how the recorded, documented demolition of the mosque in 1992 and the probable but inconclusively proved demolition of a temple in the 16th century can be treated at par legally. It is not at all relevant judicially whether or not a temple was destroyed to build the mosque, for the simple reason that any act which may have taken place before the modern 'secular' Indian nation state (and its Constitution) came into being, are not matters for this court to legislate upon because that act fell outside the purview of current laws (which were not yet in existence)i.e. the laws according to which the court passes judgement. The demolition of the mosque in 1992, by contrast, takes place in independent India, violates independent India's laws and Constitution and is therefore relevant.
These columnists come with provocative analyses, while a ordinary Hindu or a Muslim live side by side and wish to be left alone from all this unwarranted propaganda.
Other day, I was travelling to Delhi by A.P Express train, where a Muslim couple [not literate] offered me tasty chappatis for dinner, which I enjoyed and thanked them heartily. The family said they are going to see their Sufi Baba in Ajmir. I spoke with them in broken Urdu. They disembarked at Agra to say farewell to me with a warmth of smile. That is the daily life an average Indian would like to be enriched with.
I request the Editor of the Hindu to promote columnists, who promote peace and harmony amongst our populace. That would go a long way for this wonderful land - India -to stand tall with her glory for more of hundreds of years to come.
What an absolute logical and clear-cut points. I think even the UP Waqf board should give up the idea of going to the apex court. Who knows what was submitted by ASI in its report.
Let there be a Ram temple. Let there be peace.
Well done The Hindu, by publishing this article written by a Hindu. I believe in Hindus more than Indian Judicial System after the verdict.
Dear All,
What are we discussing ? Mythology....Ramayana? Having four different versions..Please see the authentic Hindu Translation..below. We have been created by the same Creator, then Why do hindu favour the other deity?
====================================================================
Gurur-Brahma Gurur-Vishnu Gurur-Devo Maheshwarah.
Guru-sakshat Para-Brahma tasmai Shri Gurave Namah.
===================================================================
Gurur - Guru; Brahma – Creator; Gurur - Guru; Vishnu – Sustainer; Gurur - Guru; Devo – the divine; Maheshwarah – the Destroyer; Guru Sakshat – the Guru is verily; Para-Brahma – the transcendental divinity (which is the very basis of all the three); tasmai – to that; Shri – glorious; Guruve – Guru; Namah – my salutations.
==================================================================
Guru himself is the creator, sustainer and the destroyer. He is verily the very transcendental divinity, (the timeless life-principle, which is the very essence of the creator etc.) My reverential salutations to that glorious teacher.
___________________________
The court judgment has unfortunately categorically justified the demolition of a religious place of worship !!
and to all other friends here who support the judgment, assuming that a temple was demolished to make way for a mosque centuries back...how could you justify the demolition of a mosque in the same manner by barbarians of different ilk ??
@ Prabal Gupta : plz read "The sociology of philosophies: a global theory of intellectual change By Randall Collins" (Chapter 5... http://books.google.com/books?id=2HS1DOZ35EgC&pg=PA177&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0#v=onepage&q&f=false). No religion can take a high moral ground !!
Finally, a sensible op-ed on this subject. This verdict by the "honourable" High Court is absolutely ridiculous. It has made me lose faith in the fundamentals of judicial reasoning in India. Sure, India follows a Common Law system, but judicial actions have to be based at least on logic, if not the Constitution. By basing this judgement on "faith and belief", the Indian judiciary has lowered itself to the same level as, I dare say, the Sharia system. Perhaps in the future, Indian judges can stop wasting time consulting the Constitution and the IPC, and just refer to the Gita, Quran and the Bible while delivering its judgements, depending on which "faiths" and "beliefs" they want to follow!
its too pre- mature to comment without reading the judgment. one has to factor in the material available on record/ constraints, and the arguments, to Order thus.
Truth is a better pill to swallow. Calling spade a spade takes real courage. Unequivocal truth was Gandhis forte for which he has been revered & equally respected amongst all, for time immemorial. To remain sane in matters of faith was what gave Gandhi the title of Mahatma. This made people of all faith flock to him in matters of justice & followed his decisions with steadfastness as they were assured it would be impartial. Thus were laid the foundations of Modern India.
It is such virtues which Mr. Varadrajan has upheld here. We would all be better served when this equally respected newspaper gives place to this piece of journalistic courage it's rightful place in the central Editorial column as soon as possible.
Such views when central to the discussion reinforce the faith of people in rule of law which the courts so vigorously claim to uphold. It also reassures saner humans that there still are people who can differentiate between matters of faith & forcing views down people's throat.
Such was the high-handed act when an existing structure of worship was razed by fanatics claiming to be followers & guided by faith. Though it was more a matter of political machinations & an ideology which had triumphed. The matter was not between Hindus & Muslims. It is an opportune moment when such wrongs can be righted. Least by honest pieces of journalistic courage.
Better late than never.
"If left unamended by the Supreme Court, the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgment are likely to be extremely damaging." --This article.
While I like the compromise that the Justices made in this verdict to a very complex legal problem, I want the Supreme Court clarify the notion that "Gods and deities have legal rights and responsibilities, as per the Indian law" as some claim!
Also, the ASI report could not possibly identify as to who destroyed the old Hindu temple before the Babri Masjid was constructed. As Justice Khan says, maybe there was a ruined Hindu structure already, and Babar's people chose that location to build their Masjid.
When Saint Tulasidasa - a world authority on Lord Rama - who lived in the 16th century near Ayodhya did not know of the Ram Temple in Ahodhya at THAT site, how did other people come to know of it? And, old Hindu literature (1400-1600 AD) did not mention Ayodhya Ram Temple as one of the pilgrim sites, while it mentions 52 other sites in India! Why?
Can the Indian Supreme Court answer these complicated mind-boggling puzzles?
The author of the article seems to have a notion that you can be secular only if you do some Hindu bashing. Such writings will only prolong the agony of the nation with continued conflicts. The author must read and reread the article to understand the judges have the given the judgement based on evidence of faith and not on faith itself. Further it is spported by the writings historians of yesterday who never thought they will be used by the judges of today to draw their conclusions.
Br. Siddharta
Kudos for your well written and brave article showing utmost far-sightedness. The High court judgment not only legitimizes the heinous crime of demolition of historic Babri masjid, but grants a free hand for the sangh parivar fanatic to repeat the same in other so called disputed sites (which they say are more than 300 in number)by banking on the emotions of "majority".This judgment is opening the doors from a secular nation to a majoritarian state.
I completely agree with Mr. Varadarajan, It is a ridiculous judgment, no judgment should be based on faith, if you start giving judgments based on faith then our judicial system will become mess and majority of panel judges religion/faith become law. I appreciate Mr. Varadarajan and Hindu paper for this article.
Siddharth:
Thanks so much for clearly laying out the problematic terms of this decision.
Depressing to see that The Hindu allowed such a shallow article to publish. Poor analysis of judgement, nitpicking the lines from verdict and 'conspiracy theories' on ASI reflect poorly on author.
I doubt whether the author had read the whole judgement before publishing this article.
I am glad that someone had the foresight to write this piece.
While there aren't many who would complain about the judgment (dividing the land between the contending parties), there are obvious problems with the reasoning provided by the judges. It is important for someone to highlight the flaws in reasoning lest they become the standard for future cases.
It is disconcerting to read an article of this type from an author like Siddarth Varadarajan. The judgement by the honorable court has provided a plausible solution to a long pending ticklish issue but the author is missing the wood for the trees and is clearly unable to see the onerous responsibility of the court in such a matter as this. In arguing that matters of faith should not be the guide to arrive at a judgement, the author misses the important point that faith and belief take precedence in the absence of proof and not over it. If clear proof were available either for or against the arguments of either party, the problem would not have been so intractable.
One often wonders if our English press suffers from a kind of paranoia with respect to majority bashing. The television studio discussions and some mainstream articles in the print media indicate a kind of bias which could be only called an appeasement mentality which goes overboard and tends to forget our own identity in the process.High time we become impartial and more probing in our analysis.
"In suggesting a three way partition of the site, the High Court has taken a small step towards the restoration of the religious status quo ante which prevailed before politicians got into the act."
I hold Mr. Sidharth Vardharajan`s perspective in high-esteem and kudos to this man for pointing out in most sensible terms, how the decision of the supreme has been crippled by the vote of the majority. However, I would not put the verdict in the darkest light because somewhere down the line I understand that in a democracy, where the value of judiciary and law is high, the value of the lives of the thousands of the people who are affected by the decision taken, if not higher, is at least equivalent.
In Mr Siddharth Varadarajan's assessment, the Ayodhya verdict is flawed since it invokes faith and belief rather than legal facts to settle a dispute. However, it is uncharitable to say that the verdict rests on a matter of faith. It must remembered that our cultural memory goes back to several messiahs or avatars, and that this memory was cultivated assiduously in the absence of writing to preserve records. The story of Lord Ram is indeed oral history,recorded and transmitted over millenia; to label it unproven myth - as secular historians are wont to do nowadays -, and to insist on rigid empirical evidence, is nothing but gross academic failure to understand the premises of their own discipline. Hence, it will be fair to say that the learned judges have gone by the records of oral hisory.
What if tomorrow it is found that Taj Mahal was erected on the site of an ancient hindu temple, then according to this decision it would be justified to bring down the Taj mahal too?
I think your agreement is flawed and you have set out to justify something rather then see all facts . Why is the the ram janambhoomi only based on faith where as you do not question the faith of the opposing party ?
I respect the rights of islam but are you not aware of a simple fact that in the whole of asia muslim invaders demolised places of worship and placed masjid's there ? It was the best conversion strategy . Today we should not mind the high court verdict but it is you who is still trying to keep a political divide alive
People such as these are the ones that can take India really forward. Reading this article gladdened my heart. In this unjust world there are still people who voice just opinions and that is what is making me an optimist. There is light at the end of the tunnel.
Courts are required to follow principles & pronounce Judgement,UNBIASED.
The article is written by someone totally biased.
His comments 'But its reasoning is flawed and even dangerous. If left unamended by the Supreme Court, the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgment are likely to be extremely damaging'-stems from the biased view & can be considered as comment on judges&judgement!!!
If the case is as simple as he puts it with his little understanding,is he suggesting that the years taken by the court to study, before concluding the case is waste? His biased judgement on findings of Archaeological Survey of India is absurd.
If wrongs are righted like in the case of Babri-masjid demolition and further supported by the 'law-courts' on the basis of mere 'faith' and not with enough 'reason', then such a 'faith' needs intospection and correction. Has not meaningless faith and tradition supported bride-burning, witch-craft, bloody sacrifices, social discrimination....? If uncorrected, faith will do more harm to society than the good (salvation?) it claims to do.
If the Hindutva was spiritual and understood the tenets of faith, we would not be in this position. They want to right to the past perceived wrongs, they do not know what they have begun. What if other minorities begin to dispute the hindu temples and other sacred places?
In this case Muslims are the aggrieved party and have shown restraint, it was Babar from Uzbekistan in lawless times who invaded India and destroyed temples. Advani/VHP/BJP/RSS......in the modern times have upped Babar by demolishing Babri Masjid. Are they now better for it having portrayed their version of Hinduism to the world?
The whole Ayodya issue is a question of Faith and belief of 1.1 Billion Hindus, not a question of Law
Wondering how many temples were built over mosques and where.
Madir/masjids/churches built upon each others.
Thousands of examples exists inMiddle eastern ruins and in preislamic india going back to some 5000 years BC in mideast and abt i000 yrs in preislamic india.The issue in 21st century is that Mythical prophets of bible and hindu scriptures are proven to be non history;Jews digging for Solomon/David temples and hindu for RAM.NON of them are historical is very well documented and accepted by academia. THe judgment reveal a further evidence of hinduic society including the courts being in reversr gear a regression.Same as jews who got a homeland created because of Biblical myth not history. THis judgment drives up " religious nationalism" of hindus and muslims.
I hope supreme court takes a scientific position as outlined by the comments of Romilla Thaper ( today's -hindu) and declares that there is no historical evidence of a persom called RAM, borne after After a ashweva =medh Yugh without his father's assistance as he was cursed to be sterile;Birth of his two brothers is exatly similar.This is faith not history similar to birth of Jesus, a copy of egyptian immaculate conception of Isis goddess. NO historian believes all this hocus pokus.But the faith lives on only in church but not in academia/courts of western societies. India has been in a regression mode,prides its hindu nationalism and considers its prophets as history and not myth.
6th Dec. 1992 was a day when rule of the land was violated and under the gaze of complete political spectrum of Congress and BJP a majestic Mosque called Babri Masjid was brought down.That was a day of failure of state.
That failure has been legitimised and the act of lawlessness has been condoned. I fail to understand as to how criminal case pending in Supreme Court against arsonists and looligans who brought down or facilitated the same will go any further. When Allahabad High Court Judgement says that Shri Ram , the Hindu Diety was born exactly under the Central dome of Babri mosque , then how can supreme court punish those who were but correcting a historical mistake.
By this verdict India has lost the sheen and color of being a Big Democracy which can uphold the rights of all its citizens.
By this judgement Muslims in India have been relegated to II class citizen and they will live under constant fear and at the mercy of Hindu Majority.
Faith has overpowered the Law and Rule of Law.
There is only a hope that Supreme court may undone this historical blunder
Dear sir,
Your Article gives a perfect message to people who think that the justice has been denied by allhabad high court by delivering a political verdict rather than a court verdict. In our country nothing should be bigger than law and the faith on judiciary should never be lost. We all hope that Superme Court will restore the faith of people on judiciary by delivring a verdict on the basis of truth.
I am very much satisfied with this kind of article, Demilition of babri Mosque is a national shame and this high court verdict has given a trophy to these saffron extrimists. verdict is totally based on mythology not on evidences and proofs. This is a first kind of a verdict in the history of modern world.
Please read the judgement properly before making remarks
This judgement would create lots of problems in coming future.
I am really surprised by the obeservations of the speaker. Speakers seem to rue that judges, irrespective of their faith, have given due credence to what people hold to be true? Let us be clear - is their any scientific evidence whether any God or his messegner ever existed on the earth? The reality on the ground is that millions of people around teh world believe in very existence of God, irrespective of the names they call him. We are bound to respect the sentiments of all such people.
I completely agree with this thought, and find it quite frightening that the Hon. Judges could base their long -awaited judgement on something as theological as 'faith and belief'....
Corrections: Tulsidas lived and sang the Ramcharitmanas on the bank of Ganga in Varanasi during the times of Akbar, long after Babur. He was not the only Indian saint poet who did not bother with historical injustices.
This is brilliant! Siddharth Varadarajan has summed it all up very correctly in a few pages what the judgment could not do in hundreds of pages! As he rightly pointed out, the crux of the issue is between belief and faith and righting a wrong done. And by giving preference to the former, it appears the judiciary has neglected to give weightage to what the Court stands for: to mete out justice irrespective of what the "belief and faith" of a party is.
And as he so aptly put it "the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgment are likely to be extremely damaging".
Well done Siddharth!
I am surprised that a highly sensible newspaper like this published such childish article which only asks bogus questions while carefully shirking away from seeing the matter in broad well-being of Indian society
Agreed, but....
If law and reason were to be the basis, there should not be personal law boards for various religions. There should be a uniform civil code.
There're probably a million other things which are practiced in the name of faith, and with your reasoning, a lot of them should be illegal? just because the law doesn't say whether they are right.
Excellent, I wish the supreme court corrects this attempt to make faith trump law and reason.However, I have my doubts as the secular Hindu is scared of the communal Hindu, at best it can make conciliatory noises but can never take determined steps to correct the derailment of secular ideals.
This dilution of the very basic tenets of what India stands for should be challenged. I strongly feel that a movement should be started to challenge.
The remarkable thing about this opinion piece is that the author has assumed himself to be a prosecutor, an expert on everything and be a judge. The whole judgment is over 10,000 words and to summarize and criticize the three judges, without reading it in full, the archeological society and others without a counter and credible evidence is unworthy of this forum.
The author has tried to put in a great amount of thinking to write this article.
But I want to pose a few questions to the author.
Q1. In which country the faith of the people does not form the basis of law and order?
Q2. In which country the legislature enacts provisions that are inconsistent and incompatible with the prevailing faith and notions of people?
Q3. You say that Buddhist shrines made way for temples. Tell me even a single Buddhist shrine which was demolished to make way for temple.
Q4. You say that mosques also gave way for temples. Tell me even a single mosque which was demolished to make way for a temple.
Judges have done their duties, it is for the executives to implement the courts' order. The author should refrain from passing sweeping remarks.
I think it has been a justified judgement looking at the tension that it had the potential to create.
The one and only article that has any sense.
Very sensible and reasoned commentary.
In reference to the article by Mr. Siddhartha Varadrajan, I would like to assert that why should he not be called biased. There seems that he is not satisfied because the judgement is not as per his expectations.
I think it's amply clear in the 'Ramacharitamanas', that Ram was born in Ayodhya - that's a false story that you invoke to support your case.
Secondly, how and why do you say this justifies the razing? Who justified it? That's a separate case, Lieberhan investigated, and concluded and justice will be served.
This appears to be a very unbalanced article. The mosque too is about faith, not just the temple, which clearly seems to have been demolished in Babar's time to make way for the mosque. Why don't columnists recognise the central role of faith in the lives of so many Indians?
I think you are partially right and partially wrong on this sir!!!
I fully agreed with Sidtharth Vardarajan's view. We need judgement not for settlement.
Sir, thanks for reflecting the sentiments if sensible Hindus. While, the best waay to eventually settle this case amicably is to split the land between the parties & build both a mosque & a temple, the line of reasoning used to do that is disturbing.
Any modern nation is usually build on the edifice of "objectivity" & "a sense of equality for all countrymen, especially minorities". However, the judgement seems to defy & deny both.
Kudos to the wondeful article. Muslim political parties should be appreciated for the restaint exhibitted by them.
We Muslim deeply believed in our Indian judicial system, but after this verdict we were very much disappointed.
Well done Siddharth and well done The Hindu.
Your view is not shared by a billion Hindus.
The Hindu is biased
ASI wrong and Court wrong.
You are right?.
I read this article.
Very true Mr. Siddharth. In this verdict the court has tried to come up with a compromise and bring the status back to what it was before 1949. The intention is good, but the judgment and reasoning do not follow the procedures of Law. The judges failed to recognize here that the judiciary is responsible for giving judgment based on facts and that is within law. Maintenance of Law and order is not its function. Worrying about the law and order and trying to play a role in it has made this judgment flawed, which needs to be corrected by the Supreme Court.
The judgment may be political but it does justice to all parties involved and maintains peace so what is your problem?
The Ayodhya judgement is clearly a violation and the denial of justice.
Nobody prevents airing their views. Mr.Sidharth has every right to air his views. But look at the larger perspective about the piece which it might create. So by making such statements it will only agravate the feeling of animosity than finding a soultion to the problem. If the verdict can bring peace why not accept it.
The ASI report is by Dr BB Lal, for your kind information, he leans slightly left of centre. To say that the report is tainted is doing the ASI and Dr Lal a disservice.
Perhaps you would have preferred a JNU historian who would not recognise a temple even if every archaeological fact went in favour of a temple.
The reasoning of the court is not flawed, it is your view which is tainted.
This verdict is a game changer. Recognise it for the sake of India and move on, for God, Ram or Allah's sake or....... run the risk of becoming irrelevant to the debate.
I request the sorts of Sidharths to be patient and try to understand the issues in the right direction. After all the judges who delivered the judgement are more experienced than us. Let peace prevail.
Excellent article. A very bad and dangerous precedent has been set by Allahabad High Court.
The writer is somewhat confused.
He starts by expressing the idea that faith should not be given weight-age and then contradicts himself by stating that he even doesn't believe in the evidence given by archeological survey of India.
Sorry Mr Writer, The Great Nation of OURS(Muslims.Hindus,Sikhs,Christians and all other brothers) have left the radical thinking FROM 30th September 2010 in the WAVE OF RELIGIOUS HARMONY initiated BY the TRULY LEARNED and Highly respected Judges Of the High Court(irrespective of their own religions).
Present should never be held hostage of past. We have to move on, and this new secular nation doesn't needs CYNICS like YOU, who just want to rake up past and post provocative articles.
Trying hard to be different, right? Good luck. Am real glad that people like you are agitated.
Before weriting this piece Mr. Siddarth Varadrajan should have tried to skim through 8000+ pages of the verdict. I would have loved if he would have found some holes in various historical accounts of documents cited in the judgment. It is not based solely on faith but hundreds of books and historical evidences which confirm that Hindus regarded this spot as birth place of Ram and there stood a Ram Temple.
I don't think there is any relevance for this kind of thinking and articulation any more. I request "The Hindu" not to waste valuable space for this kind of vitriol when by and large, India has welcomed the verdict of the Hon. High Court of Allahabad.
Society is a union of people with a common belief and tradition. So belief and tradition is a very central part of any society. I think every Hindu believe that Ayodhya is Lord Rama's birth place. I don't think you and me have to argue on that. There are mythologies, there are Hindu institution to assert that. Babri Masjid is not a dispute from 1949 or 1992. It has been a dispute since the 1853, when it was built. So obviously there is a Hindu grievance on this issue for a long and long time.
A brave, thoughtful and legally accurate piece of commentary by Siddharth Varadarajan and The Hindu. Well done!
Simple, yet an outstanding analysis of the verdict. Faith and myth has been given precedence here over historical facts. The court very importantly has failed to mention whether the act committed on the 6th of December 1992 is transgressing the law of land and in a way has legtimised it.
Although there is no denying that this judgement would help maintain the status quo at the site, it has neverthless made one point very clear - minorities have to bow before the majoritism even in the court of law, the court of law which should not distinguish a person based on his religion, race, creed etc.
Respect judiciary my dear secularists.
A mean spirited outburst by one who cannot stomach the verdict and denies history. Had such a compromise been reached 30 years ago thousands of innocent lives would have been saved.
I think this was the best possible solution for any other solution could have been even more damaging .
Sri.Varada Rajan,
One cannot help but notice a very strong bias in your rather stilted and skewed arguements,trying to negate ASI's findings, which fits well to the current trend of psuedo secularism;
Faith was the basis of the pre-existing structure. Faith was the basis for its destruction. Faith was the basis for the construction of mosque. The faith was basis for the British to allow worship at Ram chabutara. Faith was basis for closure of the doors during 1949. Faith was the basis of opening of the door 1986. Faith was the basis for destruction of mosque. Suddenly faith becomes irrelevant? What does author want to convey by using words- legitimizing the “faith” and “belief”. Author is using very hard words -unverified and unsubstantiated- for soft faith. Which faith or belief waits for verification? There are many glorified intellectuals who wants verification of historicity of Ram. But that was the basic premise of the court’s judgment. Would author go a step ahead and question the basic premise of the court. It is to be pointed out that court has used words like Bhagwan and divine for Ram. There are many who don’t even believe in existence of God. Respecting such people does not mean that other should stop praying.
My conclusion about this author is that his is a very subjective writing and small matters have been highlighted while more important facts are ignored purposely.
Dear Siddharth You argument is fallacious to say the least.Why are you going out of your way to prove it is not a Hindu temple?
The country needs a new beginning from here. If some mistake has been done in past that does not mean it has to be revenged with same vengeance after all the people of all communities have suffered equally in its aftermaths. You can have a Anti-BJP stand but for God sake please don't mislead nation by theory of Doomsday and Judiciary Failure. Let not our personal bias come in direction of this new beginning.
I am not a fundamentalist. I am not saying what happened in 1992 was right. But Justice Khan has a point. If exclusive ownership is claimed but joint ownership is proved, a suit can be decreed for joint ownership. This is not based on faith. The Wakf Board has not been able to prove exclusive ownership.
Let the Indian Government pass a law which says that no more claims based on faith will be permitted and make it a part of the constitution. Let the criminal act of 1992 be dealt by the due process of law.
Judicial cases are decided not merely on general principles of law but also based on specific circumstances pertinent to the merits of a particular case. That is the judicious aspect of justice.
A very balanced and sane view shared by sensible but silent majority.
"during the time when the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government was in power at the Centre. Not surprisingly, the ASI concluded that there was a “massive Hindu religious structure” below"
This shows the article's bias. The author is not willing to accept one side of the coin, citing bias. But he is willing to accept the other side as he is biased[wants to believe it] towards it and not necessarily because he KNOWS its true. If the above quoted part is to go by, why can't we "not surprisingly" conclude that the present government is controlling the CBI?
It's a case of faith and whose time period is beyond the present laws, so its natural that its verdict won't be completely governed by current law.
I find your article to be totally meaningless. The decision was apt and it was indeed prudent on the part of the judicial committee to give the decision that it did. When a child has been taught all his life that Ayodhya was were Lord Ram was born how can he change it on the basis of one court judgement.
Dear Sir,
You are right in explaining the decision of the court. The case was to settle the claim of owner of title. The court juristiction should be to review the records of title and possession and decide the ownershipe! Instead of it, the judges has deviated their main purpose itself!!
A perfectly written article.. which shares the thought process of Any Indian from this verdict who believes in India and its constitution
I salute the spirit of pragmatic Muslims who are willing to move ahead for larger national interest. It's time to bury communalism for once and ever. Media should also understand changed aspirations of people.
Sorry to say, your article is not in good will of all Indians. You have made wrong connections of events in the articles. To make it clear, the judgement is for the disputed land not for what happened on 6 December 1992. Those cases are still pending in supreme court. Tulsidas wrote Ramcharitmanas in 16th centuries, but sir the events described in that epic are millions of years old. I don't see any reason to mention the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. In fact Ramcharitmanas is Avadhi translation of Sanskrit version of Balmiki Ramayana. I am hundred percent sure that you haven't read it and you have mentioned that just to support your hypothesis. You are a media person and should have thought number of times before writing this article.
Mr Varadarajan: You said, "Mosques have made way for temples". Any examples, please?
The writer of the article seem to be grieved deeply or rather bled seriously by the court verdict that apparently is an attempt from the judiciary to make peace with all the parties even by overlooking some of the legal issues. I think we all should welcome it in the name of the nation; as per what we were saying before the verdict. Now only because the verdict seem to favor a particular community we should refrain from making any fact finding comments again after the verdict. There can be arguments for and against both the litigants. Lets move ahead people..... PLEASE.
This author does not want the dispute to be settled. Comments look too biased. Doesn't seem to know anything of the history.
Siddharth Varadarajan in his usual inimitable style has pointed out what he feels are "flaws" in the Ayodhya verdict. His arguments are logical. But the problem is no judgement can be satisfying to the disputing parties. Especially so in the case of the disputed Ayodhya site. As it has been referred to them, the judges have done their best to ensure that no party feels aggrieved enough to launch an aggressive protest. In a highly sensitive, religious matter, the judges cannot go only by scientific or legal arguments. They have to take into account "faith and belief". Otherwise, one can question whether Lord Rama did exist and where was the evidence of his being born in Ayodhya and particularly at the disputed site.
While arguing the case for Sethusamudram proect, it can be recalled, the CM of Tamil Nadu argued if Ram was an "engineer" to build the Sethu connecting to Sri Lanka!
Yes, there are some points on which the verdict can be questioned. But that does not take away the merits of the judges' opinion which has tried to be fair to all the parties as well as the Muslim sentiments, who are justifiably aggrieved at the demolition of their structure. As there can be no meeting point among the Hindus and Muslims, a legal solution, however disputable, is probably the best way to resolve the dispute.
It is really unfortunate to read such an infuriating article in a reputed newspaper. It is not an issue whether that particular place was the exact birth place of Rama. The very fact that the sentiments of a large number of Hindus are hurt is what needs to be looked at.
Why is it that the Hindus need to be apologetic when it comes to matters of their religion? Why is it that it always the Hindu who needs to be tolerant and understanding towards others when it comes to matters of religion?
The Hindu proves again its boldnes,impartiality and sincerity in opinions to form a secular India even at a critical time,when all so called secularist politicians and non politicians compete for winning the match of proving the intensity of their fraud patriotism. It's quite hopeful to know that there somebody to support the truth.
Everything including your written piece is a product of what your mind believes in (your faith). Incidentally faith can be secular. Cultures, civilizations, laws , the law enacting parliament, professions called politicians, writers etc are all product of the fundamental thing called thought. This thought crystallizes into various forms (law etc) based on THE FAITH that it is good for the society as a whole, which overtime becomes culture.
Simply Excellent
A long standing dispute has hopefully been solved and peace has prevailed. Please don't incite people.
I fully support Siddharth's view. Hope supreme court will come up with a more reasonable one.
The author seems to make acute observations to support his claims without supporting them:
1."...Mosques have made way for temples" Where? Please point out a significant undisputed Hindu structure that was built after demolising a mosque.
2."...a finding that was disputed by many archaeologists and historians". This is selective observation. Why hasn't the views of eminent archeologist B.B.Lal were considered? Why was his report suppressed? If Irfan Habib constitutes the whole authority on Indian history, that would be very unfortunate.
3."Tulsidas wrote his Ramcharitmanas in 16th century Ayodhya but made no reference to the birthplace of Lord Rama". Tulsidas was contemporary with Akbar, Babar's grandson. Do you know for certain that Tulsidas might have had any interest or willingness to take on the two-generations of Mughal rule before him.
It is unfortunate that the author has attempted to tarnish the fair image of ASI that the agency was trying to please BJP government under whom the existence of Ram temple was archeologically established beyond doubt. A better journalistic and less prejudicial standards are expected from publication like The Hindu.
Me thinks that instead of airing opinions which might only perpetuate divisions in society, the people of India must accept the legal authority of the courts - in fact that is being respectful to the constitution that we so readily raise when defending our freedom of speech! We must respect the rule of law, as was pledged (and stressed by all) - especially the media!
Siddarth: While understanding your concern that law must take precendence over faith, your article suggests you wrote this article in a highly emotional state. I feel betrayed by senior writers like you who are hell bent on creating problems rather than solutions. This kind of writing will result in more chaos than clear thinking - take a vacation.
The Congress says the Allahabad HC judgment should not be interpreted as 'triumph or defeat'. Even the RSS and the BJP say so! In any case the the issue is set to go to the Supreme Court and in the meantime, the parties to the dispute say they are open to 'reconciliation'. Well as Yechury said 'Truth and Reconciliation' go together. The truth of the matter is that people are always trying to reconcile (First came the partition, the mass exodus slaughter that accompanied it. Then there 'riots after riots' during the past six decades. Then came the Gujarat Genocide 2002). The crimes in the name of religion cannot go on. What havoc they play with individual lives is possibly beyond the concern of our political class. After every reconciliation we cannot continue to have another round of riots on some other pretext.
What is the TRUTH of the matter: A dilapidated mosque was there and the place was shut off in 1949..it was claimed to have been built after demolishing a 'place of worship for RAM there. This issue was raked up decades later for 'mass seduction'. Similar issues in Kashi and Mathura were cited and in 1992 came the demolition of the structure in Ayodhya and the riots that followed.The 'cycle of riots and reconciliation' following one another in succession is the last thing the people of this country wish for. So if the BJP really means what it is saying that 'a new era of national integration has dawned' then let us build a memorial for the people who perished in riots at the site in Ayodhya.
Incredible... Everything said.
So you are smarter then the judges on bench? According to you, ASI finding were manipulated. They were done by BJP govt, well a congress govt is in power for 6 years now. They should have corrected it if it was incorrect. All so called experts who dont agree with ASI findings could have put that out as an argument in case. None of that matters.
And Beliefs don't come of thin air. Its history that has been retained in books. And any history that is older than 200 years is non-documented. Winners write history. That has been the case always. It's the same thing with Babri.
This is a great judgement and let us abide by this without prolonging by appeals and this unique problem has got an unique judgement irrespective of its legal correctness and this reflects how brothers share the family`s property and by this court said we ,Hindus and Muslims are brothers.
The need of the hour is discussions between 2 communities as political leaders, interested in votebanks, are not willing for an amicable solution.
In my opinion, both communities should share half the site and build mandir-masjid side by side.
The secular moment of truth will arrive when the secular zealots can honestly answer the question - "Will India retain its secular constitition if India were to become Muslim majority?". No pontificating ..just honest answer...
Law is supreme also on the basis of people's faith in it. People accord the supremacy to it. People and civilizations move on a lot of compromises and insisting to move in a straight line itself is impractical. People of India have placed their faith in rule of law over and above the faith and belief in their religion. If it is a Ram Janamsthan it is because the Court has pronounced it so. Fears of author may not come true.
Siddharth Varadharajan's article is fully well-reasoned and articulate on the legal aspects of the contending parties, and sees the High Court's judgment as "flawed". But the people of India are tired of this endless arguments with all political/religious/social ramifications of the dispute. The judgment may put an end to the dispute long contended. That is the only positive hope.
While ther is a fanaticism about religion faith with some people who are either politicians or local short minded leaders,leading to hatred of people of other religion, majarity of Indians is maintaining brotherwood relations with other religion people.
Even if it is assumed that Ram birth place is occupied by Babri Majid, I feel ( as a Hindu ) we can give it to Muslim brothern if they want to worship in that place. Ultimately, there will be worship in that place and there will be peace in the Country.
Parellely, there should be strict law against preaching any religion by some vested interets / fanatics in the guise of supremacy of one religion or piniting out the short comings in one religion. It can be left to individual to lean about some other religion and convert if he/she wishes so. In short any public preaching by any religion in public places ( schools / colleges/ public park / government land )should be totally banned.
It was the judges who have gone thru volumes of evidence. How can you conclude that the verdict is biased?
It is extremely sad to note the journalist is questioning "Faith"
Let the Journalist visit HOWRAH station (WEST BENGAL) just one day before 'SANKARANT'otherwise known as 'UTTARAYANA PUNYAKALAM' and ask people why they are coming taking so much trouble and visit the place where Ganges enter the sea to take a holy bath.
The views of the author are praiseworthy and it has been commented rightly that if the verdict is left unamended by the supreme court it will have dangerous consequences on the social political and religious aspects of the nation and the events that occurred in the year 1992 will repeat and our future will be replete with such happenings and the Govt will have no choice but to act as mute spectator in the light of the Allabad High court.
I am a Hindu and I do not believe Lord Ram was really born there. I also hold a 'belief' that no other human being 'know' where Lord Ram was born.
A very eloquent article!! Many thanks to the author for this rational perspective and the hindu for publishing it!!
That 'law is an ass' is to be kept in mind by Mr.Varadarajan. 'tainting' ASI report conveniently also is dangerous. What about reports given by various 'commissions' for welfare of minorities during 'secular' regimes? Let us not try to spoil the atmosphere any further by calling names for political reasons.
What should have been done? From all the reports, I gather that neither parties could prove their title and since both the Hindus and Muslims were worshipping at the disputed site for centuries, the court thought it appropriate to divide the land between the parties. This is a judgement that stands to strengthen Secular India. I completely disagree with the what has been stated in this opinion. All I can say is that a lot of pseudo-secularisits who expected the judgement to favour one of parties thereby triggering communal disharmony will definitely be disappointed!!
Siddharth Varadarajan Excellent Analysis and reasoning ...... unfortunately no politician will dare to accept it publicly.
Move on - Hindu or Muslim, it is a place of prayer. If it takes a court order to share the site, so be it. Be done with it and move on. There will at least be one place on Earth where Hindus and Muslims both congregate to pray. That outcome is infinitely more desirable than anything else.
What are the legal political and social issues? When brothers in a family are fighting what do the elders do? thats what the court has done to maintain a reasonable stance.
Now coming to question of faith and belief: if these two words are not followed then there is no religion called Hinduism. Please do not try to instigate unwarranted ideas into peoples mind.
The writer misses two simple points. Babur and others have a history of demolished Hindu temples. This is not just another ASI site. It is the birthplace of Rama - the most worshipped Hindu god who symbolises righteousness, who inspired the entire freedom struggle of Gandhi. The verdict helps India to move on.
A completely biased and one-sided view as can be expected of the author.
I am not able to understand what was wrong in asking the Archaeological Survey Of India to excavate what was below the structure. While the Court needs evidence for it verdict, what documentary evidence can one expect for a centuries old structure ? The only empirical and physical evidence was to see what was supposedly underneath the structure.
What would have been the author's view if the ASI had decided that there was a mosque related structure during the excavations ? Would he maintain the same stand ?
Let us take the case of Mathura. How come a mosque built by Aurangazeb be so close to the Krishna temple, the believed bith place of Lord Krishna ? Can we say that the Krishna temple never existed and once the mosque was built then suddenly a temple for Krishna was built close by ?
When the Court had asked the ASI to perform excavations, how can this be associated with the NDA government of that time ? How can one attribute motives to the ASI's findings with the usual insinuation " Not surprisingly...".
Sorry to say that this article ( as has been the case with many other from the author ) and the encouragement given by the management of The Hindu to such writings just to be termed as 'elitist and progressive' by a few left wing academia, is nauseating, to say the least.
The court's decision, when read in its entirety, seems to be based on its unearthing of certain facts. One would have expected the court to first address the applicable law of property before drawing conclusions from such purported facts. Thus, for instance, is the law of adverse possession no longer valid law in India? The decision might satisfy those accustomed to much worse judgments coming from our courts, but it can hardly be complimented for being a well-reasoned judgement.
Reasons and facts are important, but not always. I think what court has delivered is a very practical judgement. I can't think of what would happen in a situation where the idols are ordered to be removed and the place be handed over for building a mosque. I don't think we would like the consequences of that.
A very well written article at a historic moment. Your newspaper has stood by its reputation. I was worried at the way your paper's policy has changed in the past few years. This article reiterates my hope as well as many other fellow south indians' in the Hindu and in the basic tenets of our constitution. Our faith should be in democracy and secularism but not in unverified claims and superstitions. Hats off to the only newspaper in present day India which is committed to truth and justice.
Siddharth Varadarajan you are totally confusing people. You report says ASI found a Hindu based structure underneath and that itself mean even though the Tittle was on Masjid, earliar it belonged to a Hindu Culture, so that itself gives a equal share. FAITH is important in all Religions. Without Faith why do you think the Muslims are requesting the Land for a Mosque which was abandoned years ago.
well reasoned and thought provoking article...justice based on faith/beleif is illogical and could be dangerous..
It is a very just article ,clearly describing the extremly flawed verdict make us lose confidence in our judicial system to an extent to beleive religious fanaticism has penetrated our judicial system or it shows the judges have bow down or frightened to the intimidations of the hindutwa fanatics ,or the judges strong personal faith in the imiginary character of so called ram,as long as we have neutral thinking journalists such as the author of this just article we still have some confidence left in our journalism and it's professionalism.
History of the case is known to everyone. now it is to avoid writing provocating commentaries and appreciate the Judges for their effort satisfy all the parties.
Agree with Mr. Varadarajan on conclusion, but I have an issue regards to his justifications.
1. When force is used to make way for religious structures changing sides, then its unacceptable, which is what seems to have happened during Babar's time& in recent past.
2. I would like columnist to give examples of when mosques have changed in to temples as mentioned above except for one in question.
With due respect to author, this article is complete mis-interpretation of the wisdom of judges and their order!!! One is, in Indian law, Gods and deities are not confined to myths and faiths. They are legal entities and have legal rights and obligations. Secondly, secularism does not mean being atheist and court is not prohibited from taking up and deciding matters of faith. Thirdly, the court has not approved or supported the demolition and the author has wrongly inferred that the leaders of that movement are sole representatives of all Hindus.
Lastly, the verdict is voluminous and complex. It must be respected and accepted, and the aggrieved can appeal in Supreme Court on finer points of law, which is the right authority in the matter. It is improper to trivialize and sensationalize it and post such inferences.
Hi,
I agree with you saying: " The irony is that in doing so, the court has inadvertently provided a shot in the arm for a political movement that cited the very same “faith” and “belief” to justify its open defiance of the law and the Indian Constitution."
But you are wrong in saying: "in 2003, during the time when the BJP was in power...ASI concluded that there was a “massive Hindu religious structure” below, a finding that was disputed by many archaeologists and historians."
In fact its the opposite:
Mirza Jan wrote in 1856 that “a lofty mosque has been built by badshah Babar” on “the original birthplace of Rama”, so that “where there was a big temple, a big mosque was constructed, and where there was a small temple, a small mosque was constructed”
A. Führer wrote that: 'Mir Khan built a masjid in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name. This old temple must have been a fine one, for many of its columns have been utilized by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar's Masjid.
The Austrian Jesuit Joseph Tieffenthaler and other historians like H.R. Neville noted the same thing.
Archaeological Survey of India in 1970, 1992 and 2003 in and around the disputed site have indicated a large ancient complex existed prior to the Babri structure.
1970 and 1992 that was before BJP.
You say "ASI nor any other expert has any scientific basis for claiming the architects of the mosque were the ones who did the demolishing", all ASI said was that there was previously a huge hindu structure. They never said anything about who and when it was demolished.
I personally like this comment from Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi today:
“I think it is a political kind of solution. It has given something to everybody. This seems to be the just possible solution in respecting the sentiments of all parties. We should be progressive on these issues and accept the judgment.”
1) Faiths and beliefs always played a part in formulating civilian laws.
2) Foreign invaders in India often had no respect for Hindu beliefs
and many temples were looted or destroyed. There is no proof this
is not the case in point.
3) Religion and reason often conflict. Beliefs and sentiments must be
considered in administering justice.
4) All things considered, I think it was a balanced and reasonable
verdict.
I am glad to hear that there are voices of sanity in India, despite the failure of the government in India in this instance to protect private property from people with a self-proclaimed claim to it. If the government of India fails to take a firm hand in protecting its minorities from communal violence, the rest of the world will blame the whole nation for colluding in that violence, whether it is against Muslims or Sikhs or Christians or any other group.
Mr. Siddhartha
I dont understand legalities, what I do understand as a common man is Faith plays a very important role in day to day life. At the end of the day a judgement has come which if followed properly would lead to amicable solution of the long problems . Our country would move ahead of Ayodhya. By pointing to the errors of the judgement you are missing out on the bigger picture that of getting rid of this issue which has been bugging us for so many years now. I hope the parties dont challenge this decision and trudge this issue further.
It is a common knowledge that Islamic invaders destroyed tens of thousands of temples in India, including this temple. Even today there are thousands of defaced temples all across India.
I am not sure what is the author is trying to say as he tries to justify Babri Masjid.
Absolutely correct. As per Indian Secularism, Faith, Belief and sentiments are to be respected only for non-Hindus. In case of Hindus no amount of physical, scientific, circumstantial evidence should make Mythology into History and it must remain a myth always.
I agree completely. It seems that the court has abdicated its duty of delivering justice in favour of adhocism, providing a 'happy ending' (a la bollywood) not to mention lacing the judgement with a heavy dose of religious trivia.
In hindsight, the one good thing for Indian democracy and the justice system on the much anticipated day that's passed is the knowledge that Justice Sharma is retiring on Friday. He has given a completely new dimension to the principle of justice being blind. The blindfold covering Justitia's eyes has just turned saffron.
Dear Sir,
At least at this time of harmony and peace please try to delay such publications. I am not sure from which world has this article came and what exactly the point it is trying to make, but one thing is sure and that is it is highly irresponsibly written.
Totally agree. This issue has been a sort of Peeli Live. We wanted this drama to end soon but the ending is not good.
To me, the thought that Rama has setoff the tinderbox where thousands have died is unthinkable. To get to know that Rama was plaintiff in one of the suites is height of ludicrous politics.
I dont believe that a temple should be built or a mosque.It should be left broken and dilipidated for future generations to see what we can become and how we can ruin ourselves. It should be named 'The graveyard of all human reasoning'.
It is true that invaders from north west have pillaged and proselyized natives and that makes us sad but to settle these things in present day is not only foolish but also dangerous.
Mr.Varadharajan, Can you clarify which mosque has been converted into a Hindu temple in India? If you are referring to Babri mosque, it is still a disputed structure. I can list hundreds of temples converted into mosque.It seems you have to get your history lessons right. No body can deny that India was Invaded and No body - the Arabs, the Uzbek Mughals, the British, The Portuguese - stopped from destroying hindu temples for spreading their religions. As for Budhdhism, is there a clear demarcation exist between Hinduistic and Budhdhistic beliefs leave alone temples?
How can you say that a team of three faiths leagalized the "faith"? This is very irresponsible comments by this author. There have been numorous documents/escavations and other references have been quoted in the verdict. I suggest the author stop spreding wrong impressions around invoking unwarranted responses from the society! I lost all respect on the Hindu paper for allowing such a comments to be published on their paper/site.
Thank you. Finally someone with the courage to say it! I agree with the decision and feel there's no better solution. But this really is a dangerous judicial precedent to set. Matters of faith are called matters of faith because there is no way to prove it. What happens if courts around the country start citing this as an example for justifying actions or facts due to the 'faith and belief' of the people involved? The world is watching.. and this is disturbing.
I'm quite surprised by this article, and take particular offense to the statement: "Eighteen years later, the country has compounded that sin by legitimising the “faith” and “belief” of those who took the law into their own hands". Are you saying the only people who believed that Ayodhya is the birth place of Ram are those who broke the law? Absolutely no excuse to those who took law into their own hands, but please remember there are many others who believe in this. I'm not trying to say that courts should go with belief in all cases, but isn't much of religion just based on belief - Hinduism, Islam, whatever it may be. I think the High Court did a great job taking the middle ground here. But religion should be a one-off case where belief matters.
Please Email the Editor