Administrations at the Centre and in the States that have their hands full with daunting law and order challenges have obtained a breather from the Supreme Court's order deferring the Allahabad High Court's verdict on the Ayodhya title suits. Among the issues to be decided in the suits are: whether the Babri Masjid was built on the site of a Hindu temple after demolishing it and what the legal effect of such an action is; and whether Muslims had offered prayers from time immemorial at the Babri Masjid and if Hindu idols were placed inside. Some of the suits date back to 1950 and after consolidation in 1989, four have survived and it was in these four that judgments were to be pronounced today. The plea before the Supreme Court was that, given the implications of the impending high court decision for communal harmony and in the circumstances in which the Central and the State security forces were overstretched in dealing with the Maoists, the situation in Kashmir and the security for the Commonwealth Games, the parties should be given one more chance to work out a settlement through negotiations. This unusual last minute plea on a matter that has defied a negotiated settlement for over 60 years, and more particularly since it flared up in the 1990s, hinges on the hope that the parties would change their attitude and work towards an agreement when the Supreme Court takes up the matter. If that hope fails to materialise, the relief for the administrations would be short lived. It was with some reluctance that the Supreme Court bench decided to order the high court to defer its verdict for five days, with one of the two judges inclined to dismiss the petition.
The Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi issue would no longer seem to inflame passions to the extent that it did in the 1990s, although the court verdict could still have a significant impact on communal harmony. No one would quarrel with the desirability of a fair and equitable negotiated settlement if only that were possible. Yet, if the judicial process itself were to be held hostage to fears of disturbances, it would amount to giving rioters a veto over the law-abiding and would have disturbing implications for the rule of law. The country has come a long way since the turbulent 1990s, and the lessons of that period have hopefully been learnt — the appeals for calm from all parts of the political spectrum are a good augury. Reasonable people on both sides of the communal divide should have no problems in accepting the judicial verdict whichever way it goes, and it would in any case be open to appeal. The nation as a whole should face the Allahabad High Court verdict squarely and demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law, with issues being resolved in judicial and other institutions of the state rather than on the streets.
Comments:
The judgement for this 60 years case doesn't mean justice to those who have lost their lives due to the aftermath of the insensitive demolition. Justice is something that this society speaks often. There are millions of acres of barren land in India. Let the disputed land be barren reminding us the barren lives of the shattered and demised people. Let not a conflict over a monument lead to more graves.
Supreme court's decision is very welcome. At this time when India is hosting an International event CWG, It is desirable that state must have piece and put a good example of its culture. If decision on Ayodhya title suite out the it may be in favor of any religious community (Hindu or Muslims)the other would not keep silence resulting riots in India. This might be because of religious thoughts or may be because of political stunt. Whatever may be the reason but would not have been good to Rashtra.
There could not be any possible outcome other than violence, since the verdict in favour of either of the parties will cause outrage from the other. There could be only one solution to this.
Set up a university or kendriya vidyala(school) which could leave both of them with no choice whatsoever, since educational institutions are equivalent to a place of worship, and no sane person defines an open education institution in terms of religion.
One place of worship down for both, but there will be one more additional place where people can learn to work(worship)
Here social harmony is more important than judciary verdict and executive implementation. Both the communities must show consensus on abiding the verdict in good spirit without provoking any communal disharmony.
believe in god he is inside us.And if he is inside us then what is the need for fighting for mandir or masjid.
Deferring of the judgement by court covertly shows the victory of communal forces and the defeat of democracy.It is a shame on us that a few anti-social elements have taken hostage the court,the state and the centre.It is outrightly a law and order problem which must be dealt with hard handedly.
If we follow rule of law in India, verdict should come out immediately without any delay. Now we the people of india are ready to accept whatever the verdict is.
The editorial is absolutely correct.
Sunny Deol's dialogue in Damini came to my mind : Tareek pe Tareek.. Dates by Dates.. no conclusion. This increases the anxiety. We, Indians need to show to the world that we respect the rule of law. The argument in postponing because of fear of violence shows us immature, irrational, uncivilized, prone to blackmailing and emotional.
@Radha Kumud Das: So you think courts should only take cases that will not have impact on our social harmony? and We need to keep all contentious issues in back so as to forget it. Remember it is like a inside hatreds which one day will come out like a hurricane and that too without telling.
If we have respect for rule of law and constitution then we should accept the verdict, whichever way it goes.
this is not the proper time for the result to come out , because C W G is on corner ,also we are facing kasmir insurgency ,naxalism ;if anything happens wrong ,we will be in big loss .so s c should consider over it.
It is good to see that Supreme court deferring the Allahabad High Court's verdict on the Ayodhya title suits. It is right time for the Supreme court to taking all steps with considering national welfare
first instead of strict practice of law. Both the side know verdict will be definitely reopen in Supreme court after this. In this situation government should prayer for more delay in the decision till CWG over.
The best to resolve Ayodhya dispute is to ask Ambanis or Tatas to buy that piece of land!
it is right that the people are not at a place where they stood on 1992. The priorities of people also somewhat different from that period. Still, the verdict is expected with anxiety and sceptical approach. Law abiding citizens, whatever their relegions may be, firmly support the verdict whatever its conclusions. Communal harmony should be kept intact, the past should not repeated. It is good sign that the verbal reactions of concerned parties, so for, being with a good sense.
A verdict in favour of any of the concerned parties is going to open a can of worms and political unrest sure shall follow.
The need of the hour is to show maturity and live up to the principles of secularism.
How about building a shrine which is not religion specific....a place where people from all religion can meditate and find solace.
The fact that no incidents of violence have been reported as of now, confirms the fact that people of our country have seen enough of this religion biased politics. If people can remain united after attacks on Mumbai Locals and Hotel Taj, and help each other not knowing the fact that the people who died went to a mandir or a masjid, that should surely convey a message to the people who use religion as the means to craft their election manifestos.
Please Email the Editor