The majority verdict of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute is a compromise calculated to hold the religious peace rather than an exercise of profound legal reflection. This search for a compromise informs the orders of Justice S.U. Khan and Justice Subir Agarwal even if they would seem to stretch the law and, at times, logic as well. The third judge, Justice D.V. Sharma, decided that the disputed structure could not be regarded as a mosque and ruled in favour of the Hindu plaintiffs. The effect of the majority judgments is that the disputed land of 2.77 acres is to be divided equally among the two Hindu plaintiffs, the Nirmohi Akhara and Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman, the deity regarded as a jurisdic person that can own property, and the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P. The portion of the inner courtyard where the central dome of the Babri Masjid stood before its demolition and where the makeshift temple now exists is to be given to the Hindu plaintiffs. The rest of the area where the Babri Masjid stood, including part of the inner courtyard and some part of the outer courtyard, is to be allotted to the Waqf Board. The Nirmohi Akhara is to be allotted the buildings that stood in the outer courtyard of the premises, including Ram Chabutra and the Sita Rasoi, while it is to share the unbuilt area of the outer courtyard with Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman. To facilitate such a three-way division, and also to provide access, some part of the land acquired by the Central government around the disputed land could be used.
In arriving at his decision on the three-way division, Justice Khan has concluded that the disputed structure was a mosque constructed by or under orders of Emperor Babar and that it was built not after demolishing any temple but on an area where some temples were already in ruins. He notes that before the mosque was constructed, the Hindus believed that somewhere in the large area of land where the Babri Masjid came to stand later was the spot of birth of Lord Ram. After the mosque was constructed, they came to believe that the place where the mosque stood contained the birth spot, and much later in the decades before 1949 they came to identify that spot as the one under the central dome. He also holds that much before 1855, the adjoining Ram Chabutra and the Sita Rasoi existed and Hindus were worshipping there. According to his finding, the idol of Lord Ram was placed for the first time under the central dome of the Babri Masjid in the early hours of December 23, 1949. In view of the side-by-side worship and joint possession of the disputed site, he would declare both parties as joint title holders. However, that part of the land under the central dome of the Babri Masjid where the idols were placed and the makeshift temple now stands after demolition would be allotted to the Hindus.
However, Justice Agarwal who also favoured the division of the land differed from Justice Khan on some critical issues. He does not find evidence of Babar having built the mosque or any material to support the exact date when it was built, though he finds it was in existence before 1776. He finds also that the idol had been placed under the central dome on December 23, 1949 but wants that spot to be allotted to the Hindus. The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs is to get no less than one-third of the total area in dispute, including the rest of the area on which the mosque stood and some part of the outer courtyard. Justice Sharma finds that the idol was placed under the central dome on December 23, 1949 but in his other findings and conclusions he differs radically from his fellow judges on the Bench. He has ruled that as the disputed structure was built against Islamic tenets, it could not be regarded as a mosque.
At one level, from the standpoint of political morality, the verdict could be viewed as partially rewarding those who placed the idol overnight under the central dome of the mosque and those who in 1992 razed it to the ground. Nevertheless, the confusing mass of findings the reasons for which are not entirely clear and the compromise nature of the verdict along with the substantive outcome of dividing the disputed land have restrained any party from claiming outright victory or sulking in total defeat. The Sunni Waqf Board and the Sri Ramjanmabhoomi Trust have indicated that they would appeal against the verdict to the Supreme Court.
All sections of political opinion had issued appeals for calm and restraint on the eve of the verdict but apprehensions of disturbances remained, and a last minute effort was made to halt the judgment. The Supreme Court struck a blow for the rule of law and decided that the judicial process that has been winding slowly over the last 60 years ought not to be halted at the last minute for fear of disturbances and under some imaginary hope of the parties arriving at a negotiated settlement. If overall the reaction from the public and from large sections of political opinion has been subdued, much of it has to do with the mood of the nation in which the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue does not find much traction any more — in striking contrast to the 1990s. On balance, the nature of the Allahabad High Court verdict should help the nation as a whole put a longstanding dispute behind. Secular India needs to move on and not be held hostage to grievances, real or imaginary, from the distant past. A great deal of the responsibility lies with political parties and religious groups to maintain harmony in the face of fundamentalist forces seeking to disturb the peace and profit from raising communal issues. They ought not to allow revanchist sentiment and any talk of revenge to come to the fore as many of them did in the 1980s and 1990s by their passivity or collaboration. For too long has the Ayodhya dispute remained an obsession with large sections of the people. It is to be hoped that after this major, even if not final, step in the judicial process it will cease to occupy the political stage.
Keywords: Ayodhya verdict
The one thing "Secular" India dreads is a peaceful accord between Hindus and Muslims.
To me the verdict seems to be erroneous and wanting. Perhaps, the Supreme Court would see the various aspects of the case in a better perspective and deliver the just decision as and when the matter reaches to it.
Dialogue on the issue on Babri Masjid at this stage is surrender in disguise. Even if the Supreme Court okays the High Court’s judgment, they have to have a dialogue with Muslims because the Hindus want to build a great Hindu temple there. With one third of the original Masjid in Muslim hands, how can they do that?
Many suggest that Muslims should accept the verdict of the State HC
and start a dialogue with their Hindu brothers in building Temples (one for Hindus and one for Muslims)
Dialogue before the final verdict on this issue doesn’t make much sense as in the absence of any formula at this stage, the dialogue won’t give any result.
Let the final rights of the two parties be decided at the highest level then Hindus and Muslims shall know where they stand, and at that stage a dialogue is desirable because then both parties can compromise
The judgment as an expression of the majoritarian view of religion and that of the perception that the religion of the majority community should prevail. Indeed Muslims’ trust in the judiciary has shaken after this verdict; this becomes very important in the context that Indian Muslims already exhibit a strong distrust towards the majoritarian view of the Executive.
It may be that the verdict will be corrected by the SC.
The importance of Ram can’t be underestimated as an icon of Indian culture so in that context it would be wrong to restrict his birth place to a particular place.
We believe that entire Ayodhya is Ram’s Janmabhoomi. How can he be restricted to a particular spot inside the Babri Masjid, he questioned
One should keep in mind Pakistan was created on religious ground ( with the policy of divide let them fight" by Britishers or rather European country as a whole). Unless our Muslim brothers would not understand this simple fact things would neverbe settled, may be Babari mosque, Kashmir Issue. Because keeping alive such issues is the bread and butter for the fundamentalists of both the communities. Further this Congress government is following the policy of appesement for its vote bank, unless and untill these two factors are there no soltion even after millions of years take it gauranted.
This verdict might help to settle the issue but one thing is clear so called secular politicians and electronic media will not allow the issue to settle as verdict do not fully favour Sunni wakf board
Perhaps High court should have banned anlysis of verdict too
If Babri Masjid was not a worshipping place then let unfortunate demolition act be treated as closed .
TEMPLE construction is not all important for all Hindus
Though Mosques and Temples are not absoulute necessities for a person to live, we in India believe otherwise. I am of the opinion, the courts should have taken the decision based on the legally admissible evidence and facts before it and not with a view to reach a compromise but with a view to deliver the justice.
However, I dont think that there is hard evidence that Sri Ram was born in Ayodhya at the very spot as claimed by the Hindus, but they beleive in it. Now, if there is any goodwill among Hindus and Muslims, couldn't Hindus have asked for the land from Muslims to built the Ram temple since it has a very great religious importance for Hindus and couldn't Muslims have parted with the mosque and given the land to Hindus as a goodwill gesture, since the mosque has no such religious or historical importance attached to it.
But, it would be disastrous to rake up the issue regarding every mosque which is alleged to had been built on the ruins of temples in the past, since our Hindu fundamentalist(Fascist) brethren are bent upon breaking the social fabric of this country (After Ayodhya it might be Mathura /Kashi).
Why not build such a GRAND TEMPLE from Kanyakumari to Ladakh and Rajastan to Assam over the entire Indian Landspace and why only in the disputed site in Ayodhya.This is what perhaps will satisfy this miniscular minority community [such as Togadia and these extremists] who themselves are a minority within the Majority community.The alternative Democratic way is to let INDIA be as it is respecting the ownership and Rights of everyone under the Law and treat it as the GRAND INDIAN TEMPLE and keep it clean and pious everywhere whether Rivers, Valleys or Slums. I wish these Varun Gandhis and Advanis were born then and were Generals of those Kings who couldn’t fight against and prevent Babur committing those so called atrocities instead of making fiery and mindless speaches now. And also the fact that those Rulers and their advisors did not care for the Majority Citizens and went about exploiting them even creating convenient Scriptures supporting these Atrocities. We are still trying to overcome the fall out of these mis-rules [even the Maoists are its outcome]. Because MIGHT WAS RIGHT over centuries back in History as well as in 1992 when the Governments looked the other way but shouldn’t be so anymore. We being Citizens of the Largest Democracy must feel as INDIANS first and then only any other denominations rather than HINDUS first and rest secondary. We pride in our Democracy and want to be a Global Power but can we match America who has elected an Immigrant as its President!
--------------
This is my view after a heated argument in TOI; However, I feel if some good compromise can be worked out it is welcome !
The decision that has been proclaimed by the Allahabad High Court has been to a high extent pretty efficacious. It should also be appreciated here that modern India has moved on from such issues which used to be a cause of acrimony in the past. The country is now impervious to issues relating to religion because of the fact that there is awakening among the people.
"Secular India needs to move on and not be held hostage to grievances, real or imaginary, from the distant past." Your objective exhortation not only sums up the Ayodhya aftermath but posts a cautionary signal to the frenzied religious fanatics to eschew provocative path. Judicial process is based on evidences not on facts. Accordingly, truth can often be a casualty. However, the Ayodhya verdict is in situ for a secular India to survive. On this fateful day of the Mahathma's birth day, let us dedicate ourselves to raise Ayodhya an icon of religious harmony and a secular paradigm
we all should respect the judgement of high court and both hindus & muslims live happily like brothers.And we should think for betterment of country our dearest motherland India.
Any more life lost in this is too many. Judiciary has provided fantasic verdit with this in mind. Everyone needs to move on.
Kudos to Mr. Hashim Ansari for his statements before & after the verdict. In My opinion he needs to be honored at the highest level.
On the other hand people like Mulayam are trying to create trouble with "Muslims feeling Cheated" comment!. Not only should he be condemed , he should be punished to the fulelst extent of law for stirring hatred.
The decision taken by the court to divide the land in three equal parts is apt from both political as well as religious perspective. Had such a decision not been taken now, it would have taken again a long time for the dispute to come to an end, and the same old drama in the name of religion and politics would have paved its way.
The first point to cheer is that after a long wait of 60 years finally the verdict was delivered by the Allahabad high court. And that too a very emotive and controversial case which had a brutal past. Secondly partialy we can say that it was a win win situation for both the parties. It was more a sharing arrangement between the litigants just to avert an undesirable consequence rather than a clear cut verdict in favour of either of the parties to the suit.
The Editorial is a reflection of the style and stance of The Hindu in the recent years that, to be secular ,you have to be a Hindu basher . The Supreme Court was correct in allowing the judgement to be delivered by the High Court . I am surprised by your stand "The Supreme Court struck a blow for the rule of law and decided that the judicial process that has been winding slowly over the last 60 years ought not to be halted ". You owe an explanation to the public how is it a blow.
It was highly unexpected but one thing it has silenced everyone. Peace prevails in India and let's hope both hindus and
muslims live happily. It seems first time judiciary has taken in account every aspect of issue rather than proven facts.Thums up
After a long,long drawn judicial process, the judgment has at last come. The long wait and the interest evinced by the citizens, in hearing verdict could be assessed by the crowds which gathered before the court. All this shows the faith of the ordinary people in judiciary. From now on, it is everybody's hope that the vexed problem is within the realm of solution.
Those who installed the idol of Lord Ram under the central dome of the Babri Masjid in 1949 and those who in 1992 razed the Masjid to the ground have reason to be happy with the verdict. The fact that the verdict has not raised tempers in the country and not resulted in violent agitations shows that the verdict per se may be at least partly acceptable to the Muslim organisations which are disputants in the case. But many constitutional experts have questioned the legal foundation of the verdict and its repercussions on future disputes of similar nature. But now the matter will end up in the Supreme Court and the country may have to wait for a long time to get the final word on the issue. That is a worrying thought!
It is well said in your editorial that revanchist sentiment should not come to the fore and secular India needs to move on.
May I appeal all the three parties to accept the decicion of Hon'ble Allahabad Highcout. Let all the three of them surrender their land to union goverment of India. Union Govt should start an univeristy of religion and it should speard the message of peace preached in every religion to the world.
a well-balanced view of the verdict which has all the elements of a real and genuine concern that this leading news paper has all along been voicing over the calculated attempts on the part of the rabidly communal forces to vitiate the otherwise peaceful atmosphere in the country.
Ayodhya verdict is a Comprimise rather than a Judgement. The court appear to be a facilitator only. The trouble is if it sets a precedent in various other disputes in different parts of the country. That would result only in chaos. The court could have refrained from judging on historical and theological issues. By reading the gist of judgement it appears that the court has relied heavily on the faith and beliefs of "Hindus" and who really is a hindu? I myself a Hindu by Govt. records ( I also believe so)dont see the issue so. Going by the logic of the verdict I too would have got a piece of land there had I filed a suit some 6 decades ago.
I think verdict is balanced and given for brighter future of India. If verdict is one sided there may be killing and never be peace in India.Verdict given justice to both party.
Sir, the verdict also walking on the tightrope..it is really better to part the area into two than to three. If the court believes that it cannot satisfy both, then the court should make Muslims and Hindus equally disappointed or satisfied.
I like the main ideas put forward in the editorial. I think the majority Hindu community should act magnanimously in requestig the central government to award additional land to the Waqf board by buying land in the adjoining areas, if needed.
I am a Hindu who enjoys helping the other religions to construct and happily maintain their mosques and churches. I am a Hindu who hates to see a mosque or church getting demolished. I am a Hindu who was grieved by the demolition of the Babri Masjid. I am a Hindu who believes that Bhagwan Sri Ram, who was the model for mankind, will not relish the idea of a temple for him being constructed at the cost of a Mosque. I am a Hindu who believes that we, the Hindus, should show their penance by voluntarily constructing a Mosque of breathtaking beauty and handing over the whole of the disputed land to our Muslim brethren.
Wonderfully written, with no prejudices in mind. entirely unbiased...
I agree with the views of this editorial piece. It would be nice if Hindus and Muslims co-operated in building each others places of worship so that the place that divided the communities could become a place of religious harmony for ever. Put the past behind and look for a bright future for both communities.
Only Justic Sharma has delivered a clear and confident judgement, remaining two are for secularism and maintain religious harmony. But this has worked.
I salute the court for having the courage to 'think outside the box' - it has acted as a true upholder of our constitution and society. Instead of sitting in an Ivory tower, the court has actually tried to define the problem in terms of what it is - a fight between religious faith and dogma on the one hand, and the lack of substantive evidence on the other.
I think it is high time we Indians stand up and say 'enough is enough' and get on with the task of nation-building, rather than act in a peevish matter. We ought to accept the court's judgement gracefully.
A well thought out and penned editorial. There is a dire need for all players and the people of the country to let the past be.Now that the court has decided, let us get on with the task of nation building.
I completely agree with the editor's view that this judgement is more a compromise rather than judgement based on logic and scienitific facts and figures. This is very clear that before 1992 there was a masjid, and it was demolished that year, but how any one can prove scientifically or even logically that Shri Ram a mythological figure even existed. The judgement clearly shows it is biased and based on majorities belief's or to be more liberal we can say it is a compromise to maintain peace.
The long-awaited verdict in respect of the highly sensitive Mandir-Masjid case, delivered by the Allahabad High Court on Sep 30, is a well-considered one. As rightly pointed out, it has been a fair one too, considering the overall situation prevailing at the moment. None of the warring groups is elated or upset by the judgment. The three months' time given for the division of the 2.77 acres of the land into three equal parts to be allotted according to the stipulations of the court, is also a well-intentioned one. To concentrate on its developmental activities, what India needs is peaceful co-existence of its people belonging to different religions. Everyone has to keep this in mind and extend full cooperation.
This judgement if allowed to go unchallenged would only embolden the Sangh Parivar to encroach many other Masjids.They neither regret their actions nor have given up their cliam on other Masjids.This is the staple food for their ideology to succeed.If India have to show the world that the rule of law is supreme then this atrocious judgement should be overturned and the Justice need to established. If faith is the criteria then what is the necessity for courts and laws?
I appreciate the verdict as a step towards reconciliation. Whether there is a temple or no temple ,mosque or no mosque Ram or no Ram we all need to coexist peacefully. A welcome judgement. Let us put these hypothetical questions behind us and work towards an united future.
It does work in the sense that it will continue the status quo; since the practicalities of implementing the judgement is zilch currently.
At the level of rationality, justice and democracy, the most telling comment on the bona fides of this judgement is that the Judge who gave the most one sided verdict was the one favouring talks and and a negotiated settlement a week back !
In the present special circumstance it is the best the honorable Judges could deliver. It is the best for maintaining communal peace in India.But this Judgement should have no relevance to any other case even if faith matters are involved.
Babri Masjid is a victim of Indian judiciary and administration in three ways. First, it did not get justice for illegal encroachment by setting the idols under the central dome. Second, it was demolished in broad day light in spite of all kinds of assurances possible in a state. Third, more important, the division of the land into three parts, two to Hindus and one to the Muslims, the original owners of the land, is not only unfair to the aggrieved party that has already suffered a great deal over the past six decades but it is also nowhere closer to resolving this vexing dispute. So where is justice for Babri Masjid? Now it reveals it is a state-sponsored transition of Babri Masjid into Ramjanam Bhoomi temple which took place in 60 years with the great cooperation of Congress Party in these 60 years.
"Justice Khan has concluded that the disputed structure was a mosque constructed by or under orders of Emperor Babar and that it was built not after demolishing any temple but on an area where some temples were already in ruins".
Does the Justice have any proof that the mosque was built on ruins and not by demolishing an existing temple, by way of carbon dating, historical records etc -- we readers would love to know.
The verdict is truly a compromise, but one that can work and will satisfy even some hardliners on both ends.
However, how the judges arrived at some of the findings is not entirely clear. These include almost all of Justice Sharma's findings and that the exact spot of lord Ram's birth to be under the central dome by all three judges. The latter is being attributed to "faith". Though this may seem unreasonable to some Muslims, they should keep in mind the larger perspective and view it as a necessary sacrifice in the larger interests of the society and to settle an unpleasant episode in India's otherwise wonderful secular history.
That two of the parties still remain unsatisfied and have gone on record to state that they will appeal the supreme court is very sad and I hope they will somehow get wise before they actually do it and refrain from doing the same.
Dear Members of Sunni Waqf Board and the Sri Ramjanmabhoomi Trust,
Please respect the decision of High Court and instead of appealing for it in Supreme court, try to build a Temple and Mosque which represents the true secular India. The case has already been 15 years old. The decisions are not going to do any better for normal people of India. so , please instead of wasting time, money energy of Judges and yours , please put it for constructive results.
Build a temple and Mosque together , which India and Indians can be proud of.
The judicial process should work based on the facts, evidences and scieince. But in this verdict belief prevailed over facts and evidences. This is not good for the judicial system.
No better verdict can be expected.
Let all accept it as fair and reasonable.
Let us proove that India is always for tolerance
and peace.It is the time to express our solidarity
and integerity to the world
Please Email the Editor