The Allahabad High Court's verdict on the Ayodhya dispute was followed by a welcome wave of harmony and maturity. Both Hindus and Muslims received it well. The two major political parties too welcomed the verdict. But after a few days, they are back to their old games for deriving political mileage. People should see through the designs of the vested interests and isolate them.
D. Kishan Prasad Rao,
BJP leader L.K. Advani's assertion that he feels vindicated about his rath yatra in the wake of the Allahabad High Court verdict is like covering the mountain with mud. The demolition of the Babri Masjid was the worst outcome of his infamous rath yatra. Equally baffling is the criticism of the verdict by some. Questioning the wisdom of the court which took much time and pains to arrive at a judgment is unfortunate.
When the whole nation has responded to the verdict calmly and many have even expressed a desire for a compromise between the two communities, the Congress' repeated harping on the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992 is unnecessary. Let Hindu organisations come forward to build a mosque next to a Ram temple in Ayodhya. The Congress would do well to remember that it was only after the Rajiv Gandhi government opened the locks of the disputed structure did the Ayodhya dispute escalate.
The common man heaved a sigh of relief when the Allahabad High Court pronounced the Ayodhya verdict. This perhaps frustrated a few who wanted to keep the pot boiling. Those criticising the judges have forgotten the pains taken by them to arrive at a verdict that averted a catastrophe on a matter affecting peace.
The positive response of both the communities to the High Court verdict in the Ayodhya case is a heartening sign of maturity. They realised that the verdict, although partly against both, was the most practical. A wholly pro-Muslim verdict would only have helped the Hindu fundamentalists. Removal of the Ram Lalla idol would not have been executable either. The law and order situation, too, would have worsened. A wholly pro-Hindu verdict, on the other hand, would have permanently alienated Muslims.
That instead of expressing relief over the verdict, some political parties are keen on vitiating the atmosphere is shocking. Their attempts to fish in troubled waters are fraught with danger.
The verdict has clearly made one of the contesting parties feel somewhat victorious and the other disappointed. The Wakf Board wants to exercise its right to appeal in the Supreme Court. Till the final verdict is given or an out-of court settlement reached, the “victorious” side should avoid appealing to Muslims to show magnanimity and willingly give up the one-third land apportioned to them. Mr. Advani's statement that he feels vindicated was eminently avoidable. Such statements will only foul any attempts towards finding an amicable settlement.
M. Mohamed Jalaludeen,
The demolition in 1992 was fuelled by a sense of injustice perceived by a small section of Hindus who considered the location of the Babri mosque the birthplace of Lord Ram. Their case was that Babar built the mosque after destroying a Hindu temple. But until the issue was raised by some Hindu organisations, most of the Hindus were not even aware of such a historical “fact.” In India, forts, temples, palaces, etc., have been razed time and again to build new structures. Temples were built in Buddhist places of worship and mosques on temples. Does that give anyone the right to destroy our national heritage?
The verdict deserves not only respect but also accolades from all sections as it is balanced. It would be in conformity with the secular temperament of our nation to give the quietus to the controversy by accepting the well-considered, cogent and balanced judgment.
The description of the Allahabad verdict as ‘panchayat style' to imply that it is devoid of reason is unfortunate. The panchayat justice system may lack the kind of reasoning that is endorsed by academicians and historians. Nevertheless, it still holds good when it comes to pragmatism, timeliness and common sense. The modern legal system may be reason-driven. But justice under it is almost always delayed and thus denied. Had the Ayodhya dispute been settled in time, most of the problems would not have cropped up. As Leo Tolstoy said: “If we admit that human life can be ruled by reason, then all possibility of life is destroyed.”