The article (“From political Ayodhya to legal Ayodhya”, Editorial page, Oct. 16) was incisive and well analysed. Now at this point of time, after 61 years, it would be in the interest of both communities to forget the past and accept the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the right spirit. In order to ensure that similar demands are not raised, Hindus would help in the process of healing by participating in the construction of a mosque on the land allotted by the court. This gesture would be not only in the great tradition of Hindu tolerance but also ensure peace and tranquillity once and for all.

K. Rajagopalan,


The article was a passionate attempt to read both between the lines and also behind the text of the Ayodhya dispute title suit verdict by the Allahabad High Court. The phantom of Ayodhya continues to haunt, excite and ignite the minds of the literati, whereas the common man, irrespective of his religious hue, has long given it a decent burial. Ayodhya, a non-issue in common parlance, has acquired the status of an honoured guest in the hall of excellence of the media. In the opinion of the writer, two political events as counter points of the Ayodhya dispute stand out at stake. The first is the installation of the idols under the Central dome of the Babri mosque in 1949, and the other, the demolition of the mosque in 1992. She laments that the judges in their verdict treated both these events as legal milestones rather than Machiavellian political acts. Her contention is that in the judicial process, the riveting political story behind the scenes was ignored. By the same token, she is disappointed that the verdict did not touch upon the “abominable manner” of the demolition, a heinous crime in itself. The judges' eloquent silence on the topic could be misconstrued as a vindication of a movement baptised in hatred and nurtured in violence, by those who indulged in it, treating it as an encouraging green signal to go ahead. The tango by religion and politics is a dangerous phenomenon and for those who sit in judgment, the minefield is an ominous predicament, necessitating caution and discretion.

M. Siva Ram Prasad,


The writer has gone deep into the subject to bring forth the historical evidences of the vexed issue dating back from the year 1528 and proved conclusively that from a relatively non-issue, the politicians with vested interests, escalated it into something big. Had Gandhiji been alive during that period he, along with Nehru, would have condemned the installation of idols in 1949.

N.C. Sreedharan,


Ex-facie, the writer's attack seems to be on the Allahabad High Court Judges, as though they have delivered their judgments not on the basis of law, evidence, etc., but in support of the political movement of certain parties. This is regrettable. Let us not forget that the clamour for the restoration of the Ayodhya temple has been for more than 150 years, i.e., long before the events of December 22-23, 1949 and December 6, 1992, and the establishment of the parties involved in the demolition of the mosque. Apart from the fact that the verdicts of the judges of the Allahabad High Court are a matter of compromise, they also dealt with all aspects of history and the law. Regarding the political aspects dealt with in the article, it would suffice to say that Justice S.U. Khan has taken note of the demolition very seriously when he warned that if such incidents should occur in future, the country would not rise in unity.

B.M. Baliga,


Hats off to our people who showed much tolerance and restraint true to their secular credentials in the aftermath of the verdict. Though some people of one section felt disappointed over the verdict as it happens in all cases related to title suits, the judgment cannot satisfy both parties. No clash or untoward incident occurred. Let us explore the positive aspects of the judgment and not portray it as a win or defeat. The only alternative to co-existence is co-destruction.

Mallikarjun G.H.,


More In: Letters | Opinion