Shake your memory and find a corner which stores all the popular Bollywood dialogues. There you will find a very famous dialogue which goes like, “It’s not the emotions but evidences which influence the law”. And all the years we cursed the lawyer/judge who uttered this dialogue. But this clichéd dialogue henceforth is completely ineffective.
The verdict of the most awaited and hard fought legal tussle is finally out. The animosity of almost 150 years has finally some closure in sight. As all of us are aware, one of the most significant verdicts is based predominantly on “the faith” of Hindus, carried on for “time immemorial”. When we all felt that the faith in the Divine Powers and Supremacy is no longer relevant in contemporary tech savvy world, it is the faith carried on by the millions of Hindus which compelled the award of the
No doubt the verdict vindicates the firm or rather outrageous stance of various Hindu organizations. But these were the same organizations which were lambasted by so called secularists for asserting that the disputed site was indeed the Ramjanmabhumi.
From pure legal point of view, this verdict brings out a lot of debate; it is indeed the faith of Hindus and not some other evidence which has persuaded the opinions of all three judges. It raises a lot of questions. And as a student of Law, I am perplexed. On which grounds this faith has been measured? So if the faith of Hindus is relevant then what about the faith of Muslims?? Is a faith to be measured by how many people carry it or how much people believe in it? The judgment seems to have drawn conclusions largely based on the theological assertions and beliefs rather than simple factual evidence. It is this aspect of this judgment which has left both sides pondering over their options. Also in real sense the title suit- although has been barred by limitations- has not been answered. And the bone of the contention between the parties is still the same. The apportionment of the land between quarrying factions also invites great amount of academic polemics. The verdict of HC itself runs into thousand of pages and its detailed scrutiny, academic deliberations and its repercussions will take some time. But the verdict if stands the scrutiny of the Supreme Court after an appeal, will definitely be most interesting and landmark verdict with reference to the faith in the divine powers.
I am not really a devout follower of my own religion- Hinduism. In fact, I don’t even visit temples that often. But I always find it amusing the way we define secularism in this country. To my understanding, secularism is an equal freedom to each religion to practice their religion within the Constitutional boundaries. Because if we want to live in modern society, then the first rule book we ought to follow is the Constitution.
So the same people, who were asking for restraint before the verdict, are now “disappointed”. Some even went as far as to suggest that the verdict is politically motivated. And the worst one was the suggestion that the minority will feel like a second rate citizens. To my understanding, the HC verdict as on today is a final decision i.e. a closure. So why not it is agreeable to all the concerned parties? Even those who have got their right to build the temple are now demanding that the entire area be awarded to them. And the suggestion that there should be no mosque in entire Ayodhya can only be a childish argument and a clear sign of immature bigotry. But what if tomorrow the SC endorses the same opinions? Even then the minority will feel cheated/disappointed and left out in the cold? The reactions by Imams are a clear signs of provocations. (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Imams-unhappy-with-HC-verdict-on-Ayodhya/articleshow/6668805.cms ) Just imagine similar reactions from VHP/RSS and other Hindu groups. The whole media would have slaughtered them. The so-called secularists and the flag bearers of the Muslim welfare have already started to heat up the topic by stating that the Muslims feel “cheated”. (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/BSP-SP-start-manoeuvring-to-milk-Ayodhya-verdict/articleshow/6667433.cms ) I am sure they would have rejoiced if the verdict would have been opposite. Where is the secularism now? There are constant references that there were three judges- two Hindus and one Muslim. What kind of ludicrous argument is this? Last time I remembered, there is no special treatment for anyone with reference to caste, creed and religion in the eyes of the law. This is the level of secularism we have!
Another ironical statement is about report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). There are constant references by the secularists to point out that the report was prepared during the reign of BJP led NDA. So the CBI in Amit Shah’s case is independent and has no interference from Government. But ASI had influence of BJP? Why do we always have to insinuate?? The colour given to this verdict is, it is a victory of majority and minority is cheated. So what would have happened if the verdict was “pro-minority”? Should Hindus then feel, they don’t get their dues? Or we have complete disregard to the HC verdict. As if even before the announcement of the verdict both parties were prepared to take the matter to the SC. Is the HC verdict so irrelevant?
And now that at the core of verdict is the “faith”, people are apprehensive that many other disputed sites will now become topic of debates and communal tensions. But there has been an enactment of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 to avoid Ayodhya like situation. So the issue is completely out of place.
But importantly the reactions of the political parties have been largely satisfactory. Apart from Mulayam Singh Yadav, as mentioned above Left have also shown their true sense of secularism (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Left-intellectuals-call-verdict--blow-to-secular-fabric-/691407). The vote bank politics refuses to die down and poor BJP is condemned for its overt position on the issue. L. K. Advani would find some solace after loosing footings in politics in recent times. And although destruction of mosque cannot be justified, he can still find himself vindicated, after years of severe criticism he had to bear.
But people are forgetting most important gift of this judgement. The issues as sensitive as Ayodhya can be settled in the Court of Law within the limits of our Constitution, the simple point that whoever is rightful owner of the property should build any structure they wish to. The verdict also rose out of common legal precedents and has left no winners and loosers. So neither of the parties to the suit should feel aggrieved and at the same time triumphant. Some the reformists feel that these issues are non-relevant in contemporary times. But this is hardly any truth. But even tough in a country which has poor sense of history and poorer sense of historical recollections the statement has some substance. It’s best for each and every citizen that the dispute of the land has to be settled. Because the huge question over the land ownership which kept tensions simmering between the two communities over 150 years. Is it not beneficial that the dispute is settled legally once and for all?? There has been worry that the crores of rupees and strategic intelligence personnel were deployed due to Ayodhya verdict. But isn’t it a capital investment for future? May be those very people are oblivious to the crores of rupees washed down the drain on security of politicians and even more in corruption.
But the even funny remark is objection to the word bhavya – grand, used in reference to the temple which is proposed to be built. Well I think on piece of land which sprawls few acres only a grand temple can be built and why would be any objections if construction is going to be on legally awarded site?
The verdict has tried to go beyond normal legal opinions. It has given righteous share to each of parties. And in interest of the nation it is better if we all leave the chapter behind us and make a new start. The verdict vindicates the stand of Hindu organizations but whether it justifies demolition of mosque? I don’t think so. But for that we have a separate trial going on.
This is not the time to find winners and loosers. This is the time to start afresh and build the trust. And although suggestion of building a hospital on disputed site is laughable, immature and purely naïve with reference to the gravity of the situation. We can build solid relations from now on which will only ameliorate atmosphere in this country and we can look at future of constructive development.
No comments:
Post a Comment