Ayodhya Land Dispute Judgement & Experts' Judgement- Concluding Part
There was the story of some great emperor who had a wise minister as advisor, couldn't recollect well if it is Akbar Birbal duo or some other combination. One day two ladies come quarelling to the king's court claiming a baby to be their's and not belonging to the other one. The Court had a tough time deciding the true mother among those two. The wise minister tells a way out of this and then suggests to the king that the baby boy be cut to half and divided equally between the two ladies as both their versions seem to be genuine. On hearing the judgement from the king, one of the ladies offer to the lordship to withdraw from the claimon the baby so that cutting her baby could be avoided. On hearing this, the King concludes her to be the real mother of the baby and punishes the other lady for coming to the court with a false case and wasting the court time. This is in short the story I read in my childhood. Fortunately then, there were no experts to judge this judgement.Otherwise a big discussion would have taken place arguing for and against the very thought of cutting the baby, even if it is supposed to be a threat. What would have happened if both the ladies were mum then on the announcement? So on and so forth.The King or the Court did not have any other option than trying something untried till then.
To relate the story to the present scenario, it is not the best of the judgements. It has its own flaws. The verdict is based on weak legally tangible premise. The text of the judgement says one thing and the final verdict says contrary to the essence of the carefully worded voluminous draft. If the Mosque is proved to be built by demolishing a grand old temple or to say in a politically correct way, on the ruins of a big temple, the very question of giving a share in the land doesn't exist. For the Hindus, who pray the Almighty basically through idol worship, a structure and idols are as important as the place of the worship itself. So in effect, the judgement is not in favour or against any party. But then how come no one complained from any side? If there are so many fallacies in the verdict, why even laymen like me, sighed with relief on hearing it? First thing, no one had any big expectations about the ability of our Courts within the framework of our Constitution to give judgement without causing pain to any of the aggrieved parties. It was more of the assurance for one side about the other party not getting a better deal than getting justice to their cause. The knowledgeable judges studied this mood as they took pains in digging out the Archeological Survey of India's report on the excavations on the disputed site. So their verdict was based on this and everyone was silently smiling till the time our secular friends have started objecting to the very base of verdict.
Another question that was raked up is "whether the judgement has exonerated of the heinous demolition of the mosque". This is a needless question at this juncture. Supreme Court is looking into this aspect and it is meaningless to discuss that. The demolition of any structure is really painful to the people who used the structure till then, legally occupied or otherwise. But then during road widening too, when the municipal authorities demolish a structure, it would cause pain to the people who has used it till then. I do not justify the appropriateness of the Babri Masjid, per se. But then as the one who has been to the places like Kashi(Varanasi) & Mathura, I am really pained to note how ruthlessly the Moghul emperors in general and Aurangazeb in particular went on damaging the religious places of the Hindus during their rule here. Two wrongs cannot make the wrong right! Still these are not just ordinary temples, they have so much of a significance to the believers(who cares!). The way the mosque was demolished, without caring for the law of the land needed strong condemnation but not the original act of constructing a mosque on a temple. Another argument has been aired saying that the excavations' finding is that the findings show the remains of a Shaivite temple but not Vishnu's temple as was proclaimed. A large section of the Hindus are not as narrow minded as one expects them to be. Like the case of the famous temple god at Tirumala, people believe Lord Venkateswara to be a different one, some believe it as Lord Vishnu while others believe it to be Bala-ji, the Shakti. It does not make any difference. So we do not get mired in the controversy whether it is Lord Shiva or Lord Ram, it was a Hindu temple prior to being a mosque. That's it!
The beauty of the entire subject is a vast majority of the media did not care to enlighten us about the area of the entire land which is supposed to be divided among the three parties. A lot of them made us to believe that it is 2.77 Acres. In reality the judgement was to divide 1500 Sq.Yds. How funny and interesting is this at the same time!
The judgement was a great and historic one just because there couldn't be any other way out of this dispute. Let us not debate it with our selective wisdom by saying that the judgement is based on faith than law. In the recent cases there is direct proof of killings, in the case of Afzal guru or Ajmal Kasab, the law did not help in punishing the guilty with so much of concrete evidences! The bench of Judges rose to the occasion and after a detailed study, understood the sensitivity of the subject and came up with a surprising yet interesting verdict. Let us appreciate the judgement not minding who encashes it for votes in the election. There would atleast be a temple for Lord Ram at a place of his birth believe to be in Ayodhya and the believers can have darshan at the holy place. Miya biwi raazi though kare kya kaazi, they say. When all the parties who went to the Court are interested in resolving the dispute out of Court at this stage, why should anybody have any objection!
To relate the story to the present scenario, it is not the best of the judgements. It has its own flaws. The verdict is based on weak legally tangible premise. The text of the judgement says one thing and the final verdict says contrary to the essence of the carefully worded voluminous draft. If the Mosque is proved to be built by demolishing a grand old temple or to say in a politically correct way, on the ruins of a big temple, the very question of giving a share in the land doesn't exist. For the Hindus, who pray the Almighty basically through idol worship, a structure and idols are as important as the place of the worship itself. So in effect, the judgement is not in favour or against any party. But then how come no one complained from any side? If there are so many fallacies in the verdict, why even laymen like me, sighed with relief on hearing it? First thing, no one had any big expectations about the ability of our Courts within the framework of our Constitution to give judgement without causing pain to any of the aggrieved parties. It was more of the assurance for one side about the other party not getting a better deal than getting justice to their cause. The knowledgeable judges studied this mood as they took pains in digging out the Archeological Survey of India's report on the excavations on the disputed site. So their verdict was based on this and everyone was silently smiling till the time our secular friends have started objecting to the very base of verdict.
Another question that was raked up is "whether the judgement has exonerated of the heinous demolition of the mosque". This is a needless question at this juncture. Supreme Court is looking into this aspect and it is meaningless to discuss that. The demolition of any structure is really painful to the people who used the structure till then, legally occupied or otherwise. But then during road widening too, when the municipal authorities demolish a structure, it would cause pain to the people who has used it till then. I do not justify the appropriateness of the Babri Masjid, per se. But then as the one who has been to the places like Kashi(Varanasi) & Mathura, I am really pained to note how ruthlessly the Moghul emperors in general and Aurangazeb in particular went on damaging the religious places of the Hindus during their rule here. Two wrongs cannot make the wrong right! Still these are not just ordinary temples, they have so much of a significance to the believers(who cares!). The way the mosque was demolished, without caring for the law of the land needed strong condemnation but not the original act of constructing a mosque on a temple. Another argument has been aired saying that the excavations' finding is that the findings show the remains of a Shaivite temple but not Vishnu's temple as was proclaimed. A large section of the Hindus are not as narrow minded as one expects them to be. Like the case of the famous temple god at Tirumala, people believe Lord Venkateswara to be a different one, some believe it as Lord Vishnu while others believe it to be Bala-ji, the Shakti. It does not make any difference. So we do not get mired in the controversy whether it is Lord Shiva or Lord Ram, it was a Hindu temple prior to being a mosque. That's it!
The beauty of the entire subject is a vast majority of the media did not care to enlighten us about the area of the entire land which is supposed to be divided among the three parties. A lot of them made us to believe that it is 2.77 Acres. In reality the judgement was to divide 1500 Sq.Yds. How funny and interesting is this at the same time!
The judgement was a great and historic one just because there couldn't be any other way out of this dispute. Let us not debate it with our selective wisdom by saying that the judgement is based on faith than law. In the recent cases there is direct proof of killings, in the case of Afzal guru or Ajmal Kasab, the law did not help in punishing the guilty with so much of concrete evidences! The bench of Judges rose to the occasion and after a detailed study, understood the sensitivity of the subject and came up with a surprising yet interesting verdict. Let us appreciate the judgement not minding who encashes it for votes in the election. There would atleast be a temple for Lord Ram at a place of his birth believe to be in Ayodhya and the believers can have darshan at the holy place. Miya biwi raazi though kare kya kaazi, they say. When all the parties who went to the Court are interested in resolving the dispute out of Court at this stage, why should anybody have any objection!
Comments
Post a Comment