Ayodhya Land Dispute Judgement - aftermath- Part I

There is a big bungalow in a city which is proudly owned by an owner for whom the place is not just an asset but a matter of legacy and remembrance of his ancestors. That bungalow was vacant for some time and this owner could not keep it secured. In the due course, an aggressive and powerful person with the blessings of the people in power has unlawfully occupied the bungalow and taken its possession. When the owner has realised this, albeit lately, the unlawful tenant did not vacate and this tussle went on for 12 full years. At that point of time both the owner and the tenant have gone to the court. Fed up with the process of the judicial delays and complexities, our owner friend has taken the help of the professionals who have assured this man that by persuasion or coercion they would vacate the premises. One fine day they sprang a surprise by turning up at the site and throwing out the unlawful tenant alongwith his furniture and belongings. Then came the much awaited day of the Court verdict. Court understood that the issue is delicate as the Owner is a genuinely aggrieved party for whom the place is a souvenir than just a building. On the other hand, the previously occupied tenant can claim a legal right as he has stayed there in the building for 12 years which will in legal terms entail him to have a claim on the property(the judge felt he should not have been allowed to take possession of the place on the first count)and he still has the support of the powers that be. So the Judge gave verdict saying that the main bungalow be given to the original landlord and the outhouse be given to the other person. Both did not have a reason to complain much about the judgement, bitten once by the delays of the prolonged legal battle. But this sort of a compromise was not to the liking of fellow neighbours who had a nice time enjoying the fierce battle between the two parties and taking sides and sometimes changing them too. They shouted from the rooftops saying that it is not fair. This is what I understood, being a novice in legal matters that I am, from the Ayodhya land dispute and its verdict.

The delay in writing this piece on the Ayodhya issue was both incidental and intentional, at the same time. I thought the emotions should die before one can separate wheat from the chaff. It did give me some insights and some enlightenment. Let me confess by saying that I am not at all competent to write or talk on the legal matters. I could dare to write what I perceived, only after reading and seeing all the so-called experts' commentary on the judgement.

So much of hype and hoopla was created by the media in anticipation of the judgement of the Ayodhya land dispute. I contest the report by a vast section of the media, particularly secularly bent English media, both Print and Electronic, that says "Babri Masjid Land Row". It tantamounted to prejudging the Judgement. It should have been "Ram Janmabhoomi - Babri Masjid Dispute" or "Ayodhya Land Dispute" or something of that sort. The hype was defintely justified to a measured extent as the cases were pending since past 60 years and it involved much sensitive issues on hand and so much was in stake for the parties and the pedestrians to take mileage from the Judgement. Period. Media has got something to chew, something to drag, like a daily serial in a TV channel. They grabbed it.

I just followed the Rediff site which gave wonderful updates on the day of the Judgement. The texts of the Judgements, brief summaries though, were given as hyperlinks. My immediate reaction was "Here is a judgement which has ensured that there are no breaking news, only path breaking one". The judgement in a nutshell was very intelligently worded. The bench wanted to ensure that no party can crib feeling heartburn as the Judgement being in the other party's favour. So they tried something new. Hardcore critics termed it as "Panchayati type verdict". Everybody expected fireworks in the form of judgement which would results in protests and clashes between two religious groups. To their disappointment nothing of that sort has happened. Why? What has changed post-1992? People born after 1992 are mature enough to restrain from getting mad about religion or they are oblivious to the religious diffences? This generation knew from history post-1992 that they should march ahead? India has moved far from fighting over religion? Muslims have become broader in their outlook? All these were attributed by our learned speakers on the television panels. I can't but agree less with all these theories. It is much more beyond all these oversimplified phrases.

First, the sting is gone as the Judgement is coming after 60 long years where a lot of things have changed. Second, atleast the Allahabad High Court has come forward to deliver the verdict. Through my childhood when I first came to know of the Ayodhya dispute, I never thought the judgement will ever come when I am alive. This way curtains would be down on this age old coffee-toffee controversy. Third, there is a bit of assurance in a majority of the people's minds that Court cannot be insensitive to the ground realities and that it would not be wanting to be seen as a conflict monger and can only deliver a pragmatic and progressive verdict. Fourth, the delay in judgement has suppressed even the enthusiam in people's minds that something dramatic is going to happen on the day of the judgement, if at all the judgement is delivered. Last, but MOST importantly, the judgement was such an art of finesse that no party had a reason to complain or crib, they only wanted to hide their smile. Whether within their jurisdiction or not, they 3 bench judges have an intelligent Judgement. They could not really justify in giving shares of lands to the parties in favour of whom no material evidence could be produced. Only time or the Supreme Court will decide about the jurisdiction. Atleast people sigh with relief that all is well that ends well.

This was not to the liking of our media fraternity and the advocates of Secularism in India(avoidance of pseudo prefix is intentional). Initial reaction from the parties, political as well as religious was gaurded and least offensive, to say the least. So media wanted a tinge of spice here. They raked up the discussion about the brief exceeded by the Judicial Bench, faith taking precedence over legality setting a bad precedent, Hindu parties getting 2/3rds of the land share(this headline theme is simply atrocious, to say the least), among other things. Then suddenly came the version whether the demolishing is wrongly justified in the backdrop of this Judgement. Home Minister P.Chidambaram promptly came with a headline statement saying the demolishing act can never be exonerated. PC, you and your Congress Party want to bank on the minority vote bank! That one was followed by Mulayam Mullah's sympathies for the hapless Minority community(sic.) Our Dravidian atheist veteran Karunanidhi changed his version from a balanced one to the offensive stance. Anything about Lord Ram is not to the liking of this Kalaignar.

All the hell broke on this and slowly our muslim brethren, forgive me for the pun intended, started reacting. I really have pains in appreciating the reason for us in using this phrase when no one really means it. The issue is more about the Supremacy than about faith for Muslims, I would like to observe. For the Hindus the Ram Janmabhoomi is an issue saddled with painful memories of the heinous acts committed by the Mughal emperors on the people and their places of worship,faith and sentiment entwined with the former. The whole issue is not to be seen as a land dispute between two communities, it is much more than what meets the eye. That is the reason I felt that, given the present day context, the judgement seemed to me to be practical and forward looking. I need to mention here the 3-series article written by S.Gurumurthy. He has gone down to the minutest aspect of the judgement and he analyses threadbare the merit of it.

The article is getting lengthier and I felt it is a better idea to make it a 2-part one for reading convenience.