|
Prospects and challenges for India on the Ayodhya
Verdict
Mumbai - A group of concerned citizens gathered to
discuss the verdict of the Allahabad High Court with
regard to the Ayodhya dispute between Ram Janmabhoomi
versus Babri Masjid in India. A number of perspectives
were put forth.
The Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS)
and Institute of Indian Culture (IIC) jointly organized
a round table discussion 'Prospects and Challenges of
the
 Ayodhya Verdict for the Nation' on 23 October 2010
to discuss the judgment passed on 30 September 2010 by a
three judge special bench from the Lucknow bench of the
Allahabad High Court with regard to the dispute between
Ram Janmbhoomi and Babri Masjid (Mosque).
The discussions began with a brief history by Dr Asghar
Ali Engineer, a scholar on the Constitution of India and
Islamic scriptures. As per recorded texts, history of
this litigation goes to a suit filed in Faizabad in
1885. At that time, the trial court as well as the
subsequent appeal to the District Judge, Faizabad and
Judicial Commissioner, Oudh led to a ruling in favour of
maintaining status quo. Muslims prayed in the inner
portions (the Babri Masjid) and the Hindus in the outer
portion (comprising Ram Chabutara and Sita ki Rasoi).
This continued till independence and partition of the
country (midnight of 14/15 August 1947) and sometime
after that in the wee hours of 23 December 1949 idols of
Ram Lalla were placed inside the Masjid (or as some
group say the idol of Ram Lalla emerged there).
The current judgment is with regard to four suits. The
first litigation dating to 16 January 1950 is an appeal
to be allowed to pray and an injunction against removal
of idols of Ram Lalla. Subsequently, there were three
suits filed claiming f ull title to land by Nirmohi
Akhara on 17 December 1959, Sunni Wakf Board on 18
December 1961 and Ram Lalla Virajman on 1 July 1989. The
two major question that the court had are who the land
belonged to and whether Ram Lalla was born at that
place. The judgment, Dr Engineer opines, have nothing to
do with the cases filed. On the first question, they
divided the property into three equal parts. On the
second question, they used faith, rather than evidence.
Justice Khan also invokes the faith of Muslims by
referring to a peace treaty signed by Prophet Mohammad.
This is against laid down principles of jurisprudence
and constitutional propriety, which was also indicated
by a former Chief Justice of India in a recent
discussion.
An human rights activist, Dr RM Pal, pointed out that
the judgment cannot be independent of the Masjid being
demolished on 6 December 1992 leading to rioting and
violence that spread across the country. True, a
separate case is being heard. But, the least that one
can expect from the leaders espousing this cause is to
apologize for this act.
The popular media perspective on the verdict is that
this is a good judgment and we should accept and forget
about it. Ms Jyoti Punwani, a journalist, does not
accept this. On the faith question, she points out that
Hindus believe that Ram Lalla was born in Ayodhya, but
not on any particular location. Even if they agree that
he was born there they do not want a temple constructed
there. In any case, faith cannot be the basis of a
judgment. In her discussion with the victims of the
1992-93 riots, many are happy with the absence of
communal violence following the judgment. One victim
remarked that "dono
side ko kuch mil gaya, kuch acha hua," (both
sides got something, something nice happened).
A medical practitioner and peace activist, Dr Arif Ali
Sayeed, had helped victims of the riot said that there
are different reactions to the judgment from the Muslim
community. Youth are mostly indifferent, some are happy
and there are few with extreme reactions "yeh
desh unka hai, yeh adalat unka hai aur yeh zamin unha
hai," (this country is theirs, this court is
theirs and this land is theirs). Dr Engineer responded
to this by saying that the court case should not be
construed as Hindu versus Muslim; this dispute is, plain
and simple, a matter of title. He further said that the
"laws and rules laid down by the Constitution and the
State have nothing to do with religion, language and
ethnicity." Professor Anthony Kunnath, a political
scientist, reacted by saying that "yeh
mulk kisika nahin hai, yeh ham sabka hai,"
(this country belong to nobody, it belongs to all of
us).
Arguing from a legal perspective, Advocate R Mishra,
practicing in the Bombay High Court, mentioned that a
judgment cannot be pro-Hindu or pro-Muslim. This is a
sensitive issue and all the three judges gave separate judgments that together run into about eight thousand
pages. If the judgments are not proper there are legal
channels available to appeal in the Supreme Court and
that we should refrain from questioning the judgment. He
also mentioned about section 89 where one can go beyond
evidence in the process of judgment to ensure mediation
and solution.
Professor Kunnath reacted by saying that we can question
a judgment. In particular, he raised the controversy
surrounding the report of the Archaeological Society of
India that the court relied on and whether the data
prepared by them has been subjected to scientific
scrutiny. It is relevant because court's judgment
depends upon facts and figures put forth before the
judges. There is an independent open appeal to look into
this.
Speaking from a Muslim perspective, Dr Zeenat Shaukat
Ali, a professor of Islamic history and religion and
founder Director General of Wisdom Foundation, a World
Institute of Islamic Studies for Dialogue, Organization
of Mediation, Gender Justice and Pea ce, puts her point
of view in three parts. First, the judgment needs to be
dissected and analyzed by experts without judging the
judges. Second, the issue has been politicized leading
to sectarian strife that led to demolishing the Masjid
by divisive forces, but today 18 years later the mind of
India has changed with the need to take it to greater
heights so that it finds a place among the league of
nations.
Third, she invokes Maulana Wahiuddin, a revered Islamic
scholar, to state that "this is an opportunity for
Muslims of this country giving in good will something in
which they believe that Lord Ram was born." The mosque
can be shifted to another place and this should not be
considered as an act of surrender but rather an act done
in the interest of peace and communal harmony leading to
nation building. She even cites two instances from the
scriptures, one in which Prophet Mohammad refuses to
pray in a Church because he does not want Muslims to
claim this place of worship as their own and another
case in which some Christians claim a portion of the
land in which a Masjid stood and this portion was given
to them. She reiterated that peace, and not
divisiveness, is the central message of Islam.
To a proposal that Hindus should not build a temple and
reciprocate this gesture. Dr Ali responded by saying
that what Hindus do or will do is an independent act and
irrespective of that Muslims should consider giving away
their claim to this piece of land. Today, this could be
a minority view but with deliberations and discussion
efforts should be made to make this a more accepted view
within the community. She also elaborated that such
sectarian issues should be left behind so that we move
forward to more substantive issues under a multicultural
plural ethos, which she is proud to be a part.
A second media perspective, with particular emphasis on
the Urdu press, was put forth by Mr Mohammad Wajjihuddin.
Prior to the judgment being passed all leading
newspapers put up messages addressed to Muslims to
maintain peace and nothing was mentioned about those who
demolished the Masjid. The leading daily applauded the
judgment but the Urdu press was saddened and pointed out
that the judgment is not acceptable to Muslims. This two
positions were also evident from the leading weekly's
with India Today
thinking it to be a historic moment for reconciliation
whereas Outlook
highlighting it to be an injustice against Muslims. In
subsequent days, the lead articles in the Urdu press
where mere translations of English/Hindi writers who
were against the judgment. But, by and large, the media
played a responsible role and did not inflame passions.
The difficulty in ascribing the title to land was echoed
by Professor Lionel Fernandez. He is also of the view
that the demolishing of the Masjid should not be
considered independently. It was an unholy act and by
that the place has been devoid of divinity. It should
not be used for any place of worship. Further, the
people responsible for the act should be identified and
punished. He bemoaned "it is a dismal present we are
living in, we are not addressing the fundamental
issues."
From a sociological perspective, Professor SM Michael
mentioned that this is an example of politicizing
religion. This will have long term consequences for our
future, the future of India. In another fifty to hundred
years time we will be judged in how we handled this
situation. This is an opportunity for us and
particularly for the Hindu leaders and also Muslim
leaders to show their magnanimity, come down to talk and
take the nation forward.
On the eve of the day of judgment, as Mr Sukla Sen
observed, there was a perceptible fear. Roads and
otherwise crowded places were empty, but by evening and
in a day or two, things started being normal. The
overall need of the hour, as the Chairperson Dr
Vasundhara Mohan summed up the days meeting, is that the
call of the nation is peace, reconciliation, to live and
let live. With this, let us move forward!
|
