Essence of the September 30 Verdict

While the three-hour spell-binding opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games before a packed Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium in the Capital on October 3 has warmed the hearts of every spectator, what was most noteworthy was the rousing applause with which the 60,000-strong crowd greeted the Pakistani participants in the Games—after the Indian team the biggest round of applause was reserved for them. This was fresh reflection of the importance of sports in breaking down artificial barriers raised through religious divides, political differences and needless suspicions based on mistrust.

Meanwhile the verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the title suits related to the disputed site at Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid once stood (from the time of its construction in 1528 till its demolition on December 6, 1992), continues to be discussed at length even after a week since the judgment was spelt out on September 30.

It was anticipated that the Court would rule in favour of one of the three parties involved in the suits—the Sunni Waqf Board, Ramlala Virajman and Nirmohi Akhara—but what has come, that is, the decision to trifurcate the land and hand it over to the litigants in equal measure, has caused surprise in some quarters and dismay in some others.

Analysts have held that treating Ram as a ‘juristic person’ is the judgment’s ‘biggest infirmity’. Explaining this line of reasoning senior journalist Dileep Padgaonkar aptly opines:

In the eyes of the law, a diety or an idol is thus entitled to be placed at par with flesh-and-blood litigants. The sheer brazenness of this stand, which belittles the exalted stature of Hinduism’s most reversed divinity, makes you wince.

He further points to the attempt to equate the laws prevailing in the 21st century with the depre-dations witnessed in the 16th century and perceptively observes:

…more significant still, why should the sins committed by Babar visit his co-religionists today? In a country where, for example, Buddhists have been at the receiving end of Hindus, this can open a can of worms. The verdict therefore smacks of majoritarian arrogance which, one hopes, will be jettisoned root and branch by the Supreme Court.

One could not agree more with Dileep in this regard. It is heartening to find the Congress and CPM too taking a broadly similar stand on the issue without in any way seeking to inflame passions.

Some Muslim activists feel that Muslims won’t be able to rebuild the mosque at the same site in Ayodhya even if they get their share in the disputed land. So, argues Javed Anand of the Muslims for Secular Democracy (MSD), the “best option is that they (the Muslims) gift the land to the Hindus and set an example of magnanimity. It will open a new chapter of Hindu-Muslim unity.”

That is reposing infinite confidence in the likes of L.K. Advani, Uma Bharati, Murli Manohar Joshi, Ashok Singhal et al. Till date none of them has made any magnanimous gesture towards the Muslims vis-à-vis the mosque reconstruction. (Why? Because presumably such a gesture would amount to aping the Congress in ‘appeasing the minorities’, a charge they themselves have time and again hurled at the ruling party at the Centre.) Of course, such a gesture from the peddlers of religious hatred who were responsible for pulling down the Babri Masjid (forget Advani’s hypocritical public expression of ‘sorrow’ after the despicable deed had tarnished the image of India as a tolerant, multi-religious nation in the world beyond repair) would be expecting too much.

The issue at stake is different: it is one of standing firm in defence of the secular concept of our nationhood the Sangh Parivar is determined to demolish. Regrettably the September 30 verdict has only helped to reinforce that resolve and thereby impart added strength to the majoritarian onslaught on our secular democracy.

October 6 S.C.