Hindustan Times
Ayodhya verdict: faith accompli?
One need not pore into the 8,000 or so pages of the Ayodhya verdict to figure out that the three judges were determined to go beyond the parameters of a mere title suit.
There is no doubt that the bench over-reached itself by design. They did so, in all probability, to bring about some kind of closure to the case.
From initial conclusions flashed on news screens to a laborious reading of the detailed judgements, my view was and remains the same — there are two ways of looking at the judgement.
As a legal verdict, it could be seen as atrocious and over-reaching – one that exceeds its brief. At the same time, the 2-1 majority judgement refrained from pronouncing a maximal ruling one way or the other, thereby avoiding a fresh wedge between Hindus and Muslims.
The judgement exceeds its authority as it goes beyond the 1994 directive of the Supreme Court for determining the title to the disputed site. Indeed, it does what the Supreme Court had itself refused to do; declare whether it is Ram Janambhumi.
Why did the judges take upon themselves the task of deciding issues other than that of title? I assume that as legal professionals, they first took up the issue of the title.
Both the claims to title of Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Wakf Board were rejected.
Why a third of the land to parties who could not prove their title? Justice Khan relied on legal precedents to settle this: “If exclusive ownership is claimed but joint ownership is proved, suit can be decreed for joint ownership.”
The judgement quotes other legal precedents to show than vexed suits for exclusive titles can and has been converted into partition suits.
The verdict has pronounced the place under the central dome of now-destructed mosque as the birthplace of Lord Ram, “as per faith and belief of Hindus”. This reliance on faith is being made out to be the verdict’s greatest infirmity.
It is a well-settled norm, as pointed out by one of the judges, that in a situation when both the parties fail to prove initial title, it is possession and possession alone which decides the question of title, in accordance with Section 110 of the Evidence Act.
In the present verdict, however, the word “possession”, wherever it occurs, seems to have been replaced with “faith”.
Muslims have been disappointed because they considered the title suit case to be just that and expected an outcome along the lines of a cut-and-dried civil suit, while the judges clearly did not. Unlike most rulings, the Ayodhya verdict was not feral in character i.e. untamed and dispassionate.
The judgement does gloss over key issues, like the illegality of the surreptitiously placing the idols beneath the central dome. Even if the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a temple, the judgment ignores the universal law of Adverse Possession.
However, here are some facts about the judgement we must not overlook.
The majority verdict makes Hindus and Muslims joint title holders — binding rather than severing one of them. It allows Muslim and Hindus both to continue to be stakeholders. More importantly, the verdict does not dispossess any party, even though none could prove their claims to title.
(31 votes, average: 2.39 out of 5)
Loading ...
The drama Mrchchhakatika shows that in Ujjain the Buddhist monks were despised and their sight was considered inauspicious.
Ravi Reply:
October 3rd, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Gopi, your ill tempered rant has little truth in it.
To say that for aeons children have been told that Rama was born in Ayodhya, does not make it right. The very same children were also told the following:
Sita was born of Earth.
Ram was an all knowing God, but still he felt the need to publically test the chastity of his wife, Sita.
Sita, was swallowed by Earth.
Ravan had 10 heads
Hanuman could lift a mountain
Ravan could transform himself into a Deer, in order to lure Sita.
By the way as a child I was told that Moon was my uncle. I believed it and still do, so I wonder if on that basis, I can lay a claim on the moon.
I am glad to say that most children are able to differentiate between reality and mythology. Sadly you seem to have autistic sensibilities about such matters.
I also would like to know, why is it that you feel the need to label liberal people as Pseudo Seculars. Why not just Seculars. What is it that you know about them which gives you the right to call them Pseudo.
For my part, I am not shy to call you a Hindu Fundamentalist, a crypto fascist.
[Reply]
Mohd Asim Khan Reply:
October 4th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Fantastic. On the dot!
[Reply]
shan Reply:
October 4th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
@Mohd Asim Khan , how about this , fantastic on the dot.
I have another take on Muhammad’s problem. Remember there is age difference of twenty years between them. The time he went for meditation is when his wife was 55yrs. Obviously there was no physical relationship , I am a doctor I have seen many many patients with post menopausal hormone deficiency problem.(I am approaching this matter with an academic mind thus I am not going to use any true but hurtful words). Mohammad being young this must have been an unbearable situation. Remember he dare not leave his first wife , she was so powerful , it would have cost him his life. Faced with this impossible situation he turned to meditation to take his mind off carnal intrusions. There is nothing to go mad about this speculation gandhi apparently went psychotic when he had an involuntary orgasm, thereafter he started sleeping with two female consorts on both side and practice repression . Gandhi had this idiotic beleif that if he could control his urges , the energy will channeled in acheiving greater things.
Now as you know the revelations came thick and fast , and he supplanted them at will to suit his purpose , like marrying the wife of his own adopted son as this was against the prevailing custom of arabia. This was a very very passion driven person is borne out by the number of wives he had and ALL OF THEM AFTER DEATH OF KHADIJA. and the fact he did not think twice in consumating his relationship with his most favourite wife whom he married by prevailing on his friend Abu Bakr, who was not at all agreeable in the first instance. The rest is SHEER LUST FOR POWER which led to all those wars he fought
ishwar Reply:
October 4th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
@Ravi
“I am glad to say that most children are able to differentiate between reality and mythology.” – the reality is Hindus are in majority and becoming more powerful. First, we demolished your (secular’s) so-called Babri Masjid and now proved it in a court of law that it was never one at the first place. More would follow.
Be prepared!!
[Reply]
Ravi Reply:
October 4th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I am prepared, us seculars have kept you out of power for more than 55 years.
Gopi Thomas Reply:
October 4th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Ravi, I am not a Hindu; i am a Syrian catholic from kerala.
[Reply]
Gopi Thomas Reply:
October 4th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
who is proud of his Indian and Hindu ancestry; and Rama and Krishna… and for your info, Christianity landed in kerala long before St Peter converted Romans.
Vikram Reply:
October 5th, 2010 at 9:16 am
hmmm interesting
KD Reply:
October 5th, 2010 at 4:02 am
Ravi,
How do you propose a court to rule on such issues ? How scientific can you get with tracing the roots of the first religion humanity has known ? There were no historians taking notes then, I hope you agree.
This is the most secular judgement possible. Its like allowing hindus to share the land in mecca with muslims !!!
I am amazed at how spoilt the muslims of this country are. They get a very reasonable win-win situation and are trying desperately to make it a win-lose situation !
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
October 5th, 2010 at 10:10 am
@KD,
I think the average Muslim, even if not fully happy, is willing to move on.
It is the sickular media, politicians caught in a time warp (read Mulayam), community leaders (whose only claim to fame is involvement in this dispute), JNU school historians (and their ilk spread all over) and of course, lawyers – salivating at the prospect of another celebrity lawsuit, who are stoking the embers of imagined grievances.
Assumptive comments such as “the VHP would have gone on a rampage if the verdict went against the Hindus” and statements congratulating the Muslims for their maturity in not turning violent have to be seen in this light.
shan Reply:
October 5th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
It is naive to label mulayam as caught in a time warp. he has done his home work well , it is the gullible muslims who fall for this crocodile tears. He made sure his son graduated with a MBA (I don’t know where from )and not from any madrasah, and made sure bahu was genetically pure hindu. In summary a true indian politician , through and through HYPOCRITE, it is also known as fishing in troubled waters.