The Lucknow Bench of the Allahbad High Court delivered its verdict on the contentious Ayodhya Entitlement dispute on September 30. It was a rare occasion when the issues of divinity and faith were awaiting clarification by a judicial body. Most Indians were more anxious about the fallout of the judgement rather than the actual verdict. Peace appeals by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, prominent political figures, leading personalities form the entertainment industry were employed to calm populist tempers before and immediately after the verdict was pronounced. Many had argued that the verdict was an occasion to demonstrate India’s commitment to secularism and respect for Judiciary; an opportunity to show that India had moved beyond 1992. Though disagreements over the judgement abound, the recent verdict has asserted that maximalist positions on religious issues are unacceptable in a multi-religious and multi-cultural country like India.
For most Indians the mention of Ayodhya brings back memories of the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992. The Lucknow bench was charged with deciding on a larger issue which was complicated by, but not limited to, the events of December 6, 1992. In December 1949, idols of Hindu God Ram and Goddess Sita were place inside Babri Masjid. In 1950 Head of Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas filed a suit demanding permission to worship the idols. In 1959 the Nirmohi Akhara filed another suit seeking to take charge of the ‘temple’. In 1961 the Sunni Central Boards of Waqfs file a third suit demanding the removal of the idol and re-possession of the mosque. The September 30th verdict was essentially a judgement on these title suits. The three-judge special Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court ruled by majority that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts and be distributed among the Sunni Wafk Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party for ‘Ram Lalla’. It needs to be emphasized that another criminal case for the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid is pending in the Supreme Court. The Liberhan Commission set up to probe the demolition of the Masjid had submitted its report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in June 2009.
The decision on Ayodhya title suit is open to challenge on historical grounds. The Bench asserted that the portion under the central dome of the demolished three-dome structure where the idol of Ram Lalla had been kept in a makeshift temple was the birthplace of Lord Rama “as per faith and belief of the Hindus.” Many observers have suggested that the historical evidence to support this claim is at best tenuous.
Despite the explosive nature of the Ayodhya dispute the political and popular reactions thus far have been restrained. And there are many reasons for this. First, the verdict itself is not a pronouncement of victory for any one party. The Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and the Sunni Wafk Board are contemplating to appeal against the decision in the Supreme Court.
Second, many constituents of the Hindu right have exercised restraint not because they have ‘matured’ after 1992 but simply because they have realized the limited political salience of the issue. The BJP’s performance in the 2004 and 2009 Parliamentary elections has demonstrated low electoral dividend of the Ram Mandir issue. Nevertheless, there is no indication that leaders of the Hindu right are willing to give up the issue of building a Ram Madir at the dispute site. BJP leader L.K. Advani expressed his desire to build a ‘grand’ Ram temple at Ayodhya while former BJP leader Uma Bharti was happy that the verdict had proved that Lord Ram was born at that particular site in the temple town. According to Uma Bharti, “Now, Advaniji and VHP who headed the Ram Janmabhoomi movement should initiate a dialogue with Muslims to arrive at a consensus on building a grand Ram Temple at the birthplace of Lord Ram.” These statements need to be interpreted in the light of the fact that senior leaders of the Hindu right cannot suddenly abandon an issue which was fervently employed to boost their political ambitions. It may not be politically rewarding but cannot be publicly surrendered.
Third, though the Sunni Wafk Board has expressed disappointment with the verdict the recourse to appeal in Supreme Court is interpreted as a ray of hope. Speaking on NDTV, Lok Sabha Member, Asaduddin Owaisi stated that they have lost the battle but the war could still be won.
Finally, the pre-emptive security measures put in place by the Central and state governments was an important factor in keeping free floating mischief makers under check. To check the spread to rumour, the governemnt had banned bulk SMS and MMS services in the country.
The decision of the Lucknow Bench has not been as pointed as desired. The Judges can be blamed for cobbling together a compromise that offends no one but at the same time leaves everyone unsatisfied. Given that the Ayodhya issue involves questions of property rights, historical fats, religious practices, faith and politics it was impossible to pronounce an unequivocal judgement. The Court may be accused of doing an imperfect job but attempts for social reconciliation cannot be held hostage to the discovery of a prefect solution.
P.S. The Government and the Judiciary demonstrated immense faith in the Indian public by delivering the Ayodhya verdict two days before the Commonwealth Games were due to begin. The judgement was not deferred due to fears of rioting at the onset of an international sporting event. And the Indian public seems to have lived up to the expectations.
