The Ayodhya verdict of the Supreme Court is no doubt ‘inevitable’ in ending the long drawn out battle between ‘beliefs’ and ‘facts.’ While categorically stating that the demolition of mosque in 1992 was a violation of law, the apex court ordered the Union Government to provide five acre of alternative land for Muslims. The Constitutional Bench orders that a temple be constructed on the land by framing a scheme within three months under the Ayodhya Act 1993. The verdict should not be taken to a level of hyper communal frenzy as it has come like an opportunity for settling the issue once and for all. This is good for the nation, and this is good for a give-and-take mode in a multicultural country with sensitive questions involving religion and beliefs. The leaders of the Muslim community involved in the legal battle should accept the verdict with an open mind, as this is a new beginning of social negotiations in a complex society like India. Having a Masjid in another place does not mean a defeat altogether. This must be seen as setting new pathways of avoiding communal conflicts in the country. The history of communalism is a grim reminder that we cannot afford to lose any more lives in the name of religion and beliefs.
One of the post-partition traumas is the wound inflicted on the secular matrix of this country. A major reason why millions of Muslims opted to remain in India (rather than going to Pakistan) is the belief that a major fulcrum of cultural identity and existence is their historicized construct of motherland wherein religious identities get blurred in a larger social identity. For the Muslims, India as a territorialized motherland is beyond any compromise. Hence, vast sections of Muslims opposed partition and the creation of Pakistan. They knew that an artificial construct of ‘homeland’ based on a religious ‘logic’ would be ‘immaterial’ given the history of abuse of religion across the world. They also knew that there was nothing ‘spiritual’ behind the two-nation theory. Those who advocated Pakistan had obviously a sort of ‘past-oriented power complex’ (to use a terminology borrowed from my friend Asghar Ali Engineer), deeply entrenched in the ‘long-golden’ years of ‘Muslim’ rule. Albeit partition, India has been quite successful in sustaining a secular, liberal, democratic state with provisions for ‘inclusive’ politics and participation. Vast sections of minorities and Dalits have been able to use this liberal political framework for both participation and struggle, albeit achievements in that direction have not been robust. Yet, India as a secular country laboured to stave off communal conflicts resurfacing and threatening the very existence of people. Fears and threats loomed across states and regions, and on a variety of issues. ‘Politics’ continued to appropriate and reappropriate these ‘contested’ spaces.
The Ayodhya issue, naturally, attracted vast sections, both for political and cultural reasons. However, it went out of proportion for ‘historical’ reasons, mainly for those who staked claims. There has also been a qualitative change in the politics of the post-Babri Masjid phase. The claim over the ‘shrine’ has then become the dispute over ‘land.’ The question of ‘belief’ has been conveniently converted into a matter of ‘justice’ within the ambit of litigation. But that happened only after the demolition! There were options before the leaders of both communities, before 1992, to talk and negotiate. They, however, failed miserably and dialogues seldom happened. For the Muslims across the country, Babri Masjid is not a ‘holy shrine’—to be true—as it was quite different from Mecca or Medina. Masjids are generally places of prayers (except some masjids having special congregation for Sufi saints) and hence there is nothing unholy in modifying, renovating or even relocating for new constructions. Babri Masjid should have been protected as a heritage locale, like any other such historical heritage structures, with the consent of all parties concerned. But that did not happen, unfortunately. When the proposal for a Ram Temple emerged three decades back, the Muslim leaders staking claims over the Masjid should have shown more sensitivity and tact in dealing with that. The resulting environment only helped widen communal fissures and, eventually, the demolition itself, which the Supreme Court declared as violation of law. Since 1992, it has been a ‘property; dispute and the battle lines were drawn between ‘beliefs’ and ‘facts.’ The Supreme Court has made it very clear that it cannot establish ‘facts’ on such ‘histories’ of ‘beliefs.’ The Court rather opened doors for the parties concerned to arrive at consensus, which they could not effectively utilize. Thus, the final verdict has come like an inevitable legal-constitutional intervention to put an end to the protracted battle between ‘facts and faith.’ The trajectory of Ayodhya case is succinctly put by the court in its 929-page judgment:
The facts, evidence and oral arguments of the present case have traversed the realms of history, archaeology, religion and the law. The law must stand apart from political contestations over history, ideology and religion. For a case replete with references to archaeological foundations, we must remember thatit is the law which provides the edifice upon which our multicultural society rests. The law forms the ground upon which, multiple strands of history, ideology and religion can compete. By determining their limits, this Court as the final arbiter must preserve the sense of balance that the beliefs of one citizen do not interfere with or dominate the freedoms and beliefs of another…
The Constitution does not make a distinction between the faith and belief of one religion and another. All forms of belief, worship and prayer are equal. Those whose duty it is to interpret the Constitution, enforce it and engage with it can ignore this only to the peril of our society and nation. The Constitution speaks to the judges who interpret it, to those who govern who must enforce it, but above all, to the citizens who engage with it as an inseparable feature of their lives.(Live Law 2019: 920)
The Supreme Court sums up its verdicts saying,
this Court is tasked with an adjudicatory task of unique dimension, the disputes over immovable property. The court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence. The law provides us with parameters as clear but as profound as ownership and possession. In deciding title to the disputed property, the court applies settled principles of evidence to adjudicate upon which party has established a claim to the immovable property (Ibid: 921).
Thus, the apex court’s verdict cannot be seen as a judgment on ‘faith.’ It was purely on ‘material’ grounds that the five-member Constitutional Bench has arrived at a ‘solution.’ The question of ‘immovable property’ might still be controversial for some, but prolonging the issue would, by no means, help address the ‘spiritual’ undercurrents of the Mandir-Masjid issue.
Reference
Live Law (2019): “IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION, Civil Appeal Nos 10866-10867 of 2010, available at https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-366415.pdf
