A Verdict on The Verdict

Religion and politics have been and till date are, a furor in India. Our nation’s history is stained with the bloodshed caused due to wars with religious or similar implications. From the Hindu kings to the Sultanate and the Mughals, it has always been a my-religion-is-better-than-yours contention. Politics is the hand that masters the puppets fighting over religion. It is also the root to the topic I would be discussing here with you- The Babri Masjid Verdict.

The history behind the Ayodhya Debate itself is one wrought with war. The Mughal invasion took into its own hands to eradicate Hinduism. The ancient temple (which is a recent discovery by the ASI) devoted to Lord Ram was demolished and was replaced with the Babri Masjid. 400 years later, it met with the same fate.

30^th September 2010. 18 full years after the entire fiasco with the demolition of the Babri Masjid in the supposedly sacred land, rumoured to be Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, the verdict to one of the nation’s most long standing disputes was finally declared by the Allahabad High Court. The gist of the verdict, an equal division of the land amongst the three sects, one devoted to building the Ram Temple, the second being the Islamic society and the third a religious denomination of the Hindu society proclaimed as the “Nirmohi Akhara”.

Now what I pose to you is this, is this a verdict? Or is this a compromise so as to prevent any further rioting and to save the face of the present governing party?

India is a secular state and she has flaunted that particular claim with every chance given to her. This particular case was like a faulty cog in that system of gears running this nation. Since 1992, or rather since 1949, when an idol of Lord Ram was placed amidst the mosque, successive governments have failed to pass a notion which would have appeased the opposing societies. Had it been dealt with earlier, the demolition wouldn’t have occurred and 2,000 odd people wouldn’t have been murdered on the account of this religious conflict. So my point being, there was immense pressure on Dr. Manmohan Singh’s party when it was assigned with the duty to resolve this issue. One wrong move here would’ve meant the downfall of his party along with civil commotion and scene quite similar to the unfortunate events of the Gujrat riots.

Taking this point of view, in my opinion, this “verdict” was more of a compromise to please all sects and to show that the ruling party has the power to resolve major disputes like these without any hoo-hah and without relinquishing the “secularity” of the nation. This is a big issue because previous governments by the only other major opposition, the BJP has failed once in delivering justice. This notion would be supporting the latter half of the question posed by me.

In defense of the first half, we would have to change our way of thinking, while keeping the elements and occurrences of this 61-year long litigation, the same. The verdict passed was an equal distribution of the land. A chance for the Hindus and the Muslims both to treat the same place with reverence and pray to their respective deity while maintaining a peaceful and amiable, if not brotherly, environment. This would be in up keeping with the very concept of secularism. “Live and Let Live” be the motto, the government, in this light i.e. keeping the motive of being secular rather than keeping in mind the further consequences that the nation would have to deal with, would appear to have taken a stand and proved to their various critics that they can and have proved to be worthy of being called a successful regime. This verdict not only cleared the tension rising in many parts of India, it also prevented further upheavals from disrupting the daily routines of the multitudes and preventing any forms of violation directed towards or from minorities.

L.K. Advani mentioned of pseudo-secularism against the government for taking actions against Hindu idols placed in the mosque, a very dire accusation. Also, the very same Mr. L.K. Advani along with other high ranking officials from the BJP (opposition party during the 1992 demolition) were blamed for the outbreak of the riot in the first place. Mr. Kalyan Singh, Chief Minister of UP in 1992, had been accused of eradicating evidence of this conspiracy. To what extent these accusation are true, I would not like to state, but what is known for a fact is that, the BJP (a very much Hindutva practicing and preaching party, how much ever it may state otherwise) has been oddly nonchalant and dare I say, slightly supportive of the ruling. I made two conclusions out of this,

• The party has finally realized the concept of secularism and is fully supporting the ruling. (Even if it means that they admit that the Congress have succeeded where they did not)
•  Not creating havoc amongst the opposition due to the fact that it would raise old accusations again and fingers would point back to them.

I, with full hope, am assuming that it be the former showing the growth of the mindset of our leaders and also proving my point of how the High Courts’ ruling would show the Congress in good light.

All in all, whichever perspective you choose to follow, it is very apparent that the consequences of The Verdict are very much welcome. No tensions, no rioting, no intonations spewing hatred or discontent. Maybe the people have truly understood what secularism is, maybe that day has arrived when a Muslim and a Hindu would enter the same shrine hand in hand and pray without having to worry or think about his God or my God… Or maybe they just wanted an end to this feud.

Either way, peace reigns and The Verdict holds strong.