“Faith of a few in majority community proved victor in an inter-faith dispute, law and evidence became victims and vandalism legitimized and legalized by the court.” it is the first and straight forward reaction which struck the mind and echoed repeatedly as I read reports, reactions and gist of lengthy judgment of Honorable Allahabad High Court. Frustration and disappointment overwhelmed senses. But considering the effects of the judgment, the gloom may not last long. Today we have been deprived of a Mosque by an interim judgment that may be reversed in the Supreme Court. But surely the Mandirites have been deprived of their most vital communal plank.
Muslim Reaction:
Muslims intelligentsia, clerics and community leaders are almost unanimous to conclude that the judgment failed to satisfy legal standards of a Title suit. See how Justice A. M. Ahmadi, former Chief Justice of India reacted: “If Muslims — or their representatives — were looking for a vindication of their position or claim and a sense of “justice” which would also serve as a balm 18 years after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, then Thursday’s judgment of the Allahabad High Court has left them with a dilemma — more questions than answers.”
Justice Ahmadi, who was part of the Supreme Court bench that delivered the judgment in 1994 declining to answer the Presidential reference enquiring if there was a temple on the spot, further said: “There is no running away from the centrality of answering who has the title. I am not sure on what basis the Sunni Waqf suit has been time-barred. But if the title is not theirs, how can one-third be a Masjid now, and if the title is theirs, how can two-thirds be divided? There certainly can be a compromise but that should have happened after the verdict. The verdict should not appear like a decision of a panchayat foisted forcibly on all parties.”
Mujtaba Farooq, Secretary of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and member of All India Muslim Personal Law Board expressed his anguish in almost same vein: “This does not appear to be a court verdict, but more a panchayat decision. If Muslims don’t have rights on the entire part, why bother giving us even one-third? Muslims have always said they will respect the verdict, so even if we plan to appeal this, we respect it. A decision on the possible appeal will be taken next week.”
Syed Ahmed Bukhari, Shahi Imam Jama Masjid expressed dissatisfaction over the verdict and said: “We are unhappy with the court verdict and categorized it as, “settlement” and “partition” suit, rather than a title suit.
“The judgment is extra-legal. It essentially highlights the argument of faith,” former diplomat and lawyer Syed Shahabuddin, of the AIMMM said.
Prof. Akhtar-ul-Wasey, Director; Centre for Islamic Studies at Jamia Millia Islamia, said: “it’s difficult to see this as a “secular” verdict because “it bases things on belief and not evidence.” “When there is an intra-religious dispute,” he said, “the basis can be faith, but not if it is an inter-faith dispute.” He added that this judgment is less of a judgment, more a “balancing act.”
Dr. Zafrul Islam Khan, former President of AIMMM, and editor of MG said: “I believe the court has grossly stepped out of its limits. It was supposed to deliver its verdict about the title of the disputed land and whether the mosque was built after demolishing a temple on the site. This verdict has smashed trust in the judiciary. “
“It is the duty of the central government to approach the Supreme Court to annul a verdict that overlooked constitutional tenets,” National Integration Council member Navaid Hamid said.
Dr Manzoor Alam, of AIMC observed that Muslims were “amazed” at the verdict’s “reliance more on faith than on the facts”.
Prominent Shia clerics Maulana Mohammad Mirza Athar of Shia Personal Law Board Maulana Kalbe Jawwad and others expressed their disappointment but cautiously.
Criticism by non-Muslims
The groups and individuals of enlightened non-Muslim intelligentsia who do not have a stake in the dispute are also critical of the verdict. Prominent among them are historians, jurists and social activists.
Mr. Kuldip Nayar a noted journalist, rights activist and former High Commissioner to U.K. in his reaction to “fractured judgment” observed: “The court was more interested in pleasing all sections than in clarity.” He said, “the silver lining is that 2010 is not the same as 1992. People of India have moved on and matured over the years.”
Eminent historian K.N. Panikkar noted that the verdict was ‘some sort of an attempted compromise’. The former former professor of modern history in JNU, Mr. Panikkar said: ‘Whether this compromise is strictly on the basis of law is a doubtful fact.” Panikkar said that the court had completely overlooked the fact that the idol of Ram was placed in the Masjid by use of force (in 1949)”In fact, the judgment validates the aggression by one group of the claimants.”
Romilla Thapar, a reputed historian has noted: “The verdict is a political judgment which is not what one expects from a court of law.” “The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith.”
In her blunt critique she writes: “The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born….. This is in response to an argument by Hindu faith and belief. Given the absence of evidence in support of the claim, such a verdict is not what one expects from a court of law.’ … ‘can this support a legal decision on claims to a birth-place, possession of land and the deliberate destruction of a major historical monument to assist in acquiring the land?”
She further said: “The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law..’ ‘Since the deliberate destruction of historical monuments has not been condemned what is to stop people from continuing to destroy others?” She lamented, “The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence.”
A joint statement signed by K.M. Shrimali, Irfan Habib, Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Suvira Jaiswal, M.K. Raina, Vivan Sundaram, Utsa Patnaik, Zoya Hasan, Prabhat Patnaik, C.P. Chandrasekhar, Jayati Ghosh, Geeta Kapur along with Mrs. Thapar and Pannikar with 47 others prominent secular activists and historians says: “The judgment has raised serious concerns because of the way history, reason and secular values have been treated in it,” and that “the judgment is yet another blow to the secular fabric of our country and the repute of our judiciary.”
Former Lok Sabha secretary-general and constitutional expert Subash Kashyap said the judgment appeared to be ‘more an exercise in judicial mediation’.
Rajiv Dhavan, a senior Counsel of Supreme Court writes: “The Babri Masjid was destroyed on December 6, 1992. It has all along been assumed that the site on which it stood belonged to Muslims. This having been decided in the 1940s; and the Hindu claims having been rejected in 1885. It is also clear that the Muslims did not lose the right to full ownership of the site after the fateful idols were installed because the Waqf Board filed its suit before 12 years expired.” The judges seem to have over reached themselves on the legal question and decided something doubtfully to and offer a solution which nobody had asked for.” “This is not a judgment of a court of law based on legalities, but a panchayati judgment.” Mr. Dhavan suggested: “If the legal questions had been properly answered the site would have belonged to the Muslim community and the Hindu right to prayer would have been recognised as a moral rather than a legal right which the Muslims should consider conceding.
Silver Lining
Though the judgment, on its face is disappointing yet one can see silver lining in the whole episode; that evokes optimism. We need not to be disappointed and should accept it as His will. We were ordained to do our best to establish claim and restore the Mosque for His worship. We did it but perhaps, Allah has some other scheme. What seems to be a defeat may be converted in Fateh Mubeen (Open victory). I strongly hope so.
Justice S.U. Khan has underlined that silver lining when he wrote: “this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and the most crucial stage is to come after it….” So we are to prepare for that ‘crucial stage.’ His remark, ‘sometimes patience is intense action, silence is speech and pauses are punches,’ is also worth mentioning. The patience which Muslims demonstrated proved the essence of Justice Khan’s observation. Before the judgment came, everybody was scared of the aftermath. But the way the apparent losers reacted peacefully and gracefully gave a stunning message to the world that the Muslims of India are not a senseless lot of reactionary people but most sensible and peace loving citizens. They have translated the real meaning of ‘sab’r’ in action. I consider this as a big gain in the present world scenario.
The other important point as stressed by Kuldip Nayer is: “2010 is not the same as 1992. People of India have moved on and matured over the years.” The debates on TV and reactions in news papers underline this heartening change that the communalism is fading in public perception and a more mature, secular India is emerging.
Sobriety has also been noted in the reactions of Sangh Privar, which has been heading the politics of hatred for a long. RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat’s advice to his followers to exercise “restraint” has worked and usual euphoria and whipping communal feelings remained absent in his cadres.
It has a clear indication that another communal movement is nowhere on the horizon. By allotting the mythical janmasthan to the legal entity of Ram Lalla at the cost of Muslim displeasure, the Court may have validated the Sangh Parivar’s Ram Janmabhoomi movement but with the legal nod came the sobering suggestion that the issue was closed for future mobilization on communal lines.
As reported by Mail Today most insiders felt that while the issue may infuse fresh enthusiasm for building a temple, the two factors that led to the movement acquiring nationwide momentum in the 90s were missing. One was the allegation of Muslim “appeasement” and second was the propaganda of injured Hindu pride over the Babri Mosque standing at the purported birthplace of Lord Ram.
Advani did his best to whip up the feeling of victimhood and revenge for the supposed historical wrongs among the majority by riding a chariot with cries of “Saugandh Ram ki khate hain, hum mandir wahin banayenge “. It is worth mentioning that his comments at BJP core group meeting after the verdict were devoid of any provocation for mischief. The judgment, Advani said, begins a new era of inter- community relations and “national integration”.
Should we not welcome these notions? I see a more peaceful and better future for Muslims in these conditions and invoke Justice Khan’s observation: “Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course, junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority.”
(Writer is Gen. Secretary of Forum for Civil Rights. Email: [email protected])