October 2, 2010
Immediately after the Ayodhya verdict over Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid, a young man’s chat completely turned me off. “Sir Hindu Jeet Gaye” (Hindus have won)…This was not just a statement, rather reflected the thought process of a generation whom we expect to be progressive. I was all the more ashamed by the tenacity of this idiotic statement since it was coming from an educated person who is also a qualified lawyer. Legality of the judgment and ethics & plurality of the nation apart, the statement reflected an undercurrent of the psyche which still believes India should not move ahead of the medieval act that happened on the fateful day of Dec 6, 1992.
While the country eagerly awaited the verdict on Ayodhya, it was heartening to see the vocal class of India pleading peace and harmony over religious bigotry. If various social networking sites were any indication, the mood of the nation seemed to be in favour of moving ahead of the controversy over temple & mosque that has seen the turnaround of India’s polity in the last two decades. However, the big question remained: Will it be the same goodwill after the verdict? After all, a win-win solution for all the parties (consciously calling them parties and not religion) seemed to be only a wishful thinking.
However, while the questionable verdict was accepted by and large by the nation with an appeal for moving ahead, stray and loose comments in-between has got alarming proportions. It is true that 2010 is not 1992, an entire generation has been exposed to a different and progressive society; there is no devilish P V Narsimha Rao, conspirator L K Advani or idiotic Kalyan Singh at the helm. But then what is more dangerous to the humanity in general and plural character of the nation in particular is the thought & ideology than the individuals.
Coming to the ethics of the dispute and legality of the judgment, I wonder had it been the other way round then whether the fanatic Hindus (who are still vocal with war cry) would have agreed for moving ahead? Moreover, if it is Hindu victory (as believed by a few educated idiots) then why the hell is Hindu Mahasabha challenging it in the apex court? I am myself a devout believer of Lord Rama and believe that he is very much part of the nature, hence exists everywhere. After all, Sanatan Dharma and Vedic Living advocate the worship of even trees of Peepal, Banana and others. The fact of the matter is that Lord Rama’s existence and reputation is today more in danger from his own followers than the followers of other sects fighting over the Babri Masjid rights.
I am equally perplexed by the judgment which, according to me, raises more questions than answers the given dispute. Of course, the three bench judgment itself is divided and a clear answer was only a wishful thinking. However, one wonders whether the illegal demolition of the Babri Masjid has been legalized by the judgment. What would have happened had the mosque not been demolished as yet? Had it then been a legal sanction to the demolition of a religious shrine? What about the constitutional assurance to the minorities that all the religious structures should stand the way they stood at the time of independence?
But I suppose the jurisdiction of the court was confined to the title rights over the land. Under the given circumstances, with Archaeological Survey of India findings also inconclusive, the honorable judges confined their decision over the title rights of the land only. However, the socio-political nature of the dispute demanded that the state should have intervened over the issue to not only address the issue but also set a precedent.
Had there been a timely state intervention, it would have saved Lord Rama being victimized, traumatized and de-glorified. May be a national monument on the disputed site would have done no harm to the reputation and international image of India. It would have also acted as a deterrent to the lumpen fanatics who think Ram Janmabhoomi judgment is the run-up to Krishna Janmabhoomi. Most importantly, India would have really moved ahead in the true sense of the term.
While the country eagerly awaited the verdict on Ayodhya, it was heartening to see the vocal class of India pleading peace and harmony over religious bigotry. If various social networking sites were any indication, the mood of the nation seemed to be in favour of moving ahead of the controversy over temple & mosque that has seen the turnaround of India’s polity in the last two decades. However, the big question remained: Will it be the same goodwill after the verdict? After all, a win-win solution for all the parties (consciously calling them parties and not religion) seemed to be only a wishful thinking.
However, while the questionable verdict was accepted by and large by the nation with an appeal for moving ahead, stray and loose comments in-between has got alarming proportions. It is true that 2010 is not 1992, an entire generation has been exposed to a different and progressive society; there is no devilish P V Narsimha Rao, conspirator L K Advani or idiotic Kalyan Singh at the helm. But then what is more dangerous to the humanity in general and plural character of the nation in particular is the thought & ideology than the individuals.
Coming to the ethics of the dispute and legality of the judgment, I wonder had it been the other way round then whether the fanatic Hindus (who are still vocal with war cry) would have agreed for moving ahead? Moreover, if it is Hindu victory (as believed by a few educated idiots) then why the hell is Hindu Mahasabha challenging it in the apex court? I am myself a devout believer of Lord Rama and believe that he is very much part of the nature, hence exists everywhere. After all, Sanatan Dharma and Vedic Living advocate the worship of even trees of Peepal, Banana and others. The fact of the matter is that Lord Rama’s existence and reputation is today more in danger from his own followers than the followers of other sects fighting over the Babri Masjid rights.
I am equally perplexed by the judgment which, according to me, raises more questions than answers the given dispute. Of course, the three bench judgment itself is divided and a clear answer was only a wishful thinking. However, one wonders whether the illegal demolition of the Babri Masjid has been legalized by the judgment. What would have happened had the mosque not been demolished as yet? Had it then been a legal sanction to the demolition of a religious shrine? What about the constitutional assurance to the minorities that all the religious structures should stand the way they stood at the time of independence?
But I suppose the jurisdiction of the court was confined to the title rights over the land. Under the given circumstances, with Archaeological Survey of India findings also inconclusive, the honorable judges confined their decision over the title rights of the land only. However, the socio-political nature of the dispute demanded that the state should have intervened over the issue to not only address the issue but also set a precedent.
Had there been a timely state intervention, it would have saved Lord Rama being victimized, traumatized and de-glorified. May be a national monument on the disputed site would have done no harm to the reputation and international image of India. It would have also acted as a deterrent to the lumpen fanatics who think Ram Janmabhoomi judgment is the run-up to Krishna Janmabhoomi. Most importantly, India would have really moved ahead in the true sense of the term.
