The Mask Is Off
By Sucheta Chatterjee
05 October, 2010
Countercurrents.org
This note is an expression of the shock and disappointment that assailed large sections of Indians in the aftermath of the Ayodhya verdict. The judgement of the Honourable Allahabad High Court appears to be a clean break from the secular traditions of India, where a judicial body has openly intervened on behalf of the people of a particular religious faith and has failed to uphold its role as that of a rational, impartial arbiter.
The land suit in question appears to have been decided on the basis of faith rather than of fact. The judgement has erroneously concluded that Ayodhya was the birthplace of the Hindu mythological character, Ram, because Hindus believe so. The court has delved deep into the evidence placed forth about the fact that Hindus believe Ayodhya to be the birthplace of 'Lord Ram' and has concluded that thereby Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya, effectively converting mass belief into a fact, in defiance of logic. This conclusion appears to be all the more absurd in the absence of evidence to prove that Lord Ram was actually a historical character and not just a mythological one. The court appears to have flirted extensively with theology while choosing not to dwell upon the legal aspects of possession and adverse possession of the land concerned. If the judgement had been based exclusively on legal tenets, which is what one expects from the judiciary of a democratic nation, the judgement would have swung the other way because since the Mughal period, the so-called disputed land has housed a mosque.
The court has needlessly delved into the question of whether the said place of worship was used regularly or not, ignoring the fact that in 1949, Hindu fascist groups forcibly entered the mosque, placing Hindu idols in it and thereby creating a 'dispute' which prompted the government to lock the premises, declare the matter sub-judice and prevent Muslims from offering prayers therein. Besides, the act of placing idols within the precincts of the mosque was considered an act of desecration of their holy place by Muslims. Not once has the court condemned the act of illegality that took place in 1949. Instead, it set upon itself the task of correcting historical wrongs, dating back to the pre-Mughal period, based on a flawed ASI report that has been discredited by reputed historians the world over. Such flagrant interventionism on behalf of a powerful segment of the Hindu populace has ripped the mask of secularism off the judiciary's face. We would also like to add that the principle of 'superior fundamental right', as espoused by Justice Sharma to rule that Hindus have a superior right of worship at the concerned spot, appears to have been gravely misinterpreted in this case. The legal precedent set by this judgement has only given birth to a hornet's nest and legitimised the ascendance of faith over reason, of politics over justice.
The grief and bewilderment caused by the political judgement will only foment a lingering sense of injustice among the minority community, which has been treated contemptuously and has been parcelled out a third of land, almost as if it were being given gratuitously. The most distressing part of the judgement is that while the court has taken upon itself the mission of setting right ill-documented and doubtful historical wrongs, not once has it condemned the criminal act of demolishing the Babri Masjid, perpetrated by right-wing Hindutva factions, under the guidance of leaders of national stature and reputation. It appears that truth and justice have been the chief casualties of a misguided attempt at reconciliation.
Sucheta Chatterjee is a lawyer by profession, currently based in Bombay and the author of ' Impotent Ire'
