Verdict On Ayodhya And After: Calm Before Storm?
By Dr.K.Vidyasagar Reddy
11 October, 2010
Countercurrents.org
In the wake of historic Ayodhya judgement, there prevailed peace and tranquillity even in the communally charged atmosphere and sensitive areas across the country. Anticipating communal disturbances, on account of court judgment delivered on 30th September 2010, various state governments deployed dozens of companies of armed forces, as a precautionary measure. Some such states had declared holidays so as to ensure safety and security for its people. Both, the central and state governments and private media agencies had tried to deescalate tensions that would have triggered off in the event of impairing the feelings of one community or the other.
Adequate arrangements were made to face any extraordinary situation anywhere in the country. So much for the security preparedness of the government that eternal vigilance was imposed whereby the life of the nation was paralysed for hours together on the eve and the day of verdict. The communal situation was expected to spread like a wild fire and catch flames at once. In consequence, there appeared a nationwide strike-like situation as if some parties observed a Bharat Bandh on that day.
Surprisingly, no untoward incident, leave alone communal flare-up, was reported even after court verdict was pronounced or a week thereafter! Not only hours passed, but several days passed off peacefully, without occurrence of any single communal disturbance anywhere in the country. Neither of the parties to the Ayodhya dispute, be they Hindus or Muslims, expressed dissatisfaction over the majority judgement that was delivered by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad high Court. Nor was there any party ready to celebrate the judgement so that it could be cashed in on politically or electorally.
Of course, some of the lawyers, representing the Hindus view point, repeatedly raised their hands showing victory sign, when whole nation was watching the proceedings, via television channels, in the court premises. As soon as they went out of the court room, desperate media channels are there to catch the initial reactions of the advocate fraternity, on the gist of the judgement. Apparently they claimed success in the case. Their tone and tenor besides body language was so provocative that the television viewers were shocked. Since their provocative gestures, as if their version was endorsed by the court, were irritating to not just Muslims but to those millions of secular Indians. Their behaviour was as offending as it would certainly evoke negative reaction from the losers in the case, the Sunni Wakf Board, Ayodhya.
However, thanks to some responsible media persons and anchors, provocative remarks and gestures of the Hindu lawyers were subjected to criticism at once. Meanwhile, the copies of judgement of three justices, separately and comparatively commented upon in the media. Besides, there were some distinguished jurists, academics and legal experts, whose credentials, secular and otherwise, were never questioned, tried to present a balanced account of the verdict. While appreciating the conciliatory approach that the judgement tried to follow during the course of settling the six-long decade sensitive issue, the commentaries, irrespective of their correctness, pacified the aggrieved with the exercise of filing an appeal in the Supreme Court within three months, till when the verdict would be kept in abeyance. Obviously, that would dilute the reactionary approach on the part of communalists, be they Hindu or Muslims.
In any case, none need to take any hasty step on the subject, as it is already age-old and under subjudice. However, heavens will not fall if the matter is deferred in the name of Appellate exercise in the Supreme Court, till such time when mutual arbitration is made possible. Or else, one can wait till the highest court decides the issue some way. Keeping these things in view, the aggrieved parties, perhaps the Wakf Board and Muslims did not respond the way it was expected to do so. Even the Muslim leadership, politically or otherwise, had also weighed several aspects only to maintain calm for the time being. For, the verdict has the potential of causing concern to Muslims. That might even provoke them to resorting to any means, including violent ones. Of course, consequences would be more harmful than the causes of the judgement.
Neither historical nor legal evidence was cited to justify the Hindu-religious argument. That alone is the bone of contention in the whole episode. It is not a piece of land or type of land that was under dispute. Rather, the issue of place of birth of Lord Ram, that was undecided from times immemorial. Even Supreme Court was reluctant to decide the issue for want of evidence. Then how come the lower court, Bench of Allahabad High court takes upon itself the task of deciding something that none can do so, as Lord Ram was considered divine, in the epics and stories of Ramayana? How can a judge, merely a human being decide the exact of place of birth of Lord Ram, the deity of majority of Hindus? How can the Bench decide on the oldest structure/temple, as was destroyed, when it was silent on the existence of the mosque that was demolished in 1992 itself?
Many such questions are unanswered in the judgement or in its aftermath. Leave alone Muslims, even lay public are puzzled as to why the demolition of Mosque was overlooked by the judges. Instead the verdict seems to have justified the criminal act of Karsevaks who destroyed the mosque believing it as the exact place of birth of Lord Ram. The judges having believed that Ram lala idols were placed in the Babri masjid in 1949, quite clandestinely, or discretely had regularised the act now after sixty years. Whereas petition of the Sunni Wakf Board w.r.t. demolition of mosque, just 18 years-old incident was dismissed as time-barred. Instead of punishing the guilty for demolition of Mosque, the Bench justified their act by way of permitting the temple construction there itself.
Although the judgement is aimed at helping the temple construction, legally with government support indeed, there was none, not even Muslim leadership, which raised any noise on the issue, leave alone objecting to it. Filing an appeal in the Supreme Court is a follow-up action that the concerned lawyers can undertake within three months. But what about those democratic minded citizens who keep mum so far? What about those secular parties and leaders who maintain stony silence on the issue of religious freedom to the Minorities? What about the Bahujans who consider Muslims as their brethren, but do nothing when their identity is at stake? Ultimately, let good sense prevail in any Indian, who seeks justice and join the movement for social justice, when fellow Indian, be they Muslims or Minorities, are under attack, legally or otherwise! Lest, we cannot but consider the prevailing situation as volatile, or else, ‘calm before storm’, as the case may be!
*Dr.K.Vidyasagar Reddy, Research Associate, Dept. Of Political Science, Osmania University, Hyderabad-7; [email protected]
