Order on excavation At Ayodhya:
more questions than answersBy Neena Vyas
NEW DELHI: The order of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on excavation at the disputed site in Ayodhya to determine whether a structure or temple existed there prior to the building of the Babri Masjid in 1528 A.D. is quite unprecedented and has the potential of setting new legal precedents which could lead to many more disputes relating to places of worship.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad has already categorically said that it has a list of "30,000 mosques" which it claims were built on demolished temples during the medieval period. At different points of time, its leaders have also laid claim to the Jama Masjid in Delhi, besides of course, the Gyan Vapi mosque next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple and the Idgah next to the Krishna temple in Mathura, while threatening to launch a "civil war" in the country.
What is more, even after the ordering of the excavation neither the VHP nor the Bharatiya Janata Party leaders are prepared to say that if no temple or religious structure is found, they would be willing to hand over the disputed site to Muslims for the rebuilding of the Babri Masjid. In fact, today the BJP appealed to Muslims to concede Ayodhya "before" the excavation is complete as a "gesture of goodwill towards Hindus".
Significantly, the Allahabad High Court has thought it fit to take a course which the Supreme Court rejected in its wisdom when it politely and firmly told the Narasimha Rao Government that the question in its January 7, 1993 Presidential reference - "whether a Hindu temple or a Hindu religious structure" existed at the very place where the Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid structure stood - "does not require to be answered" as it was "superfluous and unnecessary".
In short, in its 1994 five-judge Bench majority judgment, the Supreme Court had clearly stated that "the answer to the question referred, whatever it may be, will not lead to the answer of the core question for determination of the pending suits and it will not, by itself, resolve the long-standing dispute."
The meaning seemed to be clear - under the law of the land, a property dispute over title cannot be resolved on the basis of a structure of antiquity which may have existed hundreds or thousands of years prior to the dispute.
The Supreme Court also noted that a settlement of the dispute on this basis "cannot be construed as an effective alternate dispute-resolution" as it would deprive the Muslim community of their legal defence of "adverse possession of the site for 400 years", from 1528 A.D. when the Babri Masjid was built to 1949 when the Ram Lalla idol was surreptitiously placed under its central dome in the dead of night.
Saying this, the Supreme Court had struck down that portion of the Ayodhya Land Acquisition Ordinance of 1993 by which all pending suits relating to the Ayodhya dispute would have abated.
The clear direction of the highest court in 1994 was that the dispute can and should be resolved within the normal laws of the land through the normal judicial process.
There are other aspects of the excavation which raise questions. Who are the experts who will determine the issue? What if there is a difference of opinion? How will this be resolved? And, in fact, the Supreme Court had itself raised these issues in its 1994 judgment while declining to answer the very question that the Ayodhya excavation now hopes to answer.
Then there is the political question. Even if there are some people from both the communities who feel that it may be best to resolve the Ayodhya issue one way or another through the excavation method, will the matter rest there?
Speaking informally, some BJP leaders have already hinted that the Places of Worship Act freezing the status quo of all places of worship except Ayodhya "could be overturned" through a simple majority in Parliament.
Do we then want a civil war in this country where 15 per cent of the Muslim population is pitted against the Hindus?
The VHP, a sister organisation of the BJP, has already given its answer - a resounding "yes".
And if there is any doubt about there intentions, one has only to read the "revered" RSS "guruji" M.S. Golwalkar (the acknowledged "guru" of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister) who left no one in doubt that the final goal was establishing a Hindu rashtra in which the minorities must "either
merge themselves in the national (Hindu) race" or "live at its mercy" or "quit the country at the sweet will of the national race".That, the "guruji" said, "was the only logical and correct solution".
The Hindu, March 7, 2003