The Ayodhya verdict and its implications
After much speculation and one appeal to supreme court for deferment of verdict, ultimately the verdict is out. The 3 judge bench of Allahabad high court have noted these solemn points.
That there existed a Hindu temple before Babar built a mosque there. Whether the mosque was built by destroying the temple, is not clear.
That the mosque being built by un-islamic method (of occupying plot from that of a temple), it cannot be legitimately held a mosque.
That the waqf board did not have possession of the land as on 1949.
That the idol of Ram lalla was placed surreptitiously in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
The decision of the judges:
The 2.7 acres of land under dispute be divided into three parts, one part for each party.
There will be a three month status quo ante, allowing any one aggrieved by the verdict to approach the supreme court to file an appeal.
The hindus, muslims and the nirmohi akhahara are free to utilize their portion of land at their will.
If you ask me, this is the best verdict that there can be. It is secular, although it recognizes that disputed land to be the birth place of Lord Ram.
The best part is, the entire country welcomed the verdict with cheers. And the news channels had a bad day, as their was no rioting. So it is obvious that there will be no rioting, meaning everyone is happy.
In my opinion, when neither of the parties have any common meeting ground, the talk of building consensus or negotiated settlement is meaningless. It is our national habit to try to negotiate in every situation ; It's like advising the government to 'Talk to the Naxals'. Arre baba, those guys are not willing then how can we talk to them.
Similarly, trying to push through a negotiated settlement will have been futile in this case also. It would have resulted in each party claiming the whole land and resultant feeling of insult to the other, and hence violence. The best thing to do in this case is leave it up to competent court of law and obey the verdict blindly.
Equally futile are those talks that suggest we build a hospital or something else there. Those who suggest this are not even a party to this. The litigants have won a long fought case. The judges have done a wonderful job. Now to suggest any such thing is to show extreme insensitivity and insult the verdict and insult each community individually. The litigant parties are happy (from their response I gather this much). Then why mess up now? Let them be more happy and build ram temple and mosque as they have the permission, I mean they have the court's permission.
I would like to thank the three judges of the bench because they have studied thousands of documents, examined hundred of witnesses and taken several expert opinion into account.
In the end it is a win for secularism and democracy.
Jai Ho.
That there existed a Hindu temple before Babar built a mosque there. Whether the mosque was built by destroying the temple, is not clear.
That the mosque being built by un-islamic method (of occupying plot from that of a temple), it cannot be legitimately held a mosque.
That the waqf board did not have possession of the land as on 1949.
That the idol of Ram lalla was placed surreptitiously in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
The decision of the judges:
The 2.7 acres of land under dispute be divided into three parts, one part for each party.
There will be a three month status quo ante, allowing any one aggrieved by the verdict to approach the supreme court to file an appeal.
The hindus, muslims and the nirmohi akhahara are free to utilize their portion of land at their will.
If you ask me, this is the best verdict that there can be. It is secular, although it recognizes that disputed land to be the birth place of Lord Ram.
The best part is, the entire country welcomed the verdict with cheers. And the news channels had a bad day, as their was no rioting. So it is obvious that there will be no rioting, meaning everyone is happy.
In my opinion, when neither of the parties have any common meeting ground, the talk of building consensus or negotiated settlement is meaningless. It is our national habit to try to negotiate in every situation ; It's like advising the government to 'Talk to the Naxals'. Arre baba, those guys are not willing then how can we talk to them.
Similarly, trying to push through a negotiated settlement will have been futile in this case also. It would have resulted in each party claiming the whole land and resultant feeling of insult to the other, and hence violence. The best thing to do in this case is leave it up to competent court of law and obey the verdict blindly.
Equally futile are those talks that suggest we build a hospital or something else there. Those who suggest this are not even a party to this. The litigants have won a long fought case. The judges have done a wonderful job. Now to suggest any such thing is to show extreme insensitivity and insult the verdict and insult each community individually. The litigant parties are happy (from their response I gather this much). Then why mess up now? Let them be more happy and build ram temple and mosque as they have the permission, I mean they have the court's permission.
I would like to thank the three judges of the bench because they have studied thousands of documents, examined hundred of witnesses and taken several expert opinion into account.
In the end it is a win for secularism and democracy.
Jai Ho.
Comments