One of the world’s most contentious property disputes finally came to an end. The bitter fight over Ayodhya land, a fractious issue that polarised, frustrated and exhausted communities over decades, has been laid to rest in an epoch-making Supreme Court judgement. The anxiety was palpable. There were major religious communities involved and the tension was visible in the heightened security alert across the nation as the entire world watched with bated breath.
The court gave the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land to Hindus, but also did a fine balancing act of awarding 5 acres to build a masjid at a prominent place in Ayodhya. The quality of evidence gave Hindus an edge, but they have been faulted on several counts. The bench rejected their claim that Mughal emperor Babur’s general Mir Baqui had constructed the Babri Masjid after demolishing a Ram temple. It held that the ASI report did not answer this critical part. The court also rejected the argument put up by Hindus that Ram Janmasthan was a juristic person as it was worshipped as a deity. The court also ruled that the damage, desecration and demolition of Babri Masjid are illegal acts of vandalism.
The apex court not only settled the long-standing discord immaculately but also gave a healing touch to the scars left behind by the ghastly demolition of the mosque which triggered nation-wide Hindu-Muslim riots and tore the two communities apart. The court blurred the lines of communal divide and ushered harmony. It brought together Hindus and Muslims who were constantly at war. The ensuing celebrations of fireworks, distribution of sweets and warm embraces are testimonies to the fact that a win-win situation emerged. And this amplifies the communal harmony and peace that exists within.
The Ayodhya verdict also strongly proves that the judicial system has stood by its secular credentials while upholding the strength of India’s Constitution and democracy. Justice S Abdul Nazeer, the lone Muslim judge in the 5-member Constitution bench, did not agree with the arguments of the Muslim parties and became a part of the unanimous verdict. There was a decision to be made on what is interpreted by theological doctrine and the faith and belief of worshippers. The courage of Justice Nazeer to rise above religion in a communally-sensitive State like India needs to be saluted.
Again, the legal teams of both sections were a mix of Hindus and Muslims. The arguments for the Muslim were led by senior counsel Dr Rajeev Dhavan, a Hindu. He drew praise for his arguments from the Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim parties. We may recall, Dhavan, on the last day of the hearing, tore the pictorial map purportedly showing the exact birthplace of Lord Ram. Legal teams went ahead resolutely in pursuit of justice irrespective of their religious backgrounds and refused to be bogged down by any pressure whatsoever. This needs to be commended.
