On Saturday,
9 November 2019, India’s Supreme Court gave its final verdict on the Ayodhya
dispute. Faithful Hindus considered a piece of land in Ayodhya to be the
birthplace of Lord Ram. Unfortunately, Babri mosque (named after the Mughal
emperor Babur, an invader from today’s Uzbekistan) stood precisely at that
spot. Court cases between Hindus and Muslims claiming ownership have been going
on for the past 70 years. In 1992, dozens of overenthusiastic Hindus took
matters and hammers in their own hands, and demolished the Babri mosque.
On
Saturday, the Supreme Court awarded the land to Hindus based on archeological
evidence; for good measure confirmed the act of demolishing the mosque was
criminal; and offered to Muslims five acres of prominent land somewhere in
Ayodhya as a consolation prize. The case offers several interesting, even
amusing, points.
Deity
as a plaintiff
India
is a religious country. No wonder the Indian law allows God to be a plaintiff
(or defendant) in a court case. In the Ayodhya case, the child version of Lord
Ram (Ram Lalla or infant Ram) was the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of India may
be supreme, but surely it can’t be more supreme than God Himself. Lord Ram won
the case. He showed the courage and endurance to be a party to the case. (Babur
was merely represented by a Sunny Waqf Board). The infant Ram probably turned
into an elderly Ram during the court process. After fighting successfully a protracted
judicial battle, He will now get a lovely, magnificent temple.
History
and mythology
I was
once naively arguing with a faithful Hindu about the Ayodhya dispute. Babur is
a historical figure, I said, while Lord Ram is a mythological
figure.
“Not
true”, that man said. “Lord Ram is as historical, as factual, as Emperor Babur.
Babur was born more than 500 years ago (in 1483). Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya
on 10 Jan 5114 BC, more than 7000 years ago. Just because Ram was born centuries
before Babur, does He become a myth, a fiction, and Babur a fact? How do you
know that Babur existed? That Jesus Christ existed? Because you trust the
history books that talk about Babur or Jesus. Similarly, I trust Ramayana
which is the authentic biography of Lord Ram.”
The reverse
journey
How far
can you go back in history? To understand the time machine that the Supreme
Court used, I must mention certain dates.
Babri Masjid
was built 491 years ago, closer to Babur’s death. What was in that place
before? This was the question the Supreme Court was asked to decide. To decide
it scientifically, all relevant literature in the past 500 years, and before,
was scrutinized to find references to the Babri Masjid or Ram temple. The
literature included Baburnama, Babur’s memoirs (1589), Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas
(1574) and Abul Fazl ibn Mubarak’s Ain-i-Akbari (1598).
The
most important witness in the case was the Archeological Society of India
(ASI). In 2003, its experts conducted an in-depth excavation resulting in 1360
discoveries. It was fortunate that a decade before that the mosque was
demolished by Hindu mobs. Without that, such excavations would have been
impossible.
You
break it, you own it
The wittiest
comment related to the verdict compared the case to a gift retail shop. In a
gift shop while browsing, if you drop a gift and damage it; it becomes part of
your bill. This is called the American Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own
it.
What
would have been the Supreme Court’s verdict if Babri Masjid was not
destroyed? Would it still gift the land to the Hindus, asking them to build a
temple there by demolishing the mosque? Probably not. No civilized court would,
by a written order, authorize destruction of a 500-year ancient mosque.
Is
this, then, a route to replace more mosques with temples? Mobs first go and
demolish a mosque. The Archeological Society of India recruits hundreds of
experts, excavates, finds ancient evidence, and then the court gifts the place
to Hindus. After all, before 700 AD, Islam itself didn’t exist. Thirteen centuries
ago, every piece of land where a mosque stands today must have had something
Hindu there before.
For the
holy Hindus with hammers, I am afraid, this strategy will not work. On 18
September 1991, the Indian government issued an act freezing the status of all
places of worship in India: a mosque remains a mosque, a church a church and a
temple a temple. Irrespective of what was in their place in the past. Section 5
of the act made a single exception: The act would not apply to Ram
Janmbhumi-Babri Masjid. This exception allowed the Supreme Court to convert a
Masjid land into a temple.
The
verdict
The
five Supreme Court judges who delivered the unanimous verdict have made the
full text of the verdict available in www, in a clever manner. The main text
runs into 1045 pages, has no executive summary, and the index has no page
numbers. Every conscientious analyst and commentator is expected to read the
1045 pages to digest the excellent verdict. Sorry, but I refuse to do so. I am
glad Lord Ram won the case. His winning offers peace a better chance. His
winning or losing makes absolutely no change in my life, or in the lives of
most Indians. Who is economically affected by this verdict? Mainly, the lawyers
on both sides who carried on the attack and the defence for decades. Perhaps,
employees of the Archaeological society- for them nothing further to excavate
in that place. Possibly, politicians who needed it for election manifesto. Everyone
else is indifferent to the court cases going on since 1950.
Muslims
are offered five acres of prominent land in Ayodhya as compensation. Almost
double the size of the original landholding. Another gorgeous mosque, perhaps a
replica of the Babri mosque, can be built there. Muslims anyway have Mecca and
Medina. Surely, they can sacrifice a single mosque for Hindus. (One that was
demolished anyway). I won’t be surprised if this was the logic the Supreme
Court of India used in arriving at its unanimous decision.
Ravi
No comments:
Post a Comment