Judgment day
Ayodhya: Past and present
Hindus and Muslims need to break free from the past to secure a peaceful co-existence, with neither side feeling that it is a soft target.
Finally, the supreme court removed the cloud of uncertainty by dismissing the special leave petition that sought the deferment of the judgment by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court for finding an amicable solution to the intractable problem of Rama Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.
The court dismissed the petition without giving any reasons. Technically, it is not mandatory to give reasons but when the court initially stopped the high court from pronouncing its judgment, it should have given reasons as to why it did so, and then why did it choose to dismiss it subsequently. Many jurists feel that it is wrong and as the apex court it must write at least one sentence specifying reasons for dismissing any petition.
Basically, it is a title suit and it is to be adjudicated who is the owner of the 2.77 acres of land under dispute. But this alone is not going to settle the issue once and for all because the dispute predates the construction of the Babri mosque in 1527 by Mir Baqi at the instance of Babar. Many organisations representing Hindus claim that a Rama temple existed there which was demolished to construct the mosque.
The Archaelogical Survey of India got the site excavated at the directive of the Allahabad high court in order to ascertain whether a Rama temple did exist there. This is a real difficult question which eludes an easy, much less acceptable, answer. The third question is whether the mosque was constructed as per the injunctions of the Islamic law according to which it could not be constructed by royal order but only with the voluntary donations of the common people.
It is recorded in the Gazetteer of Lucknow (Vol 38, p 34) that the temple was attacked with shells and its demolition triggered off a war that lasted several days. Historian E B Havell, in his ‘Aryan Rule in India’ has recorded that countless temples were demolished during Babar’s time. Writing about Akbar’s Din-Ilahi movement, Havell says, “The conversion of Muhammadan mosques to secular uses was an instance which Akbar’s enemies seized upon as justification for their reckless abuse. The orthodox Musalman chose to forget that it had been the settled policy of many former rulers to desecrate Hindu temples and convert them into mosques, often solely for the purpose of outraging the feelings of the Hindus. In Akbar’s time there must have been thousands of such mosques in Hindustan rarely or never used for divine worship. To give them back to Hindus might have been regarded as an insult to Isalm. Akbar adopted the wisest and justest course in adapting them for secular purposes.”
Akbar’s approach was, doubtless wise, prudent and judicious. Even now there are many people who feel that a big hospital should be constructed on the disputed site while others feel that both the temple and the mosque should be built side by side with cooperation of Hindus and Muslims.
Al-Aksa example
There are instance galore in the whole world where adherents of more than one faith have controlled the same place of worship at different periods of time during the ancient and the medieval times. It has led to several bloody conflicts but now they have learnt to live in peace. The Al-Aksa mosque, located in the old city of Jerusalem, is one such example. It literally means a mosque which is situated at the farthest place. It is considered the third holist place of Muslims as it is believed that Mohammed stayed here while going to Allah from Mecca and coming back from there.
At present, the mosque is in the vicinity of Israel but its management is in the hands of Palestinian Waqf Board. One part of the mosque has ‘Dome of Rock’ which is also known as ‘Temple Mount’. Its construction was started by King Herrod in 20 BC. Temple Mount was the synagogue of Jews which was later called ‘Hall of Solomon.’ Dome of Rock was the first temple of Jews. When it was reconstructed as the ‘Hall of Solomon’ it got the status of the second temple. So, it is the most sacred place for Jews.
But after the visit of Mohammed, it was converted into a mosque and rechristened as Al Baraq Al Sharif Mosque. In 1099, when Christians occupied Jerusalem during the crusade they converted the mosque into a church. Now it is a place of pilgrimage for Muslims, Jews and Christians alike who visit the place in lakhs every year. There are many such instances.
In India also, Hindus and Muslims need to break free from the past to secure a peaceful co-existence, but no community should have a feeling that it is considered a soft target. Unfortunately, in India, both Hindus and Muslims feel that they have been wronged. The judgment of the Allahabad high court may not solve the problem fully but it will definitely be a step forward.
If the court or the government has a feeling that the court’s order will not be accepted, then both are to blame. The government hardly honours courts’ judgments when they are not to its liking. Government officials interpret the courts’ orders as per their convenience and implement only when it suits them.
Similarly, courts do not come heavily on the officials who flout their orders sending a signal that judicial orders need not be complied. Sometimes, courts shirk. The supreme court returned Presidential reference on the Ayodhya issue under Article 143 of the Constitution, and that too after taking undertakings from the Union and state governments that its opinion would be respected. It sent the message that even the apex court fought shy of speaking out the truth. Let the high court deliver its judgment and let Ayodhya remain an ‘abode of peace’ as it literally means.
