<p>With the significance of the Ayodhya verdict gradually sinking in, some Left liberal historians like Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, K N Panikkar, Zoya Hasan and Arjun Dev described the judgment of the Lucknow Bench for being “based more on faith” rather than the “basic tenets of history, archaeology and legal logic”.<br /><br />Fresh twist<br />The issue was given a fresh twist by some minority leaders who refused to accept the Lucknow Bench’s ruling which they said was delivered in a “closed room”. They also asked the Supreme Court to re-examine the issue on a fast track.<br /><br />But the Left historians went a step further, claiming that “not only the judgment is wrong in accepting the antiquity of this belief (Ram’s birth place being the same as the site of the mosque), but is gravely disturbing that such acceptance should be converted into an argument for deciding property entilements. This seems to be against all principles of law and equity”.<br /><br />Questioning the authenticity of the Archeological Survey of India’s report, which forms the basis of the judgment, they said the report was “fraudulent in its assertions since no pillars were found and alleged existence of ‘pillar bases’ has been debated by archaeologists.”<br /><br />Violence<br />The academics issued the statement under the banner of Safder Hashmi Memorial Trust –a Delhi-based Left-leaning cultural organisation. The statement said that “the most objectionable part of the judgment is (the) legitimisation it provides to violence and muscle power.” <br /><br />The CPI, which too questioned the jurisdiction of the court, said “the judgment is based more on faith and religious belief than the basic tenets of history, archaeology, legal logic and historical facts of other streams of scientific knowledge, which can spark a debate on the jurisdiction of the court.” <br /><br />“The road to SC is open. But the redressal of grievance or affirmation of validity of the judicial pronouncement should strictly remain within the confines of judicial procedure,” itsaid. <br /><br />Even though some minority leaders like Rajya Sabha member Mahmood A Madani were cautious, the Shahi Imam of Delhi’s Jama Masjid, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, expressed dissatisfaction over the verdict, saying the decision on such a crucial issue could not be taken in a “closed room.” <br /><br />“We are unhappy with the court verdict. The decision should be made by the Muslim public in the open. We do not accept the decision made in a closed room,” Bukhari said.<br />The US-based Indian Muslim Council called upon the SC to have the full bench examine the case in a fast-track manner. But Madani said Muslims should not feel hopeless as there may be opportunities in this judgment. “The future course of action will be decided by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board,” he said. <br /></p>
<p>With the significance of the Ayodhya verdict gradually sinking in, some Left liberal historians like Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, K N Panikkar, Zoya Hasan and Arjun Dev described the judgment of the Lucknow Bench for being “based more on faith” rather than the “basic tenets of history, archaeology and legal logic”.<br /><br />Fresh twist<br />The issue was given a fresh twist by some minority leaders who refused to accept the Lucknow Bench’s ruling which they said was delivered in a “closed room”. They also asked the Supreme Court to re-examine the issue on a fast track.<br /><br />But the Left historians went a step further, claiming that “not only the judgment is wrong in accepting the antiquity of this belief (Ram’s birth place being the same as the site of the mosque), but is gravely disturbing that such acceptance should be converted into an argument for deciding property entilements. This seems to be against all principles of law and equity”.<br /><br />Questioning the authenticity of the Archeological Survey of India’s report, which forms the basis of the judgment, they said the report was “fraudulent in its assertions since no pillars were found and alleged existence of ‘pillar bases’ has been debated by archaeologists.”<br /><br />Violence<br />The academics issued the statement under the banner of Safder Hashmi Memorial Trust –a Delhi-based Left-leaning cultural organisation. The statement said that “the most objectionable part of the judgment is (the) legitimisation it provides to violence and muscle power.” <br /><br />The CPI, which too questioned the jurisdiction of the court, said “the judgment is based more on faith and religious belief than the basic tenets of history, archaeology, legal logic and historical facts of other streams of scientific knowledge, which can spark a debate on the jurisdiction of the court.” <br /><br />“The road to SC is open. But the redressal of grievance or affirmation of validity of the judicial pronouncement should strictly remain within the confines of judicial procedure,” itsaid. <br /><br />Even though some minority leaders like Rajya Sabha member Mahmood A Madani were cautious, the Shahi Imam of Delhi’s Jama Masjid, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, expressed dissatisfaction over the verdict, saying the decision on such a crucial issue could not be taken in a “closed room.” <br /><br />“We are unhappy with the court verdict. The decision should be made by the Muslim public in the open. We do not accept the decision made in a closed room,” Bukhari said.<br />The US-based Indian Muslim Council called upon the SC to have the full bench examine the case in a fast-track manner. But Madani said Muslims should not feel hopeless as there may be opportunities in this judgment. “The future course of action will be decided by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board,” he said. <br /></p>
