A Verdict with Profound Consequences
By Dr. Basheer A. Khan
Garden Grove , CA
The much awaited verdict in the 60-year case regarding the title of the land on which the historical Babri Masjid stood from 15 th century till its demolition in December1992 is out. Most of such cases of titles where ownership of land is brought into dispute by forcible occupation are decided by the documents of legitimate revenue authorities. In their absence the de-facto state of occupation over a period of time is the deciding factor. But this case has been decided upon the belief in the history of prehistoric times.
If courts were to decide issues based upon beliefs of people then it is not difficult in this era of mass communications to lead courts into judgments which advance the values and interests of those who control the media and seats of power to the detriment of other sections of society. No wonder that some extremist organizations in India have started to express their intention to carry on campaigns to reclaim some more mosques and build temples in their place in accordance with their beliefs. Acceptance of belief, scriptures and history as evidence in land disputes will set a very dangerous precedence not only with relation to other disputed religious sites in India but also for the solution of the Middle East problem. This casts shadows of gloom over the efforts and hopes of reconciliation and peace in the world.
In 1885 when Mahant Raghubar Das tried to obtain the title for this land and construct a temple in its place from the British authorities, this permission was denied on the ground that changing the status quo of a mosque supposedly built by demolishing a temple about 350 years ago may cause more harm than any benefit.
At a time when the morale of Muslims was at its lowest following the blood letting of Partition of India, Idols of Ram Lalla were smuggled into the mosque on December 23, 1949 and devotees were assembled there to worship. On December 29, 1949, the City Magistrate locked the facility pending decision of the court about the title of the land. Thus Muslims who were praying at the mosque for more than four centuries were denied their right to pray just because some miscreants had intruded into it claiming their right over it.
On February 1, 1986, a district judge ordered the locks on the mosque be removed and thus the site was opened for Hindu worshippers. To reduce damage to the its “secular credentials” in the world, BJP leader Mr. Advani started to claim that Hindus were worshiping at a place which was no longer in use as a Mosque. The District Magistrate’s decision to unlock the mosque for worship by Hindus was widely seen at the time as an attempt by the ruling Congress party to preempt BJP from capitalizing on the Mosque Temple issue. But the fact is that it was RSS which used its trained cadre in the ranks and file of BJP, Congress and the bureaucracy in a systematic and scheming way to establish Ram Mandir after demolishing the mosque. From the point of induction of idols into mosque several cases were filed in the courts by Muslims and Hindus to get possession of the land, and the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court issued the judgment under discussion on September 30, 2010.
Under the split decision the Court has rejected the claim of the Sunni Wakf Board over the land to the Mosque. Their argument for this decision was that there is no proof to the fact that King Babar owned this land for his functionaries to build a mosque at this place either by demolishing a temple or on its ruins. Thus they have overlooked the existence of the mosque for more than four centuries which was demolished only two decades ago through an organized political movement. On the other hand they have accepted the place under the central dome of the mosque as the place where Lord Ram was born based upon the belief of some.
Dividing this land into three portions, the court has given this place under the tomb of the demolished mosque to the future temple. Even though Sunni Wakf Board is given a share in the land they have virtually been thrown out of this place by the provision in the judgment that says: “However, if while allotting exact portions, some minor adjustments in the share is to be made, then the same will be made and the adversely-affected party may be compensated by some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the central government.”
During the turbulent period of Greek history, when a Greek philosopher was asked as to when justice will come to Athens , he said: When those who are not suffering are as angry as those who do. If one hears the interview of the Supreme Court lawyer in India , Mr. Prashanth Bhushan with BBC Urdu, or reads the article by the famous Indian historian, Romila Thapar, or the respected columnist of the Daily Hindu Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan, one sees a glimmer of hope that the days of justice are not far off.
Romila Thapar writes in the October 3 issue of The Hindu: “The verdict is a political judgment and reflects a decision which could as well have been taken by the state years ago……. The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to commemorate the birth. This is in response to an appeal by Hindu faith and belief. Given the absence of evidence in support of the claim, such a verdict is not what one expects from a court of law…… Hindus deeply revere Rama as a deity but can this support a legal decision on claims to a birth-place, possession of land and the deliberate destruction of a major historical monument to assist in acquiring the land? The verdict claims that there was a temple of the 12th Century AD at the site which was destroyed to build the mosque — hence the legitimacy of building a new temple. The excavations of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and its readings have been fully accepted even though these have been strongly disputed by other archaeologists and historians. Since this is a matter of professional expertise on which there was a sharp difference of opinion the categorical acceptance of the one point of view, and that too in a simplistic manner, does little to build confidence in the verdict…. A mosque built almost 500 years ago and which was part of our cultural heritage was destroyed willfully by a mob urged on by a political leadership. There is no mention in the summary of the verdict that this act of wanton destruction, and a crime against our heritage, should be condemned. The new temple will have its sanctum — the presumed birthplace of Rama — in the area of the debris of the mosque. Whereas the destruction of the supposed temple is condemned and becomes the justification for building a new temple, the destruction of the mosque is not, perhaps by placing it conveniently outside the purview of the case… What happened in history, happened.It cannot be changed. But we can learn to understand what happened in its fuller context and strive to look at it on the basis of reliable evidence. We cannot change the past to justify the politics of the present. The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence.”
In the same issue Mr. Siddharth Varadarajanwrites, “ The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has made judicial history by deciding a long pending legal dispute over a piece of property in Ayodhya on the basis of an unverified and unsubstantiated reference to the “faith and belief of Hindus. The irony is that in doing so, the court has inadvertently provided a shot in the arm for a political movement that cited the very same “faith” and “belief” to justify its open defiance of the law and the Indian Constitution. That defiance reached its apogee in 1992, when a 500-year-old mosque which stood at the disputed site was destroyed. The legal and political system in India stood silent witness to that crime of trespass, vandalism and expropriation. Eighteen years later, the country has compounded that sin by legitimizing the “faith” and “belief” of those who took the law into their own hands.”
Soon after the judgment was announced, a popular lawyer of Indian Supreme Court Mr. Prashanth Bhushan spoke to BBC Urdu thus, and I am paraphrasing it: It is a political judgment. Court has framed certain hypothecations and has based this judgment on answers to them against all the tenets of law. When the case goes for appeal, any reasonable judge in the Indian Supreme Court will annul this judgment as it is not tenable in my opinion under the law. Neither the country nor I have any interest whether a Mandir, a Mosque or both are built on this place, but I definitely have this opinion that this judgment is going to destroy the secular fabric of India.
A group of 50 historians, legal experts and other prominent persons of Indian society have criticized the judgment on similar grounds.
The Muslim Judge sitting on the bench which gave this verdict, Mr. S U Khan gave an interview to Mr. J Venkatesan which appeared in The Hindu dated October 2, 2010. This interview summarizes the psychology and the mindset under which this judgment was made. Following is the concluding paragraph of that interview:
“Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message, opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible, or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority (after Indonesia , India has the highest number of Muslims in the world). In other countries, either the Muslims are in huge majority, which makes them indifferent to the problem in question, or in negligible minority, which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand.”
RSS and BJP leadership hailed this verdict as victory to their belief that Babri Masjid was indeed the Ram Janam Bhumi, and consider this court judgment as a “significant step” towards building a temple at the birthplace of Lord Ram. BJP, RSS and the other satellite organizations as “warriors of Hindu faith” discredited the stature of Shri Ramchandarji by carrying out the worst terrorizing campaign in his name for their political gains. Now they are lowering his stature further by citing a judgment which has no credence in the eyes of notable Indians to get the fig leaf cover of judicial propriety to a revered legend that transcends the need for such a cover. For the really believing Indians Ramchandarji is not an idol to be worshipped in a grand temple, but an ideal who has inspired Indians for millennia to live a life of piety, duty, and truthfulness.
However the reconciliatory tone of BJP and RSS leaders and their appeal to seek help from Muslims to build the temple is welcome. Maulana Madani, who heads the biggest body of Muslim religious scholars in India - Jamiathul Ulemae Islam - has told BBC Urdu: on the basis of religious teaching Muslims have no interest in having a mosque at that place, and as monotheists, Muslims can’t participate in the building of the temple. For national reconciliation it is essential that RSS, BJP, and Congress as responsible political parties apologize to the Indian Muslims for their part in terrorizing the Muslims during this campaign. Government of India and other state governments should do the same for their failure to protect the Muslims against this onslaught.
The genie of clash of civilizations can’t be bottled up, and peace restored to this beautiful planet unless the warriors of faith from all religions who are whipping religious sentiments for their political gains are not put back into the bottle by the others amongst them for whom faith is a transformative experience for individuals and societies, and not a political exercise to grab power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
