Ayodhya Verdict and its Implications
The Supreme court finally gave its verdict on the Ayodhya issue on 9th November 2019. The issue of Babri Masjid and Ram Mandir had been going on for ages. In 2010, the high court pronounced its verdict by saying that the land should be divided into three parts, but no one agreed on it. This case then went to the Supreme Court and it has given its judgment after almost 10 long years. The judgment by the Supreme Court was that both the Masjid and the Mandir would be constructed. The Supreme court said that Mandir could be constructed in the disputed area of 2.77 acres and then the Supreme Court handed over this land to the central government and the central government can then appoint a trust which will then take care of the construction of the Mandir. The second thing the Supreme Court said was that the Sunni Waqf Board should be provided with a 5 acre land somewhere by the central government for the Masjid and the construction of Masjid could take place there. This was done to satisfy both the parties and allow both the construction of Mandir and Masjid. A Mandir is to be constructed at the disputed area and the Masjid can be made elsewhere in a new area. Hence for the construction of the Masjid, a larger area is allotted.
The Supreme Court has gone on to say that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was a serious violation of the law but the Supreme Court has not given any judgment against them because this judgment was for a civil dispute case and not of a criminal case. But separate criminal proceedings will likely be pursued against them. So was the verdict of the Supreme Court right or wrong?
In my opinion, this was an ideal verdict because in a case like this decision making is extremely difficult and if you think from the perspective of the judge of the Supreme Court then the decision making, in this case, was almost impossible because in normal court cases you have to think what is right and what is wrong in legal terms but in this case, you have to keep in mind the beliefs of the people, what is right factually and historically. Because the Supreme Court has written in its judgment that historically there was indeed a structure beneath the Babri Masjid that was found and was an un-Islamic structure beneath the Babri Masjid but nowhere was it proved that the structure was a Mandir. Now the judge of the Supreme Court has to also keep in mind the impact of the decision upon the people. I think factually, morally, ethically, and historically, more important than these are the consequences of the decision. The judge might have taken a factually correct decision here but if that decision leads to riots in the country, then would it be the right decision?
I don’t think so. And so a correct decision in cases like these would be to maintain peace in the country, boost communal harmony of the people, and that which fosters unity. Therefore, I have a lot of respect for the judges of the supreme court who took such a huge decision in such a calculated manner. Now some people could allege that this was a majoritarian decision i.e it imposes the views of the majority upon the minority. But I don’t believe it to be so because the majority of the population was not even interested in this issue. Most of the people in our country are not bothered whether a Mandir or Masjid is to be constructed because it doesn’t affect them largely. They are more affected by the fact that they are getting jobs or not? Is the air clean or not? How are the roads constructed?
No matter what the media shows you, in my opinion, people are more affected by the real issues and not this Mandir Masjid debate. But at the same time, the majority of the population is indeed affected by the side effects of the Ayodhya verdict. It does not matter whether a masjid or a mandir is built, but if a verdict was given that would result in riots in the country then the majority of the people would be affected. It should then indeed have an impact on them. Hence, to make a decision that takes its consequences into account which would be the most peaceful decision and one that secures India’s unity and secularism for its future. That was of utmost importance here. This is a piece of good news for our country that most of the people irrespective of whether they are Hindus or Muslims have peacefully accepted this decision. And this decision is a lesson for our younger generation which shows us how much money, time and energy is wasted collectively by our country regarding this one issue. Sometimes, it seemed so that the Ram Mandir issue was the most important in our country. Lakhs and crores of hours were wasted by the TV channels on discussions on this issue and conducted debates on it daily. So much time of the people was wasted here. The Supreme Court had conducted its hearings for straight forty days and it was only the second time that such a long hearing took place in the history of the Supreme Court. It is a judgment of 1000 pages. Now, some journalists would waste their time reading this 1000 page judgment, they would then pick up some points and criticize them, and then there would be another discussion on them.
Some people would want to file a review petition against it and this issue can run endlessly. But it is up to us to end it right here. The people should say that “it is enough” and this issue has now finally ended here and now let’s talk about the important issues.