- Mathew Varghese, PG10
To be frank, doesn't the judgment indirectly justify the vandalism that took place in 1992? Has the judiciary been swayed by the threat of communal violence and neglected its role on judging on the basis of facts and arguments alone?
What is the precedent that is being set here? That it's okay to engage in criminal acts of destruction as long as you can show some inconclusive proof of structures that existed in that place prior to the current structure or that a certain religious/influential figure was born there.
Tomorrow, maybe a certain race will prove that they are the original inhabitants of India, and that the rest encroached upon their territory using force and unjust means. Will we reach a compromise then, grant them a portion of the country's land and pack the rest in what's left?
The sad fact remains that our incredible politicians were responsible for this mess, cutting across party lines. For those who say time is the greatest healer, how long do you think it is going to take? Remember this is a country with a huge population, and we just represent a certain sub-section for whom the entire idea of 'let it be' is an attractive proposition since we don't want any disruptions in the 'Emerging India' story. Just think of the man who was betrayed on December 6, 1992 and has now been betrayed by the judiciary.
One more thought just to reinforce the point I've been trying to make. Imagine if the Babri Masjid had been a monument perhaps as popular as the Taj Mahal or among the top architectural marvels in the country. Now, consider the fact that the memorial was actually built destroying a previous structure that stood on the birthplace of Lord X, a widely revered figure in a certain community.
For some reason this particular community can't bear the fact that a 'holy site' pertaining to Lord X is the burial site of some queen who had a rather loving husband. They demand the building of a site dedicated to Lord X instead of the existing monument. There is enough evidence, though debatable, of Lord X's birthplace falling within the ambit of the structure.
In this case, though, nothing has been destroyed yet. Will the courts, hypothetically, rule that the disputed site be split on the lines of what it decided in the Ayodhya case?
After all, it's a similar situation to that of the Ayodhya title suit. So, technically, the principle and logic behind the judgment should remain the same. But, do you think the ruling would be similar?
What if the Babri Masjid has not been demolished? Would the courts have recommended demolition in order to let a temple be built? Unfortunately, the message being sent out is that had those vandals not done their job in 1992, victory would not have been possible for a certain community in Ayodhya.
Now, you can call it a just verdict. To me, it's just another flashpoint for communal disharmony, and the kind of triumphalism that was witnessed during the demolition of the Babri Masjid.