So many questions

- 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.

Ayodhya verdict - Opinions from the papers

In The Hindu, distinguished historian Romila Thapar provides her perspective on the judgment.

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.

The majority verdict of the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute is a compromise calculated to hold the religious peace rather than an exercise of profound legal reflection, says an editorial in the same paper.

If overall the reaction from the public and from large sections of political opinion has been subdued, much of it has to do with the mood of the nation in which the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue does not find much traction any more — in striking contrast to the 1990s. On balance, the nature of the Allahabad High Court verdict should help the nation as a whole put a longstanding dispute behind. Secular India needs to move on and not be held hostage to grievances, real or imaginary, from the distant past. A great deal of the responsibility lies with political parties and religious groups to maintain harmony in the face of fundamentalist forces seeking to disturb the peace and profit from raising communal issues.

A real danger that the Ayodhya verdict will open the floodgates of uninhibited majoritarianism and perhaps, even a Hindu rashtra are grossly exaggerated, says Swagan Dasgupta in The Telegraph:

One of the features of the response of the organized Hindu camp to the verdict is the conscious show of restraint. The Hindutvavadis may have been pleased as punch that their central arguments were upheld by the court, but they have been very careful to not show it. This is on account of the realization that India is not in a mood for confrontational politics and that, unlike the 1990s, belligerence will be politically counter-productive. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, for example, is elated that the whole Ayodhya episode has elevated it to the status of being Hindu India’s most visible face. It would not like to compromise on that.

Shekhar Gupta answers a very important question in his column in The Indian Express:

The question everybody is asking is, can a mosque and a temple coexist? India is full of such places. My favourite is Kanchipuram, where the mutt of the Shankaracharya has a sizeable mosque next to it. What makes this spot so unique is that right across the street, sternly overlooking the mutt and the mosque, sits a bust of Periyar, the great atheist, iconoclast and the founder of the Dravida movement. An inscription under it reads:
There is no God,
There is no God,
There is no God at all,
The inventor of God is a fool,
The propagator of God is a scoundrel,
The worshipper of God is a barbarian.

It's not just what, but also how you say it

The bundle of The Times of India and The Economic Times at the doorsteps of hostelers at MDI offered an interesting insight to those who could read between the lines.

The front page of the Times of India read - "2 Parts to Hindus, 1 Part to Muslims" and a showed a map of the divided Ayodhya site. The front page of the Economic Times read - "Land divided, India United" and showed pictures of hope, peace, preparedness and prayer.

One story, two ways narrate it. One media conglomerate, two newpapers with differing styles.

Is the former a case of provocative writing and the latter of responsible writing? Or is it that the former is reporting the facts, and the latter feelings, personal or general?  How much should the media reflect public opinion and how much should it steer it? At what point does it cross the line?

These questions have always dogged society at large, with no conclusive answers. Perhaps it's best to deal with it on a case to case basis. An issue, as sensitive as this one, deserves sensitive reporting.

What was the best way to handle this bit of news? This byte? What is your opinion?