Author: A Surya Prakash
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: October 5, 2010
URL: http://dailypioneer.com/287696/A-perverse-discourse.html
Steeped in ignorance, pseudo-secularists are
busy doing what they do best: Deliberately misinterpreting the Ayodhya judgement
A miniscule minority of pseudo-secularists,
atheists and agnostics which enjoys grossly disproportionate media space has
begun to drum up opposition to the historic Allahabad High Court judgement
in the Ayodhya case. This motley group of Hindu-baiters, which is blissfully
ignorant of the laws that determine such cases pertaining to religious beliefs,
customs and practices, is uncomfortable with the dignified response of both
Hindus and Muslims to the verdict and is looking for opportunities to stir
up trouble a la the film Peepli Live.
The opponents of the judgement think it is
absurd for the court to treat Ramlalla as a juristic person and as a minor
and to accept Hindu belief regarding the Janmasthan. They are unable to understand
why different laws come into play when the court deals with the Hindu belief
regarding Janmsathan and the Muslim arguments regarding the masjid. They also
question the report of archaeologists and wonder how the High Court could
have overlooked the demolition of the masjid and given a verdict in favour
of the Hindus.
The first objection relates to the court's
finding that the deity at Ayodhya is a juristic person and that the place
where the idol of Lord Ram is currently located is the Sri Ram Janmasthan.
Those opposing this aspect of the judgement are people who are blissfully
ignorant of the fact that Hindu beliefs, religious customs and practices are
governed by a body of law called Hindu Law, just as Muslim beliefs and customs
are governed by Mohammedan Law.
All matters pertaining to Hindu deities, temples,
endowments, etc are determined from the days of the British Raj to the present
by various aspects of Hindu Law. A person who has read Hindu Law of Religious
and Charitable Trusts, the oft quoted treatise by the celebrated Chief Justice
of India, BK Mukherjea, the Privy Council's judgement in Pramatha Nath Mullick
Vs Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925), the Supreme Court's judgement in Bishwanath
and another Vs Shri Thakur Radhabhallabhji ( 1967), the Allahabad High Court's
Full Bench judgement in Jodhi Rai Vs Basdeo Prasad (1911), and, more recently,
the Supreme Court's verdict in Dr M Ismail Farooqui Vs Union of India (1994)
would be far more circumspect while dealing with this issue.
For example, in Pramatha Nath Mullick Vs Pradyumna
Kumar Mullick (1925), the Privy Council held that a Hindu Idol is, "according
to long established authority founded upon the religious custom of Hindus,
and recognition thereof by the courts of law, a juristic entity. It has a
judicial status with power of suing and being sued". What the Privy Council
said subsequently in this judgement has in a sense settled the law in this
regard for close to a century. It said, "From the spiritual point of
view, idol is the very embodiment of the Supreme Being, but with this aspect
of the matter law is not concerned, in fact it is beyond the reach of law.
In law, neither god nor any supernatural being can be a person. But so far
as the deity or idol stands as the representative and symbol of the particular
purpose indicated by donor, it can figure as a legal person."
In Jodhi Rai Vs Basdeo Prasad, the Allahabad
High Court held that "a deity is like a minor" and the idol is a
juristic person who can hold property. This is further reinforced by the Supreme
Court's verdict in Bishwanath and another Vs Shri Thakur Radhabhallabhji and
others in which the court said that idols are minors and their interest cannot
be left in a lurch. No amount of quibbling by a miniscule minority of non-believers
can ever alter this position which is fundamental to Hindu beliefs and customs.
Those disappointed with the judgement wonder how the court overlooked the
Muslim claim to the mosque which stood at that place for centuries. Also,
they ask why the court overlooked the demolition in 1992. The Allahabad High
Court has addressed the first of these objections by citing the Supreme Court's
ruling in the Faruqui Case. The Supreme Court cited the Lahore High Court
verdict in 'Mosque known as Masjid Shahid Ganj and Ors Vs Shiromani Gurdwara
Prabandhak Committee', in which the High Court held that where a mosque has
been adversely possessed by non-Muslims, it lost its sacred character as a
mosque. "Hence, the view that once a consecrated mosque, it remains always
a place of worship as a mosque was not the Mahomedan Law of India as approved
by Indian Courts. It was further held by the majority that a mosque in India
was an immovable property and the right of worship at a particular place is
lost when the right to property on which it stands is lost by adverse possession."
This was approved by the Privy Council.
As regards the second objection vis-à-vis
the act of demolition, it must be borne in mind that the criminal cases are
being dealt with by another court. It is absurd to confuse the civil suits
before the High Court with the criminal cases pertaining to the demolition.
Further, it is ridiculous to say that the sins of some vandals should visit
the entire Hindu community for perpetuity.
The Supreme Court has settled this issue in
the Faruqui Case. The court said it would be pertinent to bear in mind that
the persons responsible for the demolition "were some miscreants who
cannot be identified and equated with the entire Hindu community", and
therefore, "the act of vandalism so perpetrated by the miscreants cannot
be treated as an act of the entire Hindu community".
Also being challenged is the report of the
Archaeological Survey of India. The opponents of the verdict do not know,
or pretend not to know, that the excavations at Ayodhya were supervised by
two judges; that all parties were given the right to park their representatives
(including archaeologists and lawyers) at the site; that the court directed
that the ASI team and the labourers employed at the site should comprise both
Hindus and Muslims and it was so.
Ignorance of law is no defence. But going
by the ill-informed discourse that is on after the Ayodhya verdict, it appears
as if ignorance is the best excuse to pontificate on the judgement and to
pour scorn on the law and those who interpret it.
