Author: S Gurumurthy
Publication: The New Indian Express
Date: October 2, 2010
URL: http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/columnists/verdict---a-prologue/211591.html
My judgment is short, very short", writes
a relieved and happy Justice S U Khan who delivered the Ayodhya judgment along
with Justice S Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma. But that "short, very
short" judgment itself runs to 285 pages. The order of Justice S Agarwal,
with annexes, runs to over, believe it, 5,200 pages; that of Justice D V Sharma
tops over 1,700 pages including annexes. It means this: to get a basic idea
of the Ayodhya judgment one has to wade through some 8,000 pages. This may
well enter the Guinness book as the longest judgment ever written! But what
the visual media and participants in debates had in their hands when they
enlightened the nation for almost four hours on the judgment was a one-page
summary of Justice Khan's order; a two-page summary of Justice Sharma's, and
a 12-page summary of Justice Agarwal's. Yet, in a couple of hours they settled
the national opinion on the long judgment of 8,000 pages!
The "quality" of their discourse
was self-evident, even self-serving. The visual media continuously ran headlines
like "no temple was demolished to build mosque", when the majority
finding on the issue, by Justices Agarwal (p5083) and Sharma (p28-104 in Waqf
Board Suit) was that the mosque "had been constructed on the site of
Hindu temple after demolishing the same"; the judges had found that the
Hindus had for long worshipped the place where the mosque stood as Ram Janma
Bhoomi (Sharma p172 Hindu Suit and Agarwal p5085). Most media projected Justice
Sharma's views as minority view. Actually it is Justice Khan's that turns
out to be that way, except on the division of the disputed area where Justice
Agarwal partly agrees with him. But on the issue of the broken temple predating
the mosque and on the belief of the Hindus about the birthplace of Rama, Justice
Agarwal and Justice Sharma constitute a majority. Even Justice Khan does not
deny the existence of the broken temple but says the mosque was built on temple
ruins.
Again, the media did not highlight that the
two judges have dismissed the suits of the Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi
Akhara (believed to be the proxy for the Congress party), and also that the
two judges have decreed only the two suits filed by the Hindu parties. The
consequence of this is immense, as will be unveiled in the next part of this
article.
The opinion about the Ayodhya judgment has
been sealed by the television discourse very much like it happens in the case
of budget papers. The discourse was less about the judgment and more about
politics like whether the court was right on deciding religious issues such
as whether it was Rama Janmasthan or there was a temple under the mosque.
The media also wailed about why the nation should be wasting time on the temple
issue when developmental issues are crying for attention. Each of these comments
is valid in itself; but they are no substitute for a rigorous analysis of
the verdict. Almost all commentators recalled the 1992 demolition, but did
not say that Justice Agarwal (page 586) had concluded that that did not affect
the rights of the Muslims in their suit. Thus the millions who witnessed TV
channels did not get the right idea about the judgment.
And most of those who commented on the judgment
were elated by how the court had showed great "statesmanship" in
giving a third of the disputed place to Muslims. They also gloated over how
that gesture could promote secularism in India. But they did not stop a minute
to ask (unlike legal experts Rajeev Dhawan, regarded as a secular icon, and
P P Rao did) how, after saying that the Muslims and Nirmohi Akhara had no
right to sue, the two judges could give any share of the property to them.
Political parties need votes; so they would
speak only with that in view. But should these experts and intellectuals not
call a spade a spade? Also point out what the court has actually found as
facts? They didn't. Therefore, the start of a national discourse on such a
critical legal issue, with huge political and communal implications, could
not have been shallower. For the last 20 years all political parties and secular
intellectuals had told those who were for the Ram temple and those against
to wait for the judicial verdict for resolving the dispute.
There were four suits in all before the judges
- two by Hindu parties; one by Muslims (Sunni Waqf Board), and the fourth,
widely believed to be the proxy of the Congress (Nirmohi Akhara). Some 121
issues were framed in the suits - like whether the mosque was constructed
on a temple demolished or in ruins; whether the Hindus had a long held belief
that the disputed place was the birthplace of Rama; whether the four suits
were within the period of limitation set by law; whether and how long the
Hindus were worshipping at the disputed place; whether the Muslims were also
worshipping in that place and from when to when; who owns the disputed land,
the Waqf, Nirmohi Akhara, or the deity Rama. While the Hindus' suit had claimed
the Janmasthan as exclusively that of the deity Rama, the Sunni Waqf Board
suit had claimed it as exclusively its own, the Nirmohi Akhara suit had claimed
it again as its exclusive property. In law, this mutually exclusive claim
of the three contenders meant that, if the suit of any one was allowed that
would destroy the suit of the other two. This was how the cases, three of
which were filed in 1989, the first one by the Hindus having been filed in
1950, began - with the parties letting in oral and documentary evidence first
and then arguing the case later.
The principal issue in the case was: whether
the disputed place belonged to the deity Rama, or the mosque or the Nirmohi
Akhara. The critical fact to be found was whether a Hindu temple predating
the disputed mosque existed. To unravel that the Allahabad High Court had
directed the Archeological Survey of India to find out "whether there
was any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque constructed on the
disputed site" first by Ground Penetrating Radar (GRP) survey and, thereafter,
by excavation. The ASI conducted the GRP survey and submitted a report in
February 2003; after that it excavated the disputed area and submitted a further
report of 574 pages. What was ASI's answer to the all-important question of
temple under the mosque? How have the three judges have decided the cases?
What are the legal, political implications of the decision? A clinical dissection
will reveal whether the verdict solves the dispute, or escalates it. Await
the next part.
