The Supreme Court acted wisely on Tuesday in dismissing the plea to defer the verdict in the 60-year-old Ram Janmahoomi-Babri Masjid title suit by the Allahabad high court. The terse dismissal by the three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia of former bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi’s deferral plea was interpreted by legal experts as a clear indication by the country’s highest court that the judicial process should not be unnecessarily interfered with for extraneous reasons. With all parties to the dispute (except the Nirmohi Akhara, which had a change of mind at the 11th hour) making it clear that nothing short of a miracle can bring about an out-of-court settlement, there is surely no logic to delaying the verdict further by a few weeks or even months. Such a step would only create unnecessary suspense and acrimony and worsen the mood of the disputants.
Political parties, ranging from the Congress to the CPI(M) and the BJP, and organisations ranging from the RSS to the Hindu Mahasabha and the Sunni Waqf Board have welcomed the decision. It appears nobody wants any further prolonging of this vexed dispute. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court is now expected to deliver the verdict on Thursday, September 30, at 3.30 pm. While the Centre has asked all states to be on alert and has deployed extra forces in likely trouble spots, including an unprecedented number of police and paramilitary personnel in Uttar Pradesh, the nation by and large does not seem to expect trouble. The title suit (or property dispute) started in 1950 after idols of Lord Ram were placed in the disputed structure and has dragged on for nearly 60 years. Whichever way the verdict goes, it will surely be challenged in the higher courts by one party or another. Mercifully, in the run-up to the verdict, only sober statements have emanated from all organisations with a stake in the dispute. The Sangh Parivar outfits have been particularly circumspect, and have stressed the need to maintain peace rather than urge big celebrations in case of a possible triumph or defiance in case of a legal setback. Even Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, not known to be a peacenik, has appealed for calm. Similar appeals for restraint and respect for the law have also come from the Muslim leadership. So far, so good.
Given India’s tenuous communal equations, all this could turn out to be a deceptive facade, but for once the disputants appear sincere about dealing with the aftermath of the verdict in a peaceful manner. It may be that the Sangh Parivar has finally realised that Ayodhya will no longer generate the enthusiasm or fervour it once did, and that harping on it could even prove counterproductive, politically and otherwise. India has moved ahead, and has hopefully left far behind the vitriolic ambience of communal strife seen in the early 1990s when the Babri Masjid was brought down. It is now looking more to the future than towards the past. The national mood does not seem to be in favour of another round of strife over perceived historical wrongs and rights. Thankfully, too, most political parties appear to have realised this and are acting in a more responsible manner. If the parties to the dispute, the political establishment and the country as a whole can accept Thursday’s high court verdict, whichever way it goes, in a calm and clear-headed manner and not let emotions run amok, then India will give the clearest signal yet that it is coming of age as a mature democracy capable of handling its problems in a reasonable manner. One can only hope this can also create the right atmosphere for an eventual solution to the Ayodhya tangle!