By ordering a three-way split of the disputed 2.7-acre site in Ayodhya between the Hindu Mahasabha, the Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has perhaps delivered the only possible verdict it could have on the vexed case that has dragged on for 60 long years. It is pertinent that the majority verdict, delivered by Justices S.U. Khan and Sudhir Agarwal (while differing on certain key aspects) harked back more to the long tradition of Hindus and Muslims worshipping together at the disputed site rather than to the knotty and complicated legal issues involved in the title suits. In effect, the verdict has sought to reinstate the?remarkable tradition of amity which prevailed in the area from the 19th century before the entire issue was complicated by political parties and religious outfits for their own narrow partisan ends.
Of course, a final analysis of the judgment can be made only after a detailed perusal of the court orders, which are understandably long-winded. But the general drift of the directive seems to be that the disputed land in Ayodhya is a joint property, in which all the three claimants have stakes. According to the reports available till Thursday evening, the two judges have said that the makeshift temple under the central dome of the structure where Lord Ram’s idol exists belongs to the Hindus. The portion that has the “Sita Rasoi” and Ram Chabootara would go to the Nirmohi Akhara and the remainder of the land would go to the Sunni Waqf Board, where a mosque can come up. Justice D.V. Sharma, on the other hand, ruled that the entire site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and rejected the claim of the Waqf Board.
But the majority judgment prevails, and it seems to have been made taking into account the sensitivities related to the issue as well as the overall national mood, rather than simply from a narrow legal standpoint. Though some eminent lawyers have expressed disappointment over this legal “deficit”, the country as a whole is likely to be pleased with the judges taking a broader national perspective on the issue rather than merely quoting the rulebook. Mercifully, the parties involved in the dispute have so far not chosen to portray the verdict as a victory or defeat. While the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has said it paves the way for the building of a Ram temple, it has been careful not to go overboard and has in fact stressed that the ruling was not a victory or a loss for anyone. Similar has been the response of most Muslim organisations. The political parties too have by and large welcomed the verdict, responding according to their particular ideological nuances but without adopting an alarmist or triumphant tone. The media too has been restrained and the populace generally calm. This is surely welcome. Legal hair-splitting is not the need of the hour.
Thursday’s verdict is also clearly not the end of the road for the vexed dispute. The Sunni Waqf Board has already announced that it will appeal in the Supreme Court against the orders, and there is a chance that the Nirmohi Akhara might also go to court. It appears almost certain that the dispute will now shift to the country’s highest court for another round of legal wrangling. But the verdict, despite the genuine disagreements it might evoke, also opens a window for a majestic reconciliation and an opportunity to put the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute behind us.?A mosque and a temple existing side by side at Ayodhya would not only be a grand spectacle but would also heal many a wound in the entire body politic. Hindus and Muslims are after all joint titleholders of the nation too.