The Supreme Court’s stay order on the Allahabad high court’s verdict last year in the Ayodhya title suit is a welcome relief as it removes one possible avenue of acrimony in what the court described as a “difficult situation” — one that created a “litany of litigations”. In one sense we are back to square one — as the question of what is to be done with the disputed site remains open — and in search of an amicable solution.
The high court had ordered a three-way division of the 2.77-acre site where the Babri Masjid once stood, between the Ram Lalla, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Central Waqf Board. Interestingly, the high court had thus recognised Lord Ram as a juridical personality — something which goes back to the history of British India. The British too had recognised Lord Ram as a juridical figure back in the 1900s, but they had tried to please both Hindus and Muslims while keeping them at loggerheads. The Allahabad high court might well have thought that its verdict last September would make all parties happy, but it actually had the opposite effect — no one was pleased, and all of them said so in the Supreme Court on Monday. The judges had asked representatives of all three sides if they were satisfied, to which all responded in the negative, prompting the Supreme Court to note in a lighter vein that at least there was unanimity on one point.
The Supreme Court, while describing the Allahabad high court verdict as a “strange” one, noted that none of the parties to the dispute had sought partition of the site. It is normal practice for a court to hear the prayers of litigants, but in this case there were no such “prayers”; therefore the Supreme Court felt it was justified in quashing the high court’s order. In doing so, it automatically restored the status quo at the site; thus the aarti and other rituals that were being performed at the makeshift Ram Lalla temple can now continue.
The Supreme Court has now given all sides time and space to come to an amicable settlement of an age-old problem which is acceptable to all. Historical records show that a Hindu pandit had filed a petition in 1885 seeking permission to build a temple next to the 15th-century Babri Masjid, named after the Mughal emperor who had ordered the masjid built. It is difficult for the courts, in any case, to judicially determine what is a highly-emotive social and religious issue, especially one that can inflame passions across the land. If, for instance, the Supreme Court were to deliver a verdict which was found to be unacceptable by either community, the court as an institution would be put in a very difficult situation.
It should also be noted that no single group can satisfactorily speak on behalf of an entire community spread all across the country, though there are many religion-based institutions and organisations which claim to do so. Is there a single entity which can speak for all Hindus or all Muslims? There are many people in both communities opposed to the bloodshed and acrimony over this disputed site at Ayodhya, that worsened over the years with politicians jumping on to the bandwagon to gain electoral advantage. One option is to allow the issue to continue meandering through a combination of riots and litigation for several decades. The other is to collect a rainbow committee comprising people of all viewpoints on both sides to thrash out a solution. But that, of course, is easier said than done, as events of the past few decades have shown.