The long awaited court verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute was pronounced on Thursday, September 30, 2010. Unlike in most cases, no one knew exactly which way the court ruling will go. Therefore when the Allahabad High Court ruled by a majority verdict that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided equally into three parts among Hindus and Muslims and that the place where the makeshift temple of Lord Ram exists belongs to Hindus, it was definitely news. Once the verdict was delivered, it was expected that all kinds of permutation will be made on the judgement itself. Going by the order, it remains obvious that the High Court ruling is more favorable to the Hindus. And therefore the reactions coming in have been on expected lines. To the credit of people at large across the country, there has been no untoward incident. Both Hindu groups and the Muslims have maintained decorum and mutual respect. This is a good sign of India and its people maturing into a tolerant democracy in which we learn to accept defeat or victory with tolerance and understanding of the ‘other’. As has been rightly suggested, the Muslims have the right to appeal in a higher court of law i.e. the Supreme Court. So in the meantime, as rightly ruled by the court, status quo should be maintained at the disputed place for three months.
Without going into the layers of history and the claims and counter claims, what we can understand by the court ruling is that the parties to the dispute work out an amicable settlement. Reconciliation seems to be the underlying message of the Ayodhya HC verdict. And the judgment has been prepared in such a manner that no one is victorious. The fact that the order states that the ‘disputed site is the birth place of Ram’; nevertheless it qualifies this by directing that the land be divided into three equal parts. The Hindu groups may see this as their victory. Similarly the Muslims may see the verdict as their defeat and rejection of their claim. But any sensible person will interpret the verdict as one calling for reconciliation and the need to work out the dispute through mutual peace and accommodation so that irrespective of religion, people of all faiths can have a shared future. The three judges (one Muslim and two Hindus) have done exceedingly well to come out with a sensible verdict, despite the numerous conflicts of interests and the complexity of history.
The latest court verdict is proof enough that at the end there can be no winners or losers. Even though an appeal in the Supreme Court is a matter of right for the Muslims, it is unlikely that the highest court of the land will alter the basic feature of the Allahabad High Court judgment. It also means that the Central government along with the political parties will have to play a vital role in mediation efforts. Hindu rightwing groups like the RSS, VHP and parties like the BJP should be careful not to alienate the other claimants to the Ayodhya land. After all if a Ram Temple has to be built (following the latest verdict), the others must also get their own place of worship. The Muslims even if they go the Supreme Court must also remain open to mediation and reconciliation. According to this column, a middle path solution through mediation and reconciliation is the only sensible way to resolve the land dispute at Ayodhya.
