Facts or Faith?

This note has been late in coming, so late that the ‘news/issue’ is very much on the backburner after having held the Nation’s attention and breath for a few tense days. 

The historic verdict on Ayodhya was unexpected to state the least. What was not unexpected was the frothing, vitriolic reaction of the ‘progressive-liberal’ media which could not digest the court judgment, particularly its unanimous decision to handover the precise spot housing Ram Lalla idols to Ram Lalla Virajman. This judgment proves that adage like nothing else does, judgment must not only be done, it should also be seen to have been done. Had there not been a Muslim among the Honorable justices, all of them, and not only Justice Sharma, would have been tarred by the brush of being RSS sympathizers by our ELM.

A few of you may have received ‘rogue’ emails detailing foreign holdings in Indian Media Houses insinuating that the ‘anti-Hindu’ bias in our English Language Media and from the last few years, in the Indian Languages Media, flows on account of their financing and ownership lying with shady evangelical and Wahabbi organizations abroad. Since this mail does not provide and source or date for this information and I myself am not aware if such detailed information is publicly available, I, alongwith a vast majority of my countrymen would rather ignore such mails. 

However, this denial in no way negates my belief in the presence of ideologically committed warriors in influential positions in Media Houses who have ensured that the prime focus of media has shifted from broadcasting news to peddling views. In a general sense, while our citizens would be discomfited by the shenanigans of a vixen like news editor causing death of our securitymen in siege like conditions through her relentless information sharing diatribe, most would prefer to excuse such acts as the impact of high adrenalin in tense situations. Hence, for the discerning, chatterati reaction to the Ayodhya verdict might have come as an eye-opener on the ‘not-so-hidden’ agenda of these warriors.

Till the very moment of the judgment being made public, almost everyone in the ELM and quite a large section of the Hindutva warriors themselves, were quite convinced that the court could rule in no way other than handing over the site to Muslims. So, in addition to sermons on the necessity of maintaining peace, honoring the court judgment and unconcealed glee on the very visible prospect of a severe setback to the knickerwallahs, the news anchors kept on harking on how the blacker than black hole stain of December 06, 1992 needs to be erased. However, as minutes passed, we could soon hear the exuberant words of Ravi Shankar Prasad narrating the crux of the court’s proclamation and as the enormity of the court’s ‘sacrilege’ sank in, our progressive-liberals reactions morphed from smugness to disbelief to anger and finally vitriol.

Gone was the talk of the need to maintain decorum or to honor the court’s judgment. How could the court, decide in favor of Hindus? Wasn’t the court condoning the acts of December 06 through this judgment? A breast beating Shabnam Hashmi gave us a further glimpse of her bigoted mindset when she proclaimed that the second class status of Muslims, had been affirmed by the court. It would have been funny, had it not been so pathetic, to see columns of ill-informed opinions castigating the Court for giving its judgment on basis of ‘faith’ and not ‘facts’. Very surprising considering the fact that the court judgment was over 10,000 pages in length and even the best speed-readers would have taken at least a couple of days to simply have gone through the report. How then, could these news-anchors and columnists, ignorant of law and nuances of legalspeak, be out with their denunciations the next day itself? When the judgment itself wasn’t read, how could those ignoramuses decide that the basis of judgment itself was incorrect?

An aside of this is the usual progressive-liberal defense of obscene art or defamatory, insulting literature. “Have you even read/seen it?” they sneer, confronting protestors hurt by attacks on their temples and Gods. Only, these very people forgot to read the judgment before being up in arms when their sentiments and beliefs were hurt. Huh!

An almost universal target of condemnation has been the court’s recognition of Ram Lalla as a juristic person. Eminences such as Dileep Padgaonkar condemned this as a ‘sleight of law’ and darkly insinuated that Hinduism has been insulted by the Court’s act of equating God to a mere mortal. Of course, since Dileep is only a journalist, he cannot be expected to know law in toto. At the same time, as a journalist, he is expected to research before peddling his views. Not only have Indian Laws, the Contract Act included, recognized deities as juristic persons, they have been defined as minors in perpetuity, i.e., their affairs would be handled by their guardian. Mr Padgaonkar and his ilk would do good to know that grants by kings, gentry and the common man were made in the name of the Lord and in any dispute before courts, the primary deity of the temple would be a party to the dispute. So, what was so new in the Court making Ram Lalla a party to the dispute? On the insult to Hinduism, had Mr Padgaonkar been a little aware of our culture, he would have known that the entire edifice of Bhakti has been built on the Lord being a friend, a lover, a father, a mother, a companion of all times and one who feels joy, pain, anger and indifference like any other human being. But this is really asking for too much, isn’t it? Expecting our know-it-all journalists to be aware of their Indian roots?

On a more serious note, the court was to adjudicate on three questions primarily: whether there existed a temple at the spot of the demolished structure; who owns the land and did the idols of Lord Ram, Sita and Lakshman exist inside the mosque, or were the idols placed inside on 22 December, 1949?

Now, how could the court have decided otherwise on at least two of these issues? Namely, the pre-existence of a temple and the presence of idols in the structure. Except for the committed warrior band of ‘eminent historians’, no sane person could dispute the Himalayan evidence supporting existence of a temple before the mosque was constructed. How could an adjudicating authority ignore facts and go with the deep-rooted faith of these eminences that the mosque was constructed on an unused piece of land? Likewise, all the judges concurred that the idols were placed in the structure on the intervening night of December 22, 1949. What is there which can be disputed in this matter? Regarding another issue of whether the structure that existed was a mosque and whether it was constructed by Babur, the judges had different views and presented reasons on why they decided so. On the more critical aspect of ownership, before jumping to conclusions, let us review the salient facts of the issue:

• The party representing Muslims, AIBMAC, did not have any sort of possession of the mosque at any time
•  The premier Muslim body in Indian, Muslim Personal Law Board was not a party to the dispute at any time
• The Sunni Waqf board did not contest dispossession of the structure till 1961
• No Muslim body demanded that the idols be removed after they had been placed in 1949
• Hindu Mahasabha did not have possession of the land at any time
• Nirmohi Akhada contended that they were the traditional keepers of the temple, but could not prove ownership
• Retd Justice Deoki Nandan Agrawal filed suit seeking representation as the friend of Ram Lalla Virajman

Now, except for some records (supposedly incomplete) from the medieval ages which indicate grants and collections in the name of Ram Lalla, there is no documentary evidence of any of the party having possession of the land at any time. The litigant whose claim seems closest to being the most valid is of Ram Lalla himself, as he was and is the deity in possession and the fact of his dispossession being barred by limitation was negated by his being a perpetual minor. Hence, more than 400 years after the demolition of His temple, his claim to property was renewed the moment he was placed under the domes of the structure in question. What could the courts have done? Handed over the land to Muslims in negation of these facts, just to ensure that ‘faith’ of the ostensible champions of minorities was maintained?

What should be questioned is the decision of the courts to partition the property? The court seems to have depended on actual usage to decide tripartite ownership while one can argue that if both the existence of a temple and Ram Lalla’s claim has been upheld by the court, how can a part of the property be given to other parties?

It is probably here that the court’s desire to appear fair finally made it over-ride harsh facts of the case!

Finally, the Hindutva organizations have not exactly covered themselves with glory with their conduct before the verdict was announced. While there certainly cannot be any doubt towards the strength of their ardor with regards to the cause of Ram Janmabhoomi, the apologetic tone, the apprehensions regarding the court verdict and the bravado, betrayed that leading lights of the greatest mass movement in Indian history post independence were swayed more by rhetoric and had probably nurtured guilt in their hearts, quite a lot, which they seem to have felt as getting washed away by the court judgment.