Ayodhya verdict: What we didn’t hear…

Like many others, I was also awaiting the Ayodhya case verdict with keen interest; partly because I wanted to know whether my planned personal engagements for the day would be impacted; and partly because I wanted to see this one get out of the way. As luck would have it, the verdict was welcomed by most; the nation did not burn!

It was a singular verdict which helped uphold peace and harmony in this land. There were no bandh or hartal calls in protest, contrary to the widespread apprehension. Even though various state governments had taken up ample security measures to maintain poise, it was not really required.

But on second thoughts; was it a good judgment that we heard? After going through various statement bits, I take the verdict with mixed feelings. Happy that nothing bad happened. But from a solely analytical perspective, I do not think the verdict did enough justice to the laws in this land. The task the judges had was to establish from traceable evidences, what existed in the disputed land long before. As in any civil case, they had to determine this first and give the judgment accordingly. But what did they do instead? They stated the mosque that existed there wasn’t really a ‘mosque’, and that the place was believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram even before the mosque was built. So what should have they done? Give it to the Hindus, right? At this time, you may think that I am a Hindu fiend, which I am not! I, along with a majority, have the heart to welcome any verdict that is sane.

My point is simple and logical, as I see it. If we can establish that there was a temple in the disputed land in the very beginning, give the land to the Hindus and let them reconstruct the temple. If we can establish that there was a mosque in the beginning, give the land to the Muslims and let them reconstruct the mosque. The Muslims are now taking up the case with the Supreme Court. So, the actual Ayodhya snarl could be straightened out only after a few more weeks.

If a court is to take into account the upshots a verdict can create, one may have to say abrasively that it becomes an establishment without any legitimate purpose. Stretching the thought, how can a judge award death rope to a terrorist, if he/she feels it can potentially stir up a communal riot in the country? Law should be free from all entanglements, and be the same across the land for which it is applicable. A court should not try and assuage people and communities. There is a government that is supposed to take care of all the political and communal backwash. For me, this verdict appears nothing better than dividing a cake and satisfying everyone with a piece of it.


7 responses to Ayodhya verdict: What we didn’t hear…

  1. Hello do not make unnecessary observations and conclusions. This is as far as the best possible judgement, if the structure was there such a verdict was impossible, the status quo would be different. Now if no fanatics and politicians try fishing in mud water, Waqf board and Hindu sabha will settle issues peacefully, Supreme court also wont take much delay as the verdict is clear, and Muslim judge has judged much in favour of Ram Lalla. Now 1/3 land of the place doesnt have any value for Muslims.

    You are arguing that if the structure was not mosque why not handle that to Hindus, if the structure was there such a verdict wont come.

    Muslims and Hindus have shown maturity, so we should maintain such dignity and restrain from digging at others, now even if Hindu or Muslim go to supreme court temple contsruction wont be much delayed. Hindus should be satisfied with that.


  2. @Suseelan

    What makes it the best possible verdict? Because it didn't stir up the country? That is not what we expect from rules and laws. Everyone are almost happy now, because all of them were satisfied by the court. The intent of rules and laws is not to satisfy people. It is not for nothing that the eyes of the loddess are covered. Thanks for the comment…


  3. The effect of this judgement will have some repercussions in the interpretation of law in future as it considered “faith” and “belief”. May be for many situtations, accused can arugue based on their “faith and belief”.


  4. I too felt let down by the verdict.. and thought it was too simplistic a solution.!But, but also realized I did not know much about the case itself. For instance, who Nirmohi Akhara is.? I therefore feel more comfortable in placing my trust in the judiciary of the nation.

    How are things, sree..?

    have Fun, Take Care and God Bless!

    With Best Regards,


  5. Sree, when posting comments, the text box to enter word verification does not appear within the frame. I am using chrome.The only options is to select the comment and then press 'TAB'


  6. @Srijith

    Since it is a case that has been in the court for a long time, and especially because it goes deep back into history, it is really difficult to get the facts and do the proper analysis. But my point is, both the Hindus and Muslims cannot have the possession of the same land. So, with the evidences that we have, the possession should have been decided by the court; either Hindus or Muslims.

    Things are going good. Hope you too are doing great.

    There is a problem with the rendering of my blog with some browsers. Firefox and IE 8 are okay. I thought it was appearing well on Chrome too. Need to check again. Thanks for that!


Comments are closed.