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.