Ayodhya Verdict: What the Court did not say

The Ayodhya Verdict

Analysts, interpreters, fierce and dogmatic partisans have every right to understand the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi property dispute according to their respective ideological blinkers, but they should not impute to the court what the judgement did not say.

One of the common claims made by both sides – the advocates of the Ram temple on the one hand and the defenders of the Babri Masjid on the other – was that the court decided the matter on the basis of faith, not facts. The Hindutva ideologues, especially those from the BJP, have assumed that the Supreme Court had upheld the claims of the devotees of Lord Rama and respected centuries-old religious sentiments and traditions. The Muslims and the secularists – strange and ironic fellow-travellers – have concluded that the court gave precedence to mythology over that of history.

The fact is, the Supreme Court’s judgement did not validate religious sentiments and traditions or mythology. The case was treated as a property dispute, and as the disputants represented members of two communities, the court perforce used the words ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’. The court was not pitting Hindus against Muslims, and favouring Hindus.

In paragraph 796 of the judgement, it states the basis of the case: “The dispute is over immovable property.” And in the following sentence, it makes it clear: “The court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence. The law provides us with parameters but as profound.”

In paragraph 797, the judgement reveals the basis of its conclusion: “On the balance of probabilities, there is clear evidence to indicate that the worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unimpeded in spite of the setting up of a grill-brick wall in 1857.” And in paragraph 798, the judgement says, “As regards the inner courtyard, there is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857. The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century.”

In paragraph 648, the judgement says, “The mere existence of a structure underneath the disputed property cannot lead to a legally enforceable claim to title today.” And in paragraph 652, it says, “This Court cannot entertain claims that stem from the actions of the Mughal rulers against Hindu places of worship in a court of law today.”

This judgement does not set a precedent for the militant and right-wing Hindu groups to raise other disputes citing historical grievances.

The critics of the judgement can dispute the conclusion but they cannot say that right of the Hindus was recognized on the basis of belief and mythology. It is not only unfair, but it is untrue. One must read the 1045-page judgement with patience even if one disagrees with it altogether.

It is also to be recognized that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the BJP did not create the dispute, though they certainly appropriated it. The dispute first flared up in the 1853 communal riots between a group of Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya, and the colonial administration intervened and put up the railing dividing the outer from the inner courtyard to prevent clashes.

There is a general perception that the Supreme Court is biased towards the majority community, and that it has not taken an adversarial stance in relation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, and therefore it has been indirectly supportive of the executive. This is an issue that can, and should, be debated. But the perceived bias of the court cannot be used to describe the Ayodhya judgement as favouring the Hindus.

While the Muslims and the secularists have painted the court saffron, the BJP leaders, including Prime Minister Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, have made it appear that history has been redeemed, which implies that the imagined humiliation of Hindus by the Muslim invaders has been settled by the Supreme Court.

It is a perverse interpretation even in its mildest sense. The court has made it clear that it was dealing with a property dispute, and not with the civilizational clash of Hindus and Muslims. This is nothing short of communalizing the judgement.

It is, of course, naïve to expect Hindutva hardliners not to misinterpret the Supreme Court judgement. But it is necessary for the rest of the country to know that the basis of the court’s verdict was within the strict parameters of established law, and that it did not go the Hindu way based on pseudo-historical bases.

The court was also aware that it was dealing with a difficult case, and that is why it fell back on the spirit of Article 142, of interpreting the law to mete out ‘complete justice’. It is for this reason that the court directed that five acres of land be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board. This is not a palliative gesture of soothing Muslim sentiments. There is the recognition that there was a mosque standing there.

The court did not favour the Allahabad High Court measure of dividing the disputed site for two reasons. First, it held the site to be a ‘composite’. That it had to go in full to either of the sides. Second, it had considered the issue that this would disturb peace and harmony.

It is important to understand the judgement aright because the court has not in any way given in to the religious sentiments of either side. It upheld the constitutional principle that followers of all religions are equal before the law.

(The writer is a senior journalist based in New Delhi)