It is almost two weeks since Ayodhya verdict was heard by India with bated breath. Almost all the reactions are known and the future course also appears certain – that there will be another legal battle in the Supreme Court over the site. For anyone truly interested in the Hindu – Muslim “issue” in India, this verdict is even more important than for a common Indian. One would think that those already hysterical over the verdict would read the detailed version and not just it's summary, before becoming emotional about how much the verdict “wrongs” the “minority” community.However, it is obvious that no secularist has bothered to read the detailed verdict. Romila Thapar gives it away when she complains that nothing about demolition is mentioned in the SUMMARY of the judgment! All have jumped the gun based on whatever they saw in the gist of the verdict. I am yet to see anyone having read the detailed verdict and then commenting upon the judges' wisdom. Our secularists can't be bothered to do any grunt work before they will dispense their infinite wisdom to lesser mortals. They make the most extreme comments based on what is almost hearsay, rather than do the hard work before shooting their mouths!
Let me start by trying to compile a list of their main gripes:
1. They are in anguish that the court decided to give the “garbha griha” to Hindus simply because Hindus believe it to be the birthplace of Lord Rama. The court gave precedence to Hindu faith and belief over hard evidence admissible in a court of law.
2. The court should have had strict legal focus on title suits and not take into consideration history or faith or other extraneous considerations. The courts did not primarily decide the title suits. They decided the case based on extra-legal considerations.
3. The report of Archaeological Survey of India was given undue credence. The report states that there was a large Hindu structure before the mosque was built. This, according to secularists, is disputed by historians (and no reward for guessing who the “disputers” are !), and should not have been given any consideration.
4. The courts have not tried to punish the perpetrators of the demolition. The courts did not so much as condemn or mention the demolition of “Babri Masjid”.
They have more grievances, but let me first focus on the four above, which seem to be getting repeated by everyone with any claim to being a “liberal” and “secular” Indian.
It is obvious even from a cursory read of the detailed verdicts that ALL the claims above are wrong. The judges not only did not commit any of the above-mentioned offense, but appear to have gone about their job with a fair degree of objectivity. Actually, it appeared to me that the courts' processes are such that it is nearly impossible to bring in subjectivity. I am convinced that the courts, while they are inefficient in many ways, have to be fairly objective and focus on laid down laws while deciding any issue, howsoever emotive.
The courts recorded the statements and then evidence from everyone. 250 pages of Justice Sudheer Agrawal's verdict and like number of pages of Justice SU Khan's full verdict bring it out very clearly. To my mind, it is libelous to suggest that they did not focus on hard evidence and laid down law and were carried away by emotions or considerations of faith. That nearly all secularists have made this assumption shows the mental laziness and immaturity of India's public personalities.
The first question the judges asked themselves was – who has title to the site. They examined the papers provided by Muslim side to ascertain if the Muslim side had clear title to the site. It turned out that the document, which establishes the title of a mosque – a valid notification of the waqf property by the government under the Muslim Waqf Act of 1936, did not have a mention of any mosque at the disputed site! There was a mention of a “Babri Mosque” but the address noted was a place 8 or 10 miles from the site. The column in the notification supposed to contain description of the property was blank. In other words, the Muslim side had no title documents for the site or the structure under dispute. It is as if someone claimed that a house is owned by him but has no registration papers to show for it !
The next step in deciding the owner of the site was to figure out who had the possession of the site. The court examined the evidence thoroughly. Who was using the site and structure – Hindus or Muslims? As it turned out, till 1855, both sides were using the structure!! Hindus were going INTO the structure and worshiping Ramlalla, and Muslims were going and offering Namaz.
There was a riot in 1855 whereby the Muslims tried to take exclusive possession of the site. Hindus chased them away and 75 Muslims lost their lives. Subsequent to this, the British government decided to segregate the Muslim side (the structure) and Hindu side (the surrounding Hindu structures) and put a fence separating the two. They did it to avoid riots. In 1934, there was again a riot over the site. The Muslims virtually stopped coming to the site and the namaz was very infrequently now if not stopped altogether. Hindus kept worshiping at the surrounding sites. In 1949, Hindus installed idols inside the structure and since then Muslims were completely dispossessed of the site.
I cannot emphasize the thoroughness with which the court tried to examine the issue of possession of the domed structure and it's site. The inescapable conclusion was that the Muslims were not in exclusive and undisputed possession of this site EVER.
The law in such a case is to declare the joint possession. This is what the courts did. The next obvious step was to give the land equally amongst the joint owners. Please remember that based on actual possession, there is NO requirement that the domed structure had to be given to Muslims. I quote justice SU Khan on this question: “..From the above it is quite clear that since much before 1855 both the parties were using the premises in dispute as their religious places. A boundary wall having a gate surrounded the constructed portion and the entire adjoining land of the premises in dispute. It was not very big in area (only 1500 square yards). There is no such suggestion on the part of any of the parties that the premises in dispute were used for any other purpose except worship. In such situation, the moment one enters the main gate he is in the premises.
Thereafter, it cannot be said that some one is in only part of the premises. For convenient use, different owners/ possessors may exclusively use different portions of a premises, however it will not mitigate against joint possession. To illustrate if a person dies leaving behind a moderate house and two sons and the sons for the sake of convenience use different portions of the house along with their families, it cannot be said that they are not in joint possession of the entire house. Use and occupation of different portion by each son for the sake of convenience does not amount to formal partition. Exactly similar is the position in respect of premises in dispute also.
The position cannot be said to have substantially changed by construction of the railing in 1856/ 1857. This bifurcation may also very well be described as convenient use of separate portions by two joint possessors.
Muslims have not been able to prove that the land belonged to Babar under whose orders the mosque was constructed. Similarly Hindus have not been able to prove that there was any existing temple at the place where the mosque was constructed after demolishing the temple. It has also not been proved by the Hindus that the specific small portion i.e. premises in dispute of 1500 square yards was treated, believed and worshipped as birth-place of Lord Ram before construction of mosque. In such situation when both the parties have failed to prove initial title, (commencement of title) it is possession and possession alone which decides the question of title in accordance with Section 110, Evidence Act,....” This is a long quotation, but it is at the heart of the judgment, which is entirely following the law of the land, entirely a decision of the title suit and entirely based on facts.
Subsequent to the above, the judges did take into the fact that Hindus came to believe that the location under the dome is the birthplace of Lord Rama. They still did not say that Rama was born at the site. They said that HINDUS HAVE BELIEVED for many centuries now that Rama was born at the site. Hence, since Hindus had joint possession of the structure and they have this belief, the area under the central dome was allotted to the deity while making the three-way division.
As it happens, the judges also commented on the Babri demolition. However, the punishment for the demolition, as per the law, is extraneous to what is essentially a title suit (a fact that does not occur to those who belligerently demand, wrongfully too, that the verdict should primarily have been a title suit, which it is in reality and which fact precludes any judgment about punishing the perpetrators of demolition). The judges were mostly objective and went by law of the land. It is significant that no judge allotted the erstwhile structure to the Muslim side. Reading the judgments in detail made me feel better about our legal system. It does have many flaws but it also forces out subjective considerations to a large extent. And when I listen to / read secularists' reactions to the judgment, I feel embarrassed and also concerned – these people, who can't be bothered to study a subject before they shoot their mouths off, are very powerful too and they will be trying to do anything to denigrate Indian institutions to favor their ideology.
That will be the real atrocity on India, if we let them succeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment