Ayodhya Verdict: Judging the Judges, part III

I have been writing about what the Ayodhya verdict actually says. The detailed verdict, that is, and not the gist which our secularists glanced through and jumped to far reaching conclusions about why the judges decided what they decided. The secularists did not stop at drawing such baseless conclusions. They have also been beating their breasts about how the verdict wrongs Indian Muslims and secularists alike.
I have earlier commented on ASI report part of it. I argued that ASI report was critically scrutinized by the court. All objections of Muslim parties were taken into account. Our secularist historians were paraded in the court by the Muslim party. They cut a sorry figure and could not answer anything satisfactorily during the cross examination. The judges, seeing how shallow and self – contradictory they were, and seeing that a highly reputed body like ASI answered their objections satisfactorily, accepted the ASI report as evidence and decided one of the issues, viz, whether the Babri structure was constructed after demolishing a Hindu temple. The answer was, of course, in the affirmative.
I also showed that determination of this issue in favor of Hindus did not finally affect the verdict much. The judges primarily decided the case based on title and possession and not the ASI report.
One issue, however, which did have significant effect on the judgment was issue no 11 of case 4 (leading case in the whole matter) – whether the spot which Hindus have occupied in 1949 and been worshipping thereat, is the birth place of Ram or not. Two of the judges answered it in the affirmative. One can easily imagine secular hysteria at this. What ?! The court decided not only the historicity of Ram but also pinpointed his birth place !! Preposterous !! How can a court of law pass judgment on mythology !!
Here again is Dileep Padgaonkar, the man who shot his mouth almost immediately upon landing in Srinagar as the interlocutor in Kashmir and tried to resolve the whole Kashmir issue within days, holding forth on court's outrageous insolence in deciding the historicity of Lord Ram:
“..They looked upon Lord Ram not as a mythological figure who, given his exemplary life and character, dwells in the hearts of millions of Hindus, but as a historical character. This explains the court's willingness to identify the precise location of his place of birth. The exercise did not call for a shred of evidence. None was sought and none was forthcoming. It was undertaken simply because the faith and belief of Hindus decreed that the Lord was born under the central dome of the mosque that was razed to the ground...”
Once again, I went through the relevant parts of the detailed verdict to see if the court had indeed overstepped the bounds of judicial propriety and allowed their Hindu religious belief to trump legal procedures based on hard evidence and laid down law. As may be expected, the opposite was true. The court was objective in this matter too. I will quote from detailed judgment of Judge Sudheer Agrawal to demonstrate it is so.
First off, the judge did not give out a judgment that Ram was physically born at the same spot which Hindus believe to be the janmasthan. Indeed, the judge is at pains to explain that the courts of law cannot pronounce judgment on a matter such as this where no contemporary record is available about Ram's existence or place of birth. He examines all the mythology about Lord Ram painstakingly and repeatedly says that courts cannot derive any conclusion based on these sources cited by the Hindu parties.
Here is what he says about the historicity of Lord Ram:
“The issues which have been framed and up for consideration by us are causing a bit complication inasmuch as issue 11 (Suit-4) says, "is the property in suit the site of Janambhumi of Sri Ram Chandraji". It does not talk of whether this question has to be considered in the context of tradition, faith and belief of Hindus, or, that like an ordinary property dispute, we are really required to answer where Lord Rama was borne actually. If this be so, the issue require us to perform an impossible task.
…....The issues pertaining to history cannot be decided like this and to us it appears that by necessity we have to treat the issues 11 (Suit-4), 1 (Suit-1) and 22 (Suit5) as if we are required to answer the common question whether the property in suit is the site of birth of Sri Ramchandra Ji according to tradition, belief and faith of Hindus in general, otherwise this kind of dispute will create inroads to a very serious and dangerous arena which we cannot allow.” (emphasis mine)
So, the judges admit that historicity of Lord Ram cannot be decided by the court of law and focus on whether the Hindus have a bona fide faith, since times immemorial, that Lord Ram was born at the spot in question.
Surely the second question – what is verifiably the Hindu faith in respect of birthplace of Lord Ram, is eminently answerable by the court. Questions of faith such as this have been decided by the courts earlier too.
In light of these comments, we can throw out of the window, objections of Padgaonkar that courts were not supposed to adjudicate whether Ram was born or not. Court did not do so. Court termed it an impossible task. However, court certainly can and did decide what the Hindu faith says in respect of the birthplace of Ram. And now let us see how the courts went about it.
The judge relied heavily upon the records of travelers William Finch (1611) and the Jesuit priest Tiffenthaler to Ayodhya. Finch mentioned a “Ramkot”, the fort of Ram which was in ruins but the people went to the place to worship at the birthplace of Lord Ram. Tiffenthaler gave a more detailed account including what he was told about demolition of the temple to build a mosque at the same spot where Lord Ram was born. The judge notes that secularist historians like Suvira Jaiswal, who claimed that Ram was pure myth much less had an exact birthplace, could not support their argument and were simply stating their opinion without any expert enquiry.
The judge then takes note of various British gazetteers who reported, from early 19th century till early 20th century, about the Ram Janambhoomi. All of them reported that local belief existed that Ram was born at the spot under the central dome of the mosque which was erected after demolishing a large temple. They informed that in 1855, there was a major riot in which Muslims tried to take possession of the mosque structure but were beaten back with heavy casualties. And most importantly, they recorded that till before 1857, when the British cordoned off the structure, both Hindus and Muslims used to pray inside the mosque structure.
The judge takes note of a letter written by Mohammed Asghar, Mutwalli of Babri mosque. The letter is dated 30th November, 1855 and mentions that Hindus had been worshipping in the inner courtyard of the mosque structure for several hundred years !!
The lawyer of the Muslim side, Mr Jilani argued that the reports of the gazetteers cannot be accepted as evidence because they did not indicate in the reports any basis for the report but merely mentioned what they heard. In this regard, the judge observed that since it is a historical matter, contemporary records cannot be brushed aside even if the basis is not mentioned. If there was no basis for the reports, he says, then why are all the reports of gazetteers and the travelers so consistent. Finally, the judge concludes:

“Once we find that by way of faith and traditions, Hindus have been worshipping the place of birth of Lord Rama at the site in dispute, we have no reason but to hold in a matter relating to such a kind of historical event that for all practical purposes, this is the place of birth of Lord Rama.”
The judge also quotes past judgments (Jameshedjee Cursetjee Tarachand vs Soonabhai, among others) wherein it was decided that once a community has a faith and belief, it is not for a secular court to question the belief.
Hindus have believed for centuries that Lord Ram was born at the spot under the central dome of the Babri structure that was constructed by demolishing the temple. Hindus have worshipped the spot for centuries. After the demolition also, in spite of considerable risk and hardship (and the judge notes this too), Hindus continued to lay claim to the spot and entered and worshipped the spot whenever possible. Many riots took place over the possession of the spot.
All of these facts are incontrovertible from the evidence which was presented. The conclusion was inescapable – the spot under the central dome is Ram Janambhoomi, once again, according to Hindu faith and belief. Thus, once the title and possession matters were decided (joint ownership), the judges had no difficulty in decreeing that the spot under the central dome, where a makeshift temple exists now, be given to Hindus.
Of course, our secularists can't be bothered to get into such details and form an informed opinion. They have now gotten into the habit, rather like a spoiled child, of arguing that something must be done simply because they want it done. All sorts of arguments are invented, facts concocted, so as to be able to demand that their wishes be fulfilled.

I have already thanked God that there are courts in India that go by hard, verifiable evidence and laid down law and are not cowed down by belligerent groups who put themselves on a pedestal and try to impose their will on those they consider lesser mortals. Let us hope and work whatever we can to ensure it remains so.