What They Said: The Babri Masjid Case
By Tripti Lahiri
The verdict in the decades-long legal dispute over who has the rights over the Babri Masjid religious site in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh state was scheduled to be issued by the Allahabad High Court on Friday. In 1992 Hindu mobs partially destroyed the medieval Babri mosque there demanding to build a temple to Lord Ram, the deity who in Hindu belief was born at Ayodhya. On Thursday the Supreme Court decided to delay the verdict and ordered a hearing Sept. 28 on the possibility of a reconciliation. India Real Time presents a summary of the opinions expressed in the run-up to the verdict and on its deferment.
- AFP/Getty Image
- A man prays at a temple in Ayodhya this week.
“It appears almost unreal to remember that this is, in legal terms, a mere dispute over the title to a small plot of land in a nondescript historical town of north India,” said aneditorial in the Economic and Political Weekly, a week ahead of the expected verdict, calling for the country to guard against the rise of militant Hindu nationalism.”
“Unfortunately, for the past two decades and more, this dispute has not remained a mere legal one, but has been the core of a violent political movement which has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of India’s citizens in riots and massacres,” said the magazine.
Political observer Ashok Malik, writing in the Hindustan Times on Wednesday, laid out some of the questions before the court and suggested possible verdicts, based on the historical, archaelogical and other evidence presented.
“A situation where the ASI (Archaelogical Survey of India) report hints at the existence of a Hindu temple and the title suit itself goes in favor of the mosque and its caretakers can’t be ruled out,” wrote Mr. Malik. “Both sides will declare (half a) victory; and Ayodhya will remain intractable as ever.”
Seema Chishti, writing in the Indian Express on Thursday, noted that India has changed a lot since Hindu militants razed the Babri mosque in 1992, triggering off deadly riots across the country—most notably the country has experienced two decades of economic liberalization, she says. But how much have its political parties changed, she wonders.
“The verdict on Ayodhya is not yet out, and it is most likely to be contested,” she says. “But whether new India, having ‘moved on’ has found a new kind of politics to take in its new concerns and preoccupations is likely to be tested.”
“What to do about Ayodhya?” pondered Jug Suraiya in the Times of India on Wednesday. “Perhaps the most fitting tribute Ayodhya could pay to both Ram and Islam would be to have a non-denominational shrine to all the countless victims of religious violence, in all places and of all times.”
After the verdict was postponed, the Hindu raised questions about the move, noting it came against a background of government concern about protests in Kashmir and security for the Commonwealth Games, which kick off in New Delhi Oct. 3.
“If the judicial process itself were to be held hostage to fears of disturbances, it would amount to giving rioters a veto over the law-abiding and would have disturbing implications for the rule of law,” wrote the paper on Friday. “The nation as a whole should face the Allahabad High Court verdict squarely and demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law, with issues being resolved in judicial and other institutions of the state rather than on the streets.”
“Calls for calm,” an editorial by The Indian Express on Friday said, a day following the Supreme Court’s order, adding the It observed: “However, this is unlikely to stem the interventions that have urged everyone to keep their cool.”
The Indian Express said that the top court’s intervention “might mean the judgement has been pushed back by just a week, but could well lead to an even longer wait.”
But the paper was also cheered by what it saw in the days leading up to the now-postponed verdict.
“That has been the most remarkable feature of this period of anticipation, the way people and organizations from across the political and ideological spectrum have called for calm, regardless of the judgment’s content,” it said in an editorial Friday. “All of us, in truth, have a stake in ensuring that no self-destructive spiral of rancorous bitterness is embarked upon.”
No comments:
Post a Comment