The Ayodhya verdict has raised questions on what is the division of labour among the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. The verdict is in favour of an aggressive majority and illustrates that Indian ruling elite have to go a long way for ensuring security to it’s religious minorities.
The recent Allahabad High Court judgment on the title suit of the disputed land in Ayodhya has raised many political and legal questions. What constitutes the legal jurisdiction of the court? What should be the role of state when such important matters are decided? How do we define secularism? And, most importantly, what are the state institutions doing to provide a sense of security to the minorities, especially the religious minorities, in a nation which still has fresh memories of the communal riots of Gujarat and Kandhamal?
The suggested three way division of the disputed land gives two-thirds area to the Hindu plaintiffs and one-third to the Waqf Board. The three-judge bench decided on this after dismissing the Waqf Board’s plea. This is akin to saying that we are giving you a piece of the pie though you are not entitled to it. This may justifiably be taken as humiliating by the aggrieved community, which feels discriminated against at various levels in independent India despite the promise of secularism and inclusion given in the Constitution. Legal experts have also pointed out that as no party asked for a division, this judgment may not stand scrutiny.
This judgment has been applauded in many quarters on the grounds it could be accepted peacefully as every party got something. But the point is that achieving peace is not the concern of courts; that’s the duty of the State. Courts are supposed to deliver judgments on the basis of law. In this case, what matters are the laws relating to property disputes. If a fair legal judgment led to possible outbreak of communal violence, so be it. It is the duty of the State to ensure peace by bringing the miscreants to justice.
In any case, what peace has this judgment restored? This peace has come as a result of silencing a minority despite repeated injustices done to it. Firstly, the idols of Ram Lalla were placed surreptitiously inside the central dome of the Babri Masjid in 1949. Then the muslims’ right to worship was taken away though the Hindus were allowed to worship at the Ram Chabutra. The year 1992 saw the Babri Masjid demolition in broad daylight which led to subsequent riots and increasing violence against the minorities. It took more than a decade for the Liberhan Commission report to become public. In between we also had the Gujarat pogrom of 2002. The Ayodhya verdict of September 30 should have marked a break from this history. On the contrary, it appears to toe the line of the Hindutva brigade in the name of ensuring peace, not justice.
This peace is also a result of majoritarian aggression that the Hindutva brigade has been showing over the past six decades. There have been numerous attacks on religious minorities in India — anti-Sikh riots, Bhagalpur violence and Kandhamal to name a few. The Hindu fanatics, led by the RSS-BJP combine, have always maintained that minorities can “stay” in India in peace only as long as they follow the logic of the majority. Has this skewed logic caught up with our judiciary?
This brings us to the question of secularism per se. India takes pride in being the largest democracy with Constitutional values deeply rooted in the idea of secularism. For the Indian ruling class the role of State in a secular set-up is to provide support to all religions. Thus the State gives funds and logistical support to groups with contradictory, and many times clashing, interests. This maze has helped fundamentalists go for political mobilizations as a matter of right and to influence various institutions governing the country. It is time that the definition of secularism is revisited and religion is separated from State and policy making.
It is clear that the Ayodhya verdict is a big jolt to the secular thread of the nation. A legal document cannot be based on faith and belief. As there will be an appeal in the Supreme Court, one would wish that the course of history be changed to make India a more inclusive polity. Responsibility of ensuring security and justice lies on the shoulders of the judiciary as much as it lies on the policy makers. Peace without justice is an unjust peace – and cannot be lasting.
