New Delhi, Nov 10 History and memories have one thing in common - new always replaces the old.
Within hours of the historic and unanimous judgement on Ayodhya by the five-member bench, a debate has arisen about 'fear mongering' in the public space. Several BJP leaders, during media interaction and television debate, are trying to underline the need of breaking free from the 'prison' of past prejudices.
While there has been a general appreciation to the court verdict, including from lawyers and a section of Congress leaders, some Muslim leaders, including the likes of Asaduddin Owaisi of AIMIM, has sought to bring in the debate over 'victory' of faith as against facts.
It ought to be noted that the same debate of Faith Vs Facts had cropped up even in 2010 after the Allahabad High Court verdict when Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav had said - ".....a nation state is run by the rule of law and not on the basis of religious faith".
But with regard the verdict of November 9 (Saturday), Congress MP and a lawyer himself Abhishekhmanu Singhvi had said that: "......from paras 508 to 512, the court has analysed in great detail and endorsed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report which gave clear factual findings on the pre-existence of a big structure beneath the demolished mosque structure; the fact that the earlier structure was non-Islamic; and that it had several motifs and features which related to Hindu culture and religion".BJP spokesman Sambit Patra said an attempt was being made to suggest that the long years of legal battle and finally the judgement has virtually compelled the Muslims to reconcile what has come.
"....This is not true as Muslim side also contested the case in the court through their lawyers. They were fighting for justice. But ironically evidences, documentary and oral presented before the Supreme Court were in favour of the other side," Mr Patra said.
In fact, in the words of Congress leader Mr Singhvi - ".....it would be unwise, hasty, knee-jerk and irresponsible to launch broadsides of uninformed criticism against this comprehensive judgment".
He also has said - "The Supreme Court thus upheld the conclusion of Justice Sudhir Agarwal (of Allahabad High Court of 2010) that the ASI’s omission to give one crucial finding (namely whether the earlier structure was a temple or not) would not change anything".
Among other things, Justice Agarwal had said - The building in dispute (in Ayodhya) was constructed after demolition of a non-Islamic religious structure.
Mr Singhvi also says: "Several other paras discuss the question of faith and belief which undeniably establishes the fact that the Hindus consider this spot as the birthplace of Lord Ram ( paras 556-558). The relief granted is, however, clearly not founded upon mere faith and belief."
Meanwhile, the BJP leaders have tried to say to raise controversies vis-a-vis Kanshi and Mathura at this juncture would be unjustified.
"Did any BJP leader in last six years hold a press conference to say that we have next Kanshi and Mathura on our agenda....," asks BJP spokesman Mr Patra adding thus trying to create a 'speculative fear' is uncalled for.
"You are only trying to instigate people and fear monger.....," he said.
Others said there is a 1991 law enacted during the tensure of P V Narasimha Rao as the Prime Minister.
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 said among other things that no person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof.
It was clearly aimed at working as a powerful deterrent to change the nature of existing religious places.
It is in this context, several BJP leaders have said that it would be erroneous to create 'a fictituous doubt' in the minds of people especially minorities.
Hence there is talk that the November 9, 2019 judgement did have 'judicial creativity' trying to resolve a problem and thus wrong to say that the judgement of the five-member bench did not take into account 'details' of the matter.
A source said based on 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court, it was argued that the figurines of elephant, tortoise and crocodiles recovered during excavation were associated with 'Hindu beliefs' and moreover, such animal figurines are not allowed in the mosque.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict on Ayodhya is remarkable
- Abhishek Singhvi
To analyse, much less critique, a 1,045 page, 805 paragraph and 3.03 lakh word Supreme Court (SC) judgment before the ink on it is dry is neither possible, nor apposite. While a comprehensive critique must await fuller study, a few legal, political and general points are nevertheless in order.
First, we tend to ignore the remarkable achievement of a unanimous Constitution Bench judgment on a highly fractious and divisive issue, riven by law, factual controversy, emotions, archaeological evidence and historical treatises. Far lesser cases have led to 4-1 or 3-2 verdicts. The court must be publicly applauded for this unanimous approach which sends out its own clear and significant message to all segments of Indian society. It also immeasurably enhances the strength and weight of the judgment.
Second, the only correct, efficacious and lasting solution to this highly divisive issue is a binding judgment of the apex court. Neither the best intentioned mediation, nor any bonafide government or a responsible opposition can achieve the quietus and finality which a reasoned apex court judgment can.
Third, it is neither the job of an apex court nor humanly possible in any system to satisfy every litigant or every stakeholder. To be human is to be fallible. More than anyone else, the SC has said so in innumerable judgments. The SC is right because it is final, and not final because it is right. And that can and should never be a ground for uninformed criticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment