The
destruction of the Masjid was a terrible act. An opportunity to
preserve the structure and give Hindus the right to worship within
was lost.
The verdict was one of compromise, which under the circumstances is the best possible solution to this contentious issue. A total award to either side would have created an outrage among either the Hindus or the Muslims. And since there are three contesting parties, it resulted in a three way split. No community is happy, peace and calm prevails, which might have been otherwise.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will uphold the High Court verdict after going through the motions. Would anyone in their right mind want to tamper with the High Court decision? The arm chair crowd and talking heads will continue to debate for awhile, while the rest of the country will go about business as usual.
A festering issue that precedes Independence
The verdict was one of compromise, which under the circumstances is the best possible solution to this contentious issue. A total award to either side would have created an outrage among either the Hindus or the Muslims. And since there are three contesting parties, it resulted in a three way split. No community is happy, peace and calm prevails, which might have been otherwise.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will uphold the High Court verdict after going through the motions. Would anyone in their right mind want to tamper with the High Court decision? The arm chair crowd and talking heads will continue to debate for awhile, while the rest of the country will go about business as usual.
A festering issue that precedes Independence
The
first recorded incident of violence over the issue between Hindus and
Muslims in modern times took place in 1853 (See Note 1). A Hindu sect
called the Nirmohis (2) claimed the structure, contending that the
mosque stood on the spot where a temple had been destroyed during
Babar’s time.
The Mosque was built in 1527. Permission to erect a temple was sought in 1885 and denied.Apparently Hindus used to worship Ram at this site since the late 1700s.
While many temples were destroyed by Mogul rulers all over India and by the Portuguese in Goa, none have been contested the way this particular temple has been. The ASI report does state that a temple did exist on this site. Based on the history of this conflict, it should have been settled in 1947.
In December 1949, idols were put inside the mosque (3). Our Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru at that time, didn't think it was an important enough issue to settle. He presumably shot of a letter and then turned his attention to more pressing matters. Can't really blame him. Who would have thought the issue would continue to fester and flare up? He was focused on Nation Building, constructing his vision of temples of modernization and on implanting his idea of socialism which resulted in License Raj.
Shame on Times of India (4)
In India, there is a tendency to dwell on the negative and here is an article in the Times of India if taken at face value indicates that the majority of the Muslim community feels discriminated against. Dissatisfaction is understandable. But reading more into it is uncalled for.
The Mosque was built in 1527. Permission to erect a temple was sought in 1885 and denied.Apparently Hindus used to worship Ram at this site since the late 1700s.
While many temples were destroyed by Mogul rulers all over India and by the Portuguese in Goa, none have been contested the way this particular temple has been. The ASI report does state that a temple did exist on this site. Based on the history of this conflict, it should have been settled in 1947.
In December 1949, idols were put inside the mosque (3). Our Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru at that time, didn't think it was an important enough issue to settle. He presumably shot of a letter and then turned his attention to more pressing matters. Can't really blame him. Who would have thought the issue would continue to fester and flare up? He was focused on Nation Building, constructing his vision of temples of modernization and on implanting his idea of socialism which resulted in License Raj.
Shame on Times of India (4)
In India, there is a tendency to dwell on the negative and here is an article in the Times of India if taken at face value indicates that the majority of the Muslim community feels discriminated against. Dissatisfaction is understandable. But reading more into it is uncalled for.
A Historians Perspective (5)
And then you have supposedly noted historian stating that the verdict was politically motivated and supersedes a judicial one based on the laws of the country.
Doesn't she
realize that laws themselves are politically defined? As she
acknowledges at the very beginning of her reported commentary this
issue could have been settled many years ago. But it wasn’t. The
dispute predates the birth of India.
Unfounded fears
The very same noted Historian fears that this judgement sets precedence and opens up the Pandora’s Box for many similar claims. But this is not a new dispute and the principle of “Statute of Limitations” can be applied to any new or frivolous claims that surface. True many temples have been destroyed by both Mogul and European invaders, but the Hindu community has by and large accepted this unfortunate situation, except in this particular instance.
A compromise was possible
Unfounded fears
The very same noted Historian fears that this judgement sets precedence and opens up the Pandora’s Box for many similar claims. But this is not a new dispute and the principle of “Statute of Limitations” can be applied to any new or frivolous claims that surface. True many temples have been destroyed by both Mogul and European invaders, but the Hindu community has by and large accepted this unfortunate situation, except in this particular instance.
A compromise was possible
Many
attempts were made to achieve a compromise solution. Despite many
altercations and disputes an informal situation was prevalent and
could have been the foundation of a workable compromise. All attempts
to formalize the situation and work towards a mutually acceptable
solution were thwarted by judicial maneuvering. Eventually it
got politicized and then reached a point of no return.
Babri Masjid destruction – An act of revolution
Chiddu the Home Minister has gone on record to say that the destruction was a criminal act6. That maybe very well be so. But it was also a revolutionary act undertaken by a mob incited by politicians, all of whom were frustrated and incensed by the law not paying attention to an issue that has been burning prior to the birth of India. As a result a legacy of India’s heritage was ruined.
That aside, a person of his standing should realize that the case being judged was pertaining to the dispute and not the demolition. While he is entitled to his personal views, he ought to refrain from making such comments as the Home Minister. But then he is a politician and politicians can't help but wag their tongues for political gain.
Time to put the past behind us
Unlike Solomon who had to decide on a claim to a baby by two feuding mothers, this is after all a piece of land now, unfortunately. Hopefully the Supreme Court will decide quickly after hearing testimony from all parties concerned and uphold the decision of the High Court.
Here is another view that provides some interesting background and rationale:
Notes:
1. See section on “Conflicts over this site” at:
2. The Nirmohis have been granted 1/3 of the land in this judgement.
3. See Timeline:
6. Chiddu’s opinion: http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/10/01/chidambaram-babri-masjid-destruction-criminal/
