Thursday, September 30, 2010

Ayodhya Verdict : A Perspective

So the verdict is out on the Ayodhya dispute. Hindus are claiming victory, while the Muslims are planning to appeal the Supreme Court.

The case has many aspects, but we will concentrate on the three fundamental aspects here, viz.

1. Does the land belong to either of the Sunni Wakf Board, or the Nirmohi Akhada?

2. Was the structure built upon an earlier structure?

3. What was the nature of the earlier structure?


Answers to the above:


There is a term in legal parlance called "limitation". This says that if you make a large delay in filing your point of view, your point of view loses its right to be recognized.

In light of this, the answer to Question 1 is that the claims of Sunni Wakf Board and Nirmohi Akhada on the site are null and void. Period.


On the basis of evidence provided by the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India), it has been concluded that the structure which was demolished on December 6, 1992, was built on an earlier structure.

So the answer to Question 2 is, Yes.

3. On the basis of the same evidence, it was further concluded that the earlier structure was a massive Hindu structure, which was used as a place of Hindu religious activity as the birth place of Bhagwan Rama.

So the answer to Question 3 is, The structure was being used by Hindus as the birth place of Bhagwan Rama.


Now we come the three judges, viz., Mr. S. U. Khan, Mr. Sudheer Agarwal, and Mr. Dharam Veer Sharma.

1. None of these can deny the above answer to Question 1.

2. None can refute the evidence (they can ask for more research, at the most) by the ASI, hence they can not dissent on the answers to Questions 2 and 3 either.

So now the issue is, why is there a divergence of opinion amongst the judges? Before that, we should also take a look at the salient points of the judgments delivered by these three.

Mr. Khan and Mr. Agarwal opine that the place must be divided into three parts, one each going to Ram Lulla, the Nirmohi Akhada, and the Board. I am given to understand that their argument is that, notwithstanding the history of the matter, the place has been 'enjoyed' by these parties and they must get a share!

Mr. Sharma opines that in view of the above answers, the whole of disputed land must go to Ram Lulla.


It is clear that Mr. Khan and Mr. Agarwal are on a Mohandas-Jawaharian path. The judgment must be based on reason, but they seem to be carrying the doctrine of accommodation a bit too far.

Mr. Sharma on the other hand, sticks to the point and has given a categorical opinion.

I agree with Mr. Sharma on this point.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are not moderated. Please read the About Us page. If you have outright disagreement, then you may not have much use commenting. You are free to record your disagreements in a civil manner. Repeated abuse, and irrelevant postings will be removed. Please avoid advertisements.

This blog does not honor political correctness. If your comment is posted, this does not mean that this blog endorses your views.

While I allow anonymous comments, please quote your twitter account if you want to have a referenced discussion.

There is a Suggestions Page, please post your suggestions regarding this blog as comments on that page.