An early reading of the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in the Ram temple-Babri mosque case suggests that the judges were influenced by the overarching reality that 2010 is not 1992 or even 1528. There seems to be an unspoken acknowledgement that the country has indeed traveled far from the bloody and rancorous days before and after the demolition of mosque on December 6, 1992.
The essence of the court’s verdict seems to be that it should be possible for the Hindus and Muslims to continue maintain a peaceful religious coexistence even while dividing the property three ways. Within the division the court has apparently maintained that the central dome under which the Hindus believe the deity of Lord Ram resides should indeed be given to the Hindu community.
It seems like a judgment that tries to carefully balance between the aspirations of the two communities by two of the three judges, namely Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal while the third, Justice Dharam Veer Sharma has come down almost entirely on the side of the Hindus.
While it is possible to argue that the court has gone beyond the specifics of the issue and entered the realm of good neighborliness, faith and belief, given the country’s forever complex religious relations the underlying suggestion of reconciliation may not be that out of place. In some sense, it is an activist judgment but an exception can be made because of the gravely sensitive nature of the case. It would have been hard for the court to be coldly clinical and strictly legalistic.
These are my quick early thoughts (as if they matter at all). I extensively reported on the dispute before and in the aftermath of the demolition in December 1992. One used to interact with all the leading lights of this case practically on a daily basis and in the process one developed a special affinity.
P.S.: When rescued from all the political, cultural, religious and emotional cacophony around the case, one is left with a striking feeling about the absurdity of this case.