The Ayodhya judgment

"Ayodhya" means 'without bellicosity'. The judgment delivered by the three member Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has been variously interpreted as "Solomonic Resolution" (by the NewYork Times) , "Force of faith trumping law and reason" (by Siddharth Varadarajan of The Hindu) and "Annulment of respect for history and seeking to replace it with religious faith" (by Romila Thapar, a distinguished historian).

The three judges have delivered three separate judgments. On a cursory reading of the judgments, the one delivered by the senior-most judge Sibghat Ullah Khan seems to be the most coherent. His pronouncement highlights the solemnity and gravity of the issue that desiderates resolution. "Here is a small piece of land (1,500 square yards) where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable landmines. We are required to clear it.----- Some very sane elements advised us not to attempt that. We do not propose to rush in like fools lest we are blown. However, we have to take risk. It is said that the greatest risk in life is not daring to take risk when the occasion for the same arises." The prelude could not have been more apt !

Siddharth Varadarajan argues that the judgment is based on "an unverified and unsubstantiated reference to the 'faith and belief of Hindus' ". In other words, the criticism is that the judgment is not evidence-based. Justice Khan has in fact based his conclusions on solid evidence. He says,"Both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title. Hence by virtue of Section 110 of Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession". Joint possession has been proved because "Much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that inside the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped alongwith offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque". In view of this finding, Justice Khan has held that Muslims as well as Hindus were in joint possession of the premises in dispute. Such hard evidence cannot be dismissed as matters of faith.

All three judges have stated that as per the faith and belief of the Hindus the place under the central dome of the Babri Masjid was the birthplace of Ram. Siddharth Varadarajan's comment that "For every Hindu who believes the spot under the central dome of the Babri Masjid is the precise spot where Lord Ram was born there is another who believes something else" smacks of rebellion without cause. Multiplicity of opinions is not ipso facto negation of a preponderant opinion. Further, reference to faith and belief should not be condemned as reliance on the same. It may be true that Tulsidas wrote his Ramcharitmanas in 16th century Ayodhya but made no reference to the birthplace of Rama. This does not mean,as Siddharth Varadarajan argues, that the court's reference to Ram's birthplace is vitiated.

Siddharth Varadarajan's scepticism regarding the finding of the Archaeological Survey of India that there was a massive Hindu religious structure below the masjid is suggestive of selective acceptance of evidence. In his espousal of a particular view, he has accused the judges of not having  relied on evidence (when in fact they have, as already shown above) while he seems to be oblivious of his own discomfort with evidence.

P.P.Rao, a distinguished jurist wonders how the court can divide the disputed land into three portions when none of the petitioners asked for division of land. Justice Khan has clarified this aspect quoting an earlier judgment. He has opined that though there was no specific prayer made by the plaintiffs seeking partition, this should not come in the way of granting a decree for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiff. Denial of relief would only lead to another suit. Multiplicity of proceedings should normally be avoided as the same tends to delay justice.

Justice Khan has amply explained why he has not delved deep into history and archaeology. He did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians. As the Supreme Court has held in Karnataka Board of Wakfs vs.Government of India , there is no room for historical facts and claims in a title suit of civil nature.