Posted on

Editorial: On Ayodhya

In high school, civics always intrigued me. The institutions of government—heads of state, legislature, judiciary—were characterized by their noble intentions of helping people, and by their commitment to upholding idealistic values—justice, equality, freedom—enshrined in the constitution. In my 9th grader mind, these institutions represented lines of defense against the evils of society, and assurances that we can live in peace since there were these institutions looking out for all of us.

But as I grew up, I realized that institutions are also ultimately comprised of people. And institutions, too, can be fickle, short-sighted, and swayed. In today’s world, in which stories on The New York Times read like they’ve come from The Onion, I see faith in institutions degrading rapidly, both in the world around me and within myself.

The recent mammoth verdict in our country’s most contentious court case rings as a victory for the saffron-clad. But one could be excused for thinking it comes across as majoritarian.

For one, although the judgment explicitly denounces the events of 1992 that led to over two thousand deaths nationwide (saying they ‘constitute a serious violation of the law’), the final verdict suggests otherwise. Already, groups that view the judgment as an endorsement of the events of 1992 have sent letters to the Prime Minister, demanding that the criminal cases against kar sevaks that demolished Babri Masjid be withdrawn. It appears that the Supreme Court has inadvertently sent the message that lawlessness can sometimes win. It’s worth asking the question: If the Babri Masjid still stood unfazed today, would the court have ruled to destroy it to make way for a temple?

Even putting this aside, however, the verdict is not sparkly clean. The aforementioned naive 9th grade version of me liked to believe that the law was ultimately, absolutely, above all else, about facts. The Supreme Court finds, on page 907 of the judgment, that ‘A finding of title (in favor of Hindu parties) cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI’. However, the court has awarded the site to Hindus based on the belief that the site 2.77-acre site was the birthplace of Ram (this is, of course, an oversimplification; the site has been one of near-continuous worship by Hindus, and numerous other factors were at play in the decision. However, belief was one such contributing factor). The insidious insinuation here is that in a court of law, at least to some degree, belief can trump facts. That, to me, is scary, to say the least.

Amongst all the rhetoric, it can be easy to forget that judgements of this importance are not only about the case at hand, but also often entail long lasting judicial ramifications. Can the Babri Masjid issue be safely relegated to the footnotes of history and “put behind us”, or will the verdict act as judicial precedent, opening the floodgates and serving as a precursor to similar outcomes elsewhere, such as in Mathura and Kashi? 

My past editorials have been campus-centric and self-referential, and I realise that this piece is a marked departure from that trend. But as I awoke last Saturday to loud cries of Jai Shree Ram (whether ironic or sincere) echoing throughout the QT, I couldn’t help but wonder where this monumental verdict leaves our country. The editorial serves as a medium to direct readers’ attention to important issues—and there’s no reason that those should be limited to issues on our campus. I don’t profess to be an expert or particularly well-read on Ayodhya, but I do believe that the questions I’ve raised here merit discussion and debate. I leave it to you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions.

The views expressed in the article above represent those of the author(s) alone. They may involve notions that the EPC does not openly uphold. The EPC takes pleasure in inviting feedback, criticism, and opinions on any topics that you believe should be addressed. Please send any inputs you have to epc.bitsp@gmail.com.

Here are some links for further reading (the text after the bullet points are hyperlinked).

The facts:

On the scale of the verdict:

Opinions critical of the verdict:

Opinions supportive of the verdict: