Ayodhya verdict: Disputed land to be divided into 3 parts

NEW DELHI: In what is perhaps the most awaited judgement in recent times, a split verdict handed out by a three-member bench of Allahabad High Court on Thursday supported many of the claims of the Hindu litigants while ordering a three-way division of the disputed land.

The ruling provided legal sanction to the makeshift Ram temple that came up after the demolition of the disputed structure in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.

In a majority judgement, Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal said the disputed land would be divided into three parts. While the area where .s idol is placed will go to Hindus, the other one-third will be given to Muslims and the remaining one-third to .

All three judges—Justices DV Sharma, Sudhir Agarwal and SU Khan—contented in favour of the faith that held the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram. Justices Sharma and Agarwal agreed with the long-held claim of the Sangh Parivar and a section of archaeologists that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.

The court’s ruling on the main faultline of the country’s contemporary politics was naturally trumpeted as a big victory by BJP, as its role in the Ayodhya agitation was being used by its rivals to politically ostracise the party.

The three-way split of the disputed land will not detract from the fact that the judgement constituted a vindication of the conviction of the temple camp.

With its line getting legal approval, the Sangh Parivar promptly abandoned its shrill rhetoric on the issue and projected it as a victory of national sentiment. “It is not a question of victory or defeat for anyone. It is an opportunity to forge national unity,” RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat said in the Capital. The aversion for triumphalism stems from a confidence that the verdict will provide it with the required capital to refurbish its image.

The verdict is a major relief for BJP, which has been facing incessant pressure from hotheads within the Parivar to opt for a tough stance on the temple. An adverse verdict would have come in the way of its plans to operate as a genuine right-of-centre party.

BJP’s rivals will now find it difficult to tar it with the nasty communal brush for its participation in the Ayodhya struggle. In the process, the secular, non-secular divide crafted by the party’s rivals may not have an enduring political logic any longer.

For Congress, the issue could prove to be tricky. With the Sunni Waqf Board expressing its dissatisfaction with the verdict and announcing its plans to move the Supreme Court, grievance mongers in the community can be expected to take the issue into their terrain.

At a time when Congress has set out on a massive Muslim outreach, it will not like the Ayodhya issue to mar its efforts. The other claimants for the Muslim vote, particularly leaders like Lalu Yadav, could attempt to fuel Muslim anger against the verdict. If that happens, Congress could find itself in a difficult situation.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held a meeting on Thursday evening with his senior colleagues to take stock of the judgement. In a statement, Mr Singh said status quo will be maintained till the Supreme Court takes up the case.
Congress is pinning its hopes on the lack of connect of “new India” with Ayodhya politics to insulate it against retribution from any quarters.

The government leadership has been repeatedly saying any flare-up could only jeopardise India’s growth story. Home minister P Chidambaram perhaps best summed up the government’s optimism when he said, “India has moved on; young people have moved on and the young people recognise that the India story is more than a dispute about a place.”

His optimism isn’t misplaced. India has the youngest population in the world with a third of its citizens aged under 18, not even born when the disputed structure was razed and who are more anxious to see what the future holds for them and have no desire to revisit the skirmishes of the past.

The markets, too, seem to share this view. “There is a lot of difference between now and 1992... we’re a different society now. There will be no impact of the verdict on markets. It (the market) will not take credence to such happenings,” said Parag Parikh, chairman, Parag Parikh Financial Advisory Services.