LEAVING THE DOOR AJAR

IS A CONSENSUS POSSIBLE IN THE AYODHYA DISPUTE?

On March 6, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, reserved its order on the Ayodhya dispute and opened up the matter for mediation, saying the apex court was “looking at hearts, minds and healing” if possible. The Constitution bench was hearing appeals against the September 10, 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court, which ordered a tripartite division of the disputed 2.77 acres of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. The apex court has appointed a three-member mediation panel, headed by retired Supreme Court judge F.M.I. Kalifulla along with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of the Art of Living and senior advocate Sriram Panchu. They have been given eight weeks to come up with a “permanent solution” acceptable to all parties.

The apex court cited Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, which lays out the template for exploring all avenues in order to resolve a dispute out of court, which includes mediation. Several efforts at mediation have been tried in the past, both before the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992 and after it. Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, representing the appellant Sunni Waqf Board in favour of a mosque at the site, has supported the SC’s move. The Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) has also welcomed it. However, senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, representing the deity Ramlalla Virajman and Mahant Suresh Das, opposed the motion. The VHP, other Sangh Parivar affiliates and the Nirmohi Akhara (the third appellant) have also argued against any such attempts. They instead want an ordinance to build the temple at the disputed site.

The appellants on the Hindu side of the dispute as well as the larger Sangh parivar have opposed outside mediation