THE AYODHYA ‘SETTLEMENT’ A ‘SETTLEMENT’ THAT WASN’T
The 40-day court proceedings, in the final run-up to an imminent verdict in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title suit, have been punctuated with controversy. On the very last day, there was a rumour around the Supreme Court that the Sunni Waqf Board was giving up its claim to the land. Before this, the Board, through its counsel, had argued the case vehemently. The sudden announcement raised eyebrows, coming as it did in the wake of three FIRs against the chairman of the Waqf Board.
Initial reports suggested that it was a unilateral, unconditional move. It is now clear that the proposal was framed under the Supreme Courtappointed mediation process. The offer, subject to certain conditions, is backed (officially) by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board besides the Hindu Mahasabha, the Akhil Bharatiya Sri Ramjanam Bhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti and the Nirmohi Akhara. None of the other Muslim parties is a part of this initiative. And, in fact, there are unconfirmed reports that the Waqf Board too is divided over the proposal. The VHP-controlled Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and representatives of the infant deity ‘Ram Lalla’ have not been consulted either. Counsels appearing for the other Muslim parties were quick to disown the proposal. However, sundry supporters of the Mandir movement have gone to town announcing Muslim support for the construction of a Ram Mandir.
A brief retelling
At the heart of the dispute is a 0.313 acre patch of land deep inside Ayodhya, easily the most contested piece of real estate in India. Many Hindus consider it to be the birthplace of Rama. Nearly 500 years ago (in 1528), Mughal emperor Babur’s general, Mir Baqi, is believed to have destroyed a Ram temple to build a mosque, called the Babri Masjid.
In December 1949, idols of Rama and Sita appeared in the ‘janmasthan’. Hindus claim this was
a miracle, and cite it as evidence that this was indeed the birthplace of Rama. However, an FIR filed at the Ayodhya police station at the time records that trespassers had installed the idols in the mosque. In January 1950, one Gopal Singh Visharad of the Hindu Mahasabha filed a civil suit, asking for worship without obstruction and a permanent injunction against removal of the idols. The Nirmohi Akhara filed a suit in 1959 praying that the entire mosque be handed over to it, and the Sunni Waqf Board claimed its right on the mosque in a 1961 suit. These cases (and some others) have meandered through the courts over the past 50 years. An amicable settlement has been proposed on various occasions. However, both sides have asserted that it is impossible for them to give up their claims. The Muslims argue that Shariat does not permit the character of a piece of land dedicated to a mosque to be altered. The Hindu side contends that they represent God, the infant deity ‘Ram Lalla’, and are not authorised to give up claim on the land.
Court-mandated mediation
Despite these entrenched stands, the Supreme Court had directed mediation earlier this year. “We are considering a possibility of healing,” the bench had observed at the time. Mediation is a confidential process where a neutral third party assists litigants in arriving at an agreeable solution. In court-directed mediation, such an agreement is enforceable as a decree of the court. In this case, the court had emphasised that “proceedings of mediation and the views expressed therein by any of the parties, including the learned mediators, shall be kept confidential”.
Efforts at a mediated outcome collapsed on July 29. Hearing of the pending appeals commenced before the Supreme Court on August 6. After 25 hearings, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Waqf Board sought the court’s permission to resume mediation. The court agreed. Arguments continued simultaneously. The Waqf Board’s proposal follows these talks. But it raises some very troubling questions.
The Hindu and Muslim sides were represented before the court through over a dozen parties. No ‘settlement’ was possible without an agreement among all, and the latest rounds of talks proceeded without the consent of all concerned. Further, the leakage of the proposal violates the court’s order mandating confidentiality. It has achieved little—and led to much acrimony. Whether these are moves designed to nudge the Muslim side into a settlement is anyone’s guess.
What next?
The Sunni Waqf Board does not represent the entire Muslim community before the Supreme Court and its proposal to give up claim to the land does not represent the views of the community. The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case is now headed to its logical conclusion—a final judicial verdict is expected before the current Chief Justice retires on November 17.
The Ayodhya dispute is located at the crossroads of India’s secular institutions and religious culture. A judicial determination either way is likely to lead to social upheaval. However, that is now the only possible outcome. The stage is set; India awaits its moment of catharsis. ■
Both the Hindu and the Muslim sides have asserted that it is impossible for them to give up their claims to the land