30th September 2010 was my daughter’s (Eliza) first birthday, since the morning I was very excited as the first birthday is always special. All the day I was planning for the evening and was expecting a gift from Lucknow for my sweet daughter, where the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court was pronouncing the judgment on Ayodhya title dispute. Being an Indian Muslim I was not too ambitious therefore simply expected a fair judgment if not a decree. I also wanted to show my Kashmiri wife that it is still a good idea to believe in the India, and none but the Law is the saviors.
When the judgment was actually announced I was numb and concerned. The first thought that came to my mind was 'How will I respond to my wife?’ Kashmiris have almost lost their faith in Indian State and have always been arguing against my faith in the state. This judgment will transfer even more arsenals into my kitchen and for next few weeks I will be left with no option but to defend myself on the dinning table.
The second thought that crossed my mind was 'Why our ancestors stayed in India after the assassination of Gandhi?'. The migration continued for almost two decades after Gandhiji’s assassination, therefore they had enough time to introspect and decide. I don’t know what made them to stick to their decision that they took in 1947 AD. There would have been some good reason for the stay but I will never know the reason as it was decided by my grand father who died 9 years before I was born. But for me it is indifferent to stay on either side of the Radcliff line as conditions are the same.
Lastly, I wondered, 'Whether we should still show our faith in the Indian judiciary?' I can only say I hope so. I don't have clear answers to the above questions but I am desperately searching for answers, as I believe my daughter deserves to know the answers someday.
What I am in search of are - Why court have not provided any legitimate reasons, proved by evidences to announce the judgment. How can a court announce an important judgment based on mythological believes and not on facts and evidences. When was the court pleaded to divide the land or decided about the birth place. I don't know much about Law but I definitely know that the courts need evidences to decide a plea.
This re-conciliatory/political judgment is like endorsing the act of demolition and succumbing to fear of the violent reactions from either party if denied with the disputed land. If the madam justice was blind then how did she anticipate the repercussions of the judgment? Another disturbing signal is coming from those who are endorsing the judgment for sake of peace. But knowingly or unknowingly they are shifting the Rights of 90s to the Center in 2010. This movement of reference point is alarming, as it might take India towards the deeper rifts.
I am forced to think why there is no judgment on the Babri demolition but judgment on Babri land dispute, no judgment on Mumbai riots but on the Mumbai blast, no action on the Sri Krishna and Liberahan Commissions' reports, the list of denied justices is getting longer every day. This converges me to think that when ever it is the time to give justice to Muslims it is delayed or reversed. I don't know if it is meager coincidence or deliberate attempt.
I am still clinging to my faith in the judicial system and I am hoping that the Apex court will not deny us that which is our right. The only thing that we would be interested is that the court up holds the rule of Law, i.e. if it decides on the basis of facts and evidence or hysteria and myth. And in doing so if they decide against the Muslim I will definitely welcome the judgment.
I don't want my daughter to hear about her first birthday with her mother's prospective. But I want her to believe what her father and her ancestors have believed since 1947 that India is governed by LAW.
It is published in TWOCIRCLE.NET
7 comments:
Read how others have reacted to the Judgement.
The Hindu‘s deputy editor, Siddharth Varadarajan:
“The legal and political system in India stood silent witness to the crime of trespass, vandalism and expropriation [of the Babri masjid]. Eighteen years later, the country has compounded that sin by legitimising the “faith” and “belief” of those who took the law into their own hands.
“The “faith and belief” that the court speaks about today acquired salience only after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bharatiya Janata Party launched a political campaign in the 1980s to “liberate” the “janmasthan.”
“Collectives in India have faith in all sorts of things but “faith” cannot become the arbiter of what is right and wrong in law. Nor can the righting of supposed historical wrongs become the basis for dispensing justice today.”
Former Delhi High Court judge Justice R.S. Sodhi in The Telegraph:
“I think this judgment is useless. It is a statuesque judgment. The court has gone into issues of belief, which it should not have. It has actually decided nothing.”
Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan in The Telegraph:
“It is an absurd judgment. No legal right can be declared on the basis of people’s faith. They (the three judges) have decided on all kinds of irrelevant and emotional issues. There is no legal basis to the ruling that the disputed land should be divided into three parts.”
Jamia Milia Professor, Mukul Kesavan, in The Telegraph:
“The court also seemed to endorse the argument from faith in a way that is certain to be controversial. Both decisions, as they stand, might set precedents that could have worrying consequences for pluralism and the freedom of religious belief and practice, especially for disputes between a religious minority and a religious majority.”
Historian Irfan Habib in The Times of India:
“The compromise judgment has come at the cost of history and facts. It is improper (for the court) to accept the Archaelogical Survey of India (ASI) report on the historical fact. Weight has been given to belief. One should be careful in historical facts.”
The columnist Amulya Ganguli in DNA:
“The claim was based purely on a myth. Lord Ram is not a historical figure. He is a deity in the eyes of only a section of Hindus. All Hindus do not regard him with reverence. In south India, for instance, Ravan, another mythical figure who is Ram’s adversary, is more popular. In Bengal, Michael Madhusudan Dutt‘s Meghnad Badh Kavya is a literary classic extolling one of Ravan’s sons at Ram’s expense.
“Whether a plot of land can be legally awarded to a community on the basis of mere religious belief. The answer will also have to include the fact that claims on behalf of Hindus are being advanced by fundamentalists, not liberals. In fact, the latter regard the movement, which was carried on with two others asserting similar rights on two mosques in Varanasi and Mathura, as a distortion of Hinduism.”
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan in The Hindu:
“If this panchayati solution is to be endured, the degree of Muslim entitlement should have been left intact so that the site belonged to them. The destruction of the masjid was akin to the demolition of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan, and people would say that India’s secular justice was majoritarian in nature without lending dignity to India’s minority.”
Constitutional expert and senior Supreme Court advocate P.P. Rao in The New Indian Express:
“It is more like a panchayat justice dividing the disputed property among the three contenders. And it is not clear how after dismissing the suit of the Sunni wakf board, one-third of the property is given to Muslims.”
Former Supreme Court chief justice A.H. Ahmadi in The Indian Express:
“There is no running away from the centrality of answering who has the title. I am not sure on what basis the Sunni waqf suit has been time-barred. But if the title is not theirs, how can one-third be a masjid now, and if the title is theirs, how can two-thirds be divided? There certainly can be a compromise but that should have happened after the verdict. The verdict should not appear like a decision of a panchayat foisted forcibly on all parties.”
Thanks for writing on such issues which will at make us to think.
This is the first time the highest court is asking for a judgment to be delayed! Waited for judges to retired.
Ayodhya has become a symbol. A symbol of an intense political competition between the Hindu and the Muslim political identity. In the 1990s the temple movement polarized society, took hundreds of innocent lives and spawned a new language of politics. "Minority appeasement", "pseudo-secularism", these were all the words born during the Hindu movement of the time. The movement catapulted the BJP to the national mainstream and pushed the Congress on the back foot.
Yet India is a different country today. Globalization and 8 per cent growth have created an upwardly mobile newly rich society. While Ram may remain an article of faith for many Hindus, there is little evidence to show that conditions for street protests of the 1990s exist today. The Leaders of the Ayodhya movement who I met seemed disillusioned and bereft of cadres. Advani is 83 and is trying to reinvent his identity. Sushma Swaraj recently said, that the BJP takes pride in becoming a "responsible" opposition party. There are reports that the RSS too is thinking of a reach out towards minorities and Narendra Modi too had appealed for calm ahead of the verdict. Vinay Katiyar, once the "perpetually-in-battle-mode" chief of the Bajrang Dal, now has a Facebook profile! Can there be a more telling example of Ayodhya being overwhelmed by New India?
India 2010 is a very different country from India 1992. Ayodhya the article of faith, Ayodhya, the political symbol, is very much alive. But Ayodhya, the inspiration for a mass movement, seems to be an idea which has been overtaken by the opportunities and hopes of a new century and a whole new generation of voters born after 1992.
But same time we can’t mingle both issue, Country growth & Judgment on Babri Masjid. If you will read what Justice Khan said?
Justice Khan, in his 285-page judgment, said: “My judgment is short, very short. Either I may be admired as an artist who knows where to stop, particularly in such sensitive, delicate matter or I may be castigated for being so casual in such a momentous task. I have not delved too deep in the history and the archaeology. This I have done for four reasons. First, this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits. Second, I was not sure as to whether at the end of the tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded). Third, having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians. Fourth, the Supreme Court, in Karnataka Board of Waqf Vs. Government of India, has held as far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims.
I have discusses this issue with many of people around me, More or less they feel India shining...!. there may be two reason either they don’t want to get into it or it’s not their personal matter. But when you will talk to them in general they will show how much they are thinking for community. Like an example given: Zakir Hussain Daughter in Delhi refused to take Milli Gazette:…I could not understand is she authority or if she will take all will start reading it…
I personally feel we should first clear our stand within community then we will be able to give answer to baby Eliza with our views. All know nothing is going well as Muslim community but no one will come forward. Like my friend Tauqir said peace should be maintained what so ever judgment comes- I know why he said likewise, since he left his native place MAU and comfortably living in US. But he forgot history for Muslim India in last few centuries. We have decline from ruling India to Babri Masjid judgment. Now choice is our which may to move so that we can able to give to our coming generation.
Dear Sohaib - I feel it is not an intra-community issue but a case of denied justice. Say if a mob of million enters someone's house and kills him based on some believe/faith. His wife should get the justice from the court of law and only they law has the right to punish. Thus if the courts will start anticipating the consequences of a judgment and will decide of mythological believes and faith.Then I would dare to say that India is no more governed by the Rule of Law.
Read More on the Subject
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article813035.ece
http://mjakbarblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/peace-of-land.html
http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20101004/812/tnl-why-didn-t-tulsidas-mention-ram-temp.html
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2019/stories/20030926005113200.htm
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4434966
Dear Yasir, Assalamoalaikum
I am Ayesha Sultan, just stumbled on your blog and read some of your posts. Congratulations on both your marriage and on the birth of your daughter. Her name is lovely, MashAllah.
I too as others was looking for closure in this case but not at the cost of justice and you have very succinctly expressed in your posting the doubts that have arisen in our minds as to our future because of this strange verdict . Whether we can actually ever hope for justice. I think we were too idealistic in expecting a just verdict but then the constitution of India declares her to be a secular and democratic republic and that is what has been ingrained in us. But in reality the judgement reflects the demographic realities of India.
Keep up the good work, I believe getting across your views are really important and warm regards to your family.
@ Ayesha,
Thanks for visiting my page. I Hope you would be doing fine with ur family.
Actually Ayesha, Most of the people of our age are shying away from writing/sharing their feelings in public domains.
I feel that they have some sort of embedded fear - as discussing these issues in corporate world is a stigma.
But they fail to understand that if we ran away now our kids will be running forever.
Post a Comment