Talking won’t do

Though well-intentioned, the Supreme Court suggestion to the parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case to drop legal proceedings and work out a negotiated settlement is unlikely to achieve the desired goal and may only end up kicking the can down the road. Given the polarised communal environment in Uttar Pradesh and imbalance of power between the majority and minority communities, it will be difficult to dispel minority fears and convince it of a level field where a fair deal is possible. The Allahabad High Court too had suggested a solution through talks but nothing happened. It therefore is no surprise that Chief Justice Khehar’s suggestion has evoked no positive response from the Muslim Babri Masjid Action Committee. Also no surprise that the BJP and Yogi Adityanath, Chief Minister and a proponent of the Ram Temple movement, have promptly lapped up the offer.  

On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid demolition shamed Indian democracy and secularism. Communal riots that followed the tearing down of the 16th century mosque were among the worst since Independence, resulting in some 2,000 deaths. The Central and state governments had failed to act. The Supreme Court realises the gravity of the issue but naively overestimates the capacity of community representatives to rise above sectarian considerations and concede space to the other. Even a judicial settlement up to the high court level has been found unacceptable. Both sides had challenged the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 verdict which, strangely, relied on faith rather than law. 

India’s institutions dealing with the Ayodhya dispute have all been found wanting. No major convictions have taken place for the Babri demolition. The CBI has been accused of being soft on the accused. After sitting on the case for seven long years the apex court, it seems, wants to wash its hands of the matter. After the executive failure, the judiciary should not be running away from its responsibility. No matter how volatile, the case has to be settled — and that too on the basis of law and not religion. Stripped of its religious trapping, it is just a land dispute.