Ayodhya mediation

The Supreme Court has sought a negotiated route to find a resolution of the Ayodhya dispute, and it needs to be commended for trying it. A process that involves various parties in the conflict to talk with each other and find a solution is the best choice since the dispute has more to do with emotions and less with legal nuances. Ever since the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment that partitioned the plot of land in Ayodhya equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla — 14 appeals against the verdict have been filed before the court.

The process of mediation requires mutual give and take, something that has been missing with every side taking an absolutist position. The three-member mediation panel has a well-defined eight-week timeline, which will be court-monitored. Much is expected from its chief, former Supreme Court judge FM Kalifullah, and the two members, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Sriram Panchu. The criteria for choosing these members are unclear, as is the degree of confidence they enjoy among the communities involved and the litigants.

The suggestions put forth by these mediators ought to be authoritative and should reflect the views of the litigants and the broader masses that the latter seek to represent. The difficulty of the task ahead is apparent, but the widespread welcome the apex court’s move has received from political parties bodes well. The injunction to keep the deliberations confidential would help in thwarting attempts by rabble-rousers who may seek to disrupt the process that should reflect the true spirit of mediation and requires credible representatives of the principal parties to the dispute. The strife over the Ayodhya dispute was undoubtedly the result of communal mobilisation for political ends. There are no more political dividends to be encashed from this Hindutva project. It’s time for the political class to realise this, and help the court-mandated mediation to succeed.