The BJP today condemned Home Minister Chidambaram's statement that the famous Ayodhya title suit verdict of the Allahabad High Court has nothing to do with the demolition of the Babri Masjid which remains a criminal act. The BJP does not want the Home Minister to say something like this, because the matter is before the court. Apparently, an act of vandalism that ends in the destruction of a historical monument, is not obvious enough for the BJP to accept someone calling it a criminal act, even if it were a matter of opinion.
Despite the hope we can have in the Supreme Court, the most dangerous precedent has however, been set by the Allahabad High Court. By giving even the slightest legitimacy to matters of faith, it has chosen belief over truth, by deciding not to go purely with facts. The "verdict" - to split the disputed land in 3, equally, amongst the litigants disputing its ownership, is in itself, perhaps the most uncontroversial settlement it could have prescribed, but that sort of "commonsense wisdom" is meant for people's courts, not for a high court.
The "law" as we have subscribed to, by being a democratic nation, is written in letters, not in beliefs, and not in our judgement of how the verdicts may play with emotions and feelings of communities too vested in their beliefs. The court is equipped to deal with facts, not beliefs. If someone now comes up with an empirical evidence to disprove the existence of God, then what happens? Our legal systems should be impervious to these situations.
Where are the facts that can establish to whom this land belongs? What do we do if we cannot arrive at those facts? Simply ask for more evidence, it is that simple. Wait until the evidence shows up and if it does not, rule in favour of status quo and throw out the litigation(s). That is all a court has to do. Has the Allahabad High Court done that? It has gone a step further, without fulfilling its fundamental duty. It has chosen, very strangely, to bring a settlement into play, without making the law take its course. It has chosen to quell the "problem", instead of ending the dispute.
This "settlement" verdict, even more bizarrely, is the sort of thing that much lower courts, like Panchayat courts, resort to. That is the expectation there, and they are immensely qualified to do so, through an informal jury that usually know the parties in the dispute rather well, and the entrusting of the judgement is left to some wise "counsel", usually the older citizens of a village. These are the courts that order stripping people naked, honour killings, revenge rapes, public humiliation, and other inhuman punishments, that are clearly unconstitutional and highly illegal.
The courts of the more formal legal "system" have lawyers, to interpret, clarify, and sometimes enforce the "law". It is a very rational profession, that depends on volumes of "Indian Law" that many are students and practitioners of. It is an evolving set of laws, but at any given point in time, "Indian Law" exists as an edict in written form. God is not called upon to enforce it. Our law enforcement agencies are. If we were to consider beliefs, religious sentiments and such irrational subjects in a court sworn to uphold the "law", we should have religious leaders, psychics, tantriks, priests, mullahs and such working in courts, not lawyers, advocates and judges!
In its most fundamental essence, the job of a court is to uphold the "law", not even attempt to deliver "justice" even as it pronounces judgement. If there is no evidence, the alleged murderer walks free! How many times have we seen this happen? It is the only way the "law" works. If the law is found inadequate to deal with a certain dispute, the case rests, sometimes indefinitely.
We as a nation, have unwittingly, stepped onto the slippery slope of legitimizing the irrational and given it the status of equal consideration with objective truths. For this alone, we will have to pay a very heavy price. "Satyameva Jayate" is not true in this case, do we even realize?
By the precedent set by this verdict, credibility is given to events that supposedly took place hundreds of years before INDIA came into existence, on the 15th of August 1947. The title suit itself is only about who the 2.7acres of land in Ayodhya belongs to, but the three way split laid out by the "verdict", based on some place of worship having existed there many hundred years ago, over which supposedly another place of worship was built, also years before India came into existence, borders on absolute madness. Even more bizarrely, madness is what is supposedly being avoided right now by this immature "compromise".
This was never about Hinduism or Islam or what people believe in. This should always have been about the law of the land. What if somebody gets it into their head now, that their ancestors' temple or an entire civilization's ancestral, historical or religious wealth is buried beneath the Parliament building? How about beneath the Rashtrapathi Bhavan or the Taj Mahal? Shall we demolish these buildings and wait for another verdict to tell us whether that is criminal or not? Clearly there is no end to this kind of nonsense.
What would it take for the nation to please step away from juvenile utterances of "India First" and other such nonsense, and take note that what is under attack here is not the freedom to have beliefs, or practise religion, but the very basis of what a "nation" stands for? The Constitution of India does not have a "God" concept in it. It is a very mature document, and one that we have all, by being citizens of India, by choice or by rude or convenient destiny, subscribe to. We swear allegiance to this document each time we use Indian currency, apply for a passport, or show our identity to avail a service. All this exists, because we, the bona fide citizens of this collective called "India", have chosen to define ourselves by writing down (not believing in) what constitutes and defines India. This very definition is under attack here now that we are opening the doors for revisionist historians armed with useless rhetoric, beliefs, dogma, and an inarticulate sense of being "Indian" that is clearly not recognizable by our Constitution.
It might be very challenging for some of us to even get involved with an issue of this nature, to even invest the thought to understand what is at play here. Surely, there have been no riots, so this must be a good thing? By that logic, it must be a good thing that hundreds of our women are getting raped on a daily basis, children kidnapped and sold, and spurious medicines are killing thousands of us. Heck, no riots!
This is about the whole idea of a "nation" that is being challenged here, and the Allahabad High Court, somehow, right now, has chosen to do what it should have recommended for the three litigants to do in an out of court settlement, and fallen well below applying the law of this land to clearly state the ownership of the piece of land, which was, by the way, never split in its ownership in any time in history!
What do we stand for as a nation? Do we take our laws seriously? Do we respect our Constitution? Do our leaders stand for the oaths they take? Do we have ANYTHING at all that is sacred to us as citizens of this nation? If we say "yes" to any of the above, then we must realize that religion is at best a personal matter, and even when it is a matter of community, it still cannot be given enough legitimacy to become a matter of the nation.
If we are about to embark upon a mission to right all the wrongs of Indian history, why don't we agree to agree to smash every structure that stands today to see what lies beneath? Surely, this would bring ALL truths from our past out in the open, and we can build a new India, maybe even a shining one, from scratch! Our lawyers would be delighted with millions of lawsuits! They might actually have to ask for God's help to handle the sheer volume of work!
Please be disturbed. Be very, very disturbed if you understand the gravity of this new issue - of the judiciary choosing to mete out a settlement instead of the truth it should always pursue. Who are we going to rely on now to uphold the law?
BSK.
1 comment:
Post a Comment