Court’s should initiate to resolve Ayodhya matter amicably
It is the sign of time how Supreme Court today suggested ‘ consensus’ for Ayodhya dispute on a petition by Subramanian Swamy who has no locus-standi on the issue but as soon as Uttar Pradesh has a new chief minister whose ‘words’ are ‘musical’ to #bhakts, Swamy too decided to approach the court. The question is whether efforts were made earlier too. The Sangh Parivar want to keep the issue boiling and Yogi Adityanath is given the opportunity to ‘deliver’. The court wants an out of court settlement to an issue which is actually a property dispute. Why does not the court appoint a special commission led by a former Chief Justice and added by some other judges and allow them to have day to day hearing of the issue. Let them negotiate, talk and resolve it.
The question is not that the Ayodhya issue should not be settled but the question is how and when? Whether the dominant party which is using the entire issue for bolstering its poll prospectus is keen to have the crisis resolved. The chief justice said that the matter is émotional’ and ‘sentimental’ for millions of people and hence an out of court settlement is needed. Is the Court getting carried away in the high voltage political drama attached to the entire issue and therefore want an out of court settlement. What does ‘out of court settlement’ mean?
According to Sangh Parivar, it means, that Muslims will have to ‘respect’ the ‘sentiments’ of Hindus and hand over the land to them as it was the ‘birth place’ of Lord Rama which Mughal Emperor Babar had ‘demolished’. So history has to be corrected and the place should be handed over to Hindus they say. However, they find it difficult to win in the court as the law goes by proof and it is not a petition for where Rama was born as courts can’t decide it. It was basically a land ownership dispute which will be decided by the court but since the issue has got hugely politicised which will have enormous impact on the unity and integrity of the country, therefore, it is getting dragged.
I am sure many of the Muslims today might even think of allowing the temple to be built there but is there any guarantee to the nation that the Sangh Parivar and its allied organisation will stop chanting ‘ Ayodhya to ek jhanki hai, kashi mathura baaki hai”. Will they assure the nation that there will not be any dispute anywhere else and now onwards they will focus on work and not religious sentiments and emotions of the people.
We are happy that Chief Justice Khehar has offered his mediation on the issue but the point is who will be the people sitting on the panel for discussion. Will the likes of Swamy whose only work is to create legal problems and intimidation against all those who disagree with him and Sangh Parivar, not create further crisis through their hate agenda?
India is at the crisis right now. We opposed partition of India. We never wanted a Hindu Pakistan or a Hindu Taliban here and the country’s founding fathers talked of unity among all the people. The nation adopted secularism as moral ethics under our constitution and acknowledge diversity of religion, ethnicity, languages and regions but it looks that ‘Hindi Hindu Hindustan’ culture of dominant upper caste Hindus of the North India today want to dictate terms for all. It is a sad reflection. The Supreme Court can take a strong position on this issue. Let the case be heard on day today basis by a bench of senior judges. Maybe some eminent retired judged could be asked to get it done but then the court must not allow this to be misused by any party as victory or defeat of any one, nor should it allow the politicians to raise similar issues elsewhere for their political purposes. In fact, the court can provide clear guidelines for election desisting politicians making any inflammatory language.
On 6th December 1992 Kalyan Singh, the then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh broke his promise made to National Integration Council and proudly proclaimed that he was responsible and accountable to ‘ Lord Rama’ and not the courts of India. He was sentenced for one day by the Supreme Court which made him bigger hero and mascot of Hindutva. Kalyan Singh occupy the constitutional position of Governor now. The people of Uttar Pradesh defeated BJP in the elections held after the demolition of Babari mosque when SP-BSP combined defeated them and since then it is virtually a Vanvas for BJP in Uttar Pradesh. Now, they have come back with vengeance. in Uttar Pradesh with a much bigger mandate. Much water has flown in Saryu now as the language of the political class which seek votes in the name of God has become much more vulgar, filthy and unparliamentary than Kalyan Singh could ever speak. The problem is each passing day, we are forced to make these comparison and a feeling is coming to us the previous leaders were better whether Vajpayee, Advani or Kalyan Singh?
If the court want to positively intervene, it must take all into account and should not allow this to linger on for long. It is time to settle the issue for ever. It is damaging India and its social fabric hence any give and take on the issue must be in detail so that both the parties adhere to it particularly those elements of the Hindutva outfits which feel that once this is settled they will start other campaigns. It is time the court must seek unambiguous pledges in writing. If it fails to do so, parties may form government but the country will lose. You cant make India a great nation if its biggest majority suffer as a secondary citizen, always being questioned for their patriotism and nationalism. It wont make India stronger and bigger if 20 crore citizens of India live in perpetual isolation, fear and intimidation. The courts must come in as political parties are failing us and social movements being criminalised. The crisis may deepen if we are unable to defend the rights of people to speak up their mind and protect their dignity and integrity. We can only hope that the court will understand that it has a much bigger role today and its judgement will decide as what kind of India will have in the 21st century and whether India’s huge religious minorities will be able to live with their heads high and their rights to protect their culture, language and places of worship is respected as a legal and constitutional right and not as charity of the dominant community or communities.