LAW ITERATES FACT

A look at the fancied statements by revered personalities on the recent Ayodhya Verdict and my words of discussion –

VINOD MEHTA, OUTLOOK:

'' In 1999 when the BJP came to power on the back of the mandir wave, the party got 23% of the vote. Which means 77% of Indians did not vote for the temple. In 2009, the BJP got 18% of the vote. Which means 82% of Indians did not vote for the temple.’’

Who better can I give the credit to, than the media for depicting political parties as representatives of certain religions? I’m sure whatever had been the reasons for 77% Indians not voting for BJP, they can certainly not so boldly be stated as this.

  

SABA NAQVI begins his Cover Story ‘Ayodhya’, OUTLOOK as:

''The politics of Lord Ram got some divine sanction from the law.’’

Lord Ram never indulged in politics i suppose, its rather ‘our’ revered politicians’ play land. His very statement well indicates his trust that the area of dispute was Ram’s birthplace and thus be granted to Hindus; if this is the way the land is to divided.

''Was this the majesy of the law or the primacy of faith?''

None sir. 

PRIMACY of LAW, maybe the MAJESTY of FAITH was so energetic as was able to attain  it in this land.!

I'm just playing with your words Sir, framing a better answer for your doubts.

''The little piece of land that will now be the right of Muslims will actually be an embarrassment for them, and could be used to corner them once again.’’

WOW! You get a third of the land that has not been yours for ages, and consider that an embarrassment; go ahead and disown it right away! I credit 'hunger for more' to your thoughts. More of what? Land!

ROMILA THAPAR, The HINDU:

''The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to commemorate the birth. This is in response to an appeal by Hindu faith and belief. Given the absence of evidence in support of the claim, such a verdict is not what one expects from a court of law. Hindus deeply revere Rama as a deity but can this support a legal decision on claims to a birth-place, possession of land and the deliberate destruction of a major historical monument to assist in acquiring the land?’’

Pardon me Madam Romila Thapar for singling out your statements, but I found them best conveying the belief that many hold today, including our very own, self-chosen ‘leaders’.

My advice – maybe you should revere ASI’s findings more. I know of it being the highest Indian authority researching in matters of relics, and such blunt words spoken against an institution in the way mentioned above without sound facts is highly objectionable. Inviting trouble, aren’t you madam?

Ask any of them who went to site to get the remains, during the riots, years back. They’ll help you understand better the in situ details of the dug up area. They’ll tell you what they SAW.

And if archaeological evidence and first hand views of people involved are unable to convince you much, and as you evidently rule out the possibility of a technically competent institution in coming to a correct result; I should much suggest you studying the subject from the scratch to gain enough expertise in declaring a foolproof result over the history of the land. Because even American agencies’ outcome would fail to satisfy you am sure.

‘’ A mosque built almost 500 years ago and which was part of our cultural heritage was destroyed willfully by a mob urged on by a political leadership. There is no mention in the summary of the verdict that this act of wanton destruction, and a crime against our heritage, should be condemned. The new temple will have its sanctum — the presumed birthplace of Rama — in the area of the debris of the mosque. Whereas the destruction of the supposed temple is condemned and becomes the justification for building a new temple, the destruction of the mosque is not, perhaps by placing it conveniently outside the purview of the case.’’

When you talk of 500 years back built culturally eminent mosque being wilfully destroyed by a politically backed leadership, why not consider the many-centuries old temple which held its place ages before that, and was too subjected to destruction by the mighty Babar, the act being very much against the Islamic spirit of displacing an already existing monument of yet another religious belief? Isn’t your argument too much one sided?

'' The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith''.

When you talk of history, you should be considering it thoroughly, going 2000 years back too if needed. Wouldn’t it be impartial to take into account just 500 years for a decision and not the other many thousand years too, even if it be thrice the duration? 

History can, never be REPALCED anytime in future, by any event. It can only be strengthened by facts, which is exactly what has recently happened.  

As for many leaders’ view that declaring the place to be Ram’s birth place isn’t acceptable and goes against LAW, let it be known to them all that declaring this was eminent for a clear judgement. This fact  not established, I’m sure, would have brought in remarks of the opposite nature. Phew!

I am sure the following three months (God forbid more) have many humorous and sense-deficient statements in store for us all to listen to, each trying to justify the speaker’s erroneous point of view.

There had been too much of terror in the air during the days nearing the verdict, all by the government, making me feel that an outbreak was more of wanted than expected.

I totally believe along this all, that dismanteling a religious site for another’s benefit is completely intolerable, unethical and beyond the preachings of any religion.

And as I draft this post, I try to figure out the (in)significance of spending a great deal of time and energies over a patch of land. But it has implications farther than deciding to whom the land be given. For Hindus, its the birthplace of their Lord, as established by ASI as well. Why not just grant this for a temple and some area for mosque in the vicinity and close the chapter of this battle!

Let PEACE prevail!

OUTLOOK TEAM: You've utterly shocked me and many more by giving biased views with trickery and misinterpretations.