Verdict will promote amity: The goodwill created among the communities is the greatest gain
As far as the final order of the five judge bench is concerned, they have concluded that Hindus are entitled to build a Ram temple on the disputed land and Muslims alternatively should be given five acres to build a mosque. In a way, this is appea...
The belated verdict on the long-pending Ram temple dispute has finally set to rest all kinds of speculation and apprehensions in the minds of common people. One great advantage of this verdict is that at least the people of this country will not find the construction of a Ram temple as a priority in political agendas. People have been bluffed for years by political parties who tried to lure them by promising to build the Ram temple.
This will now come to an end.
As far as the final order of the five judge bench is concerned, they have concluded that Hindus are entitled to build a Ram temple on the disputed land and Muslims alternatively should be given five acres to build a mosque. In a way, this is appearing to be conciliatory, which should be welcomed by all. But the reaction flowing from some Muslim quarters suggests they are not happy and they have a point to argue. In the judgment, the apex court has in fact said the demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, was a wrong act. But in the same brief, the court at a later stage has said that now the mosque does not exist and that a temple can come up there.
This appears to be contradictory.
Furthermore, while giving five acres to Muslims might not be pleasing to a section of the community, I personally feel the goodwill created among the two communities is the greatest gain. We should respect the court verdict as an absolutely impartial and judicious conclusion even if we have some grievances here and there, and we should try to build amity and improve our relations with Hindus. That should go a long way.
As far as the question of a review is concerned, we all know as lawyers that the scope of review in such matters is extremely minimal. Review has a narrow remit. It cannot be expected to yield major changes in the verdict because it has to go to the same bench, unless a judge is no more by virtue of death or retirement.
I do not think this is a fit case for verdict. But I feel we must build bridges between the two communities and ensure there are no disputes that could create bitterness.
President of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen Asaduddin Owaisi has no power or authority to speak on behalf of the Muslim community and reject the offer lawfully given by the Supreme Court. It is the common wisdom of the entire community who will decide and come out to say whether we will accept or reject it. Where was he when the litigation was going on? Did he participate in the litigation?
Now that the Supreme Court has accepted a deity as a litigant, will this set a precedent? That is one of the biggest apprehensions in the minds of Muslims. Right-wing organisations should not now try to take advantage and follow this course for Mathura, Kashi and other places.
The writer is an NCP leader and Member of Parliament