At least one party to the Ayodhya dispute, in which the mosque side lost the title suit when the Supreme Court delivered its verdict on November 9, has announced its decision to seek a review of the judgment. The courts are known not to easily grant a relook, but in this case, arguably the most complex title dispute in Independent India, the Supreme Court would be wise to accept that there might be room for modification.
The Ayodhya judgment seems full of glaring self-contradictions. After accepting practically everything the mosque side argued, it has given the title to the temple side in an unbelievable reversal of logic.
The court accepts the Babri Masjid stood for 464 years until its 1992 demolition by lawless mobs led by top BJP and VHP leaders. It also accepts that archaeological evidence doesn’t support the motivated propaganda that the mosque was built on the remains of a destroyed Hindu temple. And yet the court awarded the title to the Ram Lalla deity.
While doing so, it didn’t bother questioning that the deity’s “next” friend (speaking for the deity) was related to the VHP, which was instrumental in the “criminal” act of the mosque’s destruction.
Under our constitutional system, while all Indians are bound to accept a Supreme Court judgment, even when it appears strange, the court should be ready to admit it may have been in error, at least in part, if not wholly.
Pro-mosque entities, even if they accept the November 9 verdict without demur while being deeply disappointed, are unhappy about accepting as “restitution” five acres of land to build another mosque. Accepting the verdict must not entail accepting the restitution, no matter how well-intentioned.
