Going into the verdict from a common man's view, the first question is why the land is divided when none of the parties to the litigation have asked for it? Is it Judicial activism to cool down all concerned? Or has the chronic national ailment of appeasement caught up with the Judiciary also? A simple example would help in understanding the frustration the verdict has created. My grandpa owned a piece of land that was occupied by someone using brute force. I filed a lawsuit and got a verdict that part of my grandpa's land has to be given to the occupier's heirs. I feel ditched by the court although I got a major part of my ancestral property.
The legal question is when the title of the land was awarded to Hindus unanimously, why a part of land has to go to a group which has been pronounced ineligible to claim title of the land. How can a group possess a property to which it has no title? If they possess a part of the land entitled to Hindus what would be their status? What are the terms of possession? Would they be tenants? Interestingly, Justice D V Sharma, registered a dissenting note, saying the entire land belonged to Hindus.
One of the anonymous senior lawyers, not associated with either side on this case, opined in the media, that the High Court has, in fact, forced the contesting parties to reach a compromise or be disappointed after the Supreme Court decides the matter on appeals. This makes one wonder on the job description of the courts of law in India. Hasn't the court delivered a verdict in this issue? Why should that be viewed as a suggestion for both parties to talk further and decide? These kind of insinuatory interpretations would further complicate the already prolonged legal issue.
The issue is set to go to Supreme Court. But the Government of India seems to take the side of the minority community since lump-sum votes matter. Home Minister of GoI P.Chidambaram stated that this verdict doesn't justify the demolition of the Babri Masjid. When the demolition of the disputed structure in 1992 and the title suit of the Janma Bhoomi are two different legal issues, what is the necessity of referring one while commenting upon the verdict of another by a legal luminary? May be political compulsion, may be vote bank politics or may be the long alleged paradigm shift of the political philosophy of the INC from national unity to minority appeasement.
The opinion of the nation is to accept the verdict of the court of law, build the temple at the Janmasthan and go ahead with economic and human development. Apart from those (politicians and accomplices) who benefited from the criminal communalization of national politics, all else are of the same opinion. Politicians who benefited from Muslim votes on the Janmabhoomi issue call this verdict by all names. But people with sane mind from both religions have advocated peace and respect for the verdict. Let us all share the suggestion of those sane minds and take recourse in the legal course for any further clarifications we need.
Let me quote the man who talked to quell Nazi threat, Sir. Winston Churchill. "It is better to jaw-jaw than war-war". It is high time we stand united and move ahead as a nation that articulates the sentiments of one and all, not only some sections those vote as a lump and hence disturb the tranquil civil life in India that is Bharath.
No comments:
Post a Comment