Ayodhya verdict: Death of secularism
Preamble of India quotes “We the people of India, having solemnly resolve to constitute India into a sovereign socialist SECULAR democratic republic” and to secure to all its citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. Even though the whole constitution was written with a high degree of precision, still people needed various changes as India passed decades by decades, in the form of various amendments. Coming to our preamble, its every bit is still secure and has been basis for judiciary, for every political party’s common election agenda and for all national social activists irrespective of cast and community. Talking about our judiciary it has always been committed to protect the rights of every community especially minority community.But in the case of Ayodhya issue it failed to protect its commitment. There are various legal points that were kept aside during the pronouncement of the verdict. The Allahabad judgement of the high court makes no note of the vandalism of December 6, 1992. It also violated the principle of secularism and the protection of minority rights. Coming to demolition part, the thing that was demolished was not merely an ancient structure but the faith of minority in the sense of justice and fair play of the majority. It shocks their faith in the rule of law and constitutional process.
The high court directed that disputed site should be divided, two third to the Hindu plaintiffs and one third to the Muslim plaintiffs by metes and bounds and the place where the mosque’s central dome once stood should be given to the hindu plaintiffs. This judgement therefore legalise and legitimise the 1992 demolition as the decrees of the court proceeds on the basis that there is no masjid on the disputed site. This judgement left many questions unanswered behind it.
The first question is that if the masjid has not been demolished and had remained on the site, would the court have ordered a division and partitioning of the disputed site in the manner it has directed?
So secondly can the court take advantage of the illegal of demolition of the masjid and order a division of the disputed site in the manner it has done?
Thirdly did India’s Hindu’s, all 80 million of them believe that the lord Ram was born at the same precise spot where the mosque’s central dome once stood?
.jpg)
. Every citizen of India is an Indian first and committed to value of constitution, these values includes protection of minority rights, cannot but come in question when justice delivered in a court of law , tilts visibility towards the majority. The court spoke reassuringly of maintaining the status quo. But the status quo has always been altered and always in favour of Hindu. In 1949 the installation of idols became status quo. In 1986 the opening of locks became status quo. In 1989 the shilanyas ceremony became the status quo and finally 1992 the demolition of the masjid became eternal status quo. The congress which led the government during this period was committed to “secularism” in principle but the party realised that it was not possible to survive without the electoral support of hindus. As a consequence, party indulged in secular rhetoric, but followed communal politics in practice. In persuaded what has now come to be termed “soft Hindutva ” through this means it hoped to outsmart the Hindu communal forces. .jpg)
But it is not our area of concern as it well known that political parties have always adopted policies which secured their vote banks. But judiciary has nothing to do with these rubbishes. It has always concern with the values of constitution and to protect the rights of minority community. The intention of the judgement is well clear, ment to be a measure of compromise and national reconciliation. So the question arise in the mind of common people that has our judiciary has gone so handicapped that it is not able to pronounce a verdict that does not soothes the majority? If the same act would have been done by political party then we could have accepted it as an act of vote bank policy. But how can we accept this act by such body on which a single responsibility, to protect the value of constitution is given?
The structure was unauthorisedly demolished and therefore the culprits and planners of this demolition must have to be brought to book to uphold the rule of law. So at least now, as the Sunni central wakf board, the main litigant on behalf of Muslims announced its decision to move to supreme court, the state can rectify its mistake by charting out a “bold an innovative step” in line with the principle of secularism. Otherwise it will leave simmering resentment in Muslim community.
AMIT(SUNNY)
amit845449@gmail.com
