Ayodhya verdict : 8 top editor's thought

Aroon Purie

(Editor-in-Chief, India Today Group)

The decision to end 61 years of tangled litigation, communal strife, political chicanery and religious dogmatism lay in the legal acumen of three judges of the Allahabad High Court. It pivoted on whether the September 30 verdict delivered by two Hindus and a Muslim could turn that dark December tragedy into a triumph of sanity. In the end, that is just what happened.

It is a historic moment for India, a judgement that, despite the inevitability of a Supreme Court appeal, has shown that 1992 is a closed chapter and the India of 2010, including its politicians and religious heads, is a vastly different country. The people of India want to practice their faith in peace, not in the shadow of violence. It is perhaps no coincidence that 1992 was the year that India's economic reforms under then finance minister and now Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, were forging ahead. The beneficiaries of that revolution, across the social and political spectrum, do not want to see the gains sacrificed at the altar of divisive politics.

The historic verdict over the 2.7-acre piece of land, to be divided between three of the litigants, is the best possible judgement to ensure closure of the Ayodhya issue but also in the message it sent out. The past needed to be buried and a peaceful settlement arrived at, acceptable to both Hindu and Muslims. It is a landmark victory for India. For once, our political leaders, including those from the BJP who have won several elections on the back of this issue, rose above ideology and opportunism to call for peace and respect for the verdict. However, the real triumph was for our much-maligned judiciary. Regardless of a Supreme Court appeal, I salute Justices Sharma, Agarwal and Khan for their infinite wisdom in solving an intractable issue which has been blighting the face of this nation.

MJ Akbar 
(Editorial Director, India Today)

The Ayodhya judgement, in which there was unanimity on the core issue of the Lord Rama temple, offers a unique opportunity for an amicable resolution of the most challenging dispute in our lifetime.

It resolves disputes over the birthplace of Lord Rama, and offers space within the larger zone for the construction of a mosque, if the Sunni Waqf Board opts to do so since it has been granted one-third of the site.

For me the most important fact has been the peaceful, mature reaction of the people of India. They have risen above the nightmares of the past and taken a historic stride towards our dreams for the future.

Prabhu Chawla
(Language Editor, India Today)

It's a day the country has waited for months, years, why even a generation. And when it finally came, it turned out to be one that is truly secular in character. While seeking to settle the issue once and for all, the honourable judges have decreed that Lord Ram was indeed born at that particular spot and that it should be handed over to the Hindus. But at the same time, the court kept open the issue of ownership of the place.

This affords political parties the opportunity to fight for the transfer of the land for the construction of the temple and the mosque, thereby opening up a new issue even as it settled one. The judgement is a step forward but a very small one and it is difficult to predict now the complications that lie ahead. Yet it was gratifying to note that the rabble-rousers on either side were conspicuous by their absence.

India has moved on a lot since I first went to Ayodhya in 1988. The Babri Masjid was still in place and though you could feel the undercurrent of communal tension, you could also sense a belief in the people that matters could be resolved amicably.

Post-1992, I have been there three times, the last in 2008. What I felt on my last visit was the same as on my first---a mood for reconciliation rather than confrontation.

QW Naqvi
(News Director, TV Today)

This is a landmark judgement in the judicial history of India and will hopefully settle the dispute which was haunting the nation for the past 60 years. The best part of the judgement is that all 3 learned judges of the Bench concurred that the portion below the central dome of the Babri Mosque, where at present the idol is kept belongs to Hindus/will be allotted to Hindus in final decree. Therefore, the core issue of the dispute has been disposed of and has left no room for any further doubt/ dispute whatsoever.

Two judges concurred that Muslims also have a right on the land in dispute (except the place which was beneath the central dome and where the idol is presently situated) and at least 1/3rd of the said land should be given to Muslims. Thus, the court has accepted the claims of Muslims on the disputed site, barring the place where idols are kept presently.

But I am a bit disappointed by the statement of Zafaryab Jilani that he intends to appeal against the judgement in the Supreme Court. No question that he has every right to go to the higher court but i think Muslims as a community should realise that this is the rarest moment in the history of Free India and they will present a really historical example by accepting the decision as it is. History does gives us rare moments to rise above the level and set the example for future generations. If they decide not to appeal, it will really be the greatest and proudest moment for all those who have strong belief in secularism and Sarva Dharma Sam Bhav.

Bharat Bhushan

(Editor, Mail Today)

The Ayodhya verdict seems to be based on faith. It establishes the birthplace of a mythical, although revered figure, at the disputed site based on the faith of people. The judgement has not brought closure to the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi debate. What it has done, however, is to take the wind out of the sails of the communal organisations which used to rake up the issue time and again. They can no longer make use of the Ayodhya issue politically. That is why the Vishwa Hindu Parishad has already made the move to demand that the other two sites where they have tried to create a dispute - at Kashi and Mathura - be also handed over to them.

As for the Congress party, it was deeply apprehensive of what the judgement might be. They must be happy now as the BJP does not get to use the Ram Temple issue in future electoral contests to polarise the voters. The most immediate impact of this would be in the campaign for the Bihar elections.

As communal riots are almost invariably pre-meditated, one cannot say that irresponsible elements would not create any disturbance. These normally take place after a time lag. So one needs to wait and watch how the state governments handle the situation as it evolves.

As of now, however, the only thing that seems certain is that the Sunni Waqf Board would go on appeal against the judgement in the Supreme Court.

The majority view of the three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court is that both Hindus and Muslims were in joint possession of the 2.77 acre disputed area on which Babri Masjid stood before being demolished in 1992. Since all the parties to the title suits were seeking exclusive right over the property, an appeal against the judgement is imminent. An appeal by Muslims is definite because the high court has basically taken into account ''faith and religious belief'' of Hindus to give exclusive right to Hindus over the area under the central dome of the mosque. The court has held that this spot to be the birthplace of Lord Ram.

The judges have held that no single party has a clear and exclusive title of the disputed area. The judges have decided that the  area  be divided into three equal parts -- one part would go to the Sunni Wakf Board i.e. the Muslims, and the remaining two would go to Sri Ramlala Virajman (as a juristic person) and Nirmohi Akhada, a Hindu sect, respectively. Only one judge wanted the entire disputed site to go to the Hindus - the retiring judge, Justice Dharamveer Sharma. The other two judges, Justice Sudhir Aggarwal and Justice S.U. Khan, opted for the trifurcation of the disputed land.

Anyhow, the portion below the central dome of the disputed Babri Mosque, now demolished, goes to Sri Ramlala Virajman, the deity. The portion going to the Nirmohi Akhada would include the Ram Chabutra - the place where the idols were placed before being put under the central dome in 1949 - and the Sita Rasoi.

The area going to Muslims is not earmarked. The actual division of the disputed area would be done by court in execution proceedings. Any of the parties can challenge the judgement before the Supreme Court and get it stayed till the disposal of the appeal. It is important to note that the judgement will come into force only after three months and the Centre will continue to hold the property as Receiver.

Rahul Kanwal

(Executive Editor, Headlines Today)

If the past had been 'milestoned' by the fractions of divisiveness, the Verdict at half-past five embodied a vision for India, to be realised in the expectations of its burgeoning youth. In its essence what mattered was, that no party was satisfied enough to earn the ire of the other. It was an immense balancing act where psychology played counterweight to an expected descent into reckless hyperbole. Because the verdict in its entirety favoured none, it did not disappoint enough to negate its own authority.

The natural calm...the evident 'nothing is happening' across the country should also drive home the point that there is a huge majority of post-1992 Indians, who have been born to the tune of a liberalised economy...where the hiccups of an erratic Sensex  drives daggers of self-centred chill through their world of prospective employment opportunity...and the demolition of a Babri Masjid or its replacement with another construction with a different architectural outlook, need remain confined to the haze of irrelevant history. The damp whiz of the Verdicts passage also rammed home the oft ignored 'other' divide....India as seen from the North and the country as reflected in southern eyes... that while Ayodhya builds halo-induced pictures of Ram in the saffron-charged northern reaches of India....the Sethusamudram connection probably has a bigger resonance to the R word in lands to the south.

But on 30th of September 2010 India proved to itself that as a society, as a democracy and as a grouping of ethnic diversity, it has reached that point where the anfractuosities of its blood-splattered history can be straightened by the obvious apathy of goal-oriented, forward-looking, self-centred young India of today and tomorrow.

Ajay Kumar

(Executive Producer, Aaj Tak)

This can be called a historic judgement as all the three judges have unanimously agreed that the idol of Lord Ram will remain where it is now and the ownership of the place should go to Hindus. However, the three judges were not in agreement over Ram Janmabhoomi. Justice SU Khan was of the view that Hindus believed that the location of the idol was the birthplace of Lord Ram. He was of the opinion that there was no solid proof.

Justice Khan said that the disputed structure was built as a mosque on the orders of Babar but not after destroying any temple. However, there are evidences of the remains of a dilapidated temple and some materials of the temple might have been used in the construction of the mosque. But no side, either Hindus or Muslims, were able to prove their claim to the disputed territory. Justice Agarwal was of the opinion that the birth place of Lord Ram was where the idol is. However, Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan were in agreement that there should be three divisions of the disputed territory. The High Court judgement says the portion below the central dome under which the idols of Ram and other Gods are placed would be allotted to Hindus. The Nirmohi Akhara would get the Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi and the rest of the one-third will go to the Sunni Waqf Board.

After this judgement, there should not be any confusion on Ayodhya issue. The Sunni Waqf Board might appeal in the Supreme Court against today's judgement, but there is no scope for any dispute in this case after the HC judgement. In delivering the judgement, the High Court has emphasised the point that the issue is related to the faith of the Hindus and for the sake of peace, all should abide by this judgement. It is a transparent and clear verdict over a 60-year-old complicated case. Now, it is up to the people of India to make the best of this historic verdict for peaceful coexistence.

Shailendra Jha

(Output Head, Aaj Tak)

A whole generation of India wants to move on. In that sense, I feel a sense of relief that this judgement provides that chance. Now, it remains to be seen whether our politicians and religious representatives will let that happen.

(Courtesy : India Today Group, 30/09/2010)