Ayodhya, Act lll: Does solution lie in courts?

<div class="section1"><div class="Normal">march 15 were the ides of march. to adapt caeser’s soothsayer’s words for ayodhya: "the ides of march have come, but not gone." how and where do we go next? india is the greatest experiment in secular living that the world has ever known. this issue has to be resolved on principles, with clarity and communal harmony.first, the correct principle is contained in the places of religious worship act 1991 which freezes the status quo on religious places as it stood on august 15, 1947. this is a sensible principle to follow. but, section 5 of this act makes an exception of the ramjanmabhoomi-babri masjid case. so, a new principle has to evolved along similar lines which grows out of secularism which is part of the basic structure of the constitution. second, after the destruction of the masjid on december 6, 1992 the miscreants who destroyed the temple also created a makeshift temple. the question was: how was peace to be preserved? the congress government enacted the ayodhya act 1993 which preserved the status quo of a destroyed mosque and limited prayer on january 7, 1993. at least two justices — bharucha and ahmadi — thought that this status quo favoured the hindu miscreants. but, their justified dissent is now irrelevant. third, the sc’s majority judgment of 1994 was on the 1993 status quo which though elliptical is crystal clear on the points of ‘prayer’, ‘site’, the ‘union government’s duty’ and ‘future solutions’. there is little room for ambiguity on each of these points: (i) as far as the ‘prayer’ is concerned, the only prayer permitted is the limited prayer at the makeshift temple. no other prayer is allowed. therefore, no shila nyas, prayer or even shila dan, is allowed; (ii) the entire ‘site’ belongs to the union. no part of that site can be parted with at all until the final outcome of the case — by litigation in lucknow or by negotiation. soli sorabji’s submission that a ‘temporary’ handover can be made though a permanent is prohibited strains credulity. the undisputed ‘hindu’ lands in the 67 acres is not to be returned now; and may never be returned if it is needed for the final solution; (iii) meanwhile, the union is in a position of strict neutrality. it cannot take sides. before the supreme court and otherwise, it has broken this neutrality; (iv) according to the court, the only ‘solution’ is either a court verdict or a negotiated solution. fourth, the supreme court’s order of march 13, 2002 was prima facie correct, secular, neutral and brought peace to a troubled nation. it was an interim order. full arguments will be heard later. so far, only the attorney general and the vhp and the nyas have been partly heard. the other sides have not been heard. but, the real focus of attention was on march 15. fifth, between march 14-15, 2002, the government made a deal with the vhp. two parallel exercises were conducted. the first was the ‘law and order’ exercise which was conducted promptly and brought peace to ayodhya. but, the second exercise was to send shatrughan singh, ias, of the ayodhya cell to receive the shila dan directed towards a future building on the site. the pm’s emissary had no business to accept the shila dan. it violates the neutrality reposed in the union. where will it keep this pillar? for what? as trustee for the future temple on site? it has neither the power or the responsibility to do so. mr. vajpayee is indeed, a swayam sewak first and a world statesman and prime minister later. sixth, the ayodhya case in lucknow is concerned with a property dispute. but, the 22 issues pending (with 17 sub issues) and lakhs of pages of documents and 150-200 possible witnesses will take years. but, will they decide the issue in a satisfactory way? as a property dispute, it is clear that the masjid stood on the site. the legal proceedings may be speeded up. but, we still have to look for a satisfactory solution. seventh, the only answer is a negotiated solution. once this is worked out, the union can intervene in the case with the solution, record the compromise in lucknow and bring the case and the controversy to an end. eighth, a secular solution would include, in my view, a clear priority commitment to re-build the mosque. an acceptance should be made that the destruction of 1992 was wrong. it is through ‘truth’ and ‘reconciliation’ that mandela brought peace to a racist south africa. it should be agreed that a temple be built. sarva dharma and other projects should be explored. the only thing that would remain is the ‘site’ of these structures. i believe, with give and take, this can be resolved. the government should stop looking for temporary political answers and play dubious tricks by accepting shila dan. it should call ‘hindus’, ‘muslims’ and ‘secularists’ together to solve a problem that should be behind us. we have still to face the rest of the 21st century with over a billion people — a third below the poverty line. <span style="" font-weight:="" bold="">(the writer is a senior supreme court lawyer)</span> </div> </div>