The Supreme Court has stopped the Allahabad high court from delivering, on the announced date of September 24, its much-awaited verdict on the ownership of the disputed land at Ayodhya. The Court has agreed to hear the plea on September 28. Justice H.L. Gokhale has rendered us a great service in ensuring peace prevails, preparing the ground for a peaceful settlement. Justice Gokhale observed that, if there was even a 1 per cent chance of a settlement, it should be given a try. As the former chief justice of the Allahabad high court, where he had a distinguished tenure, Justice Gokhale knows the ground realities and the stakes involved.
During my term as governor of Uttar Pradesh from 2005 to 2009, I had occasion to visit the Ayodhya-Faizabad complex soon after the Lashkar-e-Toiba’s attack on the makeshift temple was thwarted by security forces posted around it. The Ayodhya complex and the Faizabad area have a large number of temples and masjids strewn all over; this dispute is about one particular site there, even though after the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid claims and counter-claims were made regarding the site of the Ram temple. There is also a proposal for the reconstruction of the Babri Masjid at the exact spot where it was brought down.
I saw the diggings of the Archeological Survey of India at the site, in front of the makeshift temple. The pits were dug right up to ground level to examine if there were traces of a historical temple. Reports appeared that the ASI had found what was possibly the basement of a Hindu temple in their exploratory diggings; but what the report that the ASI sent to the court finally said is not clear.
One of the three judges on the high court bench, Justice D.V. Sharma, is due for retirement on October 1, and whether he has to be given an extension is being examined by the apex court. This writer knew Justice Sharma, as law secretary of the UP government. He was known to be a very strict man. If I remember correctly, he chose to remain single and cooked his own meals. He used to take his own water-bottle to the office and did not drink either tea or coffee.
The apex court has called the attorney-general to make a submission on the issue when the case comes up before it on September 28. The home ministry may have to take the initiative by assembling a “dharam sansad” on one side and the Waqf Board on the other — and whoever else are stakeholders in the case for ownership of the site.
Eventually, it has to be a mutual settlement with full understanding between the two parties. They need to come to a compromise, in the highest traditions of the country. There is ample land available at the site which could accommodate both the construction of a new temple as well as the construction of a new masjid. The ownership issue could well be side-stepped if both parties could agree upon specific sites on which their respective constructions could in due course come up.
“Ishwar, Allah, tero naam” used to be sung at Mahatma Gandhi’s prayer meetings. In that Gandhian spirit, Hindus should contribute for the construction of a new masjid and Muslims should likewise contribute for the construction of a new Ram mandir. Let peace continue to prevail in the Ayodhya-Faizabad area, the state of UP, and in the country as a whole. It is, therefore, earnestly hoped that the Supreme Court’s initiative at the instance of Justice H.L. Gokhale results in healthy and happy developments.
The writer is a former IB chief and governor of Sikkim, West Bengal and UP. Presently, he is Advisor, ORF.
Courtesy: The Indian Express
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
