Ayodhya not a dispute over a mere piece of land, it is a conundrum

The entire country waits with bated breath for answers to tricky questions on the Ayodhya dispute, which have been around for six decades now, causing tumult, unrest and instability from time to time.

The task of the three-judge special bench is complicated by the fact that Ayodhya is not just a dispute over a mere plot of land measuring 60 ft by 40 ft. It is a conundrum involving posers relating to subjects from history, geography and archaeology to religion, faith and politics.

Was the Babri mosque built after demolishing a temple? Was Ayodhya the birthplace of Lord Ram as Hindus believe? Was the disputed shrine being used as a mosque till Ram’s idols were foisted inside in December 1949? These are just a few of the numerous questions that have popped up in courts ever since the first title suit was filed in 1950.

Counsels on both sides agree that arriving at “pat answers” would be an onerous task. For, there is no clinching evidence to prove that Ayodhya was, in fact, Ram’s birthplace. Similarly, the Muslim side has not been able to prove that namaz was regularly being held at the site after 1934 when a portion of the mosque was damaged during riots in Ayodhya.

A crucial question which has remained is whether a temple existed at the site before the mosque was built in 1528. Ranjit Lal Verma, the counsel for Nirmohi Akhada, which is one of the main parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, fervently hopes the judges would rely on the “convincing” evidence the Archaeological Survery of India (ASI) submitted before the court after excavations at the disputed site in 2003.

The 574-page report had concluded that the structure had remains which have “distinctive features associated with temples of north India”, points out Ajay Pande, another advocate for the Hindu petitioners.

“While most of the arguments are based on faith, belief and religion, the ASI report is the only clinching evidence in black and white,” he asserts.
However, the contesting parties are not convinced.

“The ASI had conducted the excavations in a big hurry and drafted a report to please its political masters,” says Sunni Central Waqf Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani. He is obviously referring to the BJP-led NDA government of that time at the Centre. “If they had dug further, they might have found remains of some Buddhist or Jain shrines,” he quips.

Interestingly, on the eve of judgment day, the one thing that counsels on both sides seem willing to agree upon is that the pronouncement of the high court verdict could set the stage for arriving at a solution based on mutual agreement.

This is probably because both sides now realise that the only way to end the impasse is to put their heads together and thrash out a solution. Most advocates on both sides told this correspondent that a mandir-masjid complex could be the only way out. Ironically, that is exactly what the shrine was before the dispute started. As the adage goes, the more things change, the more they remain the same.