Current Affairs: What the media won't tell u about Ayodhya verdict

The Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict on 9-Nov-2019 settling the centuries old conflict referred to as the case of Ram Janma Bhoomi – Babri Masjid. The verdict, apart from settling the case and relieving the common man of India from the burden of an immense conflict, has also paved the way for reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims of India. Both are eagerly looking forward to it and Hindus are immensely looking forward to the Ram Temple, the hurdles for which is all but removed.

The Verdict is simply brilliant in its methodology and in its adherence to settles principles of law. It has been resolved

• Absolutely within the framework of Indian Constitution
• In much conformance and respect to Secularism the way a modern liberal secular appreciates secularism
• Without using faith and belief as direct evidence and judicial instruments

The International Media and the Ayodhya Verdict

International Media, on the contrary, has failed to appreciate the resolution of the conflict. It should have hailed the methodology adopted by the Supreme Court of India. Instead, International Media is indulging in insinuation as though it is decided on religious basis. At times, it is not saying so directly but indirectly painting such a picture.

In this article by CNN, the author gives an extremely sketchy description of the case and mentions that the site was given to Hindus – as though the case was decided using religion as basis. That those who demonstrated a higher use of the physical space were Hindus and that nobody could clearly establish the title is completely absent in the report. This report by Bloomberg, apart from making the headline sound as though the case is resolved on the basis of religion, throws many an innuendo on PM Modi’s administration decisions arguably favouring Hindus, which are completely unrelated to the case at hand – thereby unabashedly painting picture of religious resolution and manipulation. It further says the case will test India’s secular nature – something both unrelated to the case as well as without any basis. In addition, it quotes an Indian academic living abroad with a biased orientation and paints a picture of injustice to Muslims without caring to elaborate reasons behind it.

The NY Times report takes ideological battles to a completely different level. In its headline, it says SC has backed Hindus, has handed victory to PM Modi and enabled him to remake India. It has packed 3 misrepresentations in a single headline. At the least it is demonstrating an extraordinary ability to indulge in any manipulation to achieve a short term high in an ideological battle. It leaves no stone unturned in representing the religious conflict between Hindus and Muslims in as much hyperbole and exaggeration, painting a disadvantageous situation for Muslims. But it does not analyze the verdict with all of its nuance and legal sophistication in way. Through its selective detail it paints a picture of a Hindu majority wanting to subjugate Muslim minority. It quotes Ram Madhav selectively and triumphantly whereas Ram Madhav has all along taken nuanced stance and created many conversations of high intellectual standards. Further, it quotes an Indian researcher from US, a couple of sentences from him, talking about a possible conflict in the future – worst kind of speculation, when what one should have done is presented the case and the verdict, and a critique of the jurisprudence used to deliver the latter. So, everything except the crux of the matter has been used to paint a wholly incorrect picture. In all this, how can Kashmir be left out – there is blatant and unabashed use of Kashmir and Article 370 abrogation to further create fear psychosis.

This article on scoopwhoop presents many more reports by the International Media. The BBC report exaggeratedly mentions some lawyers shouting Jai Shri Ram after the verdict was delivered. This was such a marginal event in the larger scheme of things and wholly irrelevant. Washington Post again talks of the decision being in favour of a Hindu temple, painting a religious picture, but not presenting the grounds of the verdict and their irreligious nature. Less said the better about the picturization Middle East media such as Al Jazeera and Gulf News.

In summary, the International Media has only painted a picture of religious conflict and insinuated that the resolution is religious, faith and belief based. The verdict delivered by the Supreme Court of India though is extraordinarily sophisticated, sound in established principles of law and in conformance to secularism and constitution of India. Clearly, the International Media is capable of better representation.

We shall now see why this Verdict is a brilliant one.

The Brilliance of the Judgement

That this case is a landmark historical one, of enormous implications, is a given. It is also a historical landmark in its resolution. The honourable Supreme Court of India has demonstrated exemplary judicial brilliance in resolving it. It seems to have innovated within the framework of settled principles of law and explored a resolution path that few could have imagined. It is a testimony to the depth of knowledge, commitment to settled principles of law and the Constitution of India, clarity of thought and ability to find a path of resolution in the complex maze of the case, apart from the determination to reach a destination of resolution that delivers justice to all. It is necessary to appreciate the substantial nature of the path and resolution.

At a high level the methodology adopted by SC can be summarized as follows.

1. Firstly, Faith and Belief as instruments of determining justice have completely been kept aside. No matter of faith has been used as evidence in the resolution of the conflict. Much as I wish that matters of faith too deserve to be brought into the framework of law and justice, the SC has steered clear of it and that is for the Sovereign Parliament of India to determine if matters of faith and belied need to be brought into the framework of law. For eg., that the Hindus of today consider a certain place as the place of birth of Ram has no bearing over the case whatsoever is important to be noted.
2. Secondly, SC has also steered clear from ruling over any matter related to faith and Belief. For eg., It has refused to get into whether Ram was born in a certain place.
3. After eliminating all aspects of faith and belief, SC has delivered justice where the sole question is who does the land belong to, from the consideration of settled principles of law – which means it has considered as matter of sheer Land Dispute.

Essentially, the enormity of the case may be coming from matters of faith/belief and even politics. But the considerations for jurisprudence and judicial resolution do not come from such matters. How has it then resolved the conflict? The Supreme Court as approach it as follows. Faith and belief may not be the instruments of justice, but existence of practices around faith and belief are part of history. Such practices could be used to resolve complex cases such as this. In this context, since this case was resolved as a Land Dispute, the following emerged.

• There was absolutely no clear title document at any stage that absolutely bestowed the title one way or the other.
• However, there is continuous use of the physical space of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid – by both parties. Evidence of usage the physical space comes in handy to determine who owns the space in the absence of a clear title. It is important to note that this is so only because

a.       There is no clear title

b.       There are structures in that space though

c.       There is clear evidence of usage of the space by both parties

This lends the case to be resolved using a combination of b) and c).

Structures and their Construction as Evidence

In the absence of a clear title, the context of the structure and construction of the structure could then be explored as evidence in the resolution of the case. There are two possibilities that can be explored to decide the title.

• Evidence of one structure being older than the other
• Evidence of one structure being erected without infringing upon anything existing on the land ie., without destroying that represents the other party

However, this too complicates the matter.

• Ram Chabootara is constructed after the mosque was built
• The mosque was not built on an empty land. There is a clear evidence of a Non-Islamic construction beneath the Mosque.
• There is no explicit evidence of a temple or anything being destroyed to build the mosque. But the probability of it being constructed over some other structure is very high given the ruins beneath and they are non-Islamic.

Hence, merely the structure and their construction context alone cannot be used to determine the title.

Practices and Usage of the space as evidence

The last piece of evidence available is the existence of religious practices based on faith or devotion or belief and how the physical space itself has been used by the parties for such religious practice ie., the historical antiquity of the use of the physical space for such religious practices and the antiquity of those religious practices itself. Let us see how this turns out.

• Both parties have been using physical space of Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid.
• Hindus believe that Ram was born exactly within the mosque space.
• That belief itself may or may not be true in the historical sense, but the belief’s existence is historically very old - much before Babar came to India - as is evidenced from multiple sources listed by the court.
• This itself is not enough. Based on this belief, the usage of the Ram Janma Bhoomi – Babri Masjid space for religious practices built around this belief itself is very old. A traveler in 1608 has written that the space was used by Hindus to worship Ram however he is surprised that there is no namaz in-spite of the building being a mosque. The evidence of such use is older than Muslims offering Namaz within the structure.
• Hindus have used the outer courtyard exclusively and the court lists the evidence in this favour.
• Hindus have demonstrated shared use of inner courtyard with Muslims after 1858 and with sporadic exclusive use before 1858.
• Muslims have demonstrated uninterrupted usage of the space, since 1858 as a place of worship as per Islamic religious rules. They have certainly not abandoned the space as claimed by the other party.
• In particular, Muslims have demonstrated a shared usage of the Inner Courtyard since 1858 but not before.
• Muslims have not established any use of the Outer Courtyard.

In the balance of proportions, Hindus have demonstrated a far higher usage of the space and much longer in history, going right till the time Babur’s chief constructed the mosque. In-spite of the mosque’s presence Muslims use of the mosque for religious prayers are much less in proportion.

It is this the court has used to decide who should own the space in future. It terms the demolition of the mosque as illegal because no person or group has the right to bring down any building much less a religious structure, however illegal the structure itself is. However, that cannot decide who owns the title. If a structure is illegal then the structure or those who believe in the structure lose their rights over the property.

The approach taken by the court is based on standard and settled principles of law. It is called as preponderance of evidences (preponderance of probability or balance of probability). Courts use this to deliver justice when there is no Evidence beyond Reasonable Doubt. In the final Verdict, SC has referred to this standard principle more than 25 times.

In summary, the Court has not decided it as a matter of conflict between Hindus and Muslims in religion. It is a conflict between A and B for reason C. A has got the title only because A has demonstrated greater usage. Usage though is based on practices that are built around faith and belief. However, faith and belief themselves have played no primary evidence role in the verdict. Practices and Usage have played and that is very much within the settled principles of law in the absence of clear title in favour of either parties. One can criticize the verdict, but it has to be through an appropriate representation of the verdict not by convenient misrepresentation and indirectly painting a wrong picture.

With respect to misrepresentation of the verdict, This is just the beginning. In the first few days, a negative picture has been painted in an indirect manner. More direct accusations are likely to follow in the coming days. This blog will continue to keep a vigil in all such articles both in Indian and International media. We shall analyze the analysis and enable a better appreciation of both the verdict and its dissect. We shall do it for either side – the appreciating and otherwise.