New Delhi: “The decision by this Hon’ble Court, whichever way it goes, will impact future generations. It will also have consequences for the polity of this country”, said the written note to Supreme Court prepared by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who is appearing for the Muslim parties in the Ayodhya case. The top court is set to announce its verdict on the Ayodhya issue which shook the nation for 7 decades on social and political fronts. After a 40 day-long hearing, the SC reserved the judgement on October 16th.
As the chief justice Ranjan Gogoi is set to retire on November 17th, the air is thick with anticipation about the final verdict.
Given the religious angle to the issue, the central government dispatched 4,000 troops for security deployment in Uttar Pradesh. The government of Uttar Pradesh has deployed 16,000 volunteers to closely monitor social media and keep a check on provocative posts.
The Faizabad Police have deployed an equal number of volunteers in the district to maintain peace when the final judgement is delivered.
Also read: 1885 to 2019: Chronology of the Ayodhya land dispute case
Three weeks ago, the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) has given directives to the news channels and asked them not to make instigating comments or telecast the mosque demolition visuals.
In the consensus meeting held by RSS and BJP leaders, members of Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind and All India Muslim Personal Law Board have also participated. They announced that they would accept the court’s ruling and urged people to not indulge in celebrations or violent activities after the judgement was delivered, reflecting a sense of maturity on their part.
Both the Hindu and Muslim defendants are optimistic that the Ayodhya verdict will put an end to the decades-long legal disputes and religious discords.
Also read: All you need to know about the Ayodhya Title Dispute
In the aftermath of Babri demolition by karsevaks, the then PV Narasimha Rao government wanted to get rid of the headache and shift the responsibility on to the SC’s shoulders through the President's appeal.
The PV government gave a single-line statement of the whole incident which read: Was there any temple here prior to the demolition of Babri Masjid on 6th December 1992? hoping to save its government from the conflict that would arise from SC’s ruling.
The SC refused to take up the case and dismissed the government’s report stating the judiciary’s integrity cannot be compromised.
The same top court has now entered the last leg of Ayodhya dispute 25 years later. The court hearings of all the defendants lasted for 180 hours.
The judges' panel allocated initial 15 days to Hindu appellants and the next 20 days to Muslim appellants. The last 5 days were allocated to hear out counter-arguments.
The Hindu parties argued that King Vikramaditya built a temple in Ayodhya centuries ago which was reconstructed in the 11th century and allegedly demolished by Babar in 1526.
The Muslim parties argued that all the official gazettes had mention of a mosque and that the 1993 reports of the Archaeological Survey of India were incomplete.
Though both the parties had altercations in front of the Supreme bench, their decision to come together and make an appeal for amity must be paid heed to.
Also read: Ayodhya verdict: Security tightened in UP; paramilitary forces deployed
The prelude to the Ayodhya verdict by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) says: Here is a small piece of land (1500 square yards) where angels fear to tread. This statement is proof enough to show the severity of the situation.
In view of the gravity of this case, the HC ordered to divide the 1500 square yards land into 3 equal parts. Fourteen petitions have been filed in the SC claiming rightful ownership of the entire land.
A three-member panel appointed by the SC comprising of retired justice FM Ibrahim Kalifulla, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu had already submitted its report.
According to some news reports, the UP Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara are willing to give up their ownership of the 2.77-acre disputed land and they signed a settlement claim along with the representatives of Hindu Maha Sabha.
As Mahatma Gandhi said, Hinduism preaches acceptance of all religions and therein lies the essence of Ram Rajya. The pillars of India’s integrity are based on the foundations of religious tolerance.
Irrespective of the Supreme Court’s judgement, people from all sections must embrace humility and proclaim the national unity instead of resorting to violent means. The consensus meeting of the leaders from concerned parties is a notable milestone in averting communal tensions arising from apprehensions.
Also read: Ahead of Ayodhya verdict, PM and other leaders appeal to maintain peace
