Hyderabad: Will secularism gain strength after the Supreme Court’s historic verdict on the highly-sensitive Ayodhya issue? Will the three-decade history full of distrust and misunderstanding gradually fade away? Going forward, will the political parties and organisations mend their ways by not interfering in age-old conflicts about religious places?
These are the questions arising in the minds of people, as no incidents of violence were reported from either side after the SC judgment.
The top-court had mentioned several things about secularism in its 1,110-page long judgment. It clarified about several questions to ensure that there won't be disputes about religious places in the future. It declared any forceful acts of violence under the pretext of injustice meted out to them in the middle ages or encroachment by other religions as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court considered the demolition of Babri Masjid as a violation of the law and not as a temporary act of impulse. It regarded the act as forcefully evacuating Muslims from their place of worship, which was constructed 450 years ago while the cases were still pending in the court. It added that in a secular country like India, which is bound to equal justice, such an act is uncalled for. For the same reason, the court said in its judgement that justice cannot be meted out unless they are given an alternative piece of land.
There is a section of the population in the country, which belittles secularism by claiming that it was imported from the West. There is this weird argument from the 1920s that those who cannot view their nation as a place of action or worship and look outside their nation can never be part of the national culture.
In the past three decades, this idea has been strengthened. Some believe that living according to the constitution is not sufficient. There is no dearth of intellectuals who think that nationalism cannot be established without being inspired by the generations-old culture.
After the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, there were widespread discussions about the concept of secularism. The word pseudo-secularism earned a lot of fame in politics.
The apex court clarified in several places in its judgement that belief and faith alone cannot be considered to decide the 1,500-yard disputed land. It said that the judgement was based on secularism, equal justice and rightful evidence and proofs. The temple-mosque conflict did not just politically shake the country but also subjected secularism to ups and downs.
Keeping this in view, the SC gave a profound explanation about secularism. The court did not view secularism as a personal choice or ideology. It stated that religious tolerance is the spirit of secularism and that it is a part of the constitutional framework. It further said that secularism is an inviolable part of the constitution. The SC made it clear that judiciary, government and citizens must abide by secularism.
During the Bommai case hearing comprising of nine-member judge panel, Justice Jeevan Reddy gave a clear definition to secularism. He stated that a neutral stance during religious conflict does not count as secularism. During the Ayodhya verdict, the SC reminded of Jeevan Reddy’s words that secularism is the highest goal we must aim for and that it is an inseparable part of Indian constitution.
To prevent further incidents of disputes about places of religious worship, the SC has mentioned the Places of Worship Act 1991 several times. This act was made to prohibit the conversion of any place of worship that existed as on 15th August 1947. If anyone attempts to seek vengeance by proclaiming that other religions have encroached upon their place of worship, there are punishable under this act.
This act restricted taking up of any cases that ask for the conversion of places of worship. The Ayodhya case was exempted from this act. The SC said that this act was made to conserve secularism and that nobody should violate it. Belief and faith, be it of the majority or minority sections of the population, cannot decide the rightful ownership of land.
The SC said that it came to a correct conclusion only after following the laws and directives. Besides the Muslim party lawyers, several intellectuals have requested the court not to give judgement based on belief and faith. Keeping this request in view, the court has explained wherever possible, the basis of its judgement.
Read: TSRTC staff end strike, management says can't take them back
The court did not dismiss the legacy of Babri Masjid. Neither did it deny the setting up of Hindu deities in December 1949 in the mosque complex. It agreed to the fact that Muslims prayed there till 16th December 1949. It mentioned that the prayers stopped after the Hindu deities were put there. But the Muslim party could not prove that the area was under their control before 1857 when the main complex had three domes.
The Awadh state came under British rule in 1856. The SC said that there were proofs of prayers being performed by Hindus even before 1857. In order to avert the Hindu-Muslim conflict, the British officials in 1857 have built a wall in the middle of 1,500 yards. Even then, Hindus did not stop considering the entire part as Ram Janmabhoomi. They have been performing prayers in the other half of the place too. They did not stop believing that the main dome was the temple Sanctorum and tried going there many times.
In 1877, a second entrance was created to the other part of the land on Hindus’ demand. A large number of devotees used to come on occasions like Ram Navami and Kartika Pournami. The witnesses from Hindu and Muslim parties have confirmed these statements in the information provided by foreign travellers, these instances. The government gazettes also affirmed them.
The Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) report revealed that there were 12th-century artefacts of Hinduism underneath the mosque. The report added that the foundation of the mosque was laid on those remains.
The SC reminded of some key points that the ASI report revealed. The report says that there were artefacts of a Hindu temple underneath but did not clarify why the temple was destroyed. It did not answer whether the temple was destroyed in order to construct a mosque. The remains of the construction underneath the mosque belonging to the 12th century. The mosque was built in the 16th century. There is a gap of four centuries in between.
The ASI report did not submit any information about the happenings during those 400 years. Nor was the report decisive about the mosque having used the artefacts having emblems of Hinduism. The report said that black stone pillars were used in the mosque construction but did not mention if they belonged to the earlier Hindu temple.
On the whole, the Supreme Court took into account the evidence of worship done by Hindus before 1857 and several instances which considered the place Ram Janmabhoomi and gave its verdict. On the other hand, the court not wanting to hurt the sentiments of Muslims mentioned the injustice meted out to them. The statements made by the top court with respect to the demolition of the mosque are proof enough to this.
If the governments abide by secularism as hoped for by the Supreme Court and safeguard the places of religious worship according to the 1991 Act, the democracy will be intact for decades to come. And, the hateful feelings of three and half decades will fade away.
Also Read: Former Union Law Min Ashwani Kumar on Constitution, democracy and more
