After the judgment on the title suit of Babri Masjid land, the verdict in the masjid demolition case has finally come out on 30 September. Was it just a coincidence that the judgment in both matters – the title suit as well as demolition case – has been given in accordance with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s wishes?
In the matter of title suit, the Supreme Court gave the land where the Babri Masjid stood to those who campaigned to bring down the Islamic structure. The basis of giving land was faith of some people that lord Ram was born at the very place where the Babri Masjid stood. The apex court has come up with additional addendum to prove that the lord was born at the very place along with the verdict. Basically, the judgment had been given on the basis of some people’s faith rather than truth. Even the belief that the Babri Masjid’s land was the birthplace of lord Ram is accepted, it is outlandish claim that if somebody is born at a place, the land would belong to that person. However, the land was given to build the temple even though the court had accepted that the masjid was not built after demolishing any temple as Hindutva leader had been claiming. This was one of the basis on which the Hindutva leaders started a bloody and communal campaign. They had been claiming that Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a temple but this claim fell flat in the court. Yet, the top court decided to give the land for building temple.
Looking at it through any angle, it does not look justice. The foundation of the Ayodhya verdict was majoritarianism. The court had held that since some members of the majority community believes that lord Ram was built at the very place where the Babri Masjid once stood, the land was given to them. The Court completely ignored the fact that the people whom it has given the land had committed egregious crime by demolishing the mosque in full public view right under the nose of the government. The court itself called the demolition of the mosque ‘egregious criminal act’. That’s why many people have asked that what would have been the judgment of the court in the title suit of the land if the mosque would have remained stood there. Then, the Islamic stricture would be needed to be demolished for implementing its verdict. The court delivered an order which is forcing the administration to commit ‘egregious criminal act’ in order to implement its order.
These are the glaring lacunas which were pointed out by the experts in the Ayodhya verdict. But the selection of former chief justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who headed the Supreme Court bench in Ayodhya matter, as the Rajya Sabha member by the BJP government made the Ayodhya verdict more questionable. It lead people to reach the conclusion of politically-motivated judgment.
After this deeply flawed judgment in the title suit, a CBI court acquitted all the accused including prominent BJP leaders Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti in the Babri masjid demolition case. The court said that there is no evidence that these people conspired to raze the mosque structure to ground. On the contrary, they were trying to prevent the demolition. The mosque was demolished by some anti-social and anti-national elements from Pakistan, said the court.
The acquittal of all accused did not surprise most of the people given the pro-BJP verdict in the title suit. But there are many unanswered questions lingering over the acquittals. Despite the fact, the Islamic structure was demolished at the presence of BJP Leaders in full public view and it was recorded and reported by media live, how the court could not find any evidence against them.
The accused were charged with various sections of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to incitement to violence (Sections 153A and 153B), conspiracy to commit a crime (Section 120B), and unlawful assembly (Section 149). There are videos, photo and eyewitnesses in the public domain which clearly suggest that all these BJP leaders were present there at the time of structure demolition. Then, how could the violation of unlawful assembly (section 149) not be proved in the court?
As many as 351 witnesses had testified and more than 800 documents were produced. Yet, the court is saying that there is no evidence against the accused. The observation of the court is in sharp contradiction to the findings of the Liberhan Commission report. According to Liberhan commission report, the act of the demolition was “neither spontaneous and voluntary. It was orchestrated and planned”.
Justice Liberhan said that BJP Leader Umar Bharti had accepted in front of him that they have demolished the mosque. Not only her, many Hindtuva leaders proudly said in the public that they have demolished the structure. BJP MP and terror accused Sadhvi Pragya said this talking to the media that she has played a role in demolishing the mosque. Yet, the court observed that there is no evidence against them.
What conclusion this verdict lead the people to? The verdict does not give justice but it has whitewashed the crimes of the BJP Leaders. The expectation of justice from the Hidutva-ruled India is a day-dream. Their goal is to persecute minorities. How can they do justice to them?