Ram Rajya

Lord Ram became a legal entity and prevailed politically in the aftermath of the verdict of the Supreme Court, which on Saturday, November 16, 2019, announced that he in his embodied form possessed absolute rights to 2.77 acres of contestedproperty. No other pretender to the site, particularly the waqf board could assert ownership of the property.The united decision by a five-judge Constitution Bench perhaps provided for a closure on a debate that wasinitiated in 1885.

It was in July 1989 that the longstanding Ayodhya disagreement assumed an unforeseen twist when two new bodies became parties to the case, Ram Lalla, the infant Ram deity and Ram Janmasthan, the supposed birthplace of Ram. The debaterevolves around a title suit, a contention of possession over 2.77 acres of land on which stood a 16th-century mosque called Babri Masjid. From 1885, the Nirmohi Akhara, asect of Hindu puritans had arguedthat the spot was the birthplace of Ram and that the mosque had been constructed by dismantling a Ram temple.

In 1949, a crowd had covertlyplaced an idol of Ram under the central dome of the mosque. In January 1950, the first appeal was filed in the Faizabad court by a member of the Hindu Mahasabha, requestingauthorization to erect a temple. In another forty years, the Lord himself became a party to the case, when a member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad filed anappeal on his behalf, portraying himself as the deity’s “sakha” or friend.Fromthe 20th century onwards, courts have steadilymaintained that a Hindu temple deity is entitled to be “represented in court proceedings”, particularly in lawsuits where querieswereraised over the assets of the temple. With the deityconsidered to be aneternal minor, the administration of the temple has beenpermitted to fight the cases on its behalf. In the instance of non-existence of the supervisor, or if the supervisorbehaves in a way that isdetrimental to the concerns of the deity, a worshiper could stand for it.

Although the recent decision of the five-judge Constitution bench abstained from comprehending scriptureslinked to religious belief in arbitrating the disagreement, one of the judges dealt with the issue and opined that the “disputed structure was the birthplace of Ram as per faith, belief and trust of the Hindus.” His declaration, an appendix to the verdict, asserted, “Faith and belief of Hindus as depicted by the evidence on record clearly establish that Hindus believe that at the birthplace of Lord Ram the Mosque was constructed, and (the) three-dome structure is the birthplace of Lord Ram.”

With the aimof offering proof, the verdictsplit the historical period into three: before 1528, when the mosque is believed to have been erected; from 1528 to October 31, 1858; and from 1858 until 1949. The judge asserted that “Religious scriptures, which are main source of Hinduism, are the foundation on which faith of Hindus is concretised. “It is, however, true that Valmiki Ramayana does not give any description of place of birth, except that Lord Ram was born to Kaushalya at Ayodhya in the Palace of King Dasratha.”For the period 1528 to 1858, the judge quotedTulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas, written during 1574-75 and stated that it denotes Ram’s birthplace. The judge further observed that the court could take into deliberation the Gazetteers under Evidence Act, 1872, conceding thatwhile the report in Gazetteers could not be considered as definiteproof, the supposition of truth of that declaration is affixed to it.

For the period 1858-1949, it alluded to Gazetteers, documents of the Archaeological Survey of India, manuscripts and other documentedproofthat have been displayed in the petitions and other written and verbaltestimony.The judge penned, “The oral evidence… clearly proves faith and belief of Hindus that Janmasthan of Lord Ram is the place where Babri Mosque has been constructed. Three-dome structure was treated as birthplace of Lord Ram. Worship of the three-dome structure, parikrama of the entire premises by the devotees have been amply proved by oral evidences led in the Suit…”The appendixstated, “It is thus concluded… that faith and belief of Hindus since prior to construction of Mosque and subsequent thereto has always been that Janmasthan of Lord Ram is the place where Babri Mosque has been constructed, which faith and belief is proved by documentary and oral evidence discussed above.”

The veracity of his existence, the significance of Ram as an object of reverence and the criticality of Ram’s kingdom for the Hindus has been emphaticallyupheld by the law of the land, connoting a triumph for the majoritarian Hindu discourse that pursed the case relentlessly, finding emotional solace and material support in the current dispensation which in its turn perhaps was repaying its indebtedness to the Lord for its own centrality within the political system.

For the ordinary citizens of the land, the decision possibly connotes a closure, exemplified in the rather muted response to the decision. Trepidation, sheer exhaustion or the importance of mundane matters of everyday existence seems to have taken precedence over the spiritual. While a generational shift is being attributed to the somewhat seemingly disinterested reaction from among the minority community, for those, who retain a coherent memory of the events of December 6, 1992, what perhaps signified a seminal moment in recent Indian history, the finality is an emotionally charred one. While jargons, secularism, pseudo-secularism, Hindutva may have a limited shelf life, human emotions, particularly of pathos, of an era gone forever, sadly, endures through one’s lifetime.

Priya Singh

25/11/2019

(The views expressed are solely those of the author in her private capacity and does not in any way reflect the views of the organisation)