OPINION: Secularism is evident in text, spirit of Ayodhya verdict

Ghayorul Hasan Rizvi, chairperson of the National Commission for Minorities, had recently claimed any review petition challenging the Supreme Court's Ayodhya verdict permitting construction of a grand Ram Temple would be counter-productive to the interests of Indian Muslims and Hindu-Muslim ties.

In the backdrop of his comments, it is very pertinent to explore the larger significance of the Ayodhya verdict.

Aditya Manubarwala

Detractors across the board contend that the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya indicates a death knell to robust secularism in India. I respectfully disagree. The jury may be out challenging the legal reasoning behind the verdict and I do not intend to comment upon the same. However, in this article, I contend how secularism is certainly not lost and is in fact more than amply visible in both the text and spirit of the Ayodhya verdict.

The demand for construction of a grand Ram Temple has been a long-standing one, with the first case being filed in 1885 at the district court of Faizabad. Politically, the Ayodhya issue has been a source of constant strife right since the 1990s, with it dominating the electoral map of India. There is no reason why the Supreme Court would not be mindful of these realities while coming to its verdict.

The Supreme Court sets aside the order of the Allahabad High Court wherein the disputed land admeasuring 1,500 square yards was equally divided between the 3 disputant parties—the Hindu group, Muslim group and the Nirmohi Akhara.

The formula of the Allahabad High Court was debunked by the Supreme Court. In fact, paragraph 799 of the judgment notes that “Even as a matter of maintaining public peace and tranquillity, the solution which commended itself to the Allahabad High Court division of the property into three parts is not feasible. Dividing the land will not sub-serve the interest of either of the parties or secure a lasting sense of peace and tranquillity.”

There is no iota of doubt that bringing finality to the issue was certainly dominating the minds of the Supreme Court justices. The court thus stepped into the role of policy formulation, more than its primary role of adjudication.

History is replete with examples of strife over places of worship escalating into protracted battles, dividing and destroying the delicate social fabric of nations and regions in the process.

An example in this century alone would be the visit to the Al Aqsa mosque by Ariel Sharon in the year 2000. Sharon, who was then leader of the opposition in Israel, later became prime minister.

Though, undoubtedly there existed many structural causes for the Palestinian intifada (uprising) that followed, Sharon’s visit was taken advantage of by the extremists, culminating in protracted violence lasting many years coupled with countless casualties.

A direct corollary of the above led to a series of unfortunate events including the Oslo Peace process being left in tatters and a decisive rightward shift in the Israeli electorate, with repercussions till this day. It has also been suggested on the other hand that Sharon himself was taking electoral advantage of the sensitivity of the site, worshipped as the Temple Mount by Jews.

India is not immune to such electoral temptations and religious extremism. In view of this, the Ayodhya verdict of the Supreme Court must be seen in the larger context of suppressing fires of communal fervour.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has on countless occasions laid claims to around 3,000 other mosques across India. The Supreme Court very deftly buried the possibility of future disputes of similar nature emanating by reiterating secularism to be part and parcel of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which protects and secures fundamental values of the Constitution was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. The Ayodhya judgment went on to note that, “The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under Indian Constitution; this Act is thus a legislative intervention, which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values.”

This assurance by the Supreme Court must put all apprehensions to rest doubting its secular credentials. The finding of the Supreme Court in rejecting the argument of the Ram Janmabhumi being elevated to the status of juristic person will go a long way in avoiding future religious conflict.

The Supreme Court's verdict must also be interpreted in view of the special status Ayodhya enjoys as being seen as the birthplace of Lord Ram. Seeing a mosque at such a site would certainly have sowed the seeds for strife and discord perennially. Globally, there are a plethora of instances of sensitive sites becoming targets of running battles between Christians, Jews, pagans and Muslims across the world. Hagia Sophia went from a Greek Orthodox Christian cathedral to an Ottoman imperial mosque and now a museum (recently the Ottoman artwork has begun peeling off and the Christian frescos can be seen side-by-side on the walls along with the Islamic artwork).

The Supreme Court has, if anything, treaded a fine balance between pragmatism and secularism, certainly advancing the cause of secularism in India.

Aditya Manubarwala is an advocate practising in New Delhi and is a former law clerk-cum-research assistant at the Supreme Court of India

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author's and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK