Many secular intellectuals have sought to question the judgement of the Court of Sri Ram's existence and his birthplace. As clever as they are, they are no experts in the law. I can assure them that English law never had any great difficulty when it adjudged similar issues in the depth of time and was happy to attach the label that it was so from time memorial. Why do those intellectuals find it so difficult that Ram whose life and existence was passed down by word of mouth and then put to writing by a people who could not been more meticulous in the preparation of their records than the Hindus? No one can now confirm his specific place of birth, but who is to question the place where it has customarily been honoured. Just take the example of Queen Elizabeth II who has her actual birth date and an official date which is celebrated nationally on another date. What is customary is real to all intents and purposes. Joinder on the issues was thus established and the Court adjudged on it accordingly which is what the parties came to the Court for. There has been such a plethora of issues laid before the Court, and it is massive task to determine what the Court properly and actually decided, the ratio decidendi of the judgement. It could quite easily be that Waqf Board claim was time barred is the ratio. Everything else is obiter dicta. The secular forces confuse the Indian constitution as if it was blind to the country's religious sentiments and thus barring the judges who themselves come with religious convictions of their own from expressing their understanding of the issues before them. That has been the one saving grace of the judgement. What was really decided by the Court was the title suit. There is hardly a Hindu in India who doubts that Sri Ram existed. That religious sentiment endowed him with divinity has never been in issue in the Court proceedings. The judgement of Solomon would pose the question thus: if no building was to be permitted on the site, which of the communities Hindu or Muslim would put the site to use for religious purposes? I have no doubt that for Hindus it would remain a holy site for pilgrimage and darshan as the birth place of Sr Ram. The land as the deity of Ram would suffice for the Hindus. No purpose would be served for the Muslims who would prefer to pray at a mosque at any other site established for the purpose. Of course it would be preferable if Muslims could together with the Hindus build the Sri Ram temple and vice versa for the mosque at a separate site altogether but if sentiment meant that they would build them next to each to each other as a symbol of love and affection that should also be cherished. Nothing could better send the message of amity between all the peoples of India to the world. Can the nation rise to the challenge?
More information about formatting options
Send letter to the editor.
Follow Pragoti on Twitter.
Add to Blogger