I cannot understand how the recorded, documented demolition of the mosque in 1992 and the probable but inconclusively proved demolition of a temple in the 16th century can be treated at par legally (The Scent of a Betrayal, Oct 18). It is not at all relevant judicially whether or not a temple was destroyed to build the mosque, for the simple reason that any act which may have taken place before the modern ‘secular’ Indian nation-state (and its Constitution) came into being are not matters for this court to legislate upon as such an act would fall outside the purview of current laws (which were not yet in existence) that govern court judgements. The demolition of the mosque in 1992, by contrast, took place in independent India, violated independent India’s laws and Constitution and is thus relevant.
Meera Sagar, Delhi
Who is the second-class citizen in this country? That is the moot question when Hindus are denied their rights even in places they hold sacred, be it Kashi or Mathura.
Sachin Joshi, on e-mail
The Indian State was established not to correct the historical wrongs of 11th-century Islamic invasions but to further the best interests of all its residents in 1947. This implies a commitment to honour all titles that were deemed valid as of 1947. The court should have kept its brief to the title. I’m not quite sure why it thought the “Hindu” side was party to this dispute. Are they talking about me? I incline to the Karunanidhi school of thought: who is Ram and which engineering college did he go to?
Vijay, Chennai
Outlook should publish a disclaimer saying it is a neo-communal magazine, bent on disturbing communal harmony.
Sumedha, Geneva
Outlook, Congress and Mulayam would be out of business if Muslims of India did not feel alienated and second-class citizens. It is in their interest to keep them feeling that way.
Rishi Singh, Derby, UK
A true Hindu would no doubt consider the Ayodhya verdict as opposed to true Hinduism. The Hindu Vedanta says that there is only one Brahman and to see him as different deities such as Rama, Krishna, or even Jesus, Allah, Buddha etc is only due to ignorance arising out of maya; a man of true realisation won’t see such differences. Every religion acknowledges the basic truth that God or Nature alone owned the entire universe in the beginning. The concept of private ownership of land evolved only on account of continued use of a piece of land by an individual, family or group and transfer of that use, sometimes voluntarily and mostly by means of brutal force. The law of adverse possession alone is the most fundamental of all rules in property law. In fact, private ownership is inimical to the true spirit of any religion. It is a manifestation of the greed of human beings, recognised by civilised societies only as a necessary evil to secure social order and peace. God needs no property and only certain people own and enjoy property in the name of God. The law recognising an idol in a place of worship as a legal entity capable of owning property is only for the limited purpose of avoiding confusions and conflicts in respect of properties donated (!) by human beings to those idols and in possession of individuals maintaining those places of worship. When an idol is deemed to be a legal entity for the purposes of owning and dealing with properties, such idol does not have any special right superior to the normal ownership right of any private individual. Resolving a dispute over properties is purely a secular task whether the contending parties are real human beings or deemed entities such as an idol in a temple, a company or trust. Religious beliefs or philosophies have no role in it. An everlasting ownership of any property unassailable by any human act or operation of law is unknown to law.
S.P. Asokan, Chennai
I thought your magazine was pseudo-secular. Reading your stories on Ayodhya, I know it’s clearly anti-Hindu.
Srini K., on e-mail
What do you mean by “justice denied”? Is it because the high court has vindicated the stand of crores of Hindus? Had it been the other way around, you would have praised the wisdom of the court.
Nirav A. Joshi, Ahmedabad
Let’s be content with the compromise the Ayodhya judgement has achieved. The Babri demolition, Godhra, the riots the followed—these can repeat themselves anywhere in India. But that should never be allowed to happen. For that reason alone, the banality of a normalcy that is the mere absence of violence is worth it.
Meenakshi Venkat, Bangalore
Outlook seems disappointed that the verdict has had a calming rather than an inflaming effect on Hindus and Muslims.
Kay Shiv, Bangalore
The uneasy relationship between the Hindus and Muslims in India is mostly based on the historical experience of the country together with the cynical manipulation of the two communities by modern political parties for electoral advantage. The Ayodhya verdict and its fallout are only marginal to this larger problem.
Ramgopal Yanamadala, Kanchikacherla, AP
Like many Muslims, I was disappointed with the Ayodhya judgement at first. But if it bridges the gap between communities and brings some peace and prosperity to our country, we must accept it. It’s better the Sunni Waqf Board does not appeal the judgement.
Asad-ul-Gaba, Baroda
When we were young and someone quarrelled with us for no reason, we’d tell them ‘I’ll tell your father’ in the hope that better counsel would prevail. Imagine our anguish then if he turned around and kicked us as well! The judiciary was our last hope and it failed us miserably. What better proof do you need of a partisan verdict when there is jubilation only on one side?
Mohamed Aidross, Thrissur
To all those Muslims in Kozhikode, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Old Delhi, Meerut, Lucknow et al who’ve suddenly woken up to find things wrong with India’s secular credentials post the Ayodhya verdict, I have one piffling question to ask: where are they on the uniform civil code, the Shah Bano verdict, the ban on Satanic Verses, India’s participation bid for OIC, cabal voting and India’s refusal to recognise Israel post-independence in spite of there being no historical, cultural and diplomatic friction?
Sumant Bhattacharya, Gurgaon
Though no one—and that includes me—is really satisfied with the verdict (I say when the land belongs to Hindus why not give all of it to them?), we should accept it and move on. If Outlook can sense anger among Muslims, it should try to convince them to accept it.
Shrimant T. Madhavrao, Pune
Outlook’s partisan, and by no means dispassionate, articles on seem to have been be written by people who I doubt have gone through the verdicts or have the legal acumen of the judges who ruled on the case.
Ashwin Pota, on e-mail
I was pained to see your cover, choosing to present the views of a narrow section of Muslim society. What about the other, enlightened sections of the Muslim community or the views of the majority Hindu community, intellectuals and other communities such as Christians, Buddhists and Sikhs, who though not as emotionally involved are nonetheless as interested in the subject.
Ratnam V. Velichety, on e-mail
The way the common Indian has accepted the verdict—a no-win, no-loss for either side—does not seem to have gone down well with our media and so-called intellectuals.
P.C. Jain, Allahabad
Outlook is trying to foment communal trouble between Hindus and Muslims when none exists. Time to ban it.
Rajendran Balakrishnan, Manama, Bahrain
As a devout Hindu, I’m appalled that the judges relied more on faith than on legal issues; that too only on Hindu faith! I’m inclined to believe that judgements in the higher judiciary are delivered on extra-legal considerations such as future personal gains or personal beliefs, ignoring provisions under the Indian Constitution.
Patil Nikroo, on e-mail
It’s interesting so many sympathisers of Muslims are talking about faith over law, when the Muslims themselves are happy with the verdict or couldn’t care less. Remember the time when the Supreme Court based a judgement completely on law and was overturned by faithful zealots in Parliament, led by none other than the youthul father of the new hope for India’s youth, Rahul Gandhi. Have people forgotten the Shah Bano case?
Amit Gupta, London
Pseudo-secularists are stoking the dying communal fire. Their livelihood is at stake.
K. Suresh, Bangalore
If you look at it objectively, the Ayodhya verdict has punctured the balloon of both the right-wing parties and of Mulayam, since the Muslims of UP have refused to give him the satisfaction of being seen as losers in the case. Given the circumstances, it has been the best judgement possible. Neither have Muslims lost, nor Hindus won. The only losers are the jholawalas. Atheists anyway, they should perhaps stay away from matters of faith.
Rakesh Kapoor, Buffalo, US
The story about Shahidganj being a mosque is like the mail circulated to justify the Godhra carnage about kar sevaks misbehaving with a bearded vendor and his daughter. First off, one has to differentiate between a normal temple/mosque and something of such momentous importance as Kashi or Mathura. The rss has always said that if Kashi, Mathura and Ayodhya were returned to Hindus, they will withdraw claims from all other places in India. As for those asking if Ram was born below the dome, does anyone ask if the Virgin Mary legend is true, or how the book was revealed to the Prophet?
Anshul, Indore
With all due respect to their sentiments, I have a word of advice for our Muslim friends: the Ayodhya judgement makes the best of a very tough situation. Let life move forward. No one wants the pain of our past to poison our collective future.
Ashok Lal, Mumbai
Why this sense of betrayal? The site has been in dispute even before the Constitution of India was framed. The land does not belong to the Sunni Waqf Board. The dispute is not about correcting historical wrongs; it’s about respecting the rights of a community that was denied worship at a site in free India when that right was respected even during the Raj.
Rajesh Chary, Mumbai
The Muslim community has grounds to nurse hurt sentiments, but so does the Hindu community. Do you think temples were never vandalised and razed by Muslim invaders? As far as the recent judgement on Ayodhya goes, two of the three judges have concluded that a mosque was built on the ruins of a Hindu temple. The third judge did not dispute that fact; he only differed from the others in that he opined that the temple had not been demolished. Why are Hindus expected to forget all past demolitions when Muslims won’t forget the demolition of even one mosque? Secularists like Mr Vinod Mehta who expect Hindus to forget history are the bane of India; with such friends, India needs no enemies.
K. Hemanth Kumar D. Pai, Karur, Tamil Nadu
For those who cite historical wrongs to justify present-day atrocities, I can only say the past is past. By this yardstick, there will only be anarchy and chaos everywhere.
Michael Lopes, Mumbai
Taking revenge or balancing history’s wrongs is not something one would expect of human beings living in 2010. Such acts are undertaken only for mere politics and can only move the world backward.
Mohamed, Kuwait
I’m 98 and remember being a history teacher at an inter college in Faizabad in 1948, when the Ayodhya issue had flared up for the first time in independent India. Folklore was that Babar’s hakim wanted a mosque built at the site of Ramjanmabhoomi, but Babar refused permission. He then had some Hindus killed and misrepresented to Babar that Muslims had been done to death by Hindus. The enraged Babar then allowed a mosque to be built there. However, there is no mention of this in Babarnama—perhaps because some of its pages were lost during Humayun’s exile.
Vishwanath Tandon, Kanpur
On what basis does Vinod Mehta express reservations about a verdict that a) has been arrived at by senior judges who have sifted through voluminous evidence and consultations with experts over 18 years—which secularists like VM haven’t done; and b) have left their judgement open to analysis by the Supreme Court. Let not Outlook fan misplaced hysteria among Muslims who say they had so long been held hostage by the Sangh parivar and now by the Indian state.
Dr Shyam Sarvodey, Mysore
Though the rationale of the Ayodhya judgement can be questioned, it is the best possible one. The one opportunity the Muslims in India had to show their faith in the judicial system of the country—the Shah Bano case—the extremist face of the community put faith in religion over faith in the Constitution, and got the government to enact an Act in Parliament to nullify the SC verdict. Now, it seems that though a majority of Muslims want to accept the Allahabad HC verdict, they won’t be allowed to do so by secular politicians, who are interested in all but Muslim progress.
G. Vijayaraghavan, on e-mail
It is sad to see Outlook take a one-sided approach by writing that Muslims are hurt: how come it could not find one Muslim who agrees with the judgement or one non-Muslim who feels otherwise?
Suraj, Brea, US
Muslim groups have decided the Ayodhya judgement must be challenged in the Supreme Court. But is that going to solve the problem? If the Supreme Court decides in their favour, will that solve the problem? Do they think the Hindus will then keep quiet? We’ll be back to square one again.
G.S. Rao, Bangalore
‘If a man kills a tiger, it is hunting. If a tiger kills a man, it is cruelty!’ Instead of publishing articles which arouse the emotions of people and do not go deep into the subject and its history, why don’t you write pieces encouraging communal harmony?
Ramakanth Sharma, on e-mail
