Solution to Ayodhya tougher than marathon hearing

NEW DELHI: The long-drawn marathon hearings in the Ayodhya title suit are a strain on the bench and the bar, but arriving a solution acceptable to all sides looks tougher. The bench is yet to begin hearing arguments on how 'relief' could be 'moulded', which may begin on Wednesday, after the Dussehera break week. Though the warring parties have pitched the battle as a “civilisational identity” versus “existential question,” both agree on the need to move on.
The Nirmohi Akhara feels elbowed out of the dispute. Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain has said that the Akhara would only concede the deity’s title rights over the disputed site if it would be allowed to continue as the ‘shebaiyat’ (minstrel with full management control). The deity’s counsels are staking sole claim over the land, as is the Sunni Wakf Board. However, none of the parties to the petition have anything to prove the title ownership to the disputed site and have fallen back on travelogues, gazetteers and archaeological findings to claim it. Those favouring a Ram temple at the site claim that Babur’s commander Mir Baqui built the Babri Masjid in 1528 over the fort which Lord Ram built. They claim that there was a temple beneath the mosque citing ASI’s findings. The board claims that the mosque was built on vacant land, or possibly over ruins of a temple. It was equally plausible that the ruins could be those of a mosque as it faced Mecca.

The board, represented by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, says devotees can continue prayers at the Ram Chabutra provided the title stays with the board. The Akhara opposes this. The Nyas and deity’s counsel Triloki Nath Pandey have also rejected the suggestion.

They have staked their claim over the birth place of Lord Ram, which they say is under the erstwhile main dome of the demolished mosque.

The Sunni Wakf Board also has a detractor in the Shia Wakf Board, which lost the title suit to the Sunnis several decades ago, but has now thrown its hat with the promise that it would hand over the land for the Ram Mandir if it gets the title. The Sunni Board has said the Shia claim was time-barred and the idols were placed inside the dome in 1949 by an act of trespass. Such a legal wrong cannot be used to deny the Muslim claim, it contends.

The boards cannot prove ownership of the land through documents, making it difficult for SC to give the disputed area to either. The only thing certain is that there was a mosque at the site which was destroyed in 1992. On the other hand, if the court wants to give the title only to the deity, it runs into a legal hitch of doing it when ‘sebaiyat’ exists.

As the human minstrel, the sebaiyat is entrusted with full management and control of the temple sans ownership. The sebaiyat is everything but the owner. “The Akhara has fought steadfastly for the interest of the deity as his sebaiyat since 1866 in court and for five centuries outside. Without the Nirmohi Akhara, the Hindu community would never have been represented in this case,” said Kartikk Chopra, the spokesperson and Muktar Panch Ramanandi Akhara, Ayodhya.

The third option of dividing the land has no takers. A leading lawyer espousing the deity’s cause was optimistic though. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, he said the board conceded that the Babri Masjid was of no particular significance, whereas the birthplace of Lord Rama was significant for Hindus. “However, we commend any effort to give land elsewhere to build a mosque. Not inside the complex, as it would give rise to perennial law and order problems.”

The ruling, he said, may be an exception and would not be used as precedent elsewhere. All other places of worship would be frozen as of January 15, 1947, according to the Places of Worship Act.