In my opinion, what we need to do in Ayodhya would depend on one important question – Was there a functional temple at the location when the mosque was built? If there was no functional temple, then there is no mistake on whoever built the mosque. They might have built the mosque on the remains of a ruined or unused temple. It is a definite mistake if a functional temple had been taken over and converted to a mosque. Do we have proof of Babur or someone else taking over a temple that was in use? If the answer is yes, then there is a mistake that needs to be corrected – the Hindus definitely have a claim on the land.
It is not easy to prove that a functional temple existed at the site. Archeological surveys are useless in my opinion because they can only tell whether there was a temple or some other structure on the piece of land. But it cannot prove that the temple was operational at the time when the mosque was built. If the temple that is believed to have existed in that site had been a very important Hindu pilgrimage location, we should definitely be able to find it mentioned somewhere in history. I am not referring to history written in the modern age – we need to look for inscriptions from 15th century (the time at which the mosque was built).
Now we have two clear scenarios:
Scenario A – There is hard proof that a functional temple was destroyed and turned into a mosque.
In this scenario, the Hindus are the rightful owners of the site. Muslims should take pride in giving up their claim because in doing so they are correcting a historic wrong. They should remember that even Kaba was under the control of idol worshippers at one point and later it was reclaimed. Reclaiming the Kaba was fair because it is believed to be built by Ibrahim. The same reasoning should be applied here. A mosque can be built at a suitable place if there is a need. But, it is good to keep it far away from the temple site for practical reasons.
Couple of questions that arise here are.
1) In 1949, when a temple and a mosque were functioning side-by-side, some idols mysteriously appeared in the mosque and following that, Muslims were not able to use the mosque. Though the final conclusion is to give the site to the Hindus, the act of forcibly preventing Muslims from using the mosque is incorrect. Snatching away the mosque some people were using is as bad as the act of building the mosque in 15th century (assuming that the mosque was built by destroying a functional temple). What justice do the Muslims who were deprived of the mosque get now? The argument that this act is just a return of what happened in 15th century is absurd. The 15th century act was by some individuals against some others who lived at that time. No one can be punished for that incident 400 years later.
2) In 1992, while the dispute was still in court, the mosque was brought down in a barbaric manner. This is another act that needs to get justice.
Though the incidents of 1949 and 1992 are important, I think the overall decision on the ownership of the site should not be affected by these incidents because they are mistakes committed by a certain individuals, not all Hindus. Though the acts are criminal, Hindus in general should not have to pay for it. But, definitely the people who were responsible for the incidents need to pay. In my opinion, the best way for them to pay back is to accept the punishment they deserve by law.
Scenario B – There is hard proof that there was no functional temple when the mosque was built.
In this scenario, the Hindus should give up their claim on the land. Even if there is proof that there was a temple long before the mosque was built, it is not fair to claim a land in someone’s possession just because we found something 50 feet below. We are very likely to find something whenever we dig a place. We cannot use that as an excuse to take away land from anyone.
Unfortunately, things are not so simple that we can easily say that we are in either one of the two scenarios I have detailed above. Getting hard evidences from 15th century is an extremely difficult thing. So, uncertainty on whether a functional temple existed immediately before the mosque was built is something we may have to live with for now. The uncertainty is likely to continue until some major discovery is made. Until then, people might be arguing on one way or the other depending on which way they are biased.
Though it is a foregone conclusion that the dispute will reach the Supreme Court, it will be really interesting to know the stand the high court takes on this issue. I hope that they give a verdict supported by strong reasoning.
What happens after the verdict is going to be a big test for the maturity of Indian public and what is going to be there in the verdict is going to be a big test for the integrity of our judiciary.
It is not easy to prove that a functional temple existed at the site. Archeological surveys are useless in my opinion because they can only tell whether there was a temple or some other structure on the piece of land. But it cannot prove that the temple was operational at the time when the mosque was built. If the temple that is believed to have existed in that site had been a very important Hindu pilgrimage location, we should definitely be able to find it mentioned somewhere in history. I am not referring to history written in the modern age – we need to look for inscriptions from 15th century (the time at which the mosque was built).
Now we have two clear scenarios:
Scenario A – There is hard proof that a functional temple was destroyed and turned into a mosque.
In this scenario, the Hindus are the rightful owners of the site. Muslims should take pride in giving up their claim because in doing so they are correcting a historic wrong. They should remember that even Kaba was under the control of idol worshippers at one point and later it was reclaimed. Reclaiming the Kaba was fair because it is believed to be built by Ibrahim. The same reasoning should be applied here. A mosque can be built at a suitable place if there is a need. But, it is good to keep it far away from the temple site for practical reasons.
Couple of questions that arise here are.
1) In 1949, when a temple and a mosque were functioning side-by-side, some idols mysteriously appeared in the mosque and following that, Muslims were not able to use the mosque. Though the final conclusion is to give the site to the Hindus, the act of forcibly preventing Muslims from using the mosque is incorrect. Snatching away the mosque some people were using is as bad as the act of building the mosque in 15th century (assuming that the mosque was built by destroying a functional temple). What justice do the Muslims who were deprived of the mosque get now? The argument that this act is just a return of what happened in 15th century is absurd. The 15th century act was by some individuals against some others who lived at that time. No one can be punished for that incident 400 years later.
2) In 1992, while the dispute was still in court, the mosque was brought down in a barbaric manner. This is another act that needs to get justice.
Though the incidents of 1949 and 1992 are important, I think the overall decision on the ownership of the site should not be affected by these incidents because they are mistakes committed by a certain individuals, not all Hindus. Though the acts are criminal, Hindus in general should not have to pay for it. But, definitely the people who were responsible for the incidents need to pay. In my opinion, the best way for them to pay back is to accept the punishment they deserve by law.
Scenario B – There is hard proof that there was no functional temple when the mosque was built.
In this scenario, the Hindus should give up their claim on the land. Even if there is proof that there was a temple long before the mosque was built, it is not fair to claim a land in someone’s possession just because we found something 50 feet below. We are very likely to find something whenever we dig a place. We cannot use that as an excuse to take away land from anyone.
Unfortunately, things are not so simple that we can easily say that we are in either one of the two scenarios I have detailed above. Getting hard evidences from 15th century is an extremely difficult thing. So, uncertainty on whether a functional temple existed immediately before the mosque was built is something we may have to live with for now. The uncertainty is likely to continue until some major discovery is made. Until then, people might be arguing on one way or the other depending on which way they are biased.
Though it is a foregone conclusion that the dispute will reach the Supreme Court, it will be really interesting to know the stand the high court takes on this issue. I hope that they give a verdict supported by strong reasoning.
What happens after the verdict is going to be a big test for the maturity of Indian public and what is going to be there in the verdict is going to be a big test for the integrity of our judiciary.
