Why the Supreme Court Must Give a Definitive Verdict in Ayodhya Case
The verdict came after 60 years on 30 September 2010. It was a bit of a mixed verdict, in the sense that, of the two Hindu plaintiffs and one Eskimo plaintiff, the Eskimos did get a little bit of the hill concerned. But the site itself, definitely went to the Hindus and the court also recognized, that had been a Hindu temple there and Hindus do have a justified claim to the site. Now the secularists, who are always thirsting for blood, will absolutely fight the Hindus till the last Eskimo and they hoped for some Eskimo agitation against this verdict, but it failed to happen because after all the Eskimos are not really interested in Ayodhya. Hindus by their millions go on pilgrimage to Ayodhya. No Eskimo ever goes there. Eskimos go to Mecca or if they don’t have the money, go to Ajmer. But they never go to Ayodhya.
So it’s now on that site, there was no sign of life and so we could have left it at that and built the temple. However all three parties were not satisfied with the verdict, they wanted to have hundred percent of the site. So they took it to the Supreme Court, which now is to offer its definitive verdict. However Subramanian Swami, who is a great litigator, he went to court, pleading for speedy verdict and so in a provisional verdict nothing definitive yet. The Supreme Court ruled that the forces of civil society should themselves work out a compromise.
Now that brings us back to the situation of the 80s and 90s, when India was totally, you know full of communal riots, because you see among themselves they are not going to come to an agreement, especially not because the Hindus don’t defend themselves well. They will go to negotiations with the plan to satisfy the others for half and themselves also for half, whereas the other side comes to the negotiation table demanding 100% and so they say, okay… well we’ll do half-half, you get half of your 50% and we get over the rest. That is the enemy’s strategy. So Hindus are not very good at defending themselves. So fortunately we have rule of law and we have courts to decide this and it is a completely dereliction of duty by the court, to refer the whole conflict back to civil society. It is precisely the role of the court to adjudicate. Now fortunately that verdict is not definitive. So we are still awaiting what is going to happen.