Indian courts and forked tongues?

'Law and order' sounds like a curious term because the law does not seem to have any order.

The Supreme Court gets a 7-month itch

On September 30, the Allahabad High Court pronounced its threesome verdict about Babri-Masjid/Ayodhya ‘dispute’. Now, the Supreme Court has decided it is all wrong.

The 50-year legal battle for control of the 2.77 acres of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid will start from scratch, with the Supreme Court on Monday faulting and staying the Allahabad High Court order dividing the temple-mosque complex among Ram Lalla (the idol of Lord Rama), Hindus and Muslims.

“How can decree for partition be passed as the HC has done? Something very strange has been done by the HC on its own when no party had sought such a relief.”

What was it doing all these months? It is rather strange that both the Hindus and Muslims are satisfied with the stay order. They need not be because one really does not know when our courts start contradicting each other. As regards the farce of the early judgment, we got there before the SC in Ayodhya: Where 1=2

A few points from my piece reiterated here again:

1. My judiciary has instead taught me a new math. One is equal to two. The 2.77 acre land has been divided into three parts – one for the master, one for the slave and one for the little boy who cries down the lane.
2.  Has the judiciary defined what exactly it means by the term ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’?...
3. This secular democratic republic has copped out under the weight of its own mythology and given a verdict where religion IS the state…
4. This brings us to the third portion – the demolished mosque. It “belongs to Hindus”. Which Hindus? From an ancient era?

The court gets god

Back to the courts. This time to the Ahmedabad High Court. On May 1, Gujarat Day, the Governor and Chief Justice (CJ) of presided over the bhoomi pujan of a new building on the premises. Mumbai Mirror reported that Rajesh Solanki, who heads an Ambedkarite organisation called Council for Social Justice, wrote to the CJ and sent copies to the Union and State Home Secretaries. No one bothered, so he filed a PIL:

At the end of it, Justices Jayant Patel and J C Upadhyay called Solanki’s view ‘pervert’ [sic] and dismissed his petition with an ‘exemplary’ fine. Stating that the puja was for the successful completion of the proposed building, and for the larger interests of all those who would benefit from its construction, the order defined secularism as based on the principles of ‘Vasudev Kutumbakam’ (the world is one family). Differentiating between religion and ‘dharma’, the judges said dharma meant ‘sarva bhavantu sukinah’ (may everyone be happy).

Solanki took his plea to the Supreme Court, which dismissed it. He is persistent and says if it is about all religions then why are their rituals not included.

The CJ and Guv seeking 'happiness': captured by Solanki in a TV shot

Does the court have any right to call a person’s views perverted when he has said nothing of the nature? The bench should be sued for defamation.

I would like to ask a few further queries:

If constructed buildings benefit people, then what about those that are demolished or crash due to natural disasters? Since the Indian Constitution rules in law, what place do holy scriptures have? This ‘we are family’ cheesiness is best left for popcorn munching films or in social interactions. I find the distinction between religion and dharma rather facile. All religions in some form or the other wish everyone to be happy even if they kill each other in the name of some other happiness. Dharma is embedded within a certain religious idea and it is fair enough, but do not try and make a distinction to sneak out of a sense of responsibility.

I’d say this not only about Gujarat but any state in a non-theocratic country. You have absolutely no business to use government space to flash any kind of religious rituals. The true benefit of a new building would be better facilities for those who have to spend hours waiting for hearings and speedy justice delivered in a non-partisan fashion. This is what the courts are about. Please leave “I’m happy, you’re happy” to individuals.

The TOI pushes it

Is it proper for the Times of India to give its 'Times View' together with a report, as it has done in today’s edition in a piece on the Supreme Court and honour killings? Why are reports being editorialised? Although there is always a bias, this is just not done. There can be a separate editorial or opinion pieces, even if by the editor, and they already have a ‘pro’ and ‘con’ section. But to use a box item with a report goes against all journalistic ethics. There have been a few occasions when the Times View appeared on the front page, which is akin to shouting from the soap box.

What could be the compulsions behind pushing such ‘views’? Do they believe the readers are idiots and won’t know how to formulate their own opinions, if any, on the reports? Or is it insecurity? Or fake bravado – ‘See, we are standing up for the issue’? Spare us. We know what to look for where. And if you must show us how serious you are, then ask the hard questions and push the hard stories.

Rishtey mein Lord Ram hamare baap lagte hain?

It is lecture time. “The interest of ordinary Muslims in new India lies in embracing modernity,” says Minhaz Merchant. The headline of the editorial page piece in The Times of India is ‘Educate, Don’t Appease’. It assumes, therefore, that only the uneducated are appeased and the white knights like Mr. Merchant are not.

I will tell you how they are. In his own precious words:

As a group of visiting senior Muslim clergy from Ayodhya, with wisdom born of great learning, said recently to Swami Shri Swaroopananda Saraswati, the highly respected Shankaracharya of Dwarka: “Even though our religions are different, we share the blood of the Hindus.” The Shankaracharya replied gently: “That makes our Lord Ram your ancestor as well.”

Very well, we are family and all. Then, rishtey mein Babar is also daddy dearest to Hindus, no? And most certainly Emperor Akbar? After all, he was married to Jodha bai and used to rock the cradle with Krishna’s idol, at least that is what they showed in Mughal-e-azam. So, if you want to play ball, then you have to be on the same court. You can’t just lob it up in the air.

The author goes on to state:

This is not just about genealogy – it reflects India’s embedded religious diversity.

Sure. The TOI used this picture with the headline, ‘Reinforce the tolerance that unifies’.

Tolerance has to be mutual, even though I dislike the word tolerance. You cannot have one idea of god and a stereotype of another religion paying obeisance to that god and call it diversity.


I had written about just such a narrow vision in the article Mainstream Terror:

It is interesting that while the urban elite has taken over religious celebrations and consumerised it, they use the ‘backward’ idea to drive home the point of India’s colourfulness. It almost seems like they are sitting away and cheering at a spectator sport.

My real issue, though, is how the Muslim clergy and the shankaracharyas are considered the only wise folks around worth quoting. Does the author not talk about modernity? Then why is he appeasing religious heads?

Grow up and get your priorities right. It is shameless and insensitive that this piece was written as a prelude to the December 6 Babri Masjid demolition’s 18th anniversary. Was that appeasement or modernity?

Why wait for the verdict?

Let’s wait. No, said the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad Supreme Court. A retired bureaucrat, Ramesh Chand Tripathi, filed a petition challenging this.
It gets even more bizarre:

The Court fixed September 28 as next date of hearing, keeping in mind that one of the judges would be retiring on the 30th of this month.

So, instead of a week, it is five days because a judge is to retire? Can’t his retirement be deferred? What if a judge falls ill or something worse happens?

It has now become an issue about disagreement among judges about whether the verdict should be delayed rather than the verdict. What is Tripathi’s motive?

In the petition filed through advocate Sunil Jain, he cited several reasons for deferment of the verdict, which he said would be in "public interest" in view of the apprehension of communal flare up, upcoming Commonwealth Games, elections in Bihar and violence in Kashmir Valley and Naxal-hit states.

There is always something happening in this country and insurgency movements are not going to disappear. I have said this earlier, the communal flare-up idea creates a fear psychosis and works as auto-suggestion. Besides, this issue was establishment-created militancy. How will a delay help? According to the senior counsel:

the matter of judgement should be deferred so that religious, political and national leaders could try and work out a solution. He also said it was not a matter of just 10 or 20 parties in the case but related to lakhs and crores of people and the mediation could result in some way out.

Why did he file a case this late? How will a solution be worked out when the matter is subjudice? It has been 17 years and about nine months. No mediation has worked. And what is there to mediate about? This is not about lachs and crores of people; it is about the property. Once that has been determined, then there is scope for mediation. Whoever it belongs to will need to prove how the structure came up there, why it was demolished, why it resulted in large-scale riots and why nothing has been done.

Just putting it off by a few days is not going to change things. In fact, it will create tension, which is perhaps the whole intention. Nobody likes a quiet judgement where the parties will have to come to terms with the verdict and then act upon it in some concrete manner and answer the queries I have posed above and which have far greater ramifications than whose land it is.

Tripathi has not got the bureaucratic worm out of his system and is into prevaricating and file pushing.

The Supreme Court should have insisted that the Allahabad High Court go ahead and make the announcement. We are wasting time and resources on this and it appears to be a devious trick to keep the fire burning.

Ayodhya door ast

L.K. Advani is by far the shrewdest politician India has produced since Mahatma Gandhi. When he talks about pseudo-secularism he should be looking at the mirror for no one is as pseudo about it as he, his seal of secularism to Jinnah being precious irony. He has pretty much created the worst possible post-Partition partition in India. And all he had to do was "dream", his word, about a temple in India...

Pushing the idea of Papa Babar, Advani completely destabilised the middle-class...These people have puja rooms in a little corner of their homes, visit the local temple, go on pilgrimages, but never did they hallucinate about such a fractured fantasy. Now, having an opinion on the Ayodhya issue has become a psychological need.

Full column at Express Tribune:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/52475/ayodhya-door-ast/

Beyond Ayodhya's property dispute

What judgement can they pronounce on the Ayodhya case when it is now referred to as the “60-year-old Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi title suit”? 18 years ago it was just the Babri Masjid, a mosque that was demolished with the connivance of the political leaders. Just as it supposedly was several hundreds of years earlier by the Mughals. They were conquerors, as I have to point out each time I write about this. The people who called for its demolition in 1992 were our own politicians in our own democracy.

The judgement to be announced on September 6 will be about the piece of land. The media has one more topic to create fear and then try to assuage the dread. Since the Vishwa Hindu Parishad held a core meeting in July, some fellow from the Helal Committee and a tea stall owner, one Muslim, one Hindu (cute) are afraid because when that happened in 1992, there was also a four month gap. Are these guys calculators?

Then there are cops stationed outside and someone “lowers his voice” and says they were there the last time too! They have been there all these years, the site has been fenced. What do they expect? It has nothing to do with judgement day but the way things have been.

To make the event more interesting in what the TOI refers to as the ‘temple town’ – could someone tell me how many temples are there and how many are regularly visited as pilgrim sites? – we have the sadhus enter the fray:

Recently, Ayodhya woke up to another high drama—this time a non-stop recitation of Hanuman Chalisa, 11 times in 121 temples, to mark the official launch of the Hanumat Shakti Jagran Anushthan—a four-month long saffron jamboree to “awaken the somnolent Hindu pride”. “Lord Hanuman, say scriptures, needs to be reminded of his might now and then. He tends to be quite oblivious of his true potential,” says Mahant Nritya Gopal Das, the burly head of Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.

Sitting in the Maniram Chhavni, a sprawling marble fortress amid a bevy of guntotting security men, the mahant insists it is purely an apolitical and religious affair. “We are seeking His intervention to rehabilitate Ramlalla, and no offence meant to anyone,” he said with a smile.

They have every right to do their recitation, but why does a man of god need gun-toting security men? How is it apolitical when the idea is to rehabilitate the idol, which was a political act? Is Hindu pride dependant on such recitations and how will it get awakened? Why does Lord Hanuman have to be reminded of his might now? And why does he have to intervene when the case is in the courts and there is no Sita to be saved, for the marauders were the ones using the name of Hanuman’s hero, Ram?

Whatever the court verdict, and I hope politicians stay out of it and not make political capital, it will help the vote banking parties, and they run across the spectrum. I am not particularly concerned about who gets the property. And I hope Muslims just accept the judgement on it. The mosque has gone.

However, no Indian citizen should permit anyone to take charge of the site until those who were responsible for the demolition and the engineered riots and deaths are punished. Not a single individual must go scot-free. Not the cops, not the politicians, not the bureaucrats, not the religious leaders, not the lumpen elements who can be identified.

And make sure that the compensation monies are paid with interest for all these years when people have been at the mercy of the Establishment. This was not separatists; they were people who get elected and who in fact came to power after this. They are paid to look after our interest and to protect every citizen. If citizens commit any crime, there is a judicial process where they must be tried.

Just in case these leaders forget, they happen to be citizens of India too and they darn well be treated like us.