View: Ram Mandir verdict could heal historical wounds of Hindus

On November 9, 2019, a special bench of Supreme Court decided unanimously that the disputed site of 1,500 square yards in Ayodhya belongs to deity Ramlalla Virajman, and paved the way for the construction of a grand Ram temple.

Since then the decision has been portrayed by some commentators as victory of faith and belief over facts, evidence and rule of law. It is alleged that culprits who unleashed violence and desecrated a religious place have been rewarded by SC, and the verdict compromises the secular character of the Indian legal system which decided the title in favour of Hindus — placing reliance on their faith.



To begin with, it is incorrect to claim that this decision is based on Hindu faith in the site known as ‘Ramjanmabhoomi’. Reliance on faith and belief of Hindus has been considered by the court to draw an inference as to the sustainability of their claim for the title: an inference from the domain of faith is inevitable to adjudicate upon such claims where the very nature of dispute is based on centuries of practise and belief.

This solidifies into faith, thereby ‘transforming’ into a kind of evidence corroborating the possession. It is the continuous, unchallenged and exclusive possession of the outward courtyard along with the struggle and claim for the inner one, which on preponderance of probabilities, won the case for Ramlalla and not belief and faith of Hindus. Contrarily, failure of the Sunni Waqf board to show any dedication of Waqf by Babur or to establish adverse possession by exclusive and unchallenged control of premises led them to lose the case. Any physical structure (“disputed structure”) over a piece of land cannot fetch you a title over that land and the Muslim parties failed to show dedication and prove the alternative argument of adverse possession. However, a section of opinionmakers, with a perpetually dissatisfied “liberal and secular” conscience, have floated a narrative seeking to delegitimise the verdict, as the SC failed to deliver the outcome they desired. This needs to be repudiated.

It is an established fact that the history of India has been tainted with bloodshed caused by invaders. Attacks on glorious Hindu temples, deliberate vandalisation of idols were characteristics of such assaults. Mosques on Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, Kashi Vishwanath in Benaras and Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura are nothing but conclusive proof of historic injustices against the Hindu civilisation. Jagannath Temple in Puri and Somnath Temple in Gujarat have faced such massive repeated destruction, the fear of which has led to restrictions on the entry of non-Hindus. Therefore, it is very important for the idea of India to heal these wounds.

Skyscrapers of Indian secularism cannot be allowed to stand on the desecrated symbols of our culture and faith. It is of utmost importance to undo these wrongs against Hindus which stand with several other historical injustices. Is it not true that the Indian Constitution and courts have paved the way for correcting injustices against Dalits by carving out an exception regarding equality in Articles 15 and 16? Is it not true that the past wrongs against blacks have been sought to be undone by amending laws in the West? Is it not true that voices of justice have been raised for ‘aborigines’ across the globe? Is it untrue that the same intellectuals who compel Hindus to forget injustices — rather claim they never happened — demand reparation from imperialists for their policies? In this light, there is nothing wrong with Hindus seeking restoration of their cultural symbols, which will heal the wounds inflicted in the past by invaders.

This decision of the Supreme Court has for the first time corrected a historical wrong against the faith and beliefs of Hindus that the 1,500 square yards in Ayodhya is the birthplace of Lord Ram. It did so on evidence and in accordance with legal principles. Therefore, this is not the time to blame the court and attribute motives. Some self-proclaimed intellectuals who misled the entire country and pursued the cause of an invader who erected a structure on the ruins of an un-Islamic one need to introspect.

This decision provides solace to the Hindu civilisation from wounds inflicted by religious fanatics. Hopefully it will be a new precedent where there is a collective responsibility for such past wrongs and an effort to undo them at the earliest.

Rahul Kaushik is a digital entrepreneur; Shubham Tiwari is a law student.