news details |
|
|
| Slamming the verdict | | | Shiban Khaibri | 10/22/2010 11:37:24 PM |
| The prelude to the Allahabad High Court judgement says,” Here is a small piece of land (1500 square yards) where angles fear to tread. It is full of innumerable land mines. We are required to clear it. Some very sane elements advised us not to attempt that. However we have to take risk.”
And the judges took the “risk” enjoined upon them by the doctrine of procedural justice and judicial independence under the umbrella of the country’s constitution. Should the “landmines” have remained perpetually there as political fodder for the politicians, to perpetually fish in the troubled waters of inters- community mistrust and disputes? Should the learned judges have contained themselves from delivering impartial judgment free of the looming fear of repercussions on career and prospects? Should the learned judges have consulted or sought views from the politicians as to how should they deliver their judgement in the Ayodhya dispute? Should have the learned judges dragged on the case under reference for a few decades more to benefit the politicians as none of them ever raised a cry for its fast disposal?
These are a few questions inversely related to the series of criticism leveled by a few prominent politicians of the country as also by some scribes against the epoch making three judge bench verdict in Ayodhya case.
To start with, it is a sad commentary on the manner of response exhibited by no less a person than the Union Home Minister, who, as early as a week prior to the judgement scheduled to be delivered, said that the judgment could be appealed against in Supreme court by either party, not satisfied with the verdict, as if the contending parties were not in know of this fact. This was repeatedly told by him, the need for which was hardly there which created nothing but an avoidable state of suspicion. A lot of hype was created; a fear psychosis was built as if some tsunami was to strike the country. Series of flag marches by the police, RAF, Para military forces etc were held and requisitioning of more forces by a few states preceded the verdict like a hurricane followed by a breeze, the credit of which goes to the people of this great country. They, before and after the judgment, showed exemplary restraint, peace, tranquility and brotherhood. Not a slogan was raised, not a pebble was thrown, and not a grain of any disturbance of even a minuscule nature was reported from any where.
Problems innumerable, revolving around managing day to day sustenance by an average Indian, have relegated to secondary importance, the indulgence in scoring points or settling scores with one another, vis-à-vis, the fallout of the judgment. Perhaps that is the cause of worry to some politicians who are in the habit of erecting occasional political edifices on inter – community, inter- caste and inter regional conflicts and make political hay.
The question is not who gained and who lost by virtue of this judgement but what is heartening is the reaction shown both by Hindus and Muslims alike that 2010 was neither 1528 nor 1992. 90 years old Hashim Ansari living in Ayodhya who has waged legal battle since 1961 over the disputed land, declared,” the dispute is now a closed chapter and that Hindus should be allowed to build their temple. The judgment indirectly guides, suggests and creates a space for reconciliation and even has provided rather the basis for one, in which the country’s politicians failed for more than 60 years. The Congress party, in particular the present government, lacks the will power and the stamina to create a national reconciliation among the key battling constituents, instead it lost no time in harping on, rather parroting the Babri demolition again and again as if the title suit judgement was any commentary on that unfortunate episode, that case being dealt with by another court and that is why the main litigant, Mohd. Hashim met Mahant Baskar Dass of Nirmohi Akhara and also Mahant Gyan Dass of Hanumangari , the chief of Akhil Bhartiya Akhara Parishad to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. It is unfortunate that as a consequence of the bizarre interference of some politicians in the judicial process by adversely commenting on the judgement , projecting it as not based on facts but on considerations of faith etc; this oldest litigant has , however , claimed a threat to his life saying that people playing politics over the issue were plotting to kill him He says,” When I started to talk about peace with the Mahants, those doing politics on this issue felt their shops would get closed and are issuing threats and plotting to eliminate me.”
Earlier, MP A. Qwasi of All India Personal Law Board ruled out any possibility of an out of court settlement.
Indian Union Muslim League Chief Syed Hyder Ali Thangal asked people to show mutual respect, “All should respect the verdict and it must be seen as a part of the judicial process.”
It is a matter to be rued that support to the judgment is interpreted as support to the Hindu cause and leaders like Mulayam Singh have done no service to the prospects of bettering inter – community relations, not realizing the opportunity, the landmark judgement had tried to cement the inter- community relations by opening enough windows for a reconciliation, which the country needs very badly. Mulayam Singh had said that the court appears to have somehow got guided by considerations of faith and belief instead of the rule of the Law Book. Reviving the dead issue of Mandir Masjid perhaps was thought to keep the exponents of “aggressive secularism” to consolidate Muslim votes for parties like RJD, LJP especially in the Bihar polls as the sinking graph of these parties was sought to be salvaged by criticizing the Allahabad High Court judgment. The same malaise afflicting the Left in West Bengal and the same remedy sought was amply manifest in CPM Gen. Secretary Karat’s “warning” on Oct 4, 2010 of “dangerous precedent set for future as the verdict was far away from the facts. We do not think the dispute will be addressed by talks and as the faith was given preference to facts. In other words, he wants not to kill the goose that lays eggs (of votes) for his party just like other phony secularist leaders.
The most important fact which should not be lost sight of is whether we should poke nose in the efficacy of the merits of the judgement and project it in a muddled form before the public? Are we not thus making the existence of free judiciary conditional and thus imperil the institution of democracy in our country as it is the judiciary which keeps democracy guarded and accords it a top priority, setting at naught the horrors of dictatorship to operate. Free judiciary is the interpreter of the constitution, Parliament and state legislators, as per the constitution. It has to be noted that unsolicited and imperious statements made and views expressed against the judgment have sent waves of haze and confusion across the country and made free judiciary and judicial verdicts suspect which is highly detrimental to the freedom, courage, impartiality and the wisdom of the judiciary. Now the mechanisms of the vote bank politics have stooped so low so as to cast aspersions on the Indian judicial system by those political leaders who at least cannot be as “learned” as these three learned judges and surely not having as much judicial prowess.
The judiciary has thus become the object of very close scrutiny by some sections of politicians and the media which may lead to the peoples’ confidence in the integrity of the judicial processes feared to get impaired. Judiciary does and is expected to steer well clear of party politics. Political leaders must refrain from publicly criticizing judges as judges do not indulge in retaliation in the traditions of what we call judicial reticence.
The case is expected to be heard in the apex court, not known for how many years during which, politicians shall keep their shops of vote bank techniques open, use the apparition of demolition to the hilt during election campaigns and shed crocodile tears for their concerned voters and what about if the apex court too maintains and endorses the verdict of the High court? Shall it go the way of Shah Banoo case then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
