Judges as politicians.

While there is a sense of relief that the HC judgment did not lead to a round of street riots (though the calm is a bit uneasy, one must quickly add), some issues need to be considered.

Many eyebrows have been raised over the strange verdict. And quite correctly so. It’s as if going against all tenets of our Constitution, the three judges seem to have arrived at their judgment based more on personal beliefs, subjective views and ‘greater good’ considerations, rather than strictly follow the law. Which is why no one is entirely happy (not necessarily a bad thing!) and all the parties involved are moving to the Supreme Court.

The issue I want to raise is this: I actually endorse what the judges have done. In fact, I quite understand where they are coming from. The large political parties, whose leaders are supposed to play the role of the executive, have shirked away from taking a call on this dicey issue. Simply because they have carved out India between themselves (based on religion/caste/language considerations), and would find it impossible to resolve this issue in a parliamentary debate (which is actually the way national contentious issues need to be resolved).

With the executive having excused itself from doing its job, the judiciary is compelled to step in and do the honours. The judges, after all, don’t need votes from the junta to further their careers. Although this is shameful, as the people who ought to be deciding the nation’s future are the people’s elected representatives, I am happy that the judges have voluntarily agreed to perform that role, as someone’s gotta do the dirty work. In that context, I think we should all be pleased that the judiciary, in this case, exceeded its mandate, and invoked mythology, emotions and peace considerations to judge an issue that in ideal circumstances must purely be judged on legal parameters. That the judges put India first. Rather than the books.

Think about this: Had the High Court judges acted purely as judges, it is very possible that the title of the land would have been wholly awarded to one of the parties. Because whatever evidence you dig up, it is simply untenable to arrive at judgments based on what may have happened 500 years ago. Or earlier. And if the entire land had been awarded to one party, one can be pretty sure that would have resulted in a huge unrest in the nation. And possibly riots and other criminal activities. The one-third formula was announced so that the nation remains at peace. Clearly, the judges have played the role of politicians and arbitrators. In other words, the role that the parliament should be performing.

And therefore, instead of questioning their motives and methodologies, we should actually be applauding them.

Having said the above, two points: One, it is critical that people who demolished the masjid in 1992 are punished. Because that was a criminal act, any which way you look at it. That is paramount if we need real closure on this issue. And once again, if the government is too chicken to take a call on this, the judiciary must take independent, suo moto action.

Two, now that the case has moved to the Supreme Court, one sincerely hopes the judges take another twenty or thirty years to pronounce the final verdict. The reason? All the fossilised leaders (both, political and religious), the dudes who are constantly trying to push India back into the medieval age, would have moved on from this world. (Good riddance, if you ask me.) And a Brand New India, circa 2040 AD, may just want to have nothing to do with Ayodhya. So the judgment can be pronounced without palpable fear on the streets. And maybe, just maybe, we will finally get a hospital at the site. Which is the most ideal way out. Where, instead of 1/3rd mandir, 1/3rd masjid, etc, we get 1/3rd orthopedics, 1/3rd cardiac care, and so on. That is the India the new gen deserves. Surely.