Almost 5000-year-old Indian history is more known for cooperation and harmony than conflicts and strife. When Prince Vikramaditya received defeat from Bahadur Shah of Gujarat, his mother Rani Karnavati invited Mughal Emperor Humayun for help, and she sent him a Rakhi to express her trust in him. On one occasion Swami Vivekananda said, “I am firmly persuaded that without the help of practical Islam, theories of Vedantism, however fine and wonderful they may be, are entirely valueless to the vast mass of mankind.” On the other hand, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, a famous social reformer and Muslim educationist counts Hindus and Muslim as eyes of a beautiful bride, India.
Unfortunately, in the post-mutiny era, the divide and rule policy of the erstwhile British Empire made some ugly holes in the beautiful social fabric of India. On November 09, 2019, when a bench of five judges of the Supreme Court of India, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, gave verdict on the highly sensitive Ayodhya issue, the fear among the masses was palpable as many of them were afraid of the probable communal violence after the verdicts.
But, once again, the entire nation created a beautiful example of patience and cultural harmony. The decision is respectfully accepted by both communities. Even, commendable tolerance was exhibited by a small section of the society, which was not happy with the decision. To the majority, peace and cooperation were the demand of the situation as they want to see a united and prosperous India.
In one of the most awaited judgements in the history of the Supreme Court of India, the court ended the decades’ old dispute through a valued and balanced decision. The bench of five judges unanimously ordered that the disputed land be handed over to a trust (to be created by Government of India) to build the Ram Temple.
In the 1024-page judgement, they have mentioned, “There is no doubt that for many centuries, Hindus have held that Vishnu in His avatar as Maryada Purushottam was born in Ayodhya, and that at the site of his birth stood a grand temple.” Indeed, for millions of devotees of Lord Rama in India and abroad, it was a decision of sheer happiness, something that they wished for ages. A similar excitement might have been felt among the people of Ayodhya on Lord Ram’s return from the exile.
On the other hand, despite being in favour of the Hindu community, the decision is also welcomed by the majority of Indian Muslims. But, the major reason for contentment among them was not the court’s order to the government about allotting a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for the purpose of building a mosque. It is court’s rejection of the age-old propaganda that Babri Mosque has been built on the disputed site after demolition of a temple.
The court’s decision was on the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India report that clearly states, “A north Indian large temple-like structure was located on the site, though it does not state that the temple was destroyed to build the mosque.” This citation is enough to change the preponderant misconception of masses about many Muslim rulers of the medieval period that they forcefully built mosques on the places of worships of other religions.
Through this balanced decision, on the one hand, Hindus finally won the sacred place where Lord Ram was born; a place of great religious significance for them. Muslims are offered a compensation of 5 acres of land against the demolition of the mosque by the untamed crowd in 1992. And finally, their ancestors were cleared of the blame of destroying a temple there. Consequently, no news of any riot or violence came after this historic decision, neither from Ayodhya nor from any other place in the country. This time justice is delayed, not denied.