Why they wait for the verdict

New Delhi: Several Muslim groups have not ruled out ‘reconciliation’, but the general mood seems to be expectant of the verdict, irrespective of what it is, and then talking about reconciliation.

The mood appears to be one where just the fact of the court stepping in has helped provide closure to the events of 1992. There is little faith in either the Congress or the BJP to be able to provide a political settlement.
Javed Habib, the chairman of All India Babri Masjid Action Committee, recalls what he had said in 1992: "We do want a Ram Mandir there, but not a political office of the VHP." He says that holds even now. "We are ready for talks and negotiations if held officially by the Centre or under the aegis of the court."
Having been part of attempts by all three Prime Ministers who chose to talk about Ayodhya, through their offices or intermediaries, he says, the other talks are futile. He had written a letter to PM Manmohan Singh in August, urging the Centre to help with a solution to the verdict, which everyone was expecting in September, "so that there are no losers, both sides win". He adds the verdict is very important for the Muslims, "as it is about the rule of law".

"We were assured in 1992 by the system, the National Integration Council and Parliament that the mosque will be protected. Both the State and the Centre let us down. Now, the legal system is looked at for justice, whatever is the verdict," he says.
The forthcoming verdict is not about the demolition, but only about rights to the land where the Babri Masjid once stood. But the shadow of the demolition hangs on.
Says Habib: "The point that the minorities will watch is if it is all about qabza or do systems stand by the rule of law. The point is that mobocracy cannot be seen to settle matters. This case will help settle that fear."

Says a member of the All India Personal Law Board, S Q R Ilyas, "We have tried talks, but the judgment is important as this is the first time that this matter, which has caused so much debate and bloodshed, is being defined within the legal framework.
"Even the question of faith is being framed in that course. It needs to be settled, in whoseoever's favour. We will accept the verdict or appeal. Muslims respect the law. This case, if settled, will indicate if the legal option is available for the weakest and the minorities too, equally."

Masoom Moradabadi, secretary, All India Urdu Editors Conference, fears that "this postponement of the verdict... suggests lack of will in the political leadership since 1949, when idols were kept,... now with an even weaker leadership, an accidental leadership that hasn't come through a movement or political background, how can we be reassured? So, the law is the only protector of the minorities and it should be allowed to run its course."
However, according to constitutional expert and jurist Rajeev Dhavan, part of the closure on the issue has to reconcile with the horror of what happened in 1992.

"The year 1992 was a breach of faith in Indian governance. It was not about just two sides negotiating. And if there has to be a negotiation, there has to be a system of truth and reconciliation, like in South Africa."
Stressing the importance of the judicial process, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah feels that "as the whole thing was started by the opening of the locks to the mosque, by a legal process, it's important that the court enters it again and resolves it."
Adds social activist Farah Naqvi, "The nation collectively needs to move beyond this issue, but this verdict is certainly seen as important for Muslims because it establishes the rule of law. And the rule of law is the main thing that protects minorities in modern democracy."

Abu Saleh Shariff, an economist, is presently associated with the National Advisory Council to help draft the Communal Violence Bill. He feels that going through the legal process is very important to keep faith in the system.
"The law is what is central to the rights of all minorities in an open democratic society like ours. We are not a kingdom or an autocracy. The Muslims naturally expect protection from the law. So, this whole legal process is important."
Talking of a "compromise formula" former law minister Shanti Bhushan says, "A compromise formula would be welcome, allowing both the mandir and the masjid to coexist. Both could be moved away from the contentious spot, so that neither gets it. But if that is not acceptable, there should be a verdict soon -- I expect by month-end."
Source: Agencies