Reply to siddharth vedarajan's article in The Hindu

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article805124.ece

Unlike author I will not pretend to be unbiased. There are basically few points raised by the author regarding faith, judgment and ASI.
First is about the basis of faith as the judgment.
Faith was the basis of the pre-existing structure. Faith was the basis for its destruction. Faith was the basis for the construction of mosque. The faith was basis for the British to allow worship at Ram chabutara. Faith was basis for closure of the doors during 1949. Faith was the basis of opening of the door 1986. Faith was the basis for destruction of mosque. Suddenly faith becomes irrelevant? What does author wants to convey by using words- legitimizing the “faith” and “belief”. Author is using very hard words -unverified and unsubstantiated- for soft faith. Which faith or belief waits for verification? There are many glorified intellectuals who wants verification of historicity of Ram. But that was the basic premise of the court’s judgment. Would author go a step ahead and question the basic premise of the court. It is to be pointed out that court has used words like Bhagwan and divine for Ram. There are many who don’t even believe in existence of God. Respecting such people does not mean that other should stop praying. To rake up the question of who is Hindu will prove very tough for author to digest. It will be very tough for author to even digest definition of much recently coined word, Hidutva, as given by Supreme Court”
Collectives in India have faith in all sorts of things- It can be hoped that this sentence was not meant to demean. Bharat is proud to have a system where it is free to have faith in all sorts of things rather than one and the only one.
Then there is question about the need of solving this matter.
Does author prescribe that with time, wrong should be forgotten? When mosque was built there was no way to redress the problem by court so people waited. British did not want to solve it, so people waited. Now that we are independent, if we are not able to solve it, then when can we. Author prescribes forgetful as remedy to the wrong. Next he may prescribe the same to all the cases which are pending in the court for long time. That would be nice suggestion to clear the back log. It is to be understood that individual crimes are gone with the individual, social crime is can be rectified even after generation and historical crime are to be rectified by history. We will be history for tomorrow. It was a sweeping remark which has been made about substitution of one religious structure for others. I hope author will collect evidence to support his claim.
Legal relevance of the Babri masjid was there because the matter was there in front of court. Previously, when few people sat upon settling the issue, it was cried out that it should be solved by court. Now that the court is trying to solve the issue it is being cried that it does not have legal relevance. Who is the authority to certify the relevance?
There is no mincing of word for the use of evidences. According to him History cannot be reason, faith cannot be basis, and Archeological facts cannot be evidence. He does not even feels hesitation is adding words to the judgment. The word supposed was cleverly inserted by the author. It was clearly stated that mosque was against tenets of Islam. If it still remains “supposed historical wrong”then author should clarify what will be supposed in history.
Lastly few words about ASI.
To find fault with ASI has become a fashion among few. To say that something is right or wrong one does need to have support of majority. Once scientific factor is taken in consideration then facts become important and not personal opinions. While questioning the archeologists of ASI, authors should also peep into the loyalties and associations of the archeologists and historians, he is referring. The reason for dispute will be made clearer. It would be wise to point objectively at the facts rather than becoming subjective in discussion.
At one point ASI is painted as tainted and in the very next sentence it is quoted that for not saying clearly that the builders of mosque were destroyer of temple. ASI stopped where it could not say anything with certainty. Author does not believe what ASI is telling but it believed what is not told by ASI. ASI was given a fixed task to find out if there existed a structure below the demolished mosque, as was claimed by certain group. It gave answer regarding that. To find fault with the findings, is right or wrong is open to all.
Question was raised by author regarding BJP government influencing ASI. Can he substantiate it. if such is the case then does he agree that every government has been influencing any such probe. or does he mean that other than BJP all are saints. Sense prevailed and the faiths of judges were not questioned buy the author.
Judgment has clearly stated that site is birthplace of Ram. By that logic whole of the site should have been given for that purpose. To keep waqf board and the Muslim community happy, part of the land has been partitioned. It is similar to the partition of the country to keep few people happy. Where did it lead to? Even partitioning between Hindus is not a great idea. When a fact is found it should be accepted. The place should have gone for making temple. What was wrong in the judgment was that it stated that it place of worship for Hindus. It should have been made open to all people of all religion. That would have been more inclusive judgment for betterment and harmony in society. Our history tells that by partitioning we never had peace, neither in Mahabharata nor in Bharat.