Why does the RSS want to take the Ayodhya Ram Mandir issue out of the Supreme Court?
Demand for a law to construct temple at the disputed site is injustice with the very idea of legal justice system.
The case pertaining to the proposed construction of a Ram Mandir at the disputed site of the demolished Babri Masjid in Ayodhya is being heard by the highest temple of justice in India — the Supreme Court.
The court recently deferred the hearing to next year.
As law-abiding citizens of a secular democracy, one would expect every Indian to resolve: 'Let the law take its own course'. On the contrary, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is reportedly against the idea of legal justice in the case.
The outfit wants that the Ram Mandir must be constructed, come what may — even if it means bypassing the apex court through legislation.
A few weeks after RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat demanded the passing of an Act as an instant recipe to build the Ram temple, the outfit urged the government to acquire land, come up with a law — and start construction.
On October 31, at the three-day Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal Baithak, held on the outskirts of Mumbai, the RSS described the Ram Temple an issue linked to “national identity and pride.”
RSS Sahsarkaryavah Manmohan Vaidya said: “The Ram Mandir is not a matter of Hindu or Muslim. It is neither a matter of Mandir and Masjid. The Ram temple in Ayodhya is about national identity (asmita) and national pride.” The RSS joint general secretary also said that the Allahabad high court had, in its 2010 judgement, accepted that a Hindu temple had existed at the site before the Babri Masjid.
“But the courts have taken a long time in settling the age-old dispute. The Supreme Court has also refused an early hearing. In this scenario, how long can the people be expected to wait? We feel that the government should move now to bring in a law and acquire the land to facilitate construction of the Ram temple,” Vaidya said at a press conference.
Ahead of the 2019 general elections, the Hindu right-wing outfits seem to be in hurry.
But can we ignore the fact that a mosque constructed by the first Mughal emperor, Babar, had stood tall in Ayodhya for over four long centuries?
On December 6, 1992, thousands of people belonging to various Hindu groups demolished the historic structure. Ten days after the incident, the Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan Commission of Inquiry was appointed. The commission was scheduled to report to the central government “as soon as possible, but not later than three months”.
But with 48 extensions, the Liberhan panel became the longest and costliest commission of inquiry in the history of Independent India, taking sixteen and a half years to submit its 900-plus-page report at the cost of Rs 8 crore.
Submitted in 2009, the Liberhan Commission report was not compiled as a sketchy textbook of history for library reference. The report was expected to be the government’s gospel on what led to the demolition of the mosque, why and how. And so, the findings of the report are equally expected to serve as evidence before the court of law in the title suit.
The disputed site may be the birthplace of Lord Ram, but the demolition of the Babri Mosque shattered the faith of many in the secular fabric of India.
After all, one of the undisputed facts in the case before the Supreme Court is that a mosque was pulled down by a violent mob, who took the law into their own hands. And the incident triggered communal violence that singed various parts of the country, over years.
Demands for a law to construct a temple at the disputed site now is an injustice to the very idea of the legal justice system.
If the dispute has lived there for centuries, a few months more shouldn’t make a big difference.
Let’s have patience.
Let the law take its own course.