The EconomistNovember 16th 2019 471I
t was adecision that had been decades in
the making, yet was still a messy fudge.
On November 9th India’s Supreme Court
granted Hindus possession of a site in the
city of Ayodhya that is claimed as the birth-
place of Rama, an incarnation of the god
Vishnu. A 16th-century mosque had stood
there until a fanatical mob demolished it in
1992, sparking a decade of sporadic nation-
wide violence that left several thousand
dead, most of them Muslims. The court
called the demolition “an egregious viola-
tion of the rule of law”. It also fulfilled the
mob’s goals by ordering the government to
create a trust that may build a Hindu tem-
ple on the site. Muslims are to be compen-
sated with land nearby for the construction
of a replacement mosque.
Fears that the verdict would spark re-
newed violence had prompted schools and
offices to close in parts of northern India,
amid security precautions that included
colossal police deployments, instructions
to media to avoid incitement and the sus-
pension of the internet in parts of thecountry. Politicians of all stripes, as well as
spiritual leaders of both faiths, called for
calm and acceptance of the court’s verdict.
But simple exhaustion with the dispute,
which has festered for nearly as long as In-
dia has been independent, may have been
the main reason for the generally muted
public response.
It helped, too, that the five judges on the
Supreme Court bench ruled unanimously.
Aside from offering five acres (two hect-
ares) of land in compensation for the 2.8
lost, their ruling gave solace to Muslims
through the indignant language it used to
describe the destruction of the Babri Mas-
jid. That may inject some energy into the
separate criminal trial of Hindu nationalist
leaders charged with provoking the attack
on the mosque, which has lingered in low-
er courts for decades.
Zafaryab Jilani, a lawyer for the Muslim
plaintiffs, said they would respect the rul-
ing, but were “not satisfied” and noted
“several contradictions” in the judges’ log-
ic. It is hard to understand why the Muslimcharity that ran the mosque before its de-
molition would not be considered the
owner of the land on which it stood. “The
court seems to set great store in a lack of
documentary evidence that prayers were
held in the mosque before 1857, yet finds no
trouble in the lack of evidence that any
Hindu services were held there, either,”
says a lawyer who prefers to remain anony-
mous, owing to the sensitivity of the case.
Commentary on social media has been less
circumspect. “Possession is nine-tenths of
ownership, but demolition is the whole
thing,” read one sarcastic tweet. “Realised
today that ‘If you break it, you own it’ ap-
plies outside of retail as well!” another dis-
gruntled netizen quipped.
Most Indians, however, seem broadly
relieved that the saga has finally come to an
end. Shekhar Gupta, an experienced and
canny commentator, described the ruling
as “wonderfully nuanced” and predicted it
would put the controversy to rest. The op-
position Congress party welcomed the
court’s judgment. It not only opens the way
for construction of a temple, said Randeep
Surjewala, a party spokesman, but also pre-
vents the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (bjp)
and its Hindu chauvinist allies from seek-
ing to capitalise on the issue any more.
Perhaps, but for now prime minister
Narendra Modi and his party are basking in
satisfaction. The promise to build a giant
temple at the purported site of Lord Rama’s
birth has been a rallying cry for Hindu na-Communal relations in IndiaRam rod
AYODHYA
The courts transfer a flashpoint from Muslims to HindusAsia
48 Japan’s biased electoral map
49 Cambodia’s persecuted opposition
49 Bushfires in Australia
50 Militant monks in Myanmar
51 Banyan: Peace talks in AfghanistanAlso in this section