This verdict is welcome

The Supreme Court8217;s firm rejection of the Union government8217;s application in the Ayodhya case is entirely welcome. Status quo in Ay...

The Supreme Court8217;s firm rejection of the Union government8217;s application in the Ayodhya case is entirely welcome. Status quo in Ayodhya, the apex court has laid down, must be maintained till the title suits are finally disposed in the Allahabad High Court.

There can be little doubt that the proposal that the government hand over the undisputed land to any other body or trust for conducting religious activity was fraught with unfathomed dangers; the five-judge bench is wise to reiterate that there has been no change in the ground situation to justify the uncoupling of the undisputed land from the disputed area.

The VHP8217;s plans to barge into Ayodhya after having secured Gujarat have fortunately been foiled. But in this happy scenario, there8217;s that familiar, niggling question again. The apex court has certainly given the nation a breather, but can8217;t we hear the clock ticking still? Will the final resolution come, as the SC has indicated, with the disposal of the title suit by the Allahabad High Court? Will the roiling controversy be calmed once the ASI has finished with its digging and the high court has determined whether or not a temple preexisted the masjid?

Or does the solution to the Ayodhya issue ask for something more? This is the moment once again to underline that the festering dispute cries out for a political solution and that a craven political leadership is steadfastly shirking the effort.

It is time once more to point out that the excavation ordered by the high court is not going to unearth the anticipated full stop to the controversy. Many have already pointed out that even if the ASI were the best equipped for the task at hand, archaeological findings don8217;t always yield certitudes.

Archaeology is an uncertain science at best and the results of the digging would be vulnerable to partisan interpretations. The high court8217;s initiative promises to solve nothing 8212; it only sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

The VHP has reacted to the apex court8217;s verdict with predictably defiant verbiage. It has declared the end of any possibility of 8216;compromise8217; and threatened 8216;direct action8217; on the issue. The government must impress upon the VHP that it is not above the law of the land. But, more than that, it must make another attempt to revive a process of negotiation. As these columns have argued time and again, the settlement of the wearying controversy lies not in a tidy judicial verdict but at the end of a process of give and take by leaders of both communities. It needs a political leadership with credibility and vision to steer this process. Anything less won8217;t do.