Suiting ourselves

Looking at the Ayodhya dispute as just another dry legal matter,if one with possibly explosive real-world consequence,might come across to some as a limited perspective. After all,you might say,there are questions of faith involved,of political mobilisation and of community identity; how can legal processes solve everything? There is,of course,a certain grain of truth in this. And yet the legal process due to reach a culmination today at 3.30 pm is crucial,even if you think that talks or reconciliation are the only answer to this long-festering dispute. The simple fact is this: in the absence of any finding of fact,any initial assignation of rights,the give-and-take of negotiation is impossible and similarly small is the possibility of satisfaction or of closure. Throughout the 80s and 90s and even as recently as a few years ago several attempts have been made to get disputants talking. But,with so little facts to grasp,so small the overlap of assumptions,such attempts were naturally doomed to failure.

A glance at the number of questions under litigation reveals the degree to which there is nothing on which to construct the framework of a widely acceptable agreement. Courts are being asked to decide whether the Babri Masjid was where a temple had been; how precisely the idols associated with the site appeared in December 1949; the exact extent of the Babri Masjids property; and whether the lack of namaz for some years meant the mosque was legally abandoned. Each one of these is a point of disagreement; and with so many conflicting assumptions to deal with,it appears difficult to imagine that any reasoned discussion will not be at cross-purposes. And,so,even if you believe this dispute goes beyond the legalities of site ownership,you must nevertheless also accept how essential is the legal process if this conduit for resentment is to be turned into a soluble problem.

Here is what the legal process could conceivably provide. All parties as citizens of India are required to accept the courts rulings,whether or not they think them actually correct; and,suddenly,we have ground beneath our feet,a point of agreement. This fundamentally changes the earlier dynamic: that nobody knew what was theirs in any discussion. Earlier political and community-based processes had no findings of fact and law to work with just resentments,expectations,and anger.