Surviving Ayodhya

Well so the nation waits with baited breath for the Ayodhya verdict, I sit here and stock up on Maggie, reading material , Seinfeld episodes, soap and all that jazz. But somewhere I get this feeling that all this preparation will come to naught. It will not be 18 years back. The verdict will come. I have no doubt that there will be disturbances. Maybe even a bandh. But a bloodbath it will not be. We were a very very different nation back then. On the verge of bankruptcy. High rates of unemployment. And it is at moments like this we get to see how economics dictates even social science. Back then, the Babri Masjid demolition, mandal commission, the Mumbai blasts evoked sentiments that finally left cities and towns burning.

Today we will be shocked, outraged even. Maybe we will sign petitions or in the ultimate show of solidarity - hold a candle light vigil. But leave our cushy jobs to tie a black flag on our arms and go burning houses. Err no thank you. You see I have a family to feed and EMIs to pay too. In a roundabout way, economic progress sure has brought about social progress. Or so is my belief.

So if we have moved on, is this verdict important? Does it really matter what structure stands there? Hinduism and Islam have had a chance. Maybe its time for a church there. Another 100 years down the line, we’ll kick that down and build a gurudwara. A rotation system.

When I was much younger, I used to think the disputed land should be put to some good use. Build an Orphanage there. Build a shelter for the poor. But today I realize, that would be evasion. It is like saying, there are more important things in the world than answering the question What structure should stand there. Which is probably true. But this solution assumes that the original problem is not important. And a three hundred year old dispute can scarcely be a trivial one.

There was a temple (which is what it most probably looks like after the ASI report in 2003. ) It is no longer there. There was a mosque which replaced it. It is also no longer there. So by virtue of being there for around three hundred years, does the land now belong to the mosque? Or does the original owner retain it? How would this be interpreted under common law. I need to know that logical answer. Unclouded by religion and sentiments. You, me and everyone who has been through this, needs to know this answer.

Not that that would end anything. There will be an appeal. And even when the final verdict comes out, there will be dissatisfaction. Who knows maybe 300 years later, we will have another demolition and a whole new generation of people stocking up on Maggie. ( Oh yeah baby. Maggie will outlive even the roaches)