A case for the courts

The only time when a serious political attempt was made to solve the crisis was when Chandra Shekhar, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat and Sharad Pawar were engaged in talking to the Hindu and Muslim groups.

By the time Lok Sabha debates the Ayodhya issue, the Supreme Court would have given its views on the Centre’s application for allowing religious ceremonies on the undisputed portion of the land under litigation.

HT Image

The VHP, too, would have held its so-called dharam sansad to consider the issue. However, it is unlikely that the context will be any different from what it is today — or has been since the fateful day when the Babri masjid was demolished. Few will doubt that the same arguments that have been heard in all these years will again be trotted out. What is noteworthy is that, despite the sharp exchanges that are bound to characterise the debate, the same point will be made by everyone — to the effect that all concerned should wait for the judicial verdict, whenever it is pronounced.

Till now, another point — that of a negotiated settlement — used to be made. But now that it is reasonably clear that such a solution is not feasible, the lobbying of the ball back in the judiciary’s court will be emphasised again. What this virtual standstill means is that Ayodhya remains an ungrasped nettle. The only time when a serious political attempt was made to solve the crisis was when Chandra Shekhar, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat and Sharad Pawar were engaged in talking to the Hindu and Muslim groups to evolve a consensus. But their efforts came to nought. From then on, the judiciary remains the politicians’ only hope.