Supreme court of India has delivered the verdict in the Ayodhya land title dispute. Prabhu Ram (Lord Ram or Ramala Virajaman) is the owner of the land under dispute. I find the verdict strange. I have no doubt about faith of large number and fraction of Hindus that Ayodhya is birthplace of Ram. Ramayana fascinates me. I also believe that a great king, who resembles the hero of Ramayana must have existed. Yet, I cannot make peace the verdict. A deity or god cannot be the owner of the land ruled by humans. Human beings or creations of human beings like limited liability company can be the owners. Not gods!
I also do not understand why waqf board has been awarded the 5 acres. If their possession was wrongful or continuation of historical wrongful possession, then why are they being compensated? Compensation indicates that something unjust has happened with the receiver. What unjust act has happened with waqf board? It must the demolition of mosque.
In my opinion, 2010 high court verdict was not about justice, but about settlement. Latest verdict is also a settlement. But the principal of settlement, politics, has changed drastically between these two verdicts. The latest verdict is clear vindication of 'majority is morality'.
I do not want to comment on the politics. I don't think it has worsened now than ever. It is just a politics.
What I am wondering about is the notion of justice.
What is the just result of Ayodhya land title dispute?
There is no unique answer. There are multiple approaches to define what is just. First and foremost is 'majority is morality'. Faith of Hindus dictate that temple should be constructed and such majority is to be respected. Second is that of modernity, which tries to put human interactions of accurately defined rules. In such approach, faith has no role. There has to a rule about how to resolve the land title disputes which predates the Indian constitution. If such rule can go back to 16th century then so be it, declare mosque illegal. But if we do not have such rules, then mosque stands and so the history that Muslim invaders are most likely to have constructed it on the ruins of temple. There is no going around the elephant of religion in pre-modern era. But we don't let that elephant trample our modernity, which has been built by human intellect and not by emotions.
In latest verdict, the first approach of justice has been adopted. But this approach is relative to who holds the political reins. It is very likely that if BJP would not have been in vindicated majority backed power, verdict would have been avoided, as it was avoided by previous governments, even Modi-I.
There is also the effect of status quo. As rightly pointed by Owaisi, if mosque would not have been demolished, court ruling might have been different. Demolition has directed the course of court verdict, for 2010 one as well as 2019 one. Hearing on 370 will be similarly affected by the change of status quo brought by abrogation of 370. It is unlikely that supreme court will roll back the decision of majority government. Most likely, court will find way to maintain new status quo.
That's what the courts do. They spin the ethics to back the majority. It is not the new lesson. First of all, there is no fundamental ethical ground to human existence except amoral evolutionary logic. All modern attempt of providing scientific basis falls short as we cannot grasp any meaning. We resort back to herd based morality which us much more natural to us. Majoritanism emerges from strength of numbers, a fundamental law of evolution. If one doesn't like ruling majority, one has to form alternative majority. But you cannot argue with majority without fearing annihilation.
If latest Ayodhya verdict tells us anything then it is as follows:
Majority is morality. Get majority backing, change status quo by political actions and government institutions will fall in line or you can make them so.
I also do not understand why waqf board has been awarded the 5 acres. If their possession was wrongful or continuation of historical wrongful possession, then why are they being compensated? Compensation indicates that something unjust has happened with the receiver. What unjust act has happened with waqf board? It must the demolition of mosque.
In my opinion, 2010 high court verdict was not about justice, but about settlement. Latest verdict is also a settlement. But the principal of settlement, politics, has changed drastically between these two verdicts. The latest verdict is clear vindication of 'majority is morality'.
I do not want to comment on the politics. I don't think it has worsened now than ever. It is just a politics.
What I am wondering about is the notion of justice.
What is the just result of Ayodhya land title dispute?
There is no unique answer. There are multiple approaches to define what is just. First and foremost is 'majority is morality'. Faith of Hindus dictate that temple should be constructed and such majority is to be respected. Second is that of modernity, which tries to put human interactions of accurately defined rules. In such approach, faith has no role. There has to a rule about how to resolve the land title disputes which predates the Indian constitution. If such rule can go back to 16th century then so be it, declare mosque illegal. But if we do not have such rules, then mosque stands and so the history that Muslim invaders are most likely to have constructed it on the ruins of temple. There is no going around the elephant of religion in pre-modern era. But we don't let that elephant trample our modernity, which has been built by human intellect and not by emotions.
In latest verdict, the first approach of justice has been adopted. But this approach is relative to who holds the political reins. It is very likely that if BJP would not have been in vindicated majority backed power, verdict would have been avoided, as it was avoided by previous governments, even Modi-I.
There is also the effect of status quo. As rightly pointed by Owaisi, if mosque would not have been demolished, court ruling might have been different. Demolition has directed the course of court verdict, for 2010 one as well as 2019 one. Hearing on 370 will be similarly affected by the change of status quo brought by abrogation of 370. It is unlikely that supreme court will roll back the decision of majority government. Most likely, court will find way to maintain new status quo.
That's what the courts do. They spin the ethics to back the majority. It is not the new lesson. First of all, there is no fundamental ethical ground to human existence except amoral evolutionary logic. All modern attempt of providing scientific basis falls short as we cannot grasp any meaning. We resort back to herd based morality which us much more natural to us. Majoritanism emerges from strength of numbers, a fundamental law of evolution. If one doesn't like ruling majority, one has to form alternative majority. But you cannot argue with majority without fearing annihilation.
If latest Ayodhya verdict tells us anything then it is as follows:
Majority is morality. Get majority backing, change status quo by political actions and government institutions will fall in line or you can make them so.