Indications are piling up that under pressure from Muslim ministers, MPs and others, the Union government is preparing to amend its package on the Ramjanambhoomi issue to provide for a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 138(2) of the Constitution in place of Article 143 as decided by it earlier. This modification, as argued by Justice Krishna Iyer in this space on Saturday, will call for a fresh Parliamentary enactment. But that is not likely to ‘discourage’ the government.
Muslim leaders are also opposed to the government’s decision to acquire the land adjacent to the Janamsthan. Syed Shahabuddin’s letter to the Prime Minister, as reported in The Hindustan Times on Sunday (January 3), is significant in this regard.
Syed Shahabuddin has given two grounds for Muslim opposition to acquisition of land. First, the titles to part of it are disputed and these must not be extinguished without a clear judicial verdict.
Secondly, acquisition of land claimed by the religious bodies would set a dangerous precedent.
The question of precedent applies as much to the proposed reference to the Supreme Court. If the Court can be called upon to determine whether a Hindu temple stood on the site of the now-demolished Babri structure, why not in other similar cases?
The question is of far-reaching importance. But it can be allowed to rest for the time being.
It is not clear whether the Union government would retreat on the question of acquisition of land as well. If it does, the package can be said to have been abandoned.
Syed Shahabuddin has offered to donate such land as is held by the Supreme Court to belong to Muslim bodies and falls within the proposed temple to the proposed trust. But Hindu bodies may not so oblige. Other legal complications may also arise.
If the government accedes to the Muslim suggestion, the cases pending in the Allahabad High Court for decades will be transferred to the Supreme Court.
In plain terms, the apex court will have to function as a high court except that there can be no appeal against its findings.
The process cannot, however, but be time-consuming. This will also be the end of the decision to make a single-point reference to the Supreme Court.
In basic terms, however, it is not pertinent whether or not the government accedes to the twin Muslim demands except inasmuch as it will confirm more Hindus in the view that it cannot resist pressure from that community. For, even as originally announced, the package cannot help resolve the issue for the simple reason that it does not provide for inclusion of Janamsthan in the proposed Ram temple.
Muslims, as indicated by Syed Shahabuddin’s letter, have begun to reconcile themselves to the loss of the Babri structure site but on the understanding that it does not get included in Ram temple. This ‘generosity’ is not of much help to the government, though it reduces Mr P V Narasimha Rao’s personal embarrassment.
All that apart, however, the demolition of the Babri structure, the erection of a makeshift temple at that very site, reinstallation of Ramlalla and other idols in it, resumption of their worship, permission by the Allahabad high court of regular darshan and instructions by it to the UP administration to provide a strong enough structure for their protection have created a new reality which does not figure in the government’s present package.
It would not be accurate to say that the government has put itself in a trap because it has been in a trap all along. But it would not be too wide off the mark to say that the effort to find an exit has failed and Muslim leaders are making it doubly sure that it does not succeed. It is notable that just as Mr Arjun Singh dropped the demand for a ban on the BJP, Mr Ghulam Nabi Azad has picked it up.
Meanwhile, some judges of the Supreme and other jurists have expressed concern over the proposed reference to the Supreme Court. They realise that the judiciary is being asked to deal with an explosive religio-political which it is not equipped to deal with. Perhaps some sitting judges share this apprehension. But some appear to revel in extension of jurisdiction. The activism some of them displayed on the eve of demolition on December 6 was far from reassuring.
The Observer of Business and Politics, 4 January 1993