Former law minister and former foreign minister, and now a senior advocate at the Supreme Court, Salman Khurshid, has said that the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict was, in the circumstances, the right one. But he adds that it has imposed “a sacrifice” on Muslims in the hope that “we find closure and carry on with our national life”.
In an interview to The Wire to mark the launch of his book Sunrise over Ayodhya: Nationhood in our Times, Khurshid did concede that the court could have split the Babri Masjid site between the Hindu and Muslim parties but that would have been messy and also would not have brought closure to the issue. The former minister says that since the Supreme Court viewed the Ayodhya case as a title suit regarding a disputed property, it follows that it could only be determined on the basis of evidence and not faith. This also means, he argued, that if Muslims do not have evidence to prove they had possession of the mosque from 1528, its year of construction, till 1856-57, this cannot be adduced by arguing on the basis of history or on the basis of assumptions that if a building is a mosque it follows that prayers were said inside its premises.
Khurshid said this may seem absurd and illogical but the law does require that a title suit is handled on evidence and nothing else. In this case, he pointed out, the Hindu side was able to provide better evidence of ownership than the Muslim side.
However, Khurshid conceded that it’s not incorrect to say that in looking for evidence, where legitimately none was available, the Supreme Court has at times contradicted itself. On the one hand, it says there is no proof of namaz happening in the mosque between 1528 and 1856-57. On the other hand, the court accepts this was a mosque and had never been abandoned. In which case, if it was a mosque and never abandoned it follows ipso facto that prayers were happening inside it.
Secondly, the court has said there is no evidence the mosque was in the exclusive possession of Muslims from 1528 till 1857. This, however, Khurshid concedes, flies in the face of history. In 1528, when the mosque was constructed, Babar was the conqueror of India and the mosque was built in his name. From 1658 to 1707 his great great grandson Aurangzeb was Emperor and he’s considered a religious bigot. Is it plausible that either would have allowed Hindus to enter and pray in a mosque named after the first Mughal emperor?
Khurshid does accept that an alternative outcome to handing the property entirely to the Hindu side would have been to split it between both sides. This is because the court’s judgement says: “On a balance of probabilities, the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims.” This means both sides have evidence supporting their claims but the court believes one side’s evidence is better than the other.
He ended the interview by saying: “It is imperative that we find closure and carry on with our national life.” He also said: “If Muslims are made to feel more wanted as Indians by other Indians, the sacrifice of Ayodhya would be worth everything.”
