Like many liberal commentators, the former editor of The Times of India, Dileep Padgaonkar, questions the wisdom of the judges in the Ayodhya case in placing the “faith and belief of Hindus” over facts and evidence. Padgaonkar also makes an additional point about making a divine figure a litigant:
“The verdict of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on the title suits related to the disputed site in Ayodhya makes you wonder whether anything straight can ever emerge from the crooked timber of the majoritarian mind.
“Among the factors that led [the three judges to trifurcate the disputed land], the most intriguing by far is the cachet of legality that they have bestowed on belief and faith…. But by their very nature, faith and belief have no factual basis. They are above reason….
“Once faith and belief are factored into a resolution of a legal tangle, you embark, swiftly and surely, on the slippery slope of majoritarian conceit….
“The biggest infirmity of Thursday’s verdict, therefore, is that the court treated Lord Ram as a ‘juristic person’. In the eyes of the law, a deity or an idol is thus entitled to be placed on a par with flesh-and-blood litigants. The sheer brazenness of this stand, which belittles the exalted stature of Hinduism’s most revered divinity, makes you wince.”
Read the full article: The muddle path