Loitering with Intent in Ayodhya

``And if the local temple committee agrees to buy out the land, the Muslims sell it (and they will get a huge premium if they bargain well) and open a school, a mosque, a film club, children`s park and an old age centre somewhere close by - there is enough land in Faizabad and it is cheap.``

Amir,
It is a wonderful suggestion. Judiciary is trying its best to be impartial. But it appears that for almost all problems Indian public and legislature is abdicating its responsibility and judiciary is being forced to intervene.
I doubt if original temple will be found below mosque`s structure. But it has become an emotional issue. Exchange rights to mosque structure for a payment will certainly a no-loss solution to both parties. Muslims can claim that by paying money, hindus acknowledged their (muslim`s) right on the land. Hindu`s will be happy to create their temple.

(I would be disgusted though - by thought of people spending billions of Rupees on a stone building which will perhaps be a waste for common folk)

Amir Khan,

Thanks for your excellent analysis. The Babri Masjid is indeed a political problem. Whether the disputed land changes hand, stays put or is frozen by the courts, the common people have little to lose or gain as a result. The only losers would be politicians from both sides that have made it a cash-cow for their respective vote banks.

The distruction of the temple was a violation of the Court order. Though the then local government was sacked as a result for either their ``involvement`` or ``inaction``, I feel they were not held accountable. In the very least be jailed for contempt of court or make a plea to apologize unconditionally for their inaction, if charges of actual involvement are difficult to substantiate. It also sends a message to politicians that they have an obligation to the oath they took and protect the rights of ALL citizens as well as the meaning of rule of the law.

As for the real problem of what happens to the structure, I think the local muslim and hindu populations should be allowed to decide how to handle the situation. Both might benefit if the spot as a tourist spot generates jobs for the local economy. Anyone not from Ayodhya really needs to stay put. As for other disputed sites, the majority of hindus need to understand, that status-quo must be maintained. This might put fire-brands on both sides out of business and politicians focused on focusing on the economy.

As for the Supreme Court, it needs to re-read the definition of statuatory limitations. It should not change ownership based on events that took place beyond the statutory limitations. As Vir Sanghvi put it very poignantly, every house in the world be in dispute if people came forward to stake a claim on the land once occupied by their ancestors.

Satire