Icheoku says the Ayodhya verdict was a big relief for the Indian Congress-Party led government which is Hindu dominated as a completely pro-Hindu verdict would have put a question mark on the government's secular credentials or its non-interference; while a wholly pro-Muslim judgment would have alienated the government from their Hindu majority. This is an apparent case where wisdom came to judgment as the judges of Allahabad high court took all reasonable considerations in arriving at this fair and equitable decision. Icheoku says may be the Middle East conflict which has its primary roots on the status of Jerusalem should take a cue from this decision and use it as a precedent. It should consider bringing the wisdom of Ahodhya decision to bear on Jerusalem and divide it into two or even three parts - one side for Jews and their Judaism, another for Arabs (Muslims) and their Islam and the other for the Christians and their Christianity. This way, the century long and solution-defying problem of how to go about with Jerusalem or how to proceed therefrom would have been equitably solved and the three religions with their umbilical cords attached to Jerusalem would have given a portion thereof and the world would live happily ever after. What an Indian solution to the Jerusalem question; with a Daniel come to judgment! Thank you India, especially the learned gentlemen of Allahabad high court for seasoned judicial decision.
Monday, October 4, 2010
INDIAN AYODHYA RESOLUTION, GOOD FOR MIDDLE EAST JERUSALEM CONFLICT?
It was biblical King Solomon who refused to divide something in disputation, a child, because to do so would be very unwise and King Solomon was a very wise man. Had he yielded to the agitation of the woman who did not own the child and divided the child between the two women, the child would have died and both women lost out in their claims of ownership of the child or their motherhood. While the adverse claimant-mother insisted that the child be divided into two, the mother who went through the pangs of child-labor decided otherwise and instead implored King Solomon to give the child to the other woman and when the child grows up he will discover who the real mother is. Icheoku says, whereas King Solomon's case appertained to a human life, other things especially chattels and lands that are easily divisible should be so divided if that is the only equitable manner to deliver redress to parties claiming ownership interest therein. It is on this note that Icheoku gives hi-five to the Allahabad High Court India which gave verdict on September 30, 2010 on the 60 year old Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case which had pitied Hindu and Muslims over the disputed Ayodhya prayer grounds. The court ruled that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land in question should be divided into three parts, one third for the construction of Ram temple, another one third for the Islamic Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining one third for the Hindu religious denomination Nirmohi Akhara. Icheoku applauds this ruling as the 'only tenable and meaningful solution to an otherwise incendiary matter touching on peoples' faith, mythology and politics; and in India, such people are plentiful.
The Ayodhya piece of land in controversy is located in the city of Ayodhya in Faizabad district of Uttar Pradesh India. It is traditionally regarded by Hindus as the birthplace of the Hindu God, Rama; while Muslims' revered Babri Mosque was built thereon. However, the mosque was destroyed by hard-line Hindu activists in December 6, 1992; claiming that a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to build the mosque. A land title case as to who owns the land or have the right of use thereof was lodged in the Allahabad High Court resulting in the verdict. But an archaeological evidence upon which the court partly relied its ruling found that a ruined temple existed beneath the mosque but did not find any evidence of its destruction or by the Muslims who merely used its ruins to build their mosque.