I don't want to say much about tomorrow's judgment, but I do want to make one point. The case being decided tomorrow is a land dispute that was instituted decades ago, and pre-dates 1992. Tomorrow's verdict is not and cannot be an endorsement of what happened in 1992, no matter how much some people want to portray it that way. It's a ruling on a land dispute.
I think we do ourselves an equal disservice if we follow this pattern of escalation and make it out to be about something that it's not.
@gautambhatia Agreed. But I think the demolition/majoritarianism context is absolutely crucial here. Mostly because the BJP and its footsoldiers have unilaterally and actively saffronised the title dispute and have wholly reframed it as a civilisational battle. So the response has to be within that framework. Would be morally unjust to divorce the land dispute from the communal context here and the dire need for justice.
@gautambhatia one can not dismiss the fact that the dispute was created and not just occured in due course. Status quo remains 'Land dispute' and we all still know by heart what it represents for real.
@gautambhatia The title dispute also appears to have Incorporated within its complexities the question of how the judiciary should treat faith vis-a-vis the Constitution.
@gautambhatia @gautambhatia would the court have directed to build a Ram Temple in the site, had the mosque was not razed down in 1992?
@gautambhatia this is definitely not true. The case is about illegal razing of the mosque. The land dispute is merely a tool to legitimise it. Not that they truly need the legitimacy; they were perfectly fine with having done do against the law of the land too. Anyway, I understand your appeal to not escalate the situation, but please do not trivialise the matter either, by calling it just a land dispute. No sir, it is not merely that.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!