Message of the verdict (cont’d)3 min read

October 5, 2010 3 min read


Message of the verdict (cont’d)3 min read

Reading Time: 3 minutes


In the past, our secularists’ arguments have largely been on the following lines: One, Sri Ram is not a historical figure but a fictitious creation of Valmiki’s imagination; two, if indeed he is real, is there any documentary evidence – such as a magistrate’s birth certificate – to prove it? We have idiots not only in Bollywood films but among our intellectuals as well. And just as stupid is the third question: the authenticity of Ram’s birthplace. The argument being that the Ayodhya considered as Sri Ram’s birthplace is not in Uttar Pradesh but in Afghanistan. One can never tell how the “crooked timber of the pseudo-secularist mind works”.

Our pseudo-secularist want the Supreme Court not only to set aside the verdict if the Lucknow Bench which according to them “smacks of majoritarian arrogance” (Justice Khan, please note) but to “jettison it root and branch”. If the Supreme Court takes that unsought advice, it will only have to thank itself for what may follow. The tragedy of our pseudo-secularists is that truth is of no relevance to them. Puerility has many faces. The more they can damn the religion of their ancestors, the more is their sense of self-fulfilment. They primarily are psychiatric cases. Unable to come to terms with reality, they prefer to forget the past and all the insults that Hindus have suffered from under centuries of Islamic rule. Forget the past, is their argument. They forget what Shakespeare said in his wisdom: “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”.

The judgement of the Lucknow Bench is helpful in many ways for Hindus to come to terms with the past and look for a happier future. The judgement of the Bench should be taken for what it is: a remedial measure that should be accepted gladly both by Hindus and Muslims. The demolition of the Babri Masjid may have been criminal, but how would our pseudo-secularists describe the demolition of not one but several hundred temples with deliberate and planned intent, by Islamic rulers? How would one describe the forced conversion of Hindus in their thousands by brutal Islamic rulers? Is one to draw up a list of all the atrocities committed by Islamic rulers to make a point? What does one gain by it? One wants to forget the past and, as today’s media suggests – move on. But our pseudo-secularists make it hard to do so by their bestial behaviour and insulting writings.

What the three judges have done will act as a penance, one has long waited for, bless them. The law is not an ass, even if our pseudo-secularists are. Justice is not the same as law. Justice goes beyond law to establish peace. To reduce law to a set of robotic acts is to negate justice and civilised conduct. And to destroy societal unity at which our pseudo-secularists excel. The majority of Muslims seem to have accepted the Lucknow Bench’s verdict. The best that the Supreme Court can do is to validate it and close the doors to a painful past and open the windows to a sun singing paens for a united India to be, for the greater glory of our motherland.

M V Kamath is a veteran journalist. Former chairman of Prasar Bharati and editor of ‘The Sunday Times (India)’ and ‘The Illustrated Weekly of India’, he is the only living Indian journalist to have covered the Independance of India. He is presently the Honorary Director of Manipal Institute of Communication. He has authored nearly 40 books on diverse topics was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 2004.

And as always he still writes from his old typewriter.