The left and non-left may disagree on everything, but one fact is undisputed – the left excels at good, catchy slogans. For example, ‘peace and injustice cannot co-exist’ – they remind us daily. I agree.
And hence when I see with my bare eyes the Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi with an alien dome on top of the ornate walls, I worry for peace. I do not need to play an elaborate game of legalese and court drama. As a common powerless citizen of this country, I have the luxury of not having to pretend the Temple I see with my own eyes is something we need a judge to see for us. It is a Temple. It will always be a Temple. Hence when some Muslims invoked the Places of Worship Act of 1991 to thwart any attempts of Hindus to claim what is theirs, my concern for peace took a legal colour. I wanted to know more about this law.
The Places of Worship Act was passed by the Congress-led govt of PV Narasimha Rao in 1991. This was when the illegal Babri Mosque was still standing on top of Ram Janmabhoomi, but the activism around it was at its peak. The then Home Minister S B Chavan had said while passing this act: “It is considered necessary to adopt these measures in view of the controversies arising from time to time with regard to the conversion of places of worship which tend to vitiate the communal atmosphere… Adoption of this Bill will effectively prevent any new controversies from arising in respect of conversion of any place of worship…”. The law said no matter what the historical realities, no new legal recourse would be available to alter the nature of any places of worship as they existed on 15th August 1947. So not only the left seemed to have forgotten their own rule that peace and injustice cannot co-exist, but they also made into law the new rule that it was imperative to accept injustice to preserve peace. What kind of law is this?
As a common person, I understand laws are supposed to make sense. Or in other words, they follow what a common person may call ‘natural justice’. If someone steals from me, the law will try to make good my losses and punish the thief to protect others like me. If I promise a consideration in return for a service, the law will force me to deliver that consideration. Natural justice is easy to understand. But that’s a layman’s understanding. In English law, natural justice is based on two principles
Nemo judex in causa sua – It means no one shall be a judge in his own case.
Audi alteram partem – It means both the parties/sides must be heard. No man should be condemned unheard.
It may be procedural in nature, but the principles are not difficult to follow. Most of us will readily agree similar principles are desirable in laws that our governments pass too.
Of course, I am also pragmatic and understand that sometimes laws are made for political purposes or to nudge society in the desired direction. Laws driven by dreams of social justice, for example. Sometimes the law offers special protection to the powerless and underprivileged. But even that is rooted in the desire for delivering justice. This is where the Places of Worship Act truly stands out. It is obvious, that the law is not about justice. But even for a political act, it is unique in its explicit desire to ‘forbid access to justice’ for those who were wronged in the past.
The arbitrary date of 15th August 1947 is not just mind-boggling; it is infuriating because it is the date of our freedom. So, the time for seeking justice was BEFORE we achieved independence? Read that again. Also, the random date is not something even the liberals take seriously. For example, try giving them such limitation dates for causes important to them, say Palestine, and they will laugh at your audacity. The law seems to be based on the idea that if Hindus seek justice, it will vitiate the communal atmosphere, hence Hindus should be barred from seeking justice. But is that not why we have laws and courts and the government with its powers and responsibilities, for delivering justice no matter what the guilty party thinks? Are we not going to seek punishment for criminals if their village threatens to “vitiate the communal atmosphere”? This is nothing but a document of abject surrender disguised as a law. The government waving the proverbial white flag to those who will create violence if justice is done. Stay classy liberals!
So, we saw that the Places of Worship Act is unfair and unethical. Its promise of ‘peace’ is an illusion. When I see people washing their dirty feet in my holiest places and on my revered Shivling, what kind of peace am I supposed to experience? Hindus, who have been ruthlessly attacked by foreign ideologies for centuries need truth and reconciliation, not denial of justice. Unethical political laws must be removed in the interest of fairness and progress.
Oh, and did I mention, that peace and injustice cannot co-exist? That too.
