Lessons From Gyanvapi

Courts cannot offer solutions to all religious disputes. Communities must work out compromises

- R Jagannathan

The decision of a Varanasi district judge upholding the maintainability of a plea by some Hindu women to offer prayers to Shringar Gauri and other deities on the outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque is certainly not the final judicial word on the subject. The Muslim side will surely move the high court, and if they win there, the Hindu side will push higher for a different verdict in the Supreme Court. Or vice-versa. This is not a fight any side is going to give up easily.

The conclusion one should draw from this "win" for one side and "loss" for the other is that much more than just legal points are involved. When communities as a whole feel aggrieved for reasons related to religious emotion, legal remedies are suboptimal.

The only real solution is for the communities themselves to work out reasonable compromises based on give and take, and this implies that most "secular" politicians and even some "secular" historians - may not be able to help. They have anyway discredited themselves by taking partisan positions in the past.

But before we start looking for solutions, let us briefly outline the import of the initial orders of the court. District judge AK Vishvesha upheld the maintainability of the Hindu suit because: First, it did not ask for any change in the status of the land on which the mosque stands, and hence does not violate the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which freezes the status of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947.

Second, it did not contravene Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which bars civil courts from entertaining lega proceedings against Waqf property.