The decades old Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute pending before the Supreme Court (SC) since 2010 was referred to a mediation process by a three-member panel by the apex court last Friday. Brushing aside stout opposition from Hindu parties to a mediation process to settle the politically sensitive litigation which has defied resolution for over 70 years, a five-judge
SC bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi observed that a panel headed by former SC judge F M Kalifulla and comprising spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and well-known advocate-cum-mediator Sriram Panchu could conduct a dialogue with contending parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement.
The mediation process will take place in Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh, and will remain confidential and closed to the media. The panel has been directed by the court to submit the status report within four weeks and the final report within eight weeks. Earlier on March 6, with Hindu parties, except the Nirmohi Akhara, steadfastly opposing mediation, terming it a futile exercise, and Muslim parties expressing willingness, the five member bench had reserved its verdict on the desirability of mediation for the contentious dispute and told the litigant parties to give names of mediators.
Observing that the court was trying for mediation because the case is not about a land dispute ‘but involves sentiment and faith of people’ and has an ‘impact on the body polity of the country’, the court appeared resolute in taking the mediation route to explore the possibility, no matter however slim, of a compromise between the Hindu and Muslim parties warring for ownership of the disputed temple-mosque land.
The dispute for ownership of the 2.77-acre land has defied four previous attempts for a negotiated settlement, including one by former SC chief justice J S Khehar. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s attempt in 2017 had also failed to yield any concrete result.
Not surprisingly, reactions from Hindu organizations and mainstream political parties to the SC’s decision to give mediation a chance have been on expected lines: the RSS and VHP expressed surprise and said the court was not viewing it as a ‘priority case’; seers in Haridwar expressed disappointment, saying this is nothing but a ‘delaying tactic’; the Congress hailed the mediation order,
adding the party has always maintained that the decision of the SC in the case should be final and binding on all parties; there was no official statement from the BJP, but the party appeared unhappy with the SC’s decision with many of its leaders making it clear that building a Ram temple at the disputed site was the only way out of the impasse.
While the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Muslim clerics said the SC’s decision for mediation may open space for a solution, they however, reiterated that justice should be delivered on the basis of legal position and not on ground of faith. However, CPM politburo member Brinda Karat was of the view that a judicial verdict would be required in the Ayodhya case since one mediator had already shown his bias.
She was obviously referring to the high profile spiritual leader and founder of the Art of Living Foundation Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Though mediation is not an unfamiliar territory for him, he appears to be the most controversial member of the panel, given his past utterances about the dispute which are unlikely to inspire confidence about his neutrality.
In an earlier attempt to resolve the Ayodhya dispute, Sri Sri had written an open letter to the AIMPLB in 2017, proposing an out-of-court ‘settlement’ by which the Muslim bodies come forward and gift one acre land to the Hindus who, in return, will gift five acre of land nearby to the Muslims to build a ‘better mosque’.
While calling for mediation, he had also made his view clear on the dispute: the site ‘belongs’ to Hindus. Having clearly stated his position on what he would like the ‘settlement’ to be, suggests that he may approach the matter with a pre-conceived notion, which could mar any fruitful conclusion in mediation.
The Babari Masjid case is not just another property dispute. It may be a land title case, but it raises deeper questions about the rule of law, civil society and the nature of Indian state. The purpose of a mediation panel, according to legal experts, is to facilitate negotiation and help parties arrive at an agreement. In their view, for mediation process to be effective and successful, it is needed that the mediators should be persons who inspire confidence in litigant parties about their neutrality, competence and fairness.
Of the three mediators, Panchu, a leading expert in mediation over the last three decades is perfectly qualified to be a mediator. Justice Kalifulla is an eminent legal brain; his experience both as lawyer and judge will be of immense help for parties to take mediation seriously. As chairperson of the panel, he may also play the role of a chief facilitator. But the same cannot be said about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar; one fails to figure out his qualifications to be on the panel.
By referring the Ayodhya case to mediation within eight-week deadline, the SC seems to have dealt a blow to the BJP and others like the Shiv Sena which were hoping that the court would expeditiously take up the appeals against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment dividing the disputed land into three parts. The mediation process starts on March 15; it would get concluded in early May, if an extension is not sought.
Therefore, the SC is unlikely to reach any conclusion till late May. The general elections will be held between April 11 and May 19. This effectively rules out the possibility of Ayodhya issue being a polarizing factor in the Lok Sabha election. But the important question is: will mediation lead to a solution to Ayodhya dispute?
Although mediation efforts have been made by individuals earlier, this is a court-appointed mediation which is a sort of new thing by the SC, which has clearly recognised that although technically it is a title dispute, the ramifications are far bigger.
Therefore, the court has rightly felt that at least a last-ditch effort should be made to resolve it through mediation. Despite opposition from Hindu parties, it is also quite likely that the mediation will be taken seriously by all parties. However, it is difficult to say how far it is going to work out, though a lot will depend on the efforts made by the mediators and the confidence of the warring groups on the panel of mediators.
A L I Chougule is an independent senior journalist.
