“After Partition of 1947, demolition of Babri Masjid by vandals, with the connivance of some people, was the greatest tragedy of India. The Ayodhya verdict says it was illegal, but in the same breath sanctifies it. Well done, My Lords!” This is not a view from the streets but that of Markandey Katju, a former judge of the supreme court of India! It confirms that gone are the days when court judgements were passed without much scrutiny. In stark contrast, they are now debated endlessly and therefore have a lasting impact on the social fabric they affect. Hence, so is the case for the Indian supreme court verdict on the long-running Babri masjid/Ayodhya temple case. The court has decided that a Ram temple be constructed on the disputed area and that the central government allot a 5-acre plot elsewhere for a mosque. To top it all, this judgement is unanimous and without a single courageous note of dissent! If any decision will reverberate through history – for good or bad – this is it! Consider. This long running saga started around 1528 when under the orders of Mughal emperor Babur, a mosque was created on the now disputed land. Thus, the name Babri masjid. Since 1885 – more than 300 years later! – there were a handful of suits filed and requests made; initially, to share the mosque’s area with a Ram temple and later to build the temple in place of the mosque. Subsequently, slowly but surely, the demand for a Ram temple gathered steam with local courts acquiescing in majority of the cases. So much so that in 1990 Lal Krishna Advani – the erstwhile BJP stalwart – embarked upon a cross country march to mobilise support for building a Ram temple at the disputed site. Two years later, in 1992, the Babri masjid was no more. Egged on by a renewed lurch to the right and emboldened by what had transpired two years earlier, a mob of Kar Sevaks demolished the Babri masjid and reduced it to rubble. This led to deadly riots and deaths of over 2000 people! In-fact, an investigative commission found top BJP leaders like LK Advani, AB Vajpayee and Murli Manohar Joshi culpable in the demolition of the mosque! In recent times, when the supreme court couldn’t enforce an out-of-court settlement, it picked-up the case on a regular basis culminating in the judgement of building a Ram temple on the disputed site. Quite a page turner, isn’t it? But the question is this, even if all legal modalities were kept in mind – and it would be difficult to imagine how it could be so for a dispute this old – was there another option to exercise? Maybe a road less taken. Perhaps so! It started life as a Greek Orthodox Christian cathedral, later became an Ottoman mosque and is now a museum. Since its initial construction in AD 360, AyaSofiya An even older case of a disputed religious site is that of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Turkey. It started life as a Greek Orthodox Christian cathedral, later became an Ottoman mosque and is now a museum. Since its initial construction in AD 360, Aya Sofiya – the Turkish phrase for the monument – was destroyed and rebuilt thrice. It was a major Christian symbol for most of its existence. However, after the fall of Constantinople in AD 1453, it was converted into a mosque during the Ottoman rule. In 1935, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk became the first Turkish President and founder of the Republic of Turkey. And this is when life for Hagia Sophia takes a surprising twist! Atatürk laid the foundation of a moderate, yet Islamic, Turkish nation. He was under tremendous pressure to continue the mosque status of Hagia Sophia. Nevertheless, Atatürk withstood the pressure and decided to declare it a museum! Unlike today, when misguided attempts are afoot to declare Hagia Sophia a mosque again, unleashing a pandora’s box of religious unease and social discord! Atatürk’s reasons to confirm the secular status of Hagia Sophia were two-fold. One, he was acutely aware of the religious schism in the country at the time and wanted to ensure that inter-faith harmony stayed at the forefront. Two, he also kept the ancient and difficult history of the building in mind as well. Sounds familiar? This is not to say that the two episodes are exactly alike. They are not. The point here is that there are striking similarities! even the Babri masjid/Ayodhya verdict comes at a time when religious divide in India is increasing especially considering that the BJP/RSS rhetoric is now perhaps becoming mainstream – a considerable threat to minorities. AK Ganguly, a retired justice of the Indian supreme court also suggests the same, “I am perplexed and disturbed. The constitution gives the right to everyone and justice has to be given to everyone but in this case, justice has not been done to minorities”. Moreover, the disputed site in Ayodhya has also seen a difficult and tumultuous past and the fact that for over 300 years that wasn’t the case! Keeping the aforementioned comparison and analysis in mind, maybe this was one case where the doctrine of necessity trumped the requirements of statute! Quite often, the phrase ‘big picture’ is used superfluously and incorrectly – but not in this instance. This case indeed was a supreme candidate to be viewed through the big picture lens of inter-faith harmony and national cohesion! Furthermore, this alternative path would have also spoken directly to the policy of inclusionism as prescribed for both Pakistan and India in previous op-eds. Especially to one of the defined objectives of this policy; i.e. to promote diversity, liberty, equality, and a culture of tolerance. In turn, it would have also allowed a physical manifestation of what Mahatma Gandhi said, “our innermost prayer should be that a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian”! There is nothing left at the site in Ayodhya now and is as-of-yet empty, but it is still considered hallowed ground – maybe it should be left as such! The writer is Director Programmes for an international ICT organization based in the UK and writes on corporate strategy, socio-economic and geopolitical issues