
On 30th September 2010,the much awaited verdict of ayodhya is announced by justice S.U.Khan,S agarwal and DV Sharma.Judges finally put an end over 60 years old uncertainty of 'Ram janambhumi-Babri masjid'. They divided the land among three parties viz. Muslims,Hindu organization and niromani akhara.
But, the question which has become a debate now,"Does this justice banking more on faith and belief than historical evidence"?What would be the consequences of this verdict? After reading comments & opinions of various intellectuals and some historical facts; I start believing that faith is certainly has no meaning in court but still court consider many facts which are not legal.For example, Justice agarwal said that " area below dome of disputed land is considered as the birth place of ram because of the faith & belief of hindus".Infact, Justice khan also has similar opinions,he says, " Ram chabutra & sita rasoi had been there even before 1885 and hindu are worshipping it since then". It might be fact according to archeological survey of India but....The question which should be given more importance is about of the sentence of goons who demolished the babri resulted into bloodshed..Who will punish them?Somewhere the already ongoing case regarding the demolition has been diluted..
May be,the justice declared the verdict considered terms known as "faith & belief",but,people accepted it with maturity and maintained the inter-communal harmony even though some politicians offered resistance.But,this verdict has damaged lot of things and made a dent on the secular ethics of India and India's secularist future is now in a precarious and peculiar situation..
We can hope to get a good decision from supreme court when the parties will appeal in supreme court.Till then,Make peace!!!

