But Why?

As Socrates said, "They are not only idle who do nothing, but they are idle also who might be better employed".  

Out of Syllabus

In an ironic twist, the word "syllabus" appears to have been completely out-of-syllabus. My favourite language blog asserts that it is a misreading of an old Greek term. Among other things, that means the pseudo-Latin plural "syllabi" has to go the way of the octopi. Into the rubbish-bin.

Syllabuses it is then

No it does not!

But I suppose with political redundancy looming, one could forgive Mr. Advani for thinking it does. But one would rather not.

The disposition of a title suit has no bearing on whether it was morally right to attempt to gain political capital out of that issue, with little concern for the human consequences. Neither does it have any bearing on whether it was right to go demolish a structure on what was and still is legally disputed land, which would still be illegal.

The Verdict is In ...

Here is a small piece of land (1,500 square yards) where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable landmines. We are required to clear it. Some very sane elements advised us not to attempt that. We do not propose to rush in like fools lest we are blown up. However, we have to take the risk. It is said that the greatest risk in life is not daring to take a risk when the occasion for the same arises. Once angels were made to bow before man. Sometimes he has to justify the said honour. This is one of those occasions. Have we succeeded or failed? No one can be a judge in his own cause. -- Justice SU Khan, delivering his verdict on Ayodhya

Throwing cynicism aside for a brief moment, one would have to say Justice Khan has lived up to his title with a reasoned judgement. Of all the three, his seems to have the most basis in reality - the established fact that there was shared ownership of the site prior to the dispute in 1885.

Back to normal programming now.

Thankfully, India seem to be more concerned about keeping its collective cool than anything else. Bangalore shut down in an orderly fashion after lunch. Most of the country reacted to the verdict with calm and poise. Which is more than can be said for the government website which was to officially relay the verdict to everyone. As with a lot of stuff run by the government, it did not work when it needed to.

After the initial burst of avoidable joy from the lawyers of one side, Ravi Shankar Prasad included, discussions on TV seemed to be balanced, and composed. TV anchors tried their worst to coax out some triumphalism from one side, and some bitterness from the other, but mostly failed.

The Times of India seems to have done a better job at sensationalism in coaxing intemperate comments from the likes of a certain Shabnam Hashmi, who quite oddly is considered a secularist, but uses the kind of language that would make a Hindutva-type proud. If the judgement had gone the other way (and could still do, in the Supreme Court), would the Hindutva-types have been justified in claiming to be "second class citizens" as a result? Respecting the court's judgment means respectfully disagreeing when you don't like it, not using the kind of framing that Ms. Hashmi and another alleged secularist Irfan Habib did.

What they have done with their antics, is to open the door for the extremist elements in the Sangh Parivar to use similar tactics if the final Supreme Court judgement goes against them. As with the recent Reliance case, the Supreme Court does often disagree with High Courts on contentious issues.

Just move on people. New India cares little for the politics of identity and imagined grievances, whether it be from Hashmi or Togadia.

If you're interested in the details, here are links to summaries of the judgments of Justices Khan, Agarwal and Sharma.