Primitive thinking in a modern nation

A court system does not a modern judicial system make. The exercise of voting in elections does not a democracy make. Sixty years after independence, India still has severe problems distinguishing appearance from reality.

The recent judgement in one of India's most high profile cases, namely the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid case, reveals several interesting features of the way India works. In particular, it reveals a lot about how the Indian elite goes about its business. It is proof positive that modernity is yet to permeate the Indian psyche and that when it comes to systems introduced by Westerners, the Indian elite mistakes appearance for essence. Clearly, not everything Western fits Indian realities. However, Indians, and especially the Indian elites, pride themselves on a Western-style constitution and Western-style judicial systems. In fact, these are some of the factors that underlie the thinking of the Indian political class when it calls America a " natural ally ". However, the recent judgement in this case reveals how haphazard and scatter-brained the Indian approach to these systems is.

The judges ask the three claimants to the site to split it among themselves. That is not the strange aspect of the judgement. It is the reasons cited by some of the judges, however, that leave one wondering if one is reading about a modern nation or about an obscurantist, superstition-ridden society. One of the judges states outight that the site under dispute is " the birthplace of Ram ". Ram is one of the incarnations of God Vishnu according to Hindu belief. It is not much of a stretch to say that Ram can be considered as an incarnation of the Lord Himself on earth according to Hindu belief. Serious questions arise, however, as to how judges in some of the top courts in the country reach their conclusions. In fact, this kind of statement raises disturbing questions as to whether one can trust the objectivity of these judges.

How did judge Sharma determine that Ram was born at this site ? From the most popular versions of the mythical stories associated with Ram, he was born to King Dasrath and Queen Kaushalya in Ayodhya. Have archeaologists uncovered the remains of Dasrath's palace at the site ? Clearly not. There is disputed " evidence " that a temple existed at that site before the Muslim emperor Babar built a mosque at that site. The presence of a previous temple, even if true, is not proof that the site is Ram's birthplace.

Another judge, Justice Agarwal, states that Ram was born at that site according to Hindu belief. Which Hindus ? North Indian Hindus ? East Indian Hindus ? South Indian Hindus ? In fact, this is a gross mischaracterization of Hindu belief. Very few Hindus have any firm conviction about that particular site being the birthplace of Lord Ram. This is a canard spread by a group of politically motivated people that want to impose a communal agenda on India's secular character. This entire drama about the exact birthplace of Ram has never constituted the essence of Hindu belief, and it has never been a top priority item for Hindu belief except when it gets enmeshed with politics. And it is the pet agenda of a Hindu political cabal that has made no secret about its penchant for violent confrontation as a means of settling grievances.

And most importantly, when it comes to deciding land ownership, how does it matter whether or not God Ram was born there ? It is not an idle or unimportant question. If judges can make careless statements like these and use specious justifications like these in a high profile case, what should the common Indian expect from the Indian judicial system in terms of objectivity and intelligence ?

It is time for deep introspection for the Indian elites. Do they want to bolster modern systems and make them work for the people and for society ? Or do they want to turn their back on criteria of objectivity and fairness, and allow dangerous ideas of cultural supremacism to color judicial decisions ?