The Supreme Court in its latest judgment has refused to refer the Ayodhya land dispute to a constitutional bench (5 Judge Bench) and has stuck to its earlier contentious line: Mosque is not an integral part of Muslim Worship. Without harking back to the original land dispute problem, a singular analysis of the present judgment raises several questions. Was the Supreme Court mindful of describing a Mosque as not an integral part of Muslim worship? Another serious question lingers too: Does the Supreme Court have the authority in essaying the tenets of a religion?
This brings us to an important connection, Religion and Constitutional Law, represented by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, since its inception, has pronounced historic judgments that have altered Indian society for the better. The Hindu Code Bill, Triple Talaq, and Parsi Married Women’s Rights have shown how the Supreme Court is a tower of hope and positivity in our country. But, are they similar to this recent judgment of the Supreme Court? NO! Absolutely Not!
The Supreme Court till now had been just effacing mindless and irrational human additions and creations to original religious doctrines, which are itself another human creation only. To make more sense, the founders of Hinduism(which itself has no substantiated authenticity), the Vedic seers, never sanctioned ‘Sati’ or ‘Child Marriage’, and the Prophet in his teachings never mentioned Talaq. Hence, these were later additions that were irrational and anachronistic and deserved to be removed from present usage.
In the same vein, arguments are laid that the Prophet considered any representation of god in any form as an anathema. The later influential and powerful Ulamas were too virulent and strident in their opposition to it. So it is very justified at face value to deem a Mosque as an anathema to the Muslim religion. But is it so? This brings us to another question: Does any religion prescribe building structures? NO!
The Vedas have elaborate procedures on various incantations, the later Puranas have an in-depth description of multiple sacrifices, but none of them mentions a thing called ‘Temple’. Very curiously, the Gods of Vedas(Soma, Indra, Agni) play second fiddle to the new gods of Puranas(Shiva and Vishnu). Though Veda is the original text and the first text of Hindus, the present worship and temples are predominated by Puranic gods. And further, to the disappointment of the right-wing hate peddlers, Hinduism and Hindu is itself a term coined by the Persians. So will the Supreme Court now dare to say that the present temples are against the original religious tenets or the term Hinduism is an anathema since it has no mention in the original text? The important and enlightening fact about this whole issue is, What is Religion? In plain and simple language, religion is a commodity. It is a social commodity sold to individuals to be used in groups.
Religion, by any standards of definition, is just a term for a normative order for a group of individuals. It is an umbrella beneath which similar-thinking individuals rest. Take, for example, be it Buddha, Christ, the Prophet, and Solomon, all preached their ideas to persuade people to follow them. These ideas later became religious doctrines. Why didn’t these individuals practice these ideas individually but rather spend time persuading others? That is where the term religion and its definition enter: to create a group that will think and behave similarly.
So when the whole idea and aim of religion is to create a group, doesn’t it make sense that this group decides the place of their discussion? That is where temples, mosques, and churches enter. Though not present in the original doctrine, these places are conceived as places where people of the same religion share discussions among themselves and vicariously with the ‘God.’ Hence, to deny such an opportunity in the name of interpreting the original doctrine is a travesty of human intellect and civilization. In fact, it goes against what the constitution offers through Article 19- freedom of expression and the freedom to organize. Importantly Supreme Court has no locus standi to even decide on this issue as it never belongs to this group, which decides the place of its syncretism. The Supreme Court should have viewed that the question in contention is not any odd retrograde practice. But it is a yearning for freedom of expression and togetherness. Hence, the Supreme Court has practically created a blunder by remaining blind to fundamental facts. In all good hope, there is a faint optimism that the Supreme Court may correct this aberration in the near future.
Alas, whatever the result will be, one thing is for sure: being a Muslim in India is difficult.