Ayodhya verdict is like a pain-killer which gives temporary relief from pain but has chronic side-effects.

The historical verdict has finally come from the Allahabad High Court benched by Justice Agarwal, Justice Khan and Justice Sharma. The Ayodhya land dispute and all the issues have been addressed by the Court but both the parties are not altogether content or pleased with the decision.

Verdict: The High Court that began reading out its verdict at 3:30 pm IST dismissed the Sunni Wakf case and all 3 judges consented that Ayodhya is, indeed, the ‘janmabhoomi’ or birth place of Hindu God Rama. The idol of Bhagwan Ramlalla placed at the site has been given a legitimate status and its removal has been withheld. The disputed land has been divided into 3 portions of which one-third is to be allotted to the Hindus, one-third to the Sunni Board and the remaining one-third to the Nirmohi Akhada. The verdict, though not really crystal clear, is in favour of maintaining the status quo. In layman's words, a piece of the temple/mosque land goes to Sunni Wakf Board (read Muslims), a part to Nirmohi Akhara (a school of radical Hindu godmen) whiles the 3rd - where there is a shrine of Ram - stays as and how it is. Not only this means no single party was declared a winner of the case, but also there is hardly a chance to call any party a loser as well.

Hindu dissatisfaction: While the Muslims are upset after the Sunni Wakf law suit was dismissed by the judges, the Hindus are professing their disgruntlement at the division of land into 3 parts. The lawyer from the Hindu community expresses concerns over land settlement questioning the basis on which the land has been trisected. He maintains that when the Court has accepted that land, indeed, belongs to the Hindus (being the birth place of Lord Rama), then it should have been granted wholly to them. He has voiced his desire of moving to Supreme Court. Even after this historical judgement, the case seems far from getting over and resolved.

Why the parties would approach the court asking it to decide a matter of faith? Why it was not opposed? Hindu's believe Ram was born at that place. Can any one tell them not to do so? Can any one tell Muslims or followers of any other religions to stop believing their scriptures (particularly in India)? I think court only upheld Hindu belief not that Ram was actually born there. The same can be argued is - about some one entering other's house and claim it as their own: The mosque was on the ruins of a temple. Its pillars have pictures of Hindu gods carved on them". All three judges accepted this and now it is anyone’s guess that entered whose house. Best way forward is to go to Supreme Court with the question "Should courts decide on matters of faith?"

There is no conclusive archaeological evidence to say that Rama was born in Ayodhya. There was a temple, but that was a Rama Temple, one among many razed to the ground by Muslim rulers of India. Can we punish Babar? No. Then why play tribalism and punish modern Muslims by pulling down their places of worship? Rebuild it! Demolition of Baburi Masjid has been a national shame. No sensible person thinks it right to demolish its structure while the matter was subjudice. Though the then Chief Minister of UP gave an affidavit to the Supreme Court to defend the structure, it appears that nothing of that sort had occurred. Its aftermath has been rejoiced by such persons like Mulayam Singh Yadav who emerged as a sudden savior of the Muslim community. However, afterwards, it was noted that he behaved like any other professional politician. He inducted the son of Kalyan Singh into his party and gave all out support to Kalyan Singh win the Lok Sabha poll. It is now time for the people to reject such self-styled saviors of the Muslims, at the polls. He claims himself a disciple of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia who never promoted the selfish interests of any of his near relatives. Where as this so-called follower of Dr. Lohia has converted his party into a family limited company.

I do not completely agree with the Allahabad High Court verdict. The Hon High Court has given the verdict only on the basis of belief and not as per the law on judicial grounds. I am quite satisfied with the judgment that the land will be distributed in 3 equal parts but at the same time I do not go with declaration of the court that, the land under the central dome of Babri Masjid was the Ram Janmasthan. I mean how can anybody decide where Lord Ram was born? A complete solution has not yet been reached out in this matter. Still an appeal can be made before the Supreme Court. The judgement is only a compromise made by the HC. This issue has been tickled to the next level of seriousness only by such a judgement. Though a compromise is made by court, in practice it is not the duty of courts to compromise on issues but instead to decide on an issue. The Court should give verdict based on facts and evidences and not on fear of communal violence or beliefs. I believe the entire disputed land should have been given either for Ram temple construction or Mosque instead of compromising for three equal parts. Well you can't make everyone happy so let’s accept the judgement, but the High Court has taken this decision keeping in mind the beliefs...which is not the way judgment is given. The dispute regarding ownership of land has not been decided. It is a fact that Mogul dynasty was established by invaders and hence the Masjid had come subsequent to Ayodhya being mentioned in scriptures. If questions are raised in basing decisions on religious faith then it gets into more larger area of debate… like the one on Sethusamudram projects … did Ram construct the bridge and if so, what is the proof? All religious scriptures emphasise that faith in the Almighty is a necessity for rationalists and the scriptures are nothing more than a story book. Whilst the verdict may sound as a compromise solution it has not resulted in getting a decision in clear terms. Having said that the bench of the High Court has attempted at what best it could do for maintaining peace and harmony of the society but in the process making each party forego some share of their entitlement. Is this what you call justice? Justice should be based on facts, evidences and not on myths, traditions and beliefs.