Ayodhya verdict evokes skeptical reactions in Karnataka
Bangalore, Oct 1 : Though people in Karnataka felt relieved that the much-awaited Ayodhya judgment did not trigger trouble and peace prevailed, the younger generation felt the verdict would not end the title dispute, as the losing parties would approach the Supreme Court for a prolonged legal battle.
“I don’t think the case has been solved once-for-all, as it will go to the Supreme Court where it will drag on for years again,” IT professional G.S. Vijay told IANS here.
Research assistant Amrita Tripathy, however, termed the verdict wise, keeping in view the complexity of the case and the issues involved.
Finance analyst Ayesha Khan felt relieved that the nation had remained peaceful despite a divided ruling.
“I respect the verdict as it has not affected the country’s secular image. I do not know what happened in the past, whether Babar built the mosque on the ruins of a temple and since when have Hindus been worshipping there,” Khan said.
The three-judge special bench pronounced that a third part each of the 2.7 acres site has to be given to Hindus, the Sunni Central Wakf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara.
“It took the courts over 60 years to decide on 2.7 acres of land. As the contending parties intend to appeal against the judgment in the apex court, a final solution to the vexed issue will take longer time,” software engineer M. Jayant noted.
Undergraduate commerce student Sarfraz Sheikh, however, felt good about the verdict as it had tried to maintain equality.
“If it is really the birthplace of Ram, then the judgment is right and no purpose will be served by going to the Supreme Court. There is no point in shedding more blood over such an emotive issue as peace is more important than who owns the place,” Sheikh asserted.
Sounding almost cynical, business manager Shashikant Gowda lamented that the common man was the loser in the acrimonious legal battle.
“What does a common man gain from such a historic dispute? Such verdicts only benefit political parties and their leaders and not the ordinary citizen,” Gowda said.
Echoing Gowda’s viewpoint, real estate manager K. Santosh felt the verdict was an attempt to please all and to ensure that law and order was not disrupted.
“The verdict is given in such a way to keep all stakeholders happy,” media professional K. Nandini observed.
Management student Anushuka Ratur wondered if the judgment would be able to remove the pent-up animosity between the two communities.
“Dividing a piece of land in the name of god does not make sense to me. I feel the verdict is aimed at assuaging the feelings of both the communities,” Ratur added.