Ramjanmabhumi & Proerty Award

The post on Ramjanamabhumi attracted some comments. People are generally petulant and have great emotional faith on faith or logic as they perceive.  One friend said" religion is beyond reason. Divine faith has no boundaries. God is everywhere(omnipresent).where is the dispute?" Clearly, those who practice religion are not always within the bounds of religion. But the basis of religion is not faith but reason and logic - maybe in most cases weak and outdated logic or reasoning: no new religion has come to establish itself after powerful logic and reason has revolutionised the way the people in the World now lives. But to say there isn't a dispute because religion is beyond reason and God is omni-present may not be really relevant to the issue of Ramjanmabhumi verdict by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. Dispute was not about God, nor about Religion. Dispute was about where exactly God in his human form as Rama was born and who owns a particular piece of land. Dispute is about whether the Judges of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court relied on (non-divine or divine) faith and folklore or reason, logic and principles of law.
Another former colleague remarked:' "When faith & belief ends, reason & logic starts". But it does not always stand static on a straight line, rather it moves in circular. It is situation and time based. When "logic & reason" does not work, rather it ends, "faith and belief" starts. This
is what our life is.'

He is absolutely right. Life is mostly faith, belief and emotions. For most people, logic and reasoning is unknown. For some people, logic and reason is party acceptable so long it is convenient. For some others, things that cannot be explained by logic and reason, has to be explained by beliefs nd faith. Even for many of the greatest of scientists it is difficult to tolerate a situation that they cannot find or establish the Truth/ Knowledge by reason and logic and they tend to adopt beliefs and faith in those situations where reason and logic, at the state of development of their time, cannot explain things or find/ establish the Truth. It is only the rare scientist who can tolerate a situation of uncertainty about Truth and knowledge in many areas because logic and reasoning tools are yet to develop to that stage of establishing Truth and knowledge in certain areas. These scientists know that reason and logic has evolved over time and continue to do so and they are comfortable of not knowing about many things about certainty.  This only has given the birth of probability.  And, they accept high probability as a knowledge that has a high chance of being proved right. Thus, logic and reason starts when people are willing to end their faith and beliefs. But, since logic and reason cannot, at any given state of their development and refinement at any given stage of historical time, cannot find the True answers to all questions, people who cannot tolerate a situation of being blank about those things adopt beliefs and faith. At a later stage, when the truth is found out by more powerful logic and reason, they shed the beliefs and faith, though often most reluctantly.

That the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved round the earth was established by reason one day. But when more powerful logic and reason proved that the earth is round and the Earth revolved around the Sun, it took a long time for the people to change their faith. Thus, faith persists even when reason and logic succeeded.  People like to be in the close comfort of faith and beliefs and fight with the beliefs and faith of others. Only the rare person is capable of not having faith and beliefs at all and remains comfortable with the small knowledge acquired through logic and reason and remaining ignorant about the rest of the unknown. Even those what they accept as Truth and Knowledge, they accept them as those that may have a chance of getting refuted by more powerful logic and reason. They therefore shun beliefs and faith altogether. This is not the way most people can manage to live.

My younger son still had doubt. He believed that that because the Court upheld the claim that a piece of land within the Babri Masjid was Ramjanmabhumi (whatever that actually means is a separate issue and also dealt with by the judges), the Court gave a portion of the land to the Hindus. This is what most people perceive as the Court's judgement. This completely wrong view of the Court's judgement has been popularised by the faith and beliefs of the commentators in the media and the absence of logic and reasoning among most people who are biased by their perception of the communal angle to the issue and the existence of a mosque that was demolished by some Hindu fundamentalists. Whether Ram was born in a piece of land in the area in / around the Babri Massjid building or not has nothing to do with Court's judgement on who owns the land and how this could be shared. This property ownership issue is an independent issue arising out of the claim of three parties which did not exist until recently - not to speak of when Ram was born or the Babri Masjid was built. Apparently, none of the parties could show documents of clear title (resulting from inheritance,  purchase or gift) to land/ property to the land they claimed as their own. And, therefore, the Court could not uphold the claim of any party on the land. But the Court did find acceptable evidence that much before the dispute arose in the 20th century, two different sections of the Hindu Community and one section of the Muslim community did use different parts of the said land for prayer and worship purposes simultaneously for long periods in the 19th century (probably earlier and later also) without any quarrel or fight among themselves. Since Indian law has a provision that any person enjoying possession of land for 12 years or more at a stretch without any dispute can become entitled to be the owner of the property, the Court held that all the three parties, as representative bodies of the different sections of Hindus and Muslims, are entitled to the sections of the properties they had been in possession and using for such long periods simultaneously without any dispute. The Court has arrived at a three-way split of the entire land that best protects the long established usage pattern and awarded the three sections of the land to the three parties. Until a higher Court finds fault with the application of the principle of Indian Law here, the Court's verdict is completely in agreement with the principles of law and fair justice. In India millions of people owned land in this manner: not by purchasing and inheritance but by unauthorised occupation of vacant lands not cared for by their original owners and then retaining them under possession and use for long periods undisputed by the original owners: in and around Kolkata there are residential areas where people have become owners of land by, what Bengalis call, Jabar Dakhal (forcible occupation). Human settlements are always traceable to the origin of forcible occupation methods!!"  If the land under dispute was once owned by King Dasarath of Ayodha and father of Ram must have been forcibly occupied once and then inherited: it was unlikely have been inherited or purchased by another King Babar or someone else but must have been forcibly occupied by their ancestors or themselves. When forcible occupation remains undisputed for long enough periods, one can become owner of lands. That is the law of the land. The parties who get the share of the land should thank the forcible occupiers whom they represent.