Belief System is a term that renders “Truth” impotent. If one says that one believes “this” and another believes “that” and if both have no problems with what they believe[ even if they contradict each other], then who’s to say which person’s belief is “True?” What then then, do we make of statements like these: “I believe, there exists One Truth. One standard by which all others are measured.” Who’s to say whether my belief is True? And if there is someone, then how does he judge the standard by which he judged the statement? And that is where it all becomes cyclic! We’re stuck in an infinite recursion.

Or are we? Could it be that “all Truth is a matter of Perception?” How do we know whether that statement is True? And there are people who are “in search” of some Ultimate Truth: something that would transcend it all; that would need no “Proof.” Where do we look for such a thing? Firstly, is this even possible? More importantly how would one know if it is “True.” Alright we’re back were we began.

It now seems to me that we’ll never know. And that its futility to be looking for it. We can never find out the Truth until Truth shows up by itself. Someone really ought to put a Break statement in here!

Coming back to the question of Belief Systems, if there were two who hold contradicting beliefs, how does one know which(if any) is true? A question could be asked as to “Why are you a Christian and not a Hindu? or Muslim? or Buddhist? or an Atheist?or an Agnostic perhaps?” How do we know what we believe is True? It does come down to experimentation. But on what basis do we test the standards of the Test which we would use to test our hypotheses? Axioms? Neat shortcut out of a complicated problem. Must not confuse Axioms with Solutions, they are merely breakpoints in this tiresome journey.

The verdict was based on faith and belief and not on sound logical arguments. This reminds me of Sir Robert Morton, a lawyer in the play The Winslow Boy, a courtroom drama(a play we studied in 10th standard(No i did not study Shakespeare in 10th standard!)):

SIR ROBERT :
To fight a case on emotional grounds is the surest way to lose it.
CATHERINE :
Is it?
SIR ROBERT :
Emotions cloud the issue. Cold, clear logic wins the day.
CATHERINE :
Was it cold, clear logic that made you weep today at the verdict?
SIR ROBERT :
I wept today because right had been done.

I wonder how Sir Robert would react to the Ayodhya Verdict. But the sad truth is : there was nothing ‘cold, clear logic[al]‘ about the verdict. For a critique of the ASI Report please do go through this very interesting article on the Frontline. To read about the political drama behind Ayodhya please go through another article entitled The “Ram Temple” Drama. Yes, I am not very happy about the Ayodhya Verdict. My problems are Threefold.Before i begin let me add that i’ve no problems with people reconciling with their brethren in good faith and goodwill. The method by which the court sought to end this issue is something worth contemplating but before all this i would like some answers.

1. How does one justify the destruction of a Mosque to build a Temple if (as the Hindus claim) the destruction of an alleged Temple to construct a Mosque is unjust? We must answer this in the light of what we know and what we don’t: We know that the Babri Mosque was destroyed in 1992; We don’t know if a Temple existed and if it did who (or if) destroyed it. If any reconciliation is to be done, then it is to be done on the basis of what we know for sure so there can be no denying of facts.

2.    If the Mosque had not been destroyed, what changes would the court make in its verdict? Will any of the changes include destruction of the [yet] un-destroyed Mosque and then split the disputed territory into 3? If not then what would the court do? In other words, has the court not ruled in favour of the party which committed the atrocity of the destruction of the Mosque by handing them a third of the land, knowing full well that there are at least two more of such cases pending(the Krishna-Janmsthan in Mathura and the Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Benaras)? Why was there a portion reserved for the Waqf Board if their title suit was disqualified? By this verdict what sort of precedent does the court want to serve in future cases?

3.    And if this three-way partition was the best solution why was this not done much earlier?

Time and again the people of this country have given approval to Political parties who have a communal agenda whether it be the Congress or the BJP. The people must realise that its time to play a different game. Its time that people demand a complete “seperation of church and state.” No political outfit must either support or harrass people based on religion and must not have any communal agendas. Foremost, people must accept justice as it is done by the rule of law. Law itself must not be bent for fear of an uprising, alas! this can only happen if the people abide by my previous suggestion.

I currently reserve my questions to only the ones stated above but i can only hope that i get the answers. Probably “in the fullness of time.” Until then i can only quote a friend of mine who said in a text: “I would like to see this go to the Supreme court just to see how good the legal system is in this country.”