‘Liberals’ have a meltdown after SC refused to refer the Ayodhya dispute to a larger bench

Rajiv Dhawan, counsel for a petitioner in the Ayodhya dispute has expressed his dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court’s latest verdict on the matter. As we have reported earlier, in a majority judgment, the Supreme Court refused to refer the Ram Janambhoomi case to a larger constitution bench. According to Dhawan, the majority judgment will please the majority.

Majority judgement will please majority,minority judgement will please minority.Very problem we started off with hasn’t been resolved.Not about arithmetic,but of convincing everybody that SC should’ve spoken in 1voice: Rajiv Dhawan, Petitioner’s counsel in Ayodhya title suit case pic.twitter.com/e94PVmab1K

— ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018

Ashok Swain, who is a professor in Sweden, went so far as to assert that the Supreme Court was now divided along religious lies. His remark perhaps stems from the fact that both the judges who endorsed the majority judgment were Hindus and the only judge who dissented is presumably a Muslim.

Misra & Bhushan Decline To Refer Ayodhya Case To Larger Bench, Justice Nazeer Dissents – Now, even Indian Supreme Court is divided on religious line.

— Ashok Swain (@ashoswai) September 27, 2018

Like Dhawan, liberals appear mighty displeased with the verdict which is expected to hasten the resolution of the dispute. Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai speculates that the verdict on the Ram Janambhoomi case would be reached before the 2019 General Elections, thus benefiting the BJP electorally.

Implication of SC split verdict in Ismail Faruqui case: Daily hearings to resume on Ayodhya matter from October 29: matter likely to conclude just ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.. perfecto!

— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) September 27, 2018

Shahid Siddiqui took an issue with bhakts of Shri Rama celebrating the Court’s verdict. He declared that Ram Janambhoomi is ‘Masjid land’.

So Bhakts have already pronounced the final Supreme Court verdict. They are celebrating the construction of Ram Mandir over Masjid land. https://t.co/DF7aruk6KT

— shahid siddiqui (@shahid_siddiqui) September 27, 2018

Journalist Seemi Pasha asserted that the BJP had argued that Mosques are not essential to Islam before the Supreme Court while Haryana CM Khattar issued orders that namaz should be offered only at mosques. She says the BJP should make up its mind. However, one fails to see the connection between the two and she comes off as more confused than anything else.

BJP argues that Mosques are not essential to Islam in the #BabriMasjid matter before the SC. Says namaz can be offered anywhere. Recently Haryana CM Khattar issued a diktat saying Namaz shld only be offered inside mosques. Make up your mind #AyodhyaVerdict https://t.co/5DoltHumEl

— seemi pasha (@seemi_pasha) September 27, 2018

Another journalist wondered why Mosques are not required for prayers. Perhaps, she isn’t aware that the Ismail Faruqui judgment is concerned with the acquisition of religious places by the state and observed that offering namaz at a mosque wasn’t integral to Islam as long as the Masjid did not hold any special significance in Islam.

If temples, churches, gurudwaras are needed for prayers, why not mosques?

— Harinder Baweja (@shammybaweja) September 27, 2018

Editor of the pro-AAP mouthpiece, Janta Ka Reporter, Rifat Jawaid is particularly displeased with the judgment.

Demolish any mosque you want by claiming that it was a temple before. Carry out riots, kill people and 25 years later court will allow you to build a temple there. Meanwhile, no one gets punished for demolishing the mosque and causing riots. Muskuraiye ki aap Hindustan mein hain!

— Rifat Jawaid (@RifatJawaid) September 27, 2018

As said before, the judgment by the Supreme Court today is likely to hasten the resolution of the biggest dispute in the country by a great deal. It is rather unfortunate that one section of the political spectrum is very disgruntled by it.