All right, so I haven't read the Ayodhya judgement. Jetlagged as I am, on the other side of the world from my country, I have read mostly only headlines about it. And even so, I am bothered by it. I am bothered for this reason: the very people who destroyed a mosque and triggered weeks of killing across this land have been rewarded. And something about that is simply not right.
This has nothing to do with archaeological evidence and the like. Nor with Ram and exactly where he was born. Nor with exactly what Babar did in the early 16th Century. Nor with the observation that's been smugly pointed out to me a few times, that Ram is Indian and Babar is not. (What this is supposed to mean, especially when applied to figures from the mists of history, before "Indian" meant anything much, I don't know. Or maybe I do).
No, this has to do purely with how a country reacts to vandalism and terror, to the way a promise made to the highest Court in the land was broken without a thought, to how governments sworn to our Constitution chose to spit on it.
How do you decide disputes in court -- on religious sentiments? Or the rule of law?
Do you punish people who instigate, indulge and cheer on vandalism and terror, at the very least by denying them what they claim they want? Or do you reward their crimes by giving them what they claim they want?
This judgement does the latter. Which is why it bothers me.