This morning I was surfing the news channels over breakfast. One reporter was passionately voicing as to how the honorable High Court in UP is going to decide today whether Ram was born at the disputed site in Ayodhya. I got a lump in my throat and the breakfast would not go down.
When the judgment came in the evening, a lot of people were again voicing that the honourable court has confirmed that ‘Ram’ was born at the disputed site.
What I am raising is a question of language and presentation. I have my doubts if the language used by the honourable judges says for certain that ‘Ram was born at that particular place’. If it is then I can only say that my disappointment is compounded.
My intellect cannot accept that somebody (especially ‘pillars’ of democracy – judiciary, media) in 2010 AD can say that “Lord Sri Ram”, the hero of “Ramayan” was born here or there for certain – when a lot of us are not even sure of his existence as depicted in the epic.
Conversely if the honourable court has used words other than professed through the media, a clarification has to be issued.
Having said that, I am happy if this is further uncontested, and in the context the concerned parties settle the issue as it were. The intention is we get the ‘dispute’ out of the way and move on to more important affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment