That good ol' time religion

Rico says Jim Yardley has the story in The New York Times of the on-going dispute over a religious site in India:

The case has existed almost as long as independent India itself. Dating from 1950, the legal battle between Hindus and Muslims over a religious site in the city of Ayodhya began as a little-noticed title dispute. With a ruling finally expected on Thursday, the case has become something altogether different: a test of India’s secular soul.
The test is not so much in the verdict, which will deal with a handful of issues, including the central question of which side controls the site of a 16th-century mosque known as the Babri Masjid. Rather, the test will come in the public reaction. In 1992, an enraged mob of Hindu extremists destroyed the mosque, asserting that the site was the birthplace of the Hindu deity, Ram. Riots erupted, claiming about 2,000 lives, mostly Muslims, and horrifying a nation founded on the ideal of religious tolerance.
For the past month, the Indian government and leaders of major political parties, including right-wing Hindu leaders who stoked the 1992 violence, have asked people to remain calm and refrain from violence. Thousands of security officers have been deployed to Ayodhya, though the authorities concede that riots could occur anywhere. The verdict is considered so politically combustible that an emergency appeal to delay the verdict until after the Commonwealth Games in October was sent to India’s Supreme Court last week, and was rejected on Tuesday.
Later on Tuesday, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called on the nation to “maintain peace, harmony, and tranquillity”. Perhaps the only person eager for the verdict is Hashim Ansari, a Muslim tailor in Ayodhya who is the case’s oldest surviving plaintiff. He is 90 and tired of waiting. Mr. Ansari, who joined the case as a plaintiff in 1961, said in a telephone interview that he did not want any tumult or violence, just closure. “It has taken on a political color,” Mr. Ansari said of the case. “We are just waiting for a verdict. Whatever judgment comes, all of us Muslims will agree, whether it is in our favor or not.”
The verdict could determine whether the mosque is rebuilt on the site, or if a Hindu temple is erected there instead. Yet, despite the official concern, many analysts believe that India has matured since the violence in 1992. Hindu nationalism, a potent political force in the 1990s that fueled the campaign to tear down the Babri Masjid, is now far less potent. Last year, when the government released the findings of a long-awaited investigation into the violence, the public response was largely a shrug.
“Urban India is not so closely tied with the Hindu nationalists today,” said Ashutosh Varshney, a professor at Brown University who has written extensively about Hindu-Muslim relations in India.
Ayodhya is located in the state of Uttar Pradesh. India’s first Mughal ruler, Babur, constructed a domed mosque on the contested property, which became famous for its acoustics and for a drinking well whose waters were said to have curative powers. Uttar Pradesh is also considered the birthplace of Hinduism, and many Hindus believe that a temple originally existed on the site to commemorate the birthplace of Ram. Some historical accounts suggest that for many years Hindus and Muslims both worshiped inside the mosque complex.
But when the British took control of India, they eventually erected a barrier to divide religious worship at the site. Muslims were allowed inside to pray; Hindus worshiped on platforms outside the enclosure. There were periodic squabbles, but this arrangement remained intact until after India’s independence in 1947. In December 1949, someone slipped in the mosque and left idols of Ram and another Hindu deity.
The authorities closed the building and the matter soon went to court. A local Hindu filed for title in 1950. Mr. Ansari was a regular in the courtroom, monitoring proceedings, and his name was later included among the plaintiffs when a Muslim group filed its own lawsuit in 1961. In all, there are four title suits to be decided.
“What is at stake here is whether the Hindus have any right to this particular place,” said Prashant Bhushan, a prominent legal advocate in India. “They are going to decide whether there was a temple there before the mosque, and whether it gives them any rights.” Mr. Bhushan said the verdict should not be delayed any longer, regardless of concerns about violence. “Public reaction, whatever it will be, has to be faced one day or the other,” he said. “This can’t be delayed because of fear.”
A three-judge panel in the capital of Uttar Pradesh is scheduled to hand down the verdict on Thursday afternoon. Speculation about the outcome varies widely, with some analysts hypothesizing that the judges may try to render the equivalent of a split decision. In Ayodhya, local residents are weary of the case, and the way it has come to define their city. Should his side lose, Mr. Ansari said he did not plan to appeal, but other parties may ultimately choose to take the case to India’s Supreme Court. Mr. Ansari said he got involved so many years ago because he and his father had once prayed at the mosque. He said he remained on good terms with local Hindus who were involved on the other side of the case. “I expect it will go in our favor,” he said of the verdict, “but it is up to the court.”

Rico says it smacks of Jarndyce and Jarndyce...