Mohali. Following the Allahabad HC judgment on the Ayodhya case last week, many commentators and critics have put forward their own alternative dispute resolution procedures. Now cricket fans of India, arguably the largest active group in the country, have proposed that the future of the Ram Janmbhoomi Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya should be settled using modern technology.
The claim comes after Rahul Dravid said that technology should be used wherever possible to make umpiring decisions more accurate. Cricket fans have found much support amongst statisticians and computer geeks. However, this bizarre alliance disagrees on how exactly a computer should be used to settle the dispute.
“The law of the jungle rule,” said “Darklord13”, an online gamer from from Meerut, know as Manesh,14, to his Mum, “we just fire up ‘Civilization’ on a top-notch PC and watch the Hindu right and the Islamic extremists battle it out. Maximum carnage. Let the superior side win.” But Manesh is no advocate of violence. He was quick to point out that he runs away from most fights with “bigger boys” and doesn’t like “rough sports” much.
Statisticians disagree. A mathematical model is needed to determine the most “efficient” and “statistically significant” solution, claims Delhi-based number-cruncher Ravinder Kunwar. “My preliminary model allocated 46.7453% of the land to Muslims at a confidence level of 95%,” he stated, confirming that his model factors out such variables as “agitation”, “veiled threats of violence”, “stalling”, “delaying”, “rabble rousing”, “half truths” and “downright lies”. Critics in the judiciary have been quick to point out that last month Mr Kumar claimed that the solution to the Kashmir conflict was “12.6”, which has not yet been of much use.
But cricket fans have different ideas for technological intervention. They are claiming that all the judges need to make the correct decision is a “slow motion” replay of the events and “hawk-eye” to determine if the mosque would have fallen down anyway without Hindu nationalist intervention.
“The decision should not really need to be made,” said Shiv Mehta, a cricket fan, “but neither side are ‘walkers’, they won’t leave the crease if they know they’ve been caught out, rather they’re waiting for the umpire to decide, it’s just not cricket.”
The “technological solution” has received the backing of some academics. Dr Martin Fisher, visiting Professor at JNU told Faking News, “The use of technology in the judiciary means that verdicts can be made faster. A computer could decide the Ayodhya case in less than 0.10 seconds. Many more appeals would be possible because, given some time for modifications to the model, there would be time for around 10,000 verdicts per hour.”
With both sides in a constant state of celebrating and appealing there would be little time for communal violence, Professor Fisher claimed. If one side is not happy with the programme, it could simply be “switched off and on again”, he added.
However, both sides in the dispute are against use of any technology. Hindu nationalists claim the computer plan is an “Islamic conspiracy” and that the computer used would undoubtedly be a US machine brought to India via “hard drive washing” programming at the ISI.
Likewise, Islamists contend that the machine would be an “Infosys Hindu computer from Bangalore” complete with Ganesha mouse mat and tikka (disguised as a webcam). Faking News contacted Infosys regarding the religion of their software, but we were told that they “hadn’t really thought about it”.
Despite much popular support, it is unlikely that the Government will use computers to deal with the Babri Masjid case, despite initial enthusiasm. “We like the idea,” said an unnamed Government minister, “computers are much easier to deal with than judges and they don’t need big houses, multiple cars and places to hide their assets.”
But with all the money being spent on the CWG (now a success), there is little to invest in such a scheme. “We’re operating on loose change at the moment,” said the minister, “maybe we could just toss a coin instead.”