The Allahabad high court’s verdict on Ayodhya would seem to suggest that the resolution of the long-standing dispute lies in building both a temple and a mosque at the site - a perfectly secular solution for a secular country.

But there is one jarring note. The claim for a temple seems to have been granted on the basis of “faith and belief of Hindus”, rather than legal reasoning and historical facts. It not only ignores vandalism by the faithful who sneaked in an idol in 1949 or the politicians who led the mob to demolish the mosque at the site in 1992 but also seems to lend credence to ASI's questionable findings about a pre-existing temple there.

This issue is bound to figure prominently when the matter reaches the supreme court, primarily because of the fear that this verdict, if not overturned, will legitimize vandalism and provoke more of the same in future.

Hence the question: Will the Ayodhya verdict lead to a resolution or merely prolong the dispute?