A rose is a rose is a rose. A temple, however, is a different kettle of matsya avatar. A temple is, variably, a place of spiritual peace and worship, an architectural marvel, an alternative site for solemnising marriage, a mobiliser of immense resources and, occasionally, a tool of political expedience.

This last identity is best exemplified by a temple that does not exist but is constantly on the horizon, the Ram temple allegedly to build which the Babri mosque was razed at Ayodhya in 1992. It is to build this temple that RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has asked the government to pass a specific law.

The demand comes at a time when the Supreme Court has cleared the way for hearing the challenge to the Allahabad High Court’s compromise verdict on what essentially is a title suit regarding the piece of real estate on which the mosque stood before it was demolished. Would it be proper for Parliament to move a law on a subject under the court’s express consideration?

Even if a law is initiated now, can it be expected to be passed and notified complete with subordinate legislation any time soon? Why has such a demand not been raised till now, ever since the present government took office in May 2014?

Clearly, the temple demand at this point of time is meant as campaign fodder for the 2019 general elections.

The role of the courts is to settle points of law. The campaign to demolish the mosque at Ayodhya and build a temple there was quintessentially political in character, capitalising on the faith of many that Ram had been born where the mosque stood.

Neither law nor the courts can resolve disputes of politics or faith. If the aim is to find a solution, it should be reached through compromise. If the aim is to whip up religious feeling for electoral gain, hail the temple every five years.