After waiting for 60 years, finally the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has announced its verdict on the Ayodhya title suits. The court has announced that the disputed land will be divided into three parts: One-third goes to Babri Masjid Action Committee, one-third to Nirmohi Akhara and one-third to the party for Ram Lalla. So, the division will be completed in three months until which there will be a status quo on the Ayodhya land. The genesis of the problem that culminated in the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992 by Hindu fanatics, indicates that the roots of the dispute date back to 1528, when Babur - the first Mughal Emperor - built the Babri Masjid on the site. The Hindus claim that the site marks the exact spot where Ram was born and that a temple existed there even before the construction of the mos-que. So, in 1853, it became a serious issue when the Nirmohi Akhara claimed the structure, contending that the temple was destroyed during Baburs era. In 1859, the British built a fence, allowing the inner court to be used by Muslims and the outer by Hindus. But, in 1883, an attempt was made to build a temple there which was halted by the administration. Gradually, the dispute became a bone of contention between the Muslims and the Hindus, and thus the Ayodhya title suit is about whether there was a temple at the site prior to 1528. As the four title suits remained pending in the Faizabad civil court, on an application by the Advocate General of UP, in 1989, they were transferred to the Allahabad High Court. Anyway, it seems that the present verdict is a compromise and an attempt to pacify the contestants, in which the Indian court has been unsuccessful, since some portions of the ruling are quite disturbing for the Indian Muslims. For example, first, when Justice D.V. Sharma ruled that the disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram and that the disputed building constructed by Babur was built against the tenets of Islam and did not have the character of the mosque. Second, when Justice S.U. Khan said: All the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara, are declared joint title holders of the disputed land. Third, when the judge declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.It is directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share, including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map. This is a clear indication that Hindu radicals dominate the so-called secular Indian state, as the Hindus get a larger share of the disputed land compared to the Muslims. While the Muslims are not happy with the courts ruling, the Hindu fanatics are overjoyed it. L.K. Advani, who was one of the main perpetrators of the heinous crime of the mosques demolition, declared that the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya title suit was faith upheld by law. That it has paved the way for reconciliation with judicial ratification. In his blog, Advani said that he was extremely happy to note that after the landmark judgment, the nation had arrived at a fortuitous point where judicial verdict and amicable solution could be blended well. Referring to his autobiography, My Country, My Life, published in 2008, the BJP leader said he had favoured three options - legislation, judicial verdict and dialogue - for Ayodhya dispute resolution. From this, it is evident that the extremist groups are at the top of the world because they assert that their claim has been vindicated - that the site was originally a temple. In other words, the courts verdict of dividing the site between three contestants brings solace to the extremists that their position has been upheld and two of the portions have gone to Hindus, as opposed to a single portion being claimed by Muslims. Recalling the efforts of the post-Independence Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet in reconstruction of the Somnath temple, Advani said: It was the same spirit in which the BJP had wanted the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya. He added: The spirit behind Ram temple construction was upholding of Indias cultural and spiritual past, without which the nation had no present or future. This ruling is likely to be challenged and contested in the Supreme Court. Instead of pacifying the contestants, the High Courts verdict has actually flared up tempers, as it is not based on justice and fair-play. That is likely to contribute to the fiasco. If one had expected justice to emanate from the biased courts, then the disappointment is paramount. The writer is a political and defence analyst.