ALKHOBAR, Oct 1(Arab News): There was widespread relief among the large Indian community in Saudi Arabia following a ruling by an Indian court that a disputed holy site in Ayodhya -- that sparked bloody communal riots across the country in the past -- be divided between the Hindu and Muslim communities.

"It is a very good decision ... one that has taken care of the wishes of all parties," said Mohammad Rahat Sultan, a well-known Indian professional based in Alkhobar. "In one stroke, the court has taken the wind out of the sails of all communal elements. There could not have been a better judgment than this one."

He said the entire country was on tenterhooks. "There was tension everywhere. Security forces were on high alert. And everybody was expecting the worst. Now we feel relieved. Thank God our worst fears have not come true," said Sultan. He felt that Muslims should not go into appeal against the decision. "Our leaders should accept the decision and close this painful chapter once and for all. Going to the Supreme Court would mean keeping the issue alive, which is not in our community's interest. Let us put a full stop to this. Enough. Our focus should now be on education and nothing else."

Mohammed Hashim Ansari, 90, the oldest litigant in the land dispute between Muslims and Hindus, on Wednesday welcomed the court verdict while keeping open the option of going to Supreme Court.

Talking to Arab News on the phone from Ayodhya, Ansari said the decision to appeal would be taken by the Sunni Wakf Board and Babri Masjid Action Committee. But he made a passionate appeal to the Muslims to remain calm and do everything to maintain peace.

Asrar M. Khan, a prominent Indian from Riyadh, welcomed the decision with cautious optimism. "We Indians must respect the judgment, conduct ourselves with dignity and show exemplary respect for the rule of law, and I would like to invoke the same spirit of respect for the rule of law, and look forward to a follow-up action on the Lieberhan Commission report to prosecute the 68 individuals who were found guilty of demolishing the Babri Mosque in 1992. Thursday's judgment on the title suit must not be seen as a vindication for the people connected with the crime so shamelessly committed on Dec. 6, 1992 .... memories of those scenes still haunt us."

According to Khan, the most significant finding of the court has been that "no temple was demolished to build the Babri Masjid," thereby calling the bluff of the Hindu fundamentalists who had for so long stirred up emotions by harping on this myth. "Although the court has observed that ruins of a temple existed where the Babri Masjid came up, the fact that these were ruins prove that they were in disuse and not associated with any religious fervor or belief for a long time," said Khan.

Mohammad Zaigham Khan of Riyadh's Aligarh Muslim University Old Boys Association said the Muslims should approach the top court for clarification. "All of us should accept the high court verdict, and initial reaction does point to the fact that the verdict has been accepted by both communities. However, my assessment is that the verdict is pretty confusing. We don't know the implications of this ruling as yet ... things would become clear when the ruling is re-interpreted in the top court of the land."

For Urdu Journalist K.N. Wasif, the judgment is not a cause for celebration. "It would have been ideal if the court had granted the ownership of the land to Muslims. It belongs to them. In that sense justice has not been done. But then a victory for Muslims would have meant a violent reaction from the majority community. So this verdict has staved off a major conflagration. It is important for us Muslims to give preference to saving and protecting our lives and property. As for the mosque, it is God's house and He knows how to protect it."

According to Jeddah-based Indian expatriate Danish Abdul Ghafour, the peace that has prevailed across India after the verdict is a victory for the country's secular ideals. "The court's decision has completely sidelined the political parties who were using this issue for their own vested interests. The verdict paves the way for further legal deliberations and we must let the law to take its course. It is a balanced judgment."

Mohammad Sayeeduddin, a long-time Jeddah resident hailing from Hyderabad, said the ruling looks more like a solution than a judgment. "It is very doubtful how the judges established that the disputed land is the birthplace of Ram," he said.

He felt that the judgment favors Hindus by 2:1 as the third party Nirmohi Akhara is a Hindu organization which has been given the portion called Sita Rasoi... But Sayeeduddin was against challenging the verdict in the Supreme Court. "It is not worth it. But Muslims must build a mosque on the piece of land given to them," he said.

A visiting politician from Lucknow saw no justification of dividing the disputed land into three parts. "The ruling should have decided the right of ownership of land. Instead, it separated even Ram and Sita. This is beyond comprehension," said Mohammad Fahim Siddiqi, president of the UP unit of Indian National League.

Siddiqi arrived in Jeddah only last week after organizing a peace march in Lucknow.

Saying that Muslims should not think of a new agitation, he favored challenging the verdict in the Supreme Court.

"We welcome the verdict, and hope that all parties will shake hands with one another," said Shahnawaz Khan, a banker in Riyadh.

"Let's pray to Allah, that good sense prevails among people in India," said Khan. "This is indeed a well-thought-out court verdict after major contesting parties turned down suggestion for an out-of-court settlement," said Rakesh Kumar, a data entry clerk at a local company here.

Kumar said that the court and the government agencies must work for immediate reconciliation and building the mosque and temple as per the decisions of the court. He said that Sunni Wakf Board and the Hindu bodies, in the past, had actively taken part in all efforts to arrive at a negotiated settlement, but failed. "Now they should respect the judgment," said Kumar, while referring to the parties, who failed to come together on several occasions on the past.

Pointing to the Central Act by which the 70-acre disputed land at Ayodhya was acquired by government and which was upheld by a Constitution Bench of the apex court in 1994, Arif Jamal, a lawyer, who is working as an adviser at Shian Consulting Firm, said that the object of the Act was secular as it intended to build a temple, mosque, library and museum. But since then, the government has not been "proactive" to initiate a dialogue, he added. "But what proved the turning point, is now the final judgment, which should not be further opposed by any faction," said Jamal.

Responding to a question about the fairness of judgment, an Indian Christian worker O. P. Emanuel said: "The court should have decided to build a national monument on the disputed site, but since the judgment has come, I am happy with that also."