Am I going to delve into the extreme depths of the issue and make it a manuscript filled with the minute details? No, because I'm not a lawyer, nor an aspiring one, and I would state everything from the perspective as we, active and eager citizens of our country, look through.
9th November, 2019. The nation waited with bated breaths, the outcome of decades was about to come. This was the day of the fall of the Berlin wall, and the opening of Kartarpur corridor. The judgement was soon out, the whole 2.77 acres of the disputed land had been granted to the Hindus for the construction of a Ram Temple and a 5 acre plot had been granted to the Muslims elsewhere at a prime location in Ayodhya. There is no absolutely correct result that could have come out of it, and the Supreme Court tried its best, but I'll present to you the facts, so that you may infer a decision for yourself.
It was never a legal issue. It was a social issue, mixed with religion, considered a fertile ground by the political community and made a permanent votebank. The issue has been exceedingly politicised, leading to riots, deaths, dysharmony, communalism and what-not. This was even one of the agendas on the BJP-RSS manifesto.
This is the essence- The dispute was regarding the establishment of a Ram Mandir, in Ayodhya, in place of an already established mosque- The Babri Masjid, which had been demolished in 1992 in riots, by Hindus. The contention was that this was the birth place of Ram, under the central dome of the mosque, which had been taken over by Babur and hence in Muslim custody.
The Babri Masjid
The Allahabad High Court had divided the land in three parts in 2010, one for each of the plaintiffs, but the Supreme Court quashed it, saying that it defied logic and could not be a key to everlasting peace.
Some of the various evidences that had been put forward before the court:
Archaeological: There has been unearthing of a structure underneath the mosque, by the Archaeological Survey of India, which hasn't been cited as a temple. There are two black stone pillars or the Kasauti Pillars used in the mosque, that are non-Muslim in construction. This raises the question, is the structure underneath a Ram Temple? No one knows for sure, the ASI is mum on the issue, nor does the Supreme court say so. It could be a demolished temple, or simply a mosque constructed in the ruins of a building.
Now there are two courtyards in the complex: outer and inner. The inner courtyard had been allotted to the Muslims, while the outer courtyard had been with the Hindus. The Hindus have time and again tried to enter the inner courtyard, so the British in the early 20th century, had constructed a boundary (railing) to keep out the Hindus. There has been no evidence of Muslim infiltration in the outer courtyard. The court stated that since the Hindus had been so dedicated so as to barge in repeatedly inside, and have shown evidence of prayers inside the inner courtyard, that they may have some stake in it. The peace of the other community has worked against their favour here.
Literary: There has been evidence in support of the Ram Mandir, Ain-i-Akbari, a 16th century document dealing with the administration of Mughal Emperor Akbar, mentions the time of birth of Lord Ram in the city of Ayodhya.
Similarly, the Bala Kanda of Gosvami Tulasidasa refers to the time of birth of Lord Ram and also “points out to a place where he will take human form, which is clearly depicted in the words tinha ke grha (in their house of Dasaratha and Kausalya)”.
But there is no mention of the same in Ramcharitamanas or the Ramayana, which is puzzling.
But all the literary evidence is immaterial.
There is historical evidence to prove the presence of worshippers at Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi and offering of prayers. This was a practice even before the British came. As the Supreme Court says,"The adjudication of title is based on evidence and not travelogues or gazette entries."
Also, the land 'Ramjanmabhumi' is not a legal entity unlike Ram Lalla as established by the court.
Important Events:
• ‘Surreptitious’ planting of idols of Ram Lalla under the central dome of the Babri Masjid in 1949.
• The opening of the locks of the mosque in 1986 for Hindu worshippers
•The 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict dividing the disputed land among three plaintiffs.
Finally, the present decision of the SC.
During 1992 riots
Conclusion: The land has been granted to Hindus, which may be alright, except for the fact that they had indulged in violence, namely demolishing of the Babri Masjid befoe any decision of the SC, and taking law in their own hands. This is not how a democracy works, and this hasn't been a good example for future cases, like for Kashi or Varanasi. The court must have caught those liable and doled out punishment, to set a future precedent.
The celebration post decision
Even though the BJP and RSS have said they won't take any action in the future disputes, as of now, it may not be the case.
A good thing has been the reaction of both parties. The RSS and BJP have been humble, saying this hasn't been a victory or a loss for anyone, but a chance to everlasting peace. The Muslims for their part, might be dejected, but have maintained peace and have gracefully accepted the decision. This might really be a new beginning.
It can be viewed as majoritarianism or it can be seen as a just decision. Our Supreme Court has earned enough trust for this to pass as a fair decision.
Justice J.S. Varma has said- SC is supreme, but not infallible. This would be unfurled when the legal community and the activists dissect the whole judgement.
The decision could be a landmark one, for many years to come. Let's see if any appeal is made by the Muslim community, although there has been indication that there might be none. The extravagant spending on the construction of Ram Mandir would soon begin.
NSA Ajit Doval meeting representatives of both parties post the decision, where both parties stood for peace and were against bad elements which posed a risk to communal peace.
The key point is the resolution of communalism, for the benefit of the nation, and the progress of all, including Ayodhya, which has been left behind in the bandwagon of development, unlike it's other religious peers like Kashi or Varanasi. Hopefully, the people can now aspire for peace, progress, jobs, development, and find a brotherhood that they had long since been deprived of.
I am taking nothing away from both parties, and am expressing my humble views, while respecting the Supreme Court judgement.
9th November, 2019. The nation waited with bated breaths, the outcome of decades was about to come. This was the day of the fall of the Berlin wall, and the opening of Kartarpur corridor. The judgement was soon out, the whole 2.77 acres of the disputed land had been granted to the Hindus for the construction of a Ram Temple and a 5 acre plot had been granted to the Muslims elsewhere at a prime location in Ayodhya. There is no absolutely correct result that could have come out of it, and the Supreme Court tried its best, but I'll present to you the facts, so that you may infer a decision for yourself.
It was never a legal issue. It was a social issue, mixed with religion, considered a fertile ground by the political community and made a permanent votebank. The issue has been exceedingly politicised, leading to riots, deaths, dysharmony, communalism and what-not. This was even one of the agendas on the BJP-RSS manifesto.
This is the essence- The dispute was regarding the establishment of a Ram Mandir, in Ayodhya, in place of an already established mosque- The Babri Masjid, which had been demolished in 1992 in riots, by Hindus. The contention was that this was the birth place of Ram, under the central dome of the mosque, which had been taken over by Babur and hence in Muslim custody.
The Babri Masjid
Some of the various evidences that had been put forward before the court:
Archaeological: There has been unearthing of a structure underneath the mosque, by the Archaeological Survey of India, which hasn't been cited as a temple. There are two black stone pillars or the Kasauti Pillars used in the mosque, that are non-Muslim in construction. This raises the question, is the structure underneath a Ram Temple? No one knows for sure, the ASI is mum on the issue, nor does the Supreme court say so. It could be a demolished temple, or simply a mosque constructed in the ruins of a building.
Layout of the complex
Now there are two courtyards in the complex: outer and inner. The inner courtyard had been allotted to the Muslims, while the outer courtyard had been with the Hindus. The Hindus have time and again tried to enter the inner courtyard, so the British in the early 20th century, had constructed a boundary (railing) to keep out the Hindus. There has been no evidence of Muslim infiltration in the outer courtyard. The court stated that since the Hindus had been so dedicated so as to barge in repeatedly inside, and have shown evidence of prayers inside the inner courtyard, that they may have some stake in it. The peace of the other community has worked against their favour here.
Literary: There has been evidence in support of the Ram Mandir, Ain-i-Akbari, a 16th century document dealing with the administration of Mughal Emperor Akbar, mentions the time of birth of Lord Ram in the city of Ayodhya.
Similarly, the Bala Kanda of Gosvami Tulasidasa refers to the time of birth of Lord Ram and also “points out to a place where he will take human form, which is clearly depicted in the words tinha ke grha (in their house of Dasaratha and Kausalya)”.
But there is no mention of the same in Ramcharitamanas or the Ramayana, which is puzzling.
But all the literary evidence is immaterial.
There is historical evidence to prove the presence of worshippers at Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi and offering of prayers. This was a practice even before the British came. As the Supreme Court says,"The adjudication of title is based on evidence and not travelogues or gazette entries."
Also, the land 'Ramjanmabhumi' is not a legal entity unlike Ram Lalla as established by the court.
Important Events:
• ‘Surreptitious’ planting of idols of Ram Lalla under the central dome of the Babri Masjid in 1949.
• The opening of the locks of the mosque in 1986 for Hindu worshippers
•The 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict dividing the disputed land among three plaintiffs.
Finally, the present decision of the SC.
Conclusion: The land has been granted to Hindus, which may be alright, except for the fact that they had indulged in violence, namely demolishing of the Babri Masjid befoe any decision of the SC, and taking law in their own hands. This is not how a democracy works, and this hasn't been a good example for future cases, like for Kashi or Varanasi. The court must have caught those liable and doled out punishment, to set a future precedent.
Even though the BJP and RSS have said they won't take any action in the future disputes, as of now, it may not be the case.
A good thing has been the reaction of both parties. The RSS and BJP have been humble, saying this hasn't been a victory or a loss for anyone, but a chance to everlasting peace. The Muslims for their part, might be dejected, but have maintained peace and have gracefully accepted the decision. This might really be a new beginning.
It can be viewed as majoritarianism or it can be seen as a just decision. Our Supreme Court has earned enough trust for this to pass as a fair decision.
Justice J.S. Varma has said- SC is supreme, but not infallible. This would be unfurled when the legal community and the activists dissect the whole judgement.
The decision could be a landmark one, for many years to come. Let's see if any appeal is made by the Muslim community, although there has been indication that there might be none. The extravagant spending on the construction of Ram Mandir would soon begin.
The key point is the resolution of communalism, for the benefit of the nation, and the progress of all, including Ayodhya, which has been left behind in the bandwagon of development, unlike it's other religious peers like Kashi or Varanasi. Hopefully, the people can now aspire for peace, progress, jobs, development, and find a brotherhood that they had long since been deprived of.
I am taking nothing away from both parties, and am expressing my humble views, while respecting the Supreme Court judgement.
