What HC stressed on is still relevant 

Ayodhya dispute resolution

Six years ago in the month of October every newspaper, and, to that matter, the entire media gave prominence to the historical secular judgement on Ayodhya dispute. The judgement, notwithstanding the decision of the court, had in it several interesting aspects including quotes from ancient and modern writings like Rig-Veda, Karl Marx, Quran, Iqbal, Prophet Mohammad and Darwin, making it an encyclopedic reading. The judgement was delivered on 30th September, 2010.

Cases were filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad, in 1989 which were later transferred on the request of Uttar Pradesh government to Allahabad High Court, resulting in constitution of a three-member Special Bench by the Chief Justice. The three Judges, Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Justice S U Khan and Justice D V Sharma, in their judgement decided on the area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure, the disputed structure being the place of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan as per faith and belief of the Hindus.

The area within the inner courtyard belongs to members of both the communities – Hindus and Muslims – since it was being used by both for decades and centuries. The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar in the outer courtyard, is declared as the share of Nirmohi Akhara. The open area within the outer courtyard shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara and Muslims. It is, however, made clear that the share of Muslim parties shall not be less than one-third of the total area of the premises and, if necessary, it may be given some area of the outer courtyard.

The case of the plaintiffs was that at Ayodhya, Pargana Haveli Oudh, there exists an ancient historic mosque commonly known as 'Babari Masjid' built by Emperor Babar about 433 years ago, after his conquest of India, and occupation of the territories including Ayodhya town. The said mosque was for the use of Muslims in general as a place of worship and performance of religious ceremonies. It was damaged in the year 1934 during communal riots and thereafter on 23.12.1949, a large crowd of Hindus desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque. The disputed property was attached and the suit was filed for declaration and for delivery of possession beyond the period of limitation.

The question before the court was whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built and by whom? Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple and whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949 etc. One defendant claimed in his written statement: “Babar was not a fanatic but a devout Muslim who did not believe in destroying Hindu temples. It was Mir Baqi who was a Shia and commanded Babar's orders, which demolished ancient Hindu temple of the time of Maharaja Vikramaditya at Shri Ramjanambhumi and tried to raise a mosque-like structure in its place with its material. Babar was not an emperor.

He was a marauder. What was constructed was not a mosque nor was it constructed for use of Muslims in general. It was not known as Babri Masjid but described as Masjid Janamsthan in British times. The objective evidence of demolition of ancient temple and attempted construction of mosque at Ramjanambhumi existed in the form of 14 Kasauti pillars, sandalwood beams and other structural features of the building. The aforesaid act, however, is opposed to the tenets of Islam as disclosed by holy Quran and Fatwa issued by Muslim theologians.”

Faizabad Gazetteer, 1960, recorded an important fact that “William Finch, the English merchant, who travelled through the Mughal Empire (1608-1611), says that Avadh is a city of ancient note, and seat of Potan King, now much ruined; the castle built four hundred years ago. Here are also the ruins of castle and houses of Ram Chandra, the Hero of Ramayana, which the Indians acknowledge for the great God, saying that he took a flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world. In these ruins Ramayana certain Brahmans who record the names of all such Indians as wash themselves in the river running thereby; which custom they say, has continued four lakhs of years (which is three hundred ninety four thousand and five hundred years before the world's creation).”

According to the judges, the entire dispute relates to the land situated in village Kot Rama Chandra (Ramkot at Ayodhya), Pargana Haveli Avadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad. At the disputed site, there was an old structure – centre of controversy among two major communities of this country, i.e., Hindus and Muslims. Amongst Hindus also a religious sect known as “Ramanandi Vairagis” has an independent and separate claim. It is claimed by Hindus in general that the disputed site is the place where Lord Rama was born and it is his birthplace. There existed a Rama temple at the site which was demolished in 1528 by Mir Baqi, a Commander of Babar, and he constructed the said disputed structure which the Muslims claimed to be “Babari Mosque.” The claim of Hindus is that there cannot be another birthplace of Lord Rama.

Therefore, by its very nature they cannot give away such a unique and singular pious place. Ramanandi Vairagis, however, claim that the structure was not a mosque but continued to be a “Rama temple” throughout and worshipped as such, it belongs to them, and they have been in continuous possession and management till December 1949. They, however, are in agreement with the orthodox Hindus' general belief that the site in dispute is the birthplace of Lord Rama.

Justice Sudhir Agarwal started his judgement with a quote from a Rig-Veda Shloka and said that, “During the Dissolution, there was neither existence nor non¬existence, and at that time neither Lok (world) was there nor was anything beyond the space. What encompassed all at that time? Where was the abode and of whom? What was the unfathomable and deep water? At that time there was neither death nor immortality, and there was also no knowledge of day and night in absence of the Sun and the Moon. In that stage of vacuum, Brahm (the Supreme Being) alone was imbibing life from His own power. There was nothing beyond or distinct from Him.”

“Prior to Creation, in the stage of Dissolution, there was darkness, everything was covered with darkness in an unknown state and this was all water and whatever existed, was covered all around with remarkable attributes of existence and non¬existence and this was possible due to the effect of great austere practice. None knows and none can tell as to from where and how the Creation took place, because even the scholars or those having foresight, were born after the Creation. Hence, none knows the source of this Creation. Oh scholar whether the Creation is sustained by the Creator or not, is known only to Him, who superintends this Creation from the supreme space or it may not be known even to Him.”

“One may not fully agree with Marx in his interpretation of history relating that only and only with economics. However, it will be perilous to deny even partial truth in the said approach. At the time of the demolition, our economy was in shatters. However, it goes to our credit that we the people of India showed remarkable resilience and disproved the doomsday predictors. Neither the misplaced ecstasy nor the abject despondency survived long. The demolition did not prove Indian equivalent of storming of the Bastille and it remained a turning point in Indian history when history refused to turn. We could again sing with fresh charm Sare jahan Se Achcha Hindustan hamara...”.

In his Epilogue, Justice Khan said that, “my judgement is short, very short. Either I may be admired as an artist who knows where to stop, particularly in such sensitive, delicate matter or I may be castigated for being so casual in such a momentous task. Sometimes patience is intense action, silence is speech and pauses are punches.” “I have not delved too deep in the history and the archaeology. This I have done for four reasons. Firstly this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits. Secondly I was not sure as to whether at the end of the tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded).

Thirdly having no pretence of knowledge of history, I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians. Fourthly, the Supreme Court… has held as: ¬As far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims. Reliance on borderline historical facts will lead to erroneous conclusions.” Observing that this judgement is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it, he wanted to remind both the warring factions and said: “The one quality which epitomized the character of Ram is tyag (sacrifice). When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters.

However the Quran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span there from Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed. Under the sub-heading of demolition I have admired our resilience. However we must realize that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed”. Justice Khan quoted two verses of Iqbal and then observation of Darwin that, “Only those species survived which collaborated and improvised.”

Justice Khan finally says that, “Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message--opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible – or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course, junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not negligible minority (Maximum member of Muslims in any country after Indonesia is in India.) In other countries either the Muslims are in huge majority which makes them indifferent to the problem in question or in negligible minority which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand.”

However, the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha and Sunni Wakf Board moved the Supreme Court, challenging part of the verdict and the Apex Court stayed the order, splitting the disputed site in three parts and said that status quo would remain. The two judge bench of Supreme Court also remarked that the HC verdict was surprising as no party wanted a split of the site. As the records in the case were in several languages – Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi – and would have to be translated into English to read and interpret for the appeals to be taken up and as such it may take many more years before it is heard. Thus, the case is now pending in Supreme Court.

By Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao