Ram JanmabhoomiThe exact location of Rama's birth is not stated with any specific accuracy by the Hindu texts, but the term popularly refers to a tract of’ land in Ayodhya.CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS IN THE STRUGGLE FOR THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND AND MY CRITICAL ANALYSIS- Before writing further, let me tell you that I feel there is no litigation in this world which can’t be solved amicably benefiting bothe the parties but only when both of them want!In 1528, the Babri Mosque was constructed by Babar's general, Mir Baqi post destruction of existing Ram Mandir. This is a fact. No more discussions on it. Please. If you don’t believe me go and see the backyard of Kashi Vishwanath temple which still exists – the connection between the temple and the mosque has been demolished! I mean to say that there are many more examples and I can say it with confidence because I have personally seen it in 1992- 93 and I was accompanied by my dearest friend and presently an editor with one of the most famous news channels. But that is not the end!P. Carnegy wrote in 1870:"It is said that up to that time (till British rule was established), the Hindus and Mohamedans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since the British rule a railing has been put up to prevent dispute, within which, in the mosque the Mohamedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings." And this railing had obviously reduced the Hindu claim as it had made the Hindu prayer place within the precinct but outside the main place called “garbh griha”!This platform was outside the disputed structure but within its precincts. Hindu protagonists say that they have been demanding the return of the site for centuries, and cite accounts from several western travellers to India during the Mughal rule in India.The District Gazetteer of 1905 confirmed that both Hindus and Muslims were offering prayers in the same building until 1855.
'Since the mutiny of 1857, an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the mosque and the Hindus, who are forbidden access to the inner yard, make their offerings on a platform (chabootra) which they have raised in the outer one.'What might have happened is, though mosque was made on the temple and prayers might have been offered, as a local arrangement and as a goodwill gesture, Muslims might have allowed the Hindus to continuing the prayer. Especially because they too might had appreciated the excess done. Also because of less number in the town of ayodhya though they are in good number at Faizabad (greater significance will be clear later), Muslim cleric might have thought it an easy way to strike a peace at local level to live with harmony. Due to the contemporary Muslim rule, Hindus might have accepted the compromise as whatever have got from something which they have lost totally! Any way to me that sounds wonderful. On the part of local Muslims, they had done a great job. No doubt.The first suit in the matter was filed on January 19, 1885. It sought to gain the right over the chabootra (raised platform) for the plaintiff, Raghubar Das.The plaintiff, who described himself as the Janmasthan mahant, sought permission to erect a temple on the chabootra, which was then popularly accepted as the birthplace of Lord Ram. The birth place got shifted out of compromise!
In his order dated February 24, 1885, (within 36 days of filing of the case) the judge declined permission on the ground that, even though the land on which the chabootra stood belonged to the plaintiff, 'it was so close to the existing masjid that it would be contrary to public policy to grant a decree authorising him to build a temple as desired by him.'
The Faizabad sub-judge who came to this decision was Pandit Hari Kishan, a Brahmin. He might have accepted the claim by the mahant on the property keeping the history in view.Das then appealed to Faizabad's district judge, Colonel J E A Chambier, who, after a spot inspection on March 17, 1886, (within one year) dismissed the appeal on the same grounds. The Englishman also struck down the part of the sub-judge's verdict which conceded the property to Das.He might have seen the potential of further litigations and problems by conceding the property to the mahant.Judge Chambier ruled: 'I found that the masjid built by Emperor Babar stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya... It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on the land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as it occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo.' He went on to observe: 'This chabootra is said to indicate the birthplace of Ram Chander... A wall pierced here and there with a railing hide the platform of the masjid from the enclosure in which stands the chabootra.The matter went up to Oudh Judicial Commissioner W Young who, while rejecting Das's plea, observed in his judgment dated November 1, 1886: 'This spot is situated within the precincts of the grounds surrounding a mosque erected some 350 years ago, owing to the bigotry and tyranny of the emperor who purposely chose this holy spot, according to Hindu legend, as the site of his mosque.
'THE HINDUS SEEM TO HAVE GOT VERY LIMITED RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO CERTAIN SPOTS WITHIN THE PRECINCT ADJOINING THE MOSQUE AND THEY HAVE, FOR A SERIES OF YEARS, BEEN PERSISTENTLY TRYING TO INCREASE THOSE RIGHTS AND TO ERECT BUILDINGS on two spots in the enclosure, namely Sita ki rasoi (Sita's kitchen) and Ram Chandra ki janmabhoomi.' What might have happened is, British might have found these controversial issues a good diversion from the mutiny of 1857 and might have encouraged Hindus to up the claims. Or, other way around is also possible that perceiving the neutral attitude of the administration, Hindus might have thought that they will get the land back through the legal gate. Upholding the earlier decisions, the judicial commissioner only disputed the mahant's claim to ownership of the chabootra.With the dismissal of this appeal, the Hindus' first legal battle to gain control over the disputed area came to an end. Obviously, no court can subvert or reverse the encroachment done by any establishment itself! Especially as they were least interested to honour the mass!Nothing significant was reported over the next 48 years until 1934, when a communal flare-up over the slaughter of a cow in a neighbouring village provoked an attack on the Babri Masjid.This was the beginning!Some damage was caused to one of the three domes of the mosque; it was later repaired at government cost. Thereafter, all was quiet until the night of December 22, 1949, when the idol of Lord Ram was placed in the mosque, following which hundreds of Hindus arrived and started offering prayers.And thus it was the most grievous blow! During a riot!Even though the crowds were pushed back and the mosque's gates were padlocked, the deity remained inside.No one dared to move it, despite a directive to do so from then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Gobind Ballabh Pant.Then district magistrate K K K Nayyar expressed his inability to get the idol removed; he said he would prefer to be relieved of the charge rather than carry out the orders.Then Faizabad division commissioner S S L Dar wrote to the government, 'I have studied the situation and cautiously sounded public opinion. I am satisfied that, in view of the grave risk of riots on a large scale, it would not be desirable to attempt the removal of the idol through a government agency.' He also said, 'It would not be wise to stop the bhog and aarti at the spot where the deity was placed,' and added, 'I think that, with the lapse of time, the present excitement will wear off and it would then be possible to evolve some satisfactory and enduring plan to end this dilemma.' For some time, it seemed everyone was satisfied with the status quo and, by December 29, 1949, the additional city magistrate ordered attachment of the property. Then local municipal board chairman Priya Dutt Ram was appointed the receiver.Then started the next round of legal battles...
On January 16, 1950, a suit was filed by a local resident, Gopal Singh Visharad, before Faizabad's civil judge, seeking permission to offer prayers inside the mosque where the deity of Lord Ram had been placed.
Civil judge N N Chadha passed an interim injunction, with the rider that the public could not be allowed to freely offer puja or receive darshan. But the local priest was allowed to perform the daily bhog.However, in a written statement filed before the judge on April 24, 1950, the new district magistrate J N Ugra stated clearly: 'It has been used for a long period by the Muslims as a mosque for the purpose of worship. It has not been in use as a temple of Shri Ram Chanderji.'
He also confirmed that the 'idols of Shri Ram were surreptitiously and wrongly put inside.'
How did the Muslim community respond?
The following year, five Muslims from Ayodhya led by Mohammad Hashim moved a petition before the high court, seeking a vacation of the injunction.
In 1955, a division bench of the Allahabad high court ruled that the status quo needed to be maintained, but expressed the need for a final decision to be taken within six months, 'in view of the seriousness of the matter.' But nothing happened.
Six years later, in 1961, Mohammad Hashim filed another suit pleading for restoration of the property to the Muslims. By 1964, the peripheral cases were settled and a date was fixed for the final hearing of this case.To this end, a new receiver was appointed in 1968. However, his role became redundant as yet another appeal was filed before the Allahabad high court in 1971.The 1971 case was not taken up until 1983, when the VHP launched its temple movement in a big way.
Even as the tempo of the temple movement increased, then Faizabad district judge K M Pandey ordered the gates of the disputed site to be unlocked late in the afternoon of February 1, 1986.
This was done on an application moved by local lawyer U C Pandey, who sought permission to offer prayers.
Simultaneously, VHP leaders S N Katju, Deoki Nandan Agarwal, both of whom were former Allahabad high court judges, and Shirish Chandra Dikshit, former UP director general of police, met the district magistrate, seeking permission for Lord Ram's darshan.
Judge Pandey observed, 'After having heard the parties, it is clear that the members of the other community, namely the Muslims, are not going to be affected by any stretch of imagination if the locks of the gates were opened and idols inside the premises are allowed to be seen and worshipped by the pilgrims and devotees.'
He also added that the 'heavens will not fall if the locks of the gates are removed.' (because number of muslims around the mosque is meagre!)But that did not hold true; the order sparked off communal clashes. Following this, the Sunni Waqf Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee moved the Allahabad high court against the district judge's order.However, the order was not stayed. Meanwhile, all cases pertaining to the Ayodhya dispute were referred to the court's Lucknow bench.
The shilanyas in 1989 further aggravated the issue. The police firing ordered by then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav's government on the kar sevaks in 1990 polarised Hindu votes in favour of the Bharatiya Janata Party and brought Kalyan Singh to power in 1991.
Kalyan Singh ordered the acquisition of 2.75 acres of land around the mosque in a bid to show his party's seriousness towards building the temple. Babri Masjid Action Committee convener Zafaryab Jilani filed yet another writ petition to prevent any kind of construction on the acquired land.
Meanwhile, Delhi-based Aslam Bhure moved the Supreme Court against the acquisition of land.
But the apex court transferred the case to the Lucknow bench, with the directive that the status quo be maintained until the high court decided on the five writs that were, by then, pending there.And by then, what was the meaning of the status quo?All hell broke loose on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya, with violent Hindu mobs storming the 16th century mosque.
Even as security personnel stood by that fateful day the mosque was torn down by kar sevaks even as the top BJP leadership -- including L K Advani -- watched. Advani later expressed sorrow at the demolition -- but it was clear to all that the forces unleashed by his rath yatra in favour of the temple in 1990 would be satisfied with nothing else.The demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992, led to a contempt of court petition against the UP government. Then chief minister Kalyan Singh had given the court an undertaking that the mosque would be protected. Kalyan Singh was later awarded a day's imprisonment. His government had been dismissed hours after the demolition.
A few days after the demolition, the central government headed by then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao issued an ordinance acquiring 67 acres of land in and around the disputed site.
In 1994, the Supreme Court ordered the abatement of all pending suits and nullified all interim orders issued by various courts in the Ayodhya-related cases.The Supreme Court ordered that the land remain in the central government's custody and the status quo be maintained until the Lucknow bench disposed of the writ petition.THIS PETITION AIMED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A HINDU TEMPLE HAD EXISTED ON THE DISPUTED SITE PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BABRI MASJID AND WHETHER THE MOSQUE WAS BUILT ON THE DEBRIS OF A TEMPLE!Now came the great turn. Thought considered in all the cases till date, never ever this was the pivotal factor!Among those charge-sheeted were leaders from the BJP, VHP, Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal. Prominent among them were L K Advani, Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray.
The M S Liberhan Commision was set up 10 days after the demolition and took 17 years and 48 extensions before it submitted the report on June 30, 2009.
Negating the theory handed out by Hindu groups that the Babri Masjid demolition was mob-driven, the Liberhan Commission said it had been 'established beyond doubt' that the events of December 6, 1992, in Ayodhya were 'neither spontaneous nor unplanned.'
The Commission blamed the entire temple construction movement on the Sangh Parivar.
A former high court judge, Justice Liberhan called former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Advani and Dr Joshi 'pseudo-moderates' and condemned them for their role in the demolition.
'It stands established beyond doubt that the events of the day were neither spontaneous nor unplanned nor an unforeseen overflowing of the people's emotion, nor the result of a foreign conspiracy as some overly imaginative people have tried to suggest,'.'While the structure or the methods of the Sangh Parivar for aggregating a substantial public base may neither be illegal nor strictly objectionable,' Justice Liberhan noted, 'the use of this gargantuan whole for the purpose of the Ayodhya campaign was clearly against the letter and spirit of Indian law and ethos.' About Vajpayee, Advani and Dr Joshi, the Liberhan report said: 'These leaders have violated the trust of the people and have allowed their actions to be dictated not by the voters but by a small group of individuals who have used them to implement agendas unsanctioned by the will of the common person.The special full bench of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court, comprising Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice Dharmveer Sharma, was slated to deliver the verdict at 3.30 pm on September 24.
However, the Supreme Court on September 23 put off by a week its hearing into a plea to defer the Ayodhya title verdict by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court.
Supreme Court judge, Justice R V Raveendran, gave this order while hearing the petition filed by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi to defer the title suit verdict.
In the petition filed through advocate Sunil Jain, Tripathi had cited several reasons for deferment of the verdict, which he said would be in "public interest" in view of the apprehension of communal flareup, upcoming Commonwealth Games, elections in Bihar and violence in Kashmir Valley and Naxal-hit states. All he was trying was to buy time for a deal. As we all know that we have not yet decided to revert back to the condition of 500 years ago. Neither have we made a policy to undo all the works done by the rulers before any particular time. At the same time, we done have a definition of the extent of legal binding to consider a fixed date to which we have to maintain the status quo!But in the middle of all this I would like to again appreciate the wisdom and openness and magnanimous heart of the Muslim cleric who had allowed to Hindus to offer the prayer! I can’t imagine what would have been the case if he would have shown his total authority on the mosque!I also appreciate the violence and divide unleashed by the division of India in 1947 which has left all of us with multiple wounds. Obviously among all such wounds, Ayodhya issue is the most painful. It is the litmus test for our democracy and secularism.If we look back, out of three decisive junctures (1) when the temple was demolished (2) when the British empire judges decided (3) when the lord ram idol was placed inside the structure; the third one is the most crucial, the most recent and still the most dubious and precarious! Administrators did not do their job! They did not obey the top brass! If the third incident would have been undone, this problem might have been in different shape. But the problem might have been there, I can’t deny that. But then when i try to imagine the situation at that time, the communal tension . . . I just become numb!But why? If at that time, during the riots, if any Hindu might have encroached in to a Muslims house, will the law allow the new occupant to continue as a legal owner? Surly not! Otherwise there is no law!But if the Muslim did not return, like many went to Pakistan! It’s a different issue. Or if he could be pacified by other means . . . like many high handed powerful people grab property of the simple middleclass by giving them compensation of “their” choice that is the settlement at other level. But as we have observed, Muslims are not in mood of any compromise. They know that whole world is watching the secular India! And they are hell bent to make tamasha out of it, if that happens!I am sorry to say, but these Muslim leaders are no way feeling the pain of the country. Or else the fact is that namaz has not been offered at that place for last more than 60 years! As per Islamic law it is no more a mosque! They will have to make it a fresh if at all they got the full right. Also, the tension will continue. They could have easily got into some compromise deal which was eminent when BJP was in power but few political faces did not want the credit to go to the BJP government and so they simply backed out! After that never ever any serious effort was made. Fact is and the sad fact, that our politicians do not want the issue to die! They want it to remain alive so that they can use it on their will, wish and need!If it comes to justice, judges have only little option. Either they have to give the property back to the Muslim community! That is the demand of the secular India. Or, become shameless and say that as the mosque was built on the temple, we are taking the revenge from Babur and reclaiming the property! To me it is just repeating what Babur had done 500 years ago! But will it be all well if the Muslims get the property? That is the most important issue which Muslim leaders have to think of! And we have to think, we want the rule of law or the rule of mob! Hope and wish the wisdom prevails.
So, what will be my verdict?
I have heard, law is blind, no emotions, no relations, it decides on facts.
But "I" amd a Hindu who's small intention is to put an end to this perennial problem.
I wish a judgement which both the parties accept and settle with.
Although it would have been better if both of them might have settles it on their own - like a good samaritan!
But now that the fissure is un manageable, law has to decide.
I wish, judges decide a temple and a mosque side by side with different gates and unconnected walls! Like how it exists at Varanasi now!
Exact locations - as per the law!
But no rally after the verdict - no one is winning, no one is losing.
But I am sure that will not happen.
And the issue will go to the supreme court!
Manish Kumar
No comments:
Post a Comment