Search This Website


Thursday, September 30, 2010

Ayodhya verdict: Court divides disputed site between Hindus and Muslims, says Ram temple to be built alongside 'Babri' mosque

One of the most awaited judgment in known history, the verdict of Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid civil suit, has finally arrived.

The fact that this dispute has evoked unprecedented frenzy and passion in the past, it was expected that no judgment can completely satisfy any of the sides.

But the judges seem to have gone the extra-mile in trying to settle the case and also come up with a workable formula where no side gets absolutely heartbroken or feeling that there not an iota of justice with them.

Initial understanding of the summary of the verdict delivered by the three judges bench, suggests an attempt to diffuse the dispute that has caused communal discord between the two major religious communities, riots and thousands of deaths.

The site has to be divided equally among the three parties. The idol of Lord Rama will remain where it was installed. The remaining 2/3rd will be divided between Nirmohi Akhada and the Sunni Waqf Board. The judges in unison opined that the idols will remain where they exist.

The petitioners may not have asked for a compromise or a sharing formula, but the court decided that Hindus and Muslims have prayed side by side at the complex in the past, it can happen again in future as well. So Muslims can have mosque at the remaining 1/3rd.

In the past, courts in this case and other similar cases have given judgments that were termed one-sided. Presently, even if the judges have gone ahead and tried to sort out this dispute, this is quite understandable though Justice Sharma disagreed with Justice SU Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal.

Perhaps, Sunni Waqf Board may still decide to appeal against the verdict. Everybody is entitled to his opinion but personally I feel that the Muslim leaders should gracefully accept it, and put an end to this conflict, which will also bring harmony.

The majority judgment appears to have decided in favour of Hindus and Muslims praying together, which is the halmark of the composite culture, the ganga-jamuni tehzib, for which citizens of Oudh used to take pride. Hashim Ansari, 90, says he welcomes the judgment.

After all, Ayodhya or Ajodhya [Ajudhya] literally means a place of no war. So there should not be any bloodshed or conflict over the issue in future. One hopes, that the issue is over. At least, with regard to its potential in terms of communal polarisation and dividing society.


How do we know said...

VERY True. i think it was a very balanced judgement, that was difficult to arrive at, but awesome. ONly wish the news channels would stop nitpicking on the judgement. On one channel i saw Barkha Dutt saying " Would you agree as so and so has said that this judgement is sympathetic to the Ram Mandir cause?" I could have physically banged her head then. The judges work so hard to ensure there is no heart burn, and you go ahead and instigate just that. Why are there no criminal proceedings against such journalists?

Aniket said...

Allahabad court can give its ruling for peace but Muslim group and Hindu group say that 'they will move to Supreme court'.

abhijith said...

As long as we have idiots with voting power, nothing is going to change.

Sorry for being pessimistic, but we have all seen this dance before.

Hyderabadi said...

میرا شہر لوگاں سے معمور کر ‫!: بابری مسجد : مقدمہ کا فیصلہ -- ردّعمل

Anser Azim said...

Historical manipulated decision!! Proves might is right!

!!! said...

All media/sickularists were running campaigns that the verdict must be respected and accepted.

But after the verdict came out - they are the ones making the loudest noises - dissing it as unjudicial/Panchayati/majoritarian etc.
What happened to the solemn resolve and pledge to respect and accept the verdict.

Basically the sermons are only meant for the Hindu rage boys... No one in media/sickularists dare shout down a Owaisi when he proclaims on TV that muslim boys are enraged and that Muslims will not surrender the land in any case. What happened to accepting the verdict resolve at that time???

The definition of secularism has somehow mysteriously changed - to exclude Hindu's.
Whats majoritarianism...?

Too unfortunate that the media and so-called self-styled sickularists are creating an atmosphere of disagreement all over again.

This is a great reconciliatory judgement... make it happen.

Anser Azim said...

‎'Verdict makes me feel like a 2nd-class citizen' TOI
read the venomous comments.
here is one:
gautam (USA)
...01 Oct, 2010 09:11 AM
2nd class citizen feel your self lucky

Yuyutsu said...

The court did what it could - anyways, I don't think this is a matter that the court can (or should) decide...secondly, I don't see how this can be seen as a victory/defeat for anyone - both parties got something and lost something...

What is more ridiculous is the reactions - before the verdict, some people were shouting from rooftops that everyone should respect the verdict (rightly so, I must add)....

Now when the result is 'against' them, the cries of we won't accept/respect this are all over the place - and what is funny is that the usual culprits - Mulayam, Shabnam Hashmi etc. are at the forefront.

Double standards/hypocricy anyone?

Yuyutsu said...

....And as for the 2nd class citizen thing - what else can you expect from such people who see this decision defining their citizenship status?

So, according to such people - it was okay for the entire land to be given to Muslims and the Hindus to feel '2nd class citizens'? The point I'm making is that this decision does not make anyone 1st class/2nd class/nth class citizen.

It's like saying that the only possible 'secular' decision is ruling in favor of Muslims - heads I win, tails I call you 'biased' and what not.

@Anser Azim:

The judgement does not prove 'might is right' - if might was indeed right, the entire place would have gone to Hindus.

Secondly, the issue (and the case) is older than 6th Dec., 1992 - I don't think the court said that 1992 culprits are to be pardoned - everyone agrees that the demolition was wrong and the cases are ongoing and hopefully, the culprits will be identified and punished. Please don't confuse the 2....

Thirdly, coming back to 'might is right', the very reason the mosque existed in the place was because it was built by Babur's 'might' - that did not make it 'right' (you might differ with what a lot of us think/believe on this, but the court/ASI did find evidence that a temple indeed did exist....)

indscribe said...

HDWK: Ya, journos should stick to the task of reporting, commenting is okay but to an extent, however, the sort of speculations that are made on TV channels is really surprising.

@ Yuyutsu bhai: Politics as always happens but then there is comparatively more sanity, it seems.

@ Aniket, !!!m Abhijith, Hyderabadi Sb, Anser Azim Sb, thanks for comments.

asw said...

ayodhya verdict is a very balanced verdict .now for what hindu's and muslim's leaders are resuming rivalry by wishing to go SC.i think 18 year long epic is not enough for them.
both communities got their land.
there are lots of dilapidated tramples in india and lots of crumbled mosque in punjab.why no one talk about those.both side drooling at ayodhya,but no one is making call for sos on poverty,education,unemployment,security(terrorism), health. both are just trying seduce innocent indian people so we could not raise these serious issue.even according to toi (times of india)indian youth want to make a hospital or a college on that disputed place.

Talking Skull said...

I am not a legal expert, but the way I interpret the judgement is this: The court has worked out a "compromise" formula without judging the nature of the disputed structure, i.e. whether the site has to be treated as a mosque or temple.

Through this judgement, they may have unwittingly conceded that law has no clear view on the nature and ownership of the property. This logic is likely to be leveraged by the ruffians of 1992 saying that they did not attack a religious structure but just a "disputed structure". The allows some holes to treat the demolition as a lesser crime of "vandalism".

I am sure both Hindus and Muslims have moved on to forgive & forget and let Mandir and Masjid exist alongside. But, what needs to be ensured is that the fundies of 1992 do not escape the punishment.

Two decades have passed by since that fateful day. The guilty need to be behind the bars before they die their natural death. As Muslims, we expect you to understand that Ram and Ayodhya is as revered to us as Mecca and Prophet are to you. A little consideration from the Muslims will go a long way in thinning the wedge between the two communities. As Hindus, we need to ensure that noone steps out to defend the hooligans of Babri demolition. I can't think of a better solution in an India where everyone has access to temple/ mosque, but most struggle to find roads, schools and hospitals in the vicinity.

urdudaaN said...

This verdict lacks guts and calling a-spade-a-spade. It sets a wrong precedent that claiming someone else's thing as your own makes it disputed and then fairness gives you half of it.

How do we know said...

calling whose thing urs urdudaan? i really want to know..

pdkamath said...

Hi friend, Salaam. Visiting via Indiblogger and Happy to land on a very sensible blog. I feel the verdict is a blessing in disguise for Muslim community because they got an opportunity show their real character and virtue of Holy Book learning. Indians who practice Islam got a golden opportunity to show rest of the world, especially western countries that Islam doesn't support violence. I think this is a fitting reply from Indians to its critics. I salute all Indians especially younger generation for keeping the Indian flag high during this critical juncture instead of their individual ones.
All the best bro. Want to keep online contact with you. Also welcome to my blog.

Anser Azim said...

Yatsu Miyan Salamo Dua: I expressed my opinion and my anguish over what I read in TOI. I love India as u do. Mnay generationS of mine have lived in India and they did not know names of any other country but India. I ahve great respect for all the mandirs that are there in India and would probably give my life if some one touches them and destroys them. Having said all this it is not proven that baber/ meer Baki destroyed an ancient Mandir to erect a mosque (Justice khan and many historians). Sita Jee and Ram Chandrajee all exist in the hearts of many Hindus and Muslims alike. We all know that how the country was divided, what forces were involved in the pre-partition riots, what forces put Ram chandra jees Statue immediately after in dependence in the babri mosque. We all know that it is very difficult to know what room my father and grandfather was born. Forget about finding the rooms where Jesus, Ramchandrajee, Sita Jee, or even Krishna jee were born..We have Khajuraho temples that are very well preserved and are more than 1000 years old. Why they were not touched by the invaders!!!
It is a common sense that baber destroyed temples. Then comes the most political, unIndian and insane part: demolition of a historical structure that was one of our treasure like Taj Mahal, the red fort, the Sikri and many other monuments that bring tourism and revenue to our country ALONG WITH a reflection of OUR DIVERSE AND COLORFUL PAST. I can hardly forget the pictures of the unruly thugs who were to enter into 21st century, adequately educated destroying some ones place of worship showing no mercy to the sentiments of fellow Indians....
baquia phir kabhi
take care

Archana said...

To the blog owner -

I couldn't get our name on your blog, so am addressing you in this manner. Please excuse me for that. Bu I must commend you for addressing the problems of Muslims and this verdict and its responses in Urdu newspapers in a very mature and democratic manner. If only we could have more responsible and mature people like you in India, this country would be a different place.

I am placing the link of your blog on my own blog and am going to ask visitors to read your blog.

To others who are emotionally charged over this verdict -

Please understand first that this was not a court case filed for to decide the community rights. It was a litigation by the groups to gain control over a piece of land. In legal terms, his makes his case a property ownership suit and not a suit about religious matters.

Since 3 groups were involved, the court has ordered them to divide the land equally, while providing for the Sunni Waqf Board to get no less land than 1/3rd.

Please also note that here is no evidence that any of these 3 groups held ownership of this piece of land in last 500 years. In such an event, none of them actually hold a justifiable claim to the land. Hence, keeping in view the inflammable nature of he case the court has divided the land amongst the 3 parties.

A more serious question is that these 3 groups have been fighting this case for last 60 years for their own selfish gains in terms of land control. They have not really filed a case for community rights.

In such an event, it would be foolish of the Indian people to fight in support of any of these 3 groups of people. It will only provide undue political mileage to our selfish politicians, who are just waiting for such an opportunity.

Hence, I feel it is useless to be emotionally charged over this issue.

The more pertinent issue is what the government does about the investigation report on the Babri Mosque demolition and whether the political leaders named in that report are really punished in the coming few years.


Hyderabadi said...

@ urdudaaN:
I agreed with u.
According to the records of Revenue Dept. the whole Babri mosque complex belongs to "Sunni Waqf Board".
How can a court has rights to divide one's land?

Archana said...

the verdict has clearly said neither of the three groups could prove their claim on this land in past 500 years.

Please read Justice SU Khan's statement which is online and makes this fact explicit. Justice SU Khan was part of the 3-judges bench which passed this verdict.

!!! said...

Must read...


indscribe said...

@ Archana Ji: Thanks for your visit, the comment and also for linking to the posts. I have just begun reading your blog, which seems very interesting...:)

@!!!: Shukria. Just gonna check it.

soulverses said...

I fully agree with you. I would like to welcome you to visit my blog http://soulverses.wordpress.com
It was inspired by your blog and your writings.

Yuyutsu said...

@Adnan Bhai:

Like you, I thought that at least this time, politics has taken a backseat (and was pleasantly surprised) but now Mulayam and Paswan are back to doing what they do best!

@Anser Bhai:

Don't get me wrong, I never questioned your or anyone else's loyalty (nor do I ever want to - I am not one of those who think that Muslims are not/can't be loyal or prefer Pak over India and all this blls**t).

Your post suggested that the judgement is akin to pardoning 1992 and I was reacting to that...1992 culprits should be punished, I think all of us agree on that. It was a horrible event and can't be justified on any count.

The judgement was on another, much older issue and the 2 should be looked at separately.

Coming back to the main issue, two main points:

1. Rightly or wrongly, many (probably, most) Hindus believe that the mosque was constructed on a pre-existing temple. It's not an exaggeration to say that a whole lot of temples were broken by the invaders (including Babar) - existence of a few 1,000 year old temples does not mean no temples were broken.

2. Anyways, that's beyond the point - whatever happened is past. The second issue is that Hindus believe that the spot is sacred because of birth of Shri Ram. Not all mosques which were built on temples are being asked for, only this because of certain special significance.


Yuyutsu said...


Now, as I said before, a court cannot be expected to decide on whether Shri Ram was born there or not, neither can it probably decide if the mosque was made after breaking a temple or not (even ASI and experts are divided, so expecting a court to decide this is over expecting). So, in that sense, it shouldn't have been a legal case.

The ideal solution would have been a consensus between the 2 communities and a resolution backed by political will-power. On the contrary, we had ALL parties (no one is above blame, in this case) playing politics on it to cultivate their respective 'vote banks.'

In fact, an honorable solution would have been to shift the mosque brick by brick to an adjacent site since the spot doesn't have any 'special' importance for Muslims while for Hindus, it does(mosque shifting happens all the time, even in Saudi where they shift mosques for highways etc.)

The issue could have been resolved before it became divisive - even Vir Sanghvi mentions this in his HT editorial today. 1992 and all the subsequent riots and bittering of relations could have been avoided. But vested interests portrayed any such sensible idea/suggestion as a question of Muslim survival and their turning into 2nd grade citizens and what not....

Hardliners on both sides had a field day and merrily widened the divisions, resulting in a polarised society...

So, I personally feel this judgement goes a long way towards reconciling the differences and putting this issue behind us once and for all.

PS: Adnan Bhai, sorry for the extremely long posts.

Archana said...

Thanks. You are welcome to explore and comment on my blog as you like.

Big said...

Dear Sir,

good to know your thoughts and opinions on this topic.

Indeed, Ayodhya, means a place of no war. And It strongly believe that if someone is so pious then they should not be needing a building to be sure of their faith.

You can read my views on a website of mine: http://www.bigbouche.com/story.php?title=ayodhya-%E2%80%93-religion-greater-than-god


Anser Azim said...

Ayodhya Judgment: Triumph Of Faith or Constitutional Legality?
by Asghar Ali Engineer

I am sharing this article. Might interest to some others.

zaim said...

who is paying for destroyed mosque