As the 2019 general election approaches, the ghosts of 1992 are back on India’s streets. There seems to be a well organized clamor for the construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya, in clear defiance of the Supreme Court. And so, for the many who do not know what the original Ram Temple movement is and the many who may have forgotten the mayhem, eminent activist and journalist Teesta Setalvad presents a ready reckoner on what the Ram Temple movement really is about and why has it been so conveniently resurrected, twenty six years later in 2018.

First published on December 6, 2018

Courtesy: https://cjp.org.in/

The post What is the Ram Temple Really about? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case was heard over 40 days by a five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chnadrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer. The bench had reserved its verdict for October 16, just before the end of term of the CJI.

The following notice published late on Friday evening put to rest all speculation when the verdict was listed delivery.

Daily hearings were necessitated after mediation between the parties failed. The parties to the case are the Nimrohi Akhada, the UP Central Sunni Wakf Board and the infant deity Ram Lalla through next friend Deoki Nandan Agarwal. The Allahabad High Court had in 2010 split the disputed 2.77 acre site among the three parties. But this was not acceptable to the parties and they moved Supreme Court. It is noteworthy that the dispute has been brewing since way before the demolition of the Babri Mosque in December 1992. A brief timeline of the case may be viewed here.

Heavy bandobast across UP

Given the bloody history of the dispute, there are fears of communal clashes. The Adityanath administration had already been gearing up for a possible outbreak of violence and deployed security forces across the state, particularly in and around Ayodhya, where the disputed site is located. 60 companies of PAC and para military forces have been pressed into service. Barricades have been put up at the location of the makeshift temple. The Center has also allocated over 4000 paramilitary personnel to Uttar Pradesh and leaves of Railway Police personnel have been cancelled.

All schools have been shut in the state till Monday and prohibitory orders have been issued till December 28. What’s more, realizing the potential of social media in causing and escalating communal violence, authorities are also monitoring various social networks. In fact, District Magistrate BN Singh issued a formal statement saying that offenders would not only be arrested, but also prosecuted under provisions of the Gangsters Act and National Security Act (NSA).

Infact when journalist Rana Ayyub tweeted about the verdict, the Amethi Police tweeted back with a warning. Ayyub’s tweet said, “Tomorrow is a big day for India. The Babri Masjid, a monument of faith for Indian muslims was demolished on 6th Dec 1992 by those in power today. It changed my life and a generation of Muslims who were ‘othered’ overnight. I hope my country does not disappoint me tomorrow.”

To this the Amethi police’s verified twitter account responded saying, “you have just made a political comment. delete it immediately, otherwise legal action will be taken against you by @amethipolice “

This tweeted response drew attention for what many people view as muzzling of free speech.

Meanwhile, CJI Gogoi held meetings with Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary Rajendra Kumar Tiwari and Director General of Police Om Prakash Singh to take stock of security arrangements on Friday morning.

Security beefed up across India

On Thursday an advisory issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs asked states to make adequate security arrangements. Security has been stepped up in the national capital and the Delhi Police are on high alert. Railway Police are also maintaining vigil at close to 80 railway stations for possible outbreak of violence. In Mumbai, police were seen checking vehicles at checkpoints late on Friday night.

Both, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and UP CM Adityanath have tweeted appealing to people to maintain peace after the verdict.

Modi’s tweet in Hindi said, “Whatever the decision of the Supreme Court  on Ayodhya, it will not be a victory or defeat for anyone. I appeal to all countrymen that it should be the priority of all of us that this decision should further strengthen the great tradition of peace, unity and goodwill of India.”

 https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1192848704945844224

UP CM Adityanath tweeted saying, “I appeal to people in the state to disregard rumours. The administration is committed to maintaining law and order. Anyone who dares to toy with the security arrangements will be dealt with strictly.”

https://twitter.com/myogiadityanath/status/1192848413425065986

The post Ayodhya Dispute Case: Does the tortuous journey end now? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Judgment of the Special Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi title suit (hereinafter, ‘Title Suit’) is expected before the retirement of the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on November 18. Justice Gogoi was one of the 5 judges hearing the matter. The Prime Minster of India, Narendra Modi has appealed for peace whatever may be the outcome of the case. It is heartening too, that Hindu supremacist organization the RSS has also appealed for maintaining peace and accepting the judgment with ‘open mind’. Jamiat-e-Ulema-i-Hind, All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Muslim litigants have always said that they would accept the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Title Suit after having done their best to save the Babri Masjid. They will face God on the Day of Judgment (qayamat) with a clear conscience. Other Muslim organizations have also likewise appealed for peace and acceptance of the judgment whatever the verdict may be. With these appeals, we hope that the people of India will maintain peace irrespective of in whose favour the judgment is.

In this short piece, we try to trace the history of the litigation. The story of Babri-Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi conflict is story of demand of Nirmohi Akhara permission to construct a permanent structure over Ram Chabutra in the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid premises to the claim of entire 2.77 acre of land on which Babri Masjid once stood with Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas’s filing of the suit in 1989 on one hand and democratic institution of state caving in and crumbling under the pressure of mobilization by the Hindu supremacist organizations watching the rule of law and the might of the Constitution crumble under the weight of the mobilization by majoritarian politics. The executive and the judiciary twiddled their thumbs, passing on the buck to each other to save the Babri Masjid from demolition. The Allahabad High Court then legitimised faith of the majority community and legitimized the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The High court delivered its judgement dividing the land into three parts with Hindu parties getting two-thirds and Muslim litigants.

History of the litigation

In the year 1855, there were communal riots between the Hindus and the Muslims. Some 500 followers were mobilized by orthodox Sunni cleric Shah Ghulam Hussain to claim Hanumangarhi Temple in Ayodhya, which according to him was constructed after the demolition of a mosque. The Hanumangarhi temple is about a kilometre far away from the Babri Masjid. The attack was repelled by 8,000 Bairagis who had assembled to protect the Hanumangarhi Temple. The Bairagis chased the Muslim followers of Ghulam Hussain who took shelter in the Babri Masjid. Several of the Muslims who died during the riots are buried near the Mosque. Nawab of Awadh, Wajid Ali Shah, too ruled in favour of the Temple. The Bairagis of the Nirmohi Akhara laid no claim to the Babri Masjid premises.

It is disputed as to when the Ram Chabutra was constructed. The Muslim litigants in the Title Suit maintained that the Chabutra was constructed after 1855 and surreptitiously, while the Hindu litigants maintain that the Chabutra always existed and Hindus worshiped the idols of Lord Ram in the Chabutra admeasuring 17’ X 21’. After the 1855 riots, iron grills divided the inner courtyard and the outer courtyard adjacent to the iron railings. The Chabutra was in the outer courtyard. In 1856, Awadh was annexed by the British colonisers and in May 1857, Hindus and Muslims together fought the first war of independence against the British rule. The movement was crushed brutally.

Nirmohi Akhara, worshippers of Lord Ram, which moved to Ayodhya sometime between the year 1734 and 1800 filed a suit before the sub-Judge of Faizabad on January 29, 1885 through Mahant Raghubar Das. The suit was only for awarding permission for constructing of temple over the Chabutra which, the suit stated was Janam Asthan, where Charan Punya (embossed on the Chabutra) were worshiped. The plaintiff in the suit claimed possession of the Chabutra, admeasuring 17 feet X 21feet, and permission to construct a temple over it to protect the worshipers from the vagaries of the weather. It is worth noting that there is no claim in the plaint that the construction of the Babri Masjid is after demolition of any temple; that the birth place of Lord Ram is under the mosque or that Hindus worship the entire land as Janam Asthan; or that they were entitled to the entire land premises on which Babri Masjid stood. Pandit Hari Kishan, Sub Judge of Faizabad dismissed the suit by his judgment dated December 24, 1885. The permission was denied as there was likelihood of communal riot in future.

An Appeal was preferred before the District Judge of Faizabad Col. FEA Chamier who dismissed the Appeal by his judgment dated 18/3/86 as “there is no ‘injuria’, nothing which would give a right of action to the plaintiff.” The District Judge, however struck down the observation of the Sub Judge stating that the plaintiff on account of their possession is owners of the land on which the Chabutra was constructed. Second Appeal was preferred before the Officiating Judicial Commissioner, Oudh, and W. Young too dismissed the Appeal vide his judgment dated 1/11/1886. The observations of Young are worth producing here.

“The Hindus seem to have got very limited rights of access to certain spots within the precincts 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: (1) Sita ki Rasoi (b) Ram Chandar ki Janam Bhumi… There is nothing whatever on the record to show that Plaintiff is in any sense the proprietor of the land in question”.

This observation of Young proved so true. From a claim over Ram Chabutra as Janam Asthan, the Ramjanmabhumi Nyas filed a suit in 1989 claiming that the entire 2.77 acres of land on which the Babri Masjid was constructed, the inner court yard and the outer courtyard belong to the deity, are sacred to the Hindus and the land would always belong to the deity even if intermittently the possession passed on to any other party, no matter for howsoever long. They borrowed the position Muslim litigants who were arguing – “once a Janambhumi, always a Janambhumi”. Muslim litigants were arguing that a Mosque belongs to Allah, to Him alone, and cannot be alienated or the user or ownership changed. Ramjanmabhumi Nyas argued on similar lines. The Allahabad High Court accepted this as faith of Hindus and the judgment is heavily relies on acceptance of this as faith of all Hindus.

After Independence

Besides a communal riot in 1934, Ayodhya there were no significant developments on the issue of Babri Masjid.

On the intervening night of December 22 and the morning of December 23, 1949, Lord Ram’s idols were taken from the Ram Chabutra in the ourter courtyard and installed the deity under the central dome of Babri Masjid after breaking the locks. A police picket of 15 persons was on duty but did not apparently act. Several instructions were given by the Central Govt. to remove the idols, but they were not on the ground that it would ignite a law and order problem. The installation was not all of a sudden. It was being planned for a while.

On January 5, the Dist. Magistrate locked up the disputed structure and a scheme was framed for the maintenance of the premises. The order of the civil judge restrained by means of temporary injunction from removing the idols in question from the site in dispute and from interfering with ‘puja’ etc. as at present carried on. However namaz was stopped. In 1955, Allahabad High Court upheld the order of the DM passed on January 19, 1950. In 1959, the Nirmohi Akhara through Gopal Visharad filed a title suit claiming the inner sanctum of the Babri Masjid. And Sunni Waqf Board filed a suit in 1961 claiming ownership right over the inner as well as outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid.

On February 1, 1986, the position on ground was again changed. At 4.40 pm the District Court in Faizabad passed an order on an appeal of one Umesh Chandra Pandey, who was not even a party in any title suit and without hearing any party to the title suit to the effect that the lock on the Ramjanmabhumi temple should be opened and unrestricted and free offering of prayers be allowed. The appeal was filed on January 31, 1986 after the Musnsif’s Court of Hari Shanker Dubey rejected Pandey’s application dated January 25, 1986 for opening the lock on the ground that suits were pending in the Allahabad High Court and no such order could be passed. Next day i.e. on 1^st February the appeal was heard without notice to any party in the suit and order passed by Dist. Judge and the same day at 5.19 pm the locks were broken and prayers allowed. Mohammed Hashim who was plaintiff in the title suit filed in 1961 to be impleaded as a party to the Application.

In 1989 Ramjanmabhumi Nyas filed suit as next friend of Ramlalla Virajman claiming that the entire land belonged to the Deity who cannot be dispossessed of the title to the land. Limitation is not applicable to the Deity and the Deity can sue through a next friend. Then on 6^th December 1992, the Babri Masjid was demolished and this time not surreptitiously in the wee hours of morning but after full preparation, planning and mobilization which neither the highest court of the land nor the Central Govt. prevented the demolition which it could have if it had sufficient will.

While twenty-seven years ago, Babri Masjid came crumbling down on  December 6, 1992 amidst massive mobilization by the Sangh Parivar – organizations affiliated to right wing Hindu supremacist RSS. Liberhan Commission which was appointed to look into the circumstances and events that led to the demolition of Babri Masjid found that demolition of the Mosque was meticulously a planned event. It further observed that “Kalyan Singh’s (the then BJP Chief Minister of UP) government was the essential component needed by the Sangh Parivar for its purposes. Kalyan Singh lived up to the expectations of the Parivar”. Regarding the demolition, the Commission stated, “The preparation was accomplished with phenomenal secrecy, was technically flawless with consistency and assured results…. The theme was power. It attracted clusters of young men to support the hidden agenda. Leaders know how passions are aroused and how to prevent the same; they however always see what would be beneficial to them rather than what would be good for the nation. This is what happened in Ayodhya.” The crowd mobilized by the Sangh Parivar cheered the demolition. Among those who cheered the demolition were BJP leaders Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti, L K Advani and others. What came down on December 6, 1992 was not only the structure called Babri masjid, but also the Constitution of India, democratic institutions that were mandated to protect the rights of the citizens of India in accordance with the Constitution, including the judiciary and the executive. When there were clear signs of planning and preparations to demolish the mosque on 6^th December all were twiddling their thumbs, dilly dallying in taking action, passing the buck on other agencies to take preventive actions to stop the demolition and even hoodwinking each other and hoping that the mosque will not be demolished after all.

Tremendous pressure was mounted on the Supreme Court to expedite the hearing of the Appeal against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the Title Suit. Senior RSS leader Indresh Kumar said on November 28.^, 2018 that the country would not be handicapped for 2-3 Judges to throttle its beliefs and in construction of Ram Temple. Ram Madhav, General Secretary of the BJP warned that if hearing of the Appeal by the Supreme Court is not fast tracked. Other options would be explored.

Arguments of the parties

The Arguments were opened by the Hindu litigants. Nirmohi Akhara sought the possession of the entire disputed plot and a declaration that it’s right to continue to worship at the site as a distinct religious denomination. It argued that Nirmohis were worshipers of Lord Ram. They were dispossessed in 1950 when the DM took over the site. Ramlalla Virajman argued that Ramlalla in Indian jurisprudence has a status of juristic person who can file cases to protect its rights. It was further argued that entire Hindu community considered Ayodhya as birth place of Ramlalla from times immemorial and have been continuously worshipping at the disputed site, whereas Muslims have abandoned the site since 1934, and in any case since December 23, 1949. The character of disputed structure – mosque or temple – can be determined only by who worshiped there.

If we revisit the judgements in 1885 and 1886 in the case, which was filed for construction of a temple on the Ram Chabutra in the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid and not for claiming the entire site, the claims of Hindu litigants were rejected mainly on two grounds 1) limitation – the claim was too delayed as Babri Masjid has been in existence since 1528; and 2) Possession was the only claim in their favour without any records of title, grant etc. The third issue that went against them was possibility of violent conflicts in future between the worshipers belonging to the two communities. To overcome these handicaps, the Hindu litigants adopted two strategies – 1) disrupt the normalcy and use the threat of breakdown of law and order for augmenting their claims; and 2) Plead faith as a source of their right from times immemorial, not provisions of law, documents or evidence. Thus far their strategy has worked and even the Allahabad High Court’s judgement heavily relies on faith to grant reliefs to Hindu litigants. The threat of law and order is always there.

The outcome

The mobilization for demolition of the Masjid was not for religious attainments. While its immediate objective was to dislodge Congress and install BJP in power, its long term objective was to undermine the Constitution, its core values of liberty, equality and fraternity, rule of law and establish hegemony of Hindu supremacists. The Hindu supremacists wanted construction of Ramjanmabhoomi temple (and by extrapolation, entire polity) to be based not on legality but on the (unsubstantiated) Hindu faith that Lord Ram was born precisely on the spot under the central dome of Babri Masjid. They wanted to create might of Hindu nationalists and governance to be based on might of the mobilized. Every trained blow on the Masjid that day was a blow on the Constitution and rule of law; blow to rule of sanity; blow to the idea that governance should ensure development of the most oppressed and marginalized – antyoday.

Congress failed to protect the Masjid in 1992 and utterly failed to stop the country from sliding into the hands of Hindu supremacists. The demolition of the Masjid was followed by communal violence in several cities and towns, particularly in the western and northern India, including Mumbai, Ahmedabad and Surat. About 900 people were killed in the communal violence in Mumbai, 246 people were killed in Gujarat, 95 were killed in Bhopal communal violence and 25 in other parts of Madhya Pradesh, 200 were killed in UP, 100 in Assam, 60 in Karnataka, 32 in West Bengal, 48 in Rajasthan, 24 in Bihar, 12 in Kerala and Andhra Pradesh each and 2 were killed in Tamil Nadu.

Violence was the weapon deployed by the Hindu supremacists to extend their influence politically and strengthen their party. Demolishing Babri Masjid and advocating violence they demonstrated that rule of law meant nothing to them and their faith was above law; that law could not protect all citizens and that sections they chose to stigmatize could be practically relegated to second class citizenship.

We sincerely hope that the Judgment of the Supreme Court restores confidence of all citizens in rule of law and the Constitution.

(The author is Director, Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai)

The post Babri Masjid-Ayodhya Judgement must restore faith in the Constitution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The judgement in the sensitive Ayodhya land dispute is due to be out anytime soon. In wake of this, the Ayodhya district administration has passed a slew of directives ahead of the Supreme Court verdict on the decades-old Ram temple issue, with the District Magistrate appealing to the public to not share social media posts that may hurt the sentiments of any community, The Indian Express reported.

On Sunday, Ayodhya District Magistrate Anuj Kumar had said that Section 144 had been imposed in Ayodhya till December 10. Yesterday, the prohibitory orders were extended to December 28, with a ban imposed on any event or processions marking a “victory” or “mourning” over the Supreme Court judgment.

Hoarding and black-marketing of ration, cereals, vegetables, fruits, eggs and edible oils have also been banned.

The order, now revised with a set of 30 detailed instructions includes restrictions on any event, public programme, procession, rally and wall paintings related to Ramjanmabhoomi.

Also, because digital wars have now started creating a communal discord, the order also states that “no attempt should be allowed to make any insulting remarks on great personalities, deities and gods on any social media platform such as Instagram, Twitter and WhatsApp. Besides, no installation of idols of any deity will take place without permission from the district administration.”

Without permission from the district administration, no individual, except for government officers can carry licensed weapons. Individuals are also banned from keeping acid or any item that comprises a potent explosive substance or chemical formula, stones, pebbles, broken glass pieces or even empty bottles.
There is a ban on throwing any non-vegetarian leftovers at a public place. “Besides, no sale or consumption of meat, fish and eggs will take place on Kartik Purnima, Chaudahkosi and Panchkosi Parikrama Mela during this period,” the order stated.

The order also states that anyone violating the restrictions will be booked under Section 188 of the IPC (disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant).

Efforts at sustaining communal harmony
In the wake of the verdict, the BJP government’s ally the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), an organization gunning for the construction of the Ram temple, has asked its followers to respect the verdict of the apex court so as to maintain communal harmony in the country.

Meanwhile, Vinay Katiyar, the founder of the Bajrang Dal and of the frontrunners in the campaign for the construction of the Ram temple yesterday sought to incite the minorities by saying that he was sure that the verdict would be in the favour of the majority and that Kashi and Mathura was on the agenda next.
The Aligarh Muslim University has also appealed to the AMU fraternity and all sections of society to show that Indians believed in the rule of law and asked them to respect to the decision of the Supreme Court and not give out any statement or indulge in any activity that could vitiate the peaceful atmosphere in the campus.

It also urged people to not give in to rumours, false propaganda and fake news, but work together to maintain amity and brotherhood all over the country.

Related:
The Ayodhya – Babri Masjid – Ram Lalla triangle
Babri case: Another opportunity for Muslims to earn goodwill of Hindus
Hate Watch: CJP files complaint over hate provoking content of Aaj Tak
Invoking 1992 riots, Pawar asks BJP-Sena to hasten Mahagovt formation
BJP MP Vinay Katiyar rakes up Kashi, Mathura issue before SC verdict

The post District Administration extends Sec 144 to Dec 28: Ayodhya appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, every challenge is also an opportunity. The demolition of Babri masjid on 6 December 1992 presented Muslims with an opportunity. Now that the masjid was no more and Muslims do not worship bricks and mortar or plots of land, they could have forgiven the miscreants who demolished the mosque and moved on, gifting the land for building a temple. I made this point in an article entitled “Opportunity for Muslims,” published by The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, on 13 Jan 1995. This was reproduced on NewAgeIslam.com on July 1, 2009.

Let me give you here some relevant excerpts from this article written almost 25 years ago.

“… This brings me to my main plea—forgiveness. Forgiveness is the essence of both the Muslim and Hindu spiritual traditions. It is the only way out of the vicious and very debilitating grip of bad karma. It is our belief that one has to always pay individual or collective karmic debts in this or any subsequent incarnations or on the Day of Judgement. Both Hindu and Muslim spiritual traditions consider God as the greatest teacher, this world a great school, the events that involve us in this mayajaal (illusionary world) as messages.
 “What could this Great Teacher be teaching us in this section of the school through the great Babri Masjid-Ram Janam-bhoomi drama? Perhaps the all-important lesson of forgiveness. It may take us years, decades, centuries or millennia to learn this lesson. But learn we will. There is no escaping. God is a very determined teacher. We have the option to learn the lesson now. Let us exercise it.”

Then I had gone on to conclude: “…. If this mutual forgiveness and reconciliation does not take place — and if present Hindu and Muslim leaders are considered representatives of their respective communities, it is not likely to happen — ordinary people of both communities must make their presence felt and come out openly for peace at all costs. If that too does not happen, we Muslims should thank God for providing us with this unique opportunity to exercise our option of forgiveness and making a gift of a piece of God’s land on the specific condition that it be used for nothing but building a place of worship, so that its sanctity is maintained.

 I know this is not going to be easy. Forgiveness is never easy, except for the spiritually evolved. But I don’t think we have any other option. We have many things, important things to do. We cannot afford to remain embroiled in inconsequential disputes. The renowned Islamic scholar, Maulana Ali Mian Nadwi had reacted to the opening of Babri Masjid locks (for all Hindu worshippers by Rajiv Gandhi government on 1 February 1986) the following day in these very sensible words: “Many mosques are in the possession of other people.” And indeed, they are.
 “There were many mosques in East Punjab of the pre-Partition days? But very few are left as mosques today? A Punjabi Hindu friend of mine complained of so many mosques having been converted into gurudwaras and temples. His Muslim friend (not me, some great soul) reacted: “But they are still places of worship. There is only one God, after all. No matter what you believe in, you cannot but worship the same God.” Amen.”

However, guided by short-sighted, self-styled leaders as they are, Muslims did not take that opportunity. Now another opportunity beckons. The highest court in the land is about to give its final judgement. First of all, Muslims should make it clear that they would abide by the judgement and accept it willingly no matter what the verdict is. This is what out leaders have already done. But this bears repetition, particularly in view of the divisive, almost Rwandan nature of most of the media, print, electronic and social that has taken control of nearly all means of communication in north India. Unfortunately, some ignorant, greedy Mullahs too participate in the cockfights at prime time that go in the name of television debates, giving legitimacy to the palpable efforts to divide the society. The very least Muslims could have done to combat this national security threat was to socially boycott those treacherous Juhalawho are respectfully called Ulama by our media. But this is a subject for another day. The silver lining in these darkening clouds is that the secular, pluralistic foundations of Indian society are too deep to be shaken by these charlatans who are projected by the media as representatives of the Muslim community. The credit for pluralism in our society, I must add, goes largely to the broadmindedness of Hinduism that is willing to accommodate all religions.

Another reason Muslims should reiterate their faith in the Supreme Court now is that they have already committed once the cardinal mistake of pressurising a government to overturn a Supreme Court judgement delivered on 23 April 1985,based on the compassionate nature of Islam as the judges understood our religion. The Supreme Court invoked Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which applies to everyone regardless of caste, creed, or religion to rule that a divorced Muslim lady with no means of sustenance, 70-year-old Shah Bano, be given maintenance money, similar to alimony. Supreme Court concluded that “there is no conflict between the provisions of section 125 and those of the Muslim Personal Law on the question of the Muslim husband’s obligation to provide maintenance for a divorced wife who is unable to maintain herself.”

Considering the Holy Quran as the greatest authority on the subject, the court held that there was no doubt that the Quran imposes an obligation on the Muslim husband to make provision for or to provide maintenance to the divorced wife. But the Muslim leadership, both Mullah and non-Mullah, refused to accept it.
With this background, it is imperative that Muslims reiterate repeatedly their faith in the Supreme Court and declare that they will accept the judgement even if it goes against them, as this is the highest court in the land.

This also accords well with the exhortations in Quran and Hadith.  All schools of Islamic thought accept that Islam requires Muslims to be loyal to their country’s institutions, regardless of the ruler’s faith. The Holy Quran states, “O ye who believe, obey Allah and obey the Prophet and obey those in authority from among you” (4:60). Prophet Muhammad declared, “Whoso obeys the ruler obeys me, and whoso disobeys the ruler disobeys me” (Muslim); “Listen to and obey your ruler, even if you [despise him]” (Bukhari).

Prophet Muhammad and his few followers endured bitter persecution for about 12 years in Mecca. But they did not defy the Meccan Establishment. They peacefully left Mecca, following the Quranic ruling, “Create not disorder in the earth” (2:13). Indeed, Islam not only requires Muslims to obey their government, but also to love their country. In a well-known Hadith, Prophet Muhammad instructed, “Love of one’s country is a part of faith” (Sakhavi; Safinat al-Bihar, vol. 8, pg. 525; Mizan al-Hikmah, Hadith # 21928).

Secondly, it is time Muslims use the next few days to introspect and consider what they would do if the judgement comes in their favour. It’s not just that they will find it impossible to build a mosque on that plot of land in the present atmosphere of heightened tensions and shrill Hindu demands and preparations to build a temple on that plot of land where the masjid stood for nearly five centuries. The important question is: is it even necessary for Muslims to do so. Babri mosque was a heritage building. Like the Bamiyan Budhas in Afghanistan, it is now lost for ever. It simply cannot be rebuilt. So common sense dictates that Muslims donate this piece of land for the building of the temple that our Hindu brothers and sisters want so badly. The argument that the faith in Lord Rama having been born exactly on that spot is a manufactured faith does not hold water. It doesn’t matter how a faith has taken hold. Now it is the Faith, and as Muslims themselves demand that their Faith, even the irrational parts of it, is given due deference, they too should respect the Faith of others regardless of its historical validity.

Courtesy: http://www.newageislam.com/

The post Babri case: Another opportunity for Muslims to earn goodwill of Hindus appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Let us also not forget that we are talking about a mosque which was demolished in full view of TV cameras. There are cases on political leaders who enabled this to happen but all those court cases lie in shambles today. Those who exhorted the mobs to destroy the mosque went on to occupy the highest offices in the country. What has reached maturity within the court is not the criminal destruction of the mosque, but the question whether the mosque belonged to the Muslims in the first place.

In the wake of near certainty that a verdict is in the offing, Muslims must be ready with a response. It is all very well to say that Muslims will abide by the SC judgment, but it is also a fact that it is an emotional issue for Muslims. A closure for Muslims will not come through a legal verdict, but only through a well thought out response to the issue. There are two possibilities within which the verdict can come and Muslims have to be ready to respond to both these possibilities.

The first possibility is that SC decrees the title deed in favour of Muslims. There will certainly be euphoria within the community that a historical wrong has been acknowledged by the highest court of the country. However, if this is the case, then what should Muslims do? Should they then demand that a mosque be built at the same site where it once existed? Pragmatically speaking, even if the law is on the side of Muslims, they will not be able to construct a mosque on the same site. This is because the Ram Mandir is also an emotional issue for the Hindus and they will never let this happen. If Muslims press on this issue, the country will have to pay a very great cost. Also, given the nature of political context today, this might be counter-productive for Muslims.

Thus, in case of a favourable verdict, Muslims must welcome the judgment, but they should also be willing to gift the land to Hindus. In doing this, they should not put any condition on the other side; they should just gift the land as an act of pure goodwill. Such an act will not be an act of cowardice; rather it will be from a position of strength. This gesture might also become a turning point in Hindu-Muslim relations in India, which is currently extremely vitiated due to a number of factors.

The second possibility is that the SC rules in favour of a temple. Muslims must be ready for this eventuality as this seems be the most likely outcome of this decades old litigation. In this scenario, Muslims will have no option but to welcome the SC judgment with full conviction. There are sections within Muslims who might feel let down if this is the outcome of the litigation. Part of the reason for this seems to be that they are sure that the law is on their side. However, litigations like this are mostly driven by political considerations and it is highly likely that the verdict of the highest court might also be driven by political considerations. To put it brutally, Muslims have no option but to willingly give up the land. Whether they win the case or lose it, Muslims should part with the land on which once stood the Babri mosque. But even if done with honesty and sincerity, this will not be enough to bring closure of the issue for Muslims. 

A closure around the issue of Babri mosque cannot come without a deep introspection about the nature of Muslim belief and where and how we have made mistakes in the past. For the greater part of Muslim political life, we have made choices which have been counter-productive to the very ethos of pluralism and the rule of law. Muslims have demanded exceptional privileges for themselves under the garb of secularism. We need to just rewind back to the years of Shah Bano agitation and see the kind of political demands Muslims made to the state. Muslim leadership actually told the parliament and the highest court of this country that they want to live according to their own religious laws. In short, the legislative progress that the country wanted to make by reforming personal laws was seen as un-Islamic by Muslim leadership; not just the religious ones but also the so called political ‘secular’ Muslim leaders. If one community, which is the largest minority, decides to live by its own personal laws and on the other hand there is constant reformation within the religious laws of the majority community, then there is bound to be reaction against the minority community and its perceived religious privileges.

If Muslims argue that their faith is above the Constitution (as they did during the Shah Bano judgment), what stops the Hindus from arguing that it is their faith that a temple existed at the very place where Babri mosque once stood. As a minority, Muslims should have been the first to believe in the rule of law and equality before law. They should have been the first to fight for constitutional guarantees for everyone. And yet, we have seen that Muslims have done the exact obverse of what was expected of them. Granted that the current political climate has many reasons behind it, but a truthful search of its causes will bring out the part played by Muslim religious belligerence.

Part of the reason why Muslims behaved the way they did is their understanding that Islam is perfect for all times to come. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it is automatically antithetical to any kind of reform. Moreover, Islam is understood through the Quran and Hadees and therefore, it is argued that there cannot be any debate about the nature of these revelations or their suitability in the present context. Through centuries of indoctrination, Muslims have come to believe in a certain superiority of their scriptures over all other faith traditions. In a context where the majoritarian religion believes that there are multiple paths to the same truth, Islam continues to hold forth that theirs is the only path of redemption. They continue to believe that except Muslims, everyone else is destined for hell. Not only does this interpretation believe that non-Muslims are astray but it also believes that they are inferior in terms of their religious understanding. This kind of an attitude is bound to create a reaction within the majority community.

A true closure to the Babri issue and many other issues which it has given rise to will happen when Muslims genuinely start interrogating some of the fundamental hegemonic religious myths which they continue to believe in. We can start by accepting that Islam is just one of the many ways of achieving the ‘final truth’ and that there are many other religious faiths which are all equally worthy of exploration and emulation.

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com

Courtesy: NewAgeIslam.com
 

The post Impending Babri Judgment: For true closure, Muslims must re-visit their faith appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While Indians wait for the gavel to drop in famed Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case, here’s a quick re-cap of the 40 day-long arguments in the Supreme Court: a look at what transpired within as well as outside the Court in one of the longest running hearings of the Supreme Court of India.

The Ayodhya land dispute case, at 40 days, is the second longest continuous hearing in the history of the Supreme Court. The longest running hearing was during the Keshavananda Bharti case which was heard for 68 long days.  It was this verdict which resulted in the basic structure doctrine.

The present case arises out of one of the most traumatic and dark phases in post-indepenent India’s history. On the back of a movement that challenged India’s foundational constitutional base, and broke the back of the rule of law –the Ramjanmabhoomi movement – the Babri Masjid was demolished in broad daylight on December 6, 1992. The five year long high pitched campaign that preceded the demolition heightened the communal divide; this has in the past 27 years only worsened. The orchestrated demolition of the Babri Masjid by the Kar sevaks, the Rath yatra, the riots in Bombay that followed, have left a lasting blot on the secular standing of India.

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment after 40 days of marathon hearings in the case. Let’s have a look at the turn of events within the courtroom, the provocations without; the contentions of the parties, and the rebuttals, all of which will finally lead us to what may be termed as another “landmark” judgment of the Supreme Court.

The Civil Suit
The case popularly known as the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case is listed in the Supreme Court as Shishir Chaturvedi And Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors (W.P.(C) No. 000151 – / 2019). It was admitted on February 26, 2019 before a five judge Bench comprising of the Chief Justice, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer. Arguments have been heard by this bench until the hearings concluded three days ago, on October 16, 2019. The appeals reached the Supreme Court after appeals were made to the Allahabad High Court order, nine years ago. Efforts had been made to get the hearings off to a start before the recent general elections. However, in October 2018, the Supreme Court decided that the land dispute case would only be listed before an “appropriate bench” in January 2019.

A case where God is party
In a civil dispute for land, God has been made a party and he appears through a friend. How did it happen? Although, these arguments go back decades, it was in July 1989 thatDeoki Nandan Agarwal, a former judge of the Allahabad High Court, filed a petition seeking to become the “sakha” or friend of the deity and its birthplace in the title suits and the Allahabad High Court allowed the application! The Allahabad High Court observed that till the other parties contested this application, Agarwal will conduct the title suit on behalf of Ram Lalla and Ram Janmasthan. After Agarwal’s death, the representation changed a few times, albeit all attributed to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, as of now Triloki Nath Pandey is the “friend” of Ram Lalla in Court and will also become custodian of the land in case of a favourable judgement for that party.

The Mediation
A five-judge constitution bench was set up  and on March 8, the Supreme Court decided to refer the matter to a mediation committee headed by Justice (retd) F.M.I. Khalifullah and comprising of senior advocate Sriram Panchu and Venkatratnam Ravishankar Ramanayakanpet (also known as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of Art of Living).

To encourage mediation, the then Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar had said in 2017, “Give a bit, take a bit. Make an effort to sort it out. These are issues best decided jointly. these are issues of sentiments and religion. The court should come in the picture only if you cannot settle it. If the parties want me to sit with mediators chosen by both the sides for negotiations, I am ready to take up the task.”The Court had fixed the seat for the mediation process in Faizabad of Uttar Pradesh, which is located around seven kilometres from Ayodhya.

Media reported that Oon August 2, 2019, the mediation process was formally closed after the mediation panel failed to make breakthroughs and reached an impasse in the matter. Questions were also raised about the process itself:  allegations that the committee had organized only one meeting with all sides present, which was attended by 41 persons and was one of the first meetings to be held by the mediators!

The Indian Express reported that it had learnt that the side asking for a mosque submitted a proposal in a sealed envelope, during the committee’s second meeting in Faizabad, for a mosque and a temple adjacent to each other within the disputed area.

The Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirvani Akhara, two of the main parties of the case, wished to resume the mediation process in September this year which is when the Supreme Court allowed the process to carry on alongside the Court hearings. It was as a result of this parallel proceeding, therefore, that, on the last day of the hearings, a mediation report was submitted in a sealed envelope to the Supreme Court. The Wire reported that, “according to informed sources, the Sunni Waqf Board and some but not all of the Hindu litigants have signed the settlement proposal.”

The hearings were beset by unruly behaviour and all manner of rumour-mongering. On the very last day, sections of the media ‘reported’ that ‘Muslim parties’ were willing to withdraw their claim over the disputed land. These claims were strongly refuted by advocates for the Sunni Waqf Board through a joint statement.

The Marathon Hearings
The marathon hearings which began on August 6 saw varied submissions from all the parties. Throughout the hearings, while several levels of arguments were raised by the parties, there were also rebuttals with sharp questions posed by the Supreme Court. It is likely that before November 17 when the present Chief Justice, Ranjan Gogoi retires, we will have the verdict!

On the first day of the hearing itself the Supreme Court asked the Counsel for Nirmohi Akhara, senior advocate, Sushil Kumar Jain to prove the existence of a temple since the Allahabad High Court judgment had stated, “There is no evidence to show that there existed any temple and that there were idols in it”.

Senior Advocate K, Prasaran, while putting forth his arguments that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram said that it was difficult to show proof of birth after so many centuries and hence said that unshakeable faithin believers was evidence that Ayodhya was the birthplace of Lord Ram.

At the hearing held on September 24, when asked by the court whether they dispute the Chabutra as the place of birth of Lord Ram, the counsel for the Sunni Central Wakf Board had said, “Earlier we had. But the district judge said it was worshipped believing it to be the birthplace.” The Chabutra, is the spot 60-65 feet from the Babri Masjid which was worshipped by Hindus as Ram’s birthplace, following the Faizabad district Judge decision of 1885. The Court had also asked why “Ain-i-Akbari” — written in the 16th century, the period when the Babri Masjid was allegedly constructed — did not mention the mosque. To which counsel for the Waqf Board said that the book had only important details and the mosque has gained importance only now, back then it was just another mosque.Later senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, also representing the Waqf board had clarified that the Waqf Board had not accepted that the Chabutra was Ram’s birth place.

About a week into the continuous hearings, Senior Counsel Vaidyanathan, the counsel for Ramlalla Virajman, read out the report of the commissioner who was appointed to inspect the disputed site in 1950 which described the presence of pillars with images of Lord Shiva.

The Court had also raised questions about architectural features believed to be unearthed at the disputed site which are not typical to a mosque, to which Mr.Dhawan for the Waqf Board said that it could be a result of cultural assimilation and that there is no direct evidence of an image of a god. He hence went on to say that the Hindu side arguments were based on theology rather than legality and concrete proof.

A Senior Advocate, Meenakshi Arora, for the Waqf Board had even questioned the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) report which has been relied upon heavily by the Hindu parties. She said that the report was full of inferences and conjectures, to which Justice S.A. Bobde responded that the findings of the ASI may not be authoritative. Later on, however, another advocate, Mr. Dhawan submitted that they did not want to question the authorship of the ASI report and graciously apologised for delving into the claim. Even the Bench said the inferences from the ASI report were drawn by “cultivated and studied minds” and was not an ordinary opinion.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had commented that after a railing, which was constructed by the British, following an armed clash between Hindus and Muslims in 1855, the Ram Chabutra was constructed and it could mean that worshippers believed that praying at the ‘chabutra’ meant actually praying at the central dome and that they were actually praying at the central dome. While Senior Advocate Dhawan for the Waqf Board called this a “conjecture”, the Court held it to be a “preponderance of probabilities”.

The senior advocate, Vaidyanathan said that Muslim parties have argued that they have perfected the title by “long and exclusive use” of the disputed property. That would be a definite admission that Hindus or the temple or the deity was the previous owner if Muslims claim benefit of adverse possession doctrine, he said.

Mr. Dhawan had also submitted that Hindus only had “prescriptive right” to enter and offer prayers at the site and it does not mean that they had ownership claim over the disputed property, after which the Court asked him that if Hindus were allowed to enter and pray, would it not dilute their (the Waqf Board) claim of exclusive ownership.

Mr. Dhavan, also said that Muslims have had title over the land since 1528, and Hindu parties did not claim title between 1885 and 1989. Dhavan urged the judges to not decide the case based on archaeological evidence and to use only legal parameters. “We are concerned with the proposition of law and the archaeological evidence will not and cannot decide my title over the property,” he said. “Why knock down one of the domes of the Babri mosque in the 1934 riots and trespass to install the idols of Lord Ram in 1949 if they [the Hindu parties] already had the title? Why did they have to do all this?”

During the last legs of the hearing, Mr. Dhavan, for the Waqf Board rejected the claims of the Hindus, on the disputed site, saying that the belief, travelogues and Skand Purana do not give Hindus title of land.

The last leg
On the final day of hearing emotions were running high, not only for the parties and the counsels in court but also in the news media and public in general following every update that came from the Court. In this context, the NBSA (News Broadcasting Standards Authority) issued guidelines for news channels to follow, in the coverage of the news, which were flouted by news channels like Aaj Tak which invited a lot of flak on social media.

Reports, based on rumours of the original title claimants, Muslim parties conceding their claim to the disputed land were also vehemently denied.

During the final stages of hearing, scenes of senior advocate Dhavan, tearing up a mapwere latched on to by lawyers representing All India Hindu Mahasabha. As soon as the incident took place, the news spread widely and later few members of the quorum clarified in Court itself that Mr. Dhavan did so only after the Court had allowed him to do so.

Many statements such as “Muslims can pray in any other mosque in Ayodhya. There are 55-60 mosques in Ayodhya alone. But, for Hindus this is the birth place of Lord Ram…which we cannot change” “Once a temple always a temple” were made by the Hindu parties. Albeit, the latter was a statement made after the Muslim parties’ submission of “Once a mosque always a mosque.” Hindutva parties also tried to argue that a “historical wrong committed by Babur by building a mosque” needs to “be rectified”.

The last day of the hearing seemed like a rapid fire round between counsel on either side when they were being given the last opportunity to put forth their contentions in Court.

Beyond the Hearings
Advocates for the Muslim parties faced targeted attacks for representing ‘Muslim’ parties. Mr. Dhawan sought contempt proceedings to be initiated against a man who had written an intimidating letter to him; he further said this was just one of the several incidents of threats he received.The Supreme Court also condemned a statement made by Uttar Pradesh State Minister who had said that Ram temple will be built on the disputed land as the “Supreme Court is ours”.

As the hearings of the case entered the last leg, the Ayodhya administration imposed section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure until December 10, which prohibits the assembly of five or more people. Additionally, Ayodhya District Magistrate Anuj Kumar Jha’s order prohibits people from flying drones and unmanned aerial vehicles within Ayodhya without permission, while a ban has also been imposed on overloading of boats. For Diwali, the manufacture and sale of firecrackers will only be allowed after permission is taken from the concerned magistrate. TheUttar Pradesh government issued an order that no field officials will be given any leave till November 30, not only due to festive season but also due to security concerns arising ahead of the verdict in the case.

The final verdict
In September, the deadline for the hearings was set by the Supreme Court for October 18, however, the same was concluded two days prior, thus giving a little more time to the Court, even amidst the Diwali vacation to deliver final judgment.

The three main parties of the case have predominantly relied upon very distinct arguments of law, memory and faith to fortify their case. The Nirmohi Akhara relied upon faith and collective memory and made three central arguments. First, that the members of the sect are the real worshippers of Ram. Second, all pujas have been done by the pujari appointed by the Nirmohi Akhara in the past. Hence, they have an inalienable right over this pious land as ‘shabait’ (devotee). Third, the Nirmohi Akhara has had possession over the land, including the mosque, since 1934. For this reason, its ownership claim must be recognised.

The Waqf Board’s arguments concentrates on the land on which the Babri Masjid once stood and its legal status as an Islamic wakf property. The board’s lead counsel Rajeev Dhavan in his concluding arguments said that the board was in continuous possession of the inner courtyard on which the now demolished dome of the mosque once stood, and sought restoration of status quo ante as on December 5, 1992.Dhavan also argued that the Waqf board’s ownership of the outer courtyard had never been questioned nor claimed claimed any title over the land till 1989. They had limited prescriptive rights — restricted to worshipping at the outer courtyard or the outer courtyard, he said. Courts had recognised this as far back as 1886. He argued that his client historically possessed the place since 1854 when it was given grants by the British to manage the affairs of the mosque. There was no claim by the other side to the title between 1885 to 1989, he contended. There is also no proof even in the ASI report that a temple was destroyed to build a masjid, he argued.

Two members of the bench hearing the case, Justice SA Bobde (the next Chief Justice) and Justice DY Chandrachud sought to know if the access of devotees to the outer courtyard — Ram Chabutra and the Sita Rasoi — would not detract from the title of the board to the land. Counsel Rajeev Dhavan denied this, arguing that any such access was a limited elementary right and would not detract from the title of the board. “It is a prescriptive right and nothing more,” he said. “Everything that the British did (like) opening the eastern door to the devotees to pray was for maintaining law and order and signifies nothing more,” he argued. “Beliefs, travelogues and Skanda Purana will not give them title. They sought permission to pray and now they lay claim over the title.” He alleged that the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas was a socio-political outfit created to claim title over the land in 1989. This was the year, the RSS-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took up the political movement, and aggressively sought votes in the name of the ‘Ram Temple’ electorally. Three years before, the sister body, the more rabid Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) had first announced this religio-political mobilisation that was to change the course of modern India’s history.

On the last day of hearing, a sudden and fresh ‘mediation proposal’ was offered by the Wakf Board.Advocate Shahid Rizvi, representing the Waqf board clarifies that the board will withdraw the suit only if its ‘reasonable conditions’ are accepted by all the parties. Rizvi said that since this is a civil case the parties, as per the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, could continue mediation efforts and submit a final report before the verdict is pronounced.

Politically, the dice is loaded against the title owners of the land. It is to be seen if India’s legal and constitutionally bound institutions remain insulated from the politics of the most powerful.

(Compiled by Sanchita Kadam)
 
Related articles:
Ayodhya Title Dispute: How the Case Unfolded in the Supreme Court
Ayodhya mediation has failed, says CJI. Land dispute case now to be heard by Supreme Court
Ayodhya mediation unsuccessful, proceedings formally closed, panel submits report to SC
Day to day hearings begin in Ayodhya case: Highlights from Day 1
Ayodhya Case HIGHLIGHTS: Muslims were not allowed to enter the structure since 1934, says Nirmohi Akhara
Ayodhya case in Supreme Court: Nirmohi Akhara says no Muslim entered Ram temple since 1934; CJI says prove temple’s existence
Explained: Mediation as a way out in Ayodhya; here’s a short history
Ayodhya hearing: Pictures of deities found at disputed site, Ramlalla’s counsel tells SC
Faith of believers proof that Ayodhya is birthplace of Ram: Deity’s counsel to SC
Ayodhya hearing in SC: Wakf Board accepts Ram was born at Ram Chabutra
Ayodhya case: Conclude arguments by October 18, SC tells parties, says they won’t get an extra day
Ayodhya hearing: Hindu side arguments based on theology rather than legality, concrete proof, says counsel
Ayodhya case: Supreme Court raises doubts on ASI findings
Ram ‘Chabutra’ becomes the focal point in Ayodhya hearing
‘Questions asked only to us, not to Hindu side’: Muslim parties during SC Ayodhya hearing
Ayodhya hearing: Supreme Court takes serious view of comment by U.P. Minister
Ayodhya: Ahead of SC Verdict, Section 144 Imposed Until December 10
Dhavan rejects Hindu parties’ claims on Ayodhya
No leave for U.P. field officials till Nov.
Ayodhya case: Mediation can continue alongside court hearings if parties want, says SC
How Ram Lalla became a party to the Ayodhya dispute – and who might actually benefit from it
Ayodhya case: Supreme Court backs ASI report after Muslim parties say it’s ‘merely an opinion’
 
 

The post The Ayodhya – Babri Masjid – Ram Lalla triangle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The NBSA (News Broadcasting Standards Authority), well aware of the notorious practices of news channels in India, issued an advisory on October 16, 2019 to handle the news coverage of Ayodhya Court case hearings which culminated in the Supreme Court on the same day. The NBSA, recognising this matter to be extremely sensitive, has advised news channels to exercise extra caution and care to ensure that the telecast of the news is not sensational, inflammatory or provocative. The advisory said, “The basic guideline to be adhered to during telecasting news is respect of the above issue is that all such news should conform strictly to subserving the public interest of maintaining communal harmony and preservation of the secular ethos of the country.”

The NBSA, through this advisory, prompted news channels to adhere to the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and specific guideline that the NBSA issues from time to time. The Authority cautioned the news channels against violating the guidelines issued thus in order to avoid strict action. Among other things, the guidelines asked news channels not to speculate, to ascertain facts of the hearing before reporting, to refrain from showing mosque demolition footage, to not broadcast any celebrations of any community with regards to the Ayodhya case and to ensure that no extreme views are aired in the debates.

The complete advisory issued by NBSA can be read here.

The NBSA issues advisories and guidelines from time to time, some of which are specific to an incident and some are generic, which are expected to be followed by news channels and which also become a guide for people who wish to complain against content of such news channels.
The spectrum of control of the NBSA on news channels has always been questioned in the past and there has been increasing speculation that self-regulation is not really deterring news channels from resorting to unethical practices. The Hoot had conducted an in-depth analysis, in 2018, on self-regulation in television and it concluded that self-regulation, or any kind of regulation, seems increasingly to be a largely unattainable goal.

The NBSA, has, however, in the recent past cracked its whip on news channels, such as when it issued a warning to Zee News for broadcasting inflammatory content, in response to CJP’s complaint. The NBSA also enforced accountability in February 2019, when it imposed a fine on ABP News, Aaj Tak for violating code of ethics and again in April 2019 when it issued a warning to five news channels for violating NBA’s (News Broadcasters Association) code of conduct.

While the command of the NBSA over the errant news channels is still debateable, one can only wait and watch whether news channels follow the pertinent guidelines while telecasting news for the Ayodhya case until and even after the verdict of the Supreme Court comes out next month.
 
Related articles:
Decoding Hate: Aaj Tak’s show on Ayodhya peddles othering and hate
Broadcasting self-regulation: An unattainable goal?
Complaint against Zee News for Hateful Content: NBSA rules in CJP’s favour
NBSA warns five news channels for violating NBA’s code of conduct
NBSA imposes fine on ABP News, Aaj Tak for violating code of ethics; rejects complaint against NDTV 24×7
 

The post NBSA issues stern advisory to news channels: Ayodhya case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, and justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer are presiding over the case. As many as 14 appeals had been filed against the 2010 judgement by the Allahabad High Court that directed the 2.77 acres land at the disputed site be partitioned equally among three parties, namely; Sunni Waqf Board, Nimrohi Akhada and Ram Lalla (the infant deity).

CJP had also filed an Intervention Petition requesting that the dispute be seen as more than just a property dispute, but one that threatens the socio-cultural fabric of India. The petition was signed by over 30 eminent citizens including Aparna Sen, Shyam Benegal, Anil Dharkar, Medha Patkar, Aruna Roy, Anand Patwardhan, Teesta Setalvad, Cyrus Guzder, Sohail Hashmi, John Dayal, Kumar Ketkar, Dolphy D’ Souza, Kiran Nagarkar, MK Raina and Joy Sengupta among others. Though our petition was dismissed we are happy to note that the SC has focused on healing. When the matter was referred for mediation in March, Justice Bobe had reportedly remarked, “We are looking at minds, hearts and healing if possible.”

The next meeting between stakeholders will take place in June.
 

The post SC extends Ayodhya Mediation Deadline to August 15 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dr Zafar proposed points are:

1 De-reserve the constituencies of Lok Sabha and state assemblies where  the Scheduled Caste percentage is not the highest in the state. Instead, reserve those constituencies where SC percentage is the highest, as recommended by Justice Sachar Committee. Thus end the widespread violation of section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act.

2 The Alternative Admission Criteria (apportioning 60% for merit + 40% for backwardness) for undergraduate level admission into all universities and colleges of India should be accepted, approved and implemented as recommended by Justice Sachar Committee.

3 To fill the posts of CEO of state waqf boards the central government should accept, approve and implement the launching of Indian Waqf Service as recommended by the Justice Sachar Committee.

4 The earlier RBI proposal of allowing the banks to have a window for interest less banking should be accepted, approved and implemented by the central government.

5 The minority character of Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia Islamia and all other educational institutions established by the minorities should be accepted, approved and implemented by the central government.

6 Any person who is charged of terror activity and is, after several years of multi-dimensional sufferance, is exonerated by the court as innocent should be given Rs fifty lakh as compensation by the government. Later on, this money should be at least partly deducted from the salary/pension/provident fund/retirement benefits of the officer(s) who wrongly implicated him.

7 Through a simple majority vote of parliament, amend the definition of ‘Scheduled Caste’ as given in para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and make this definition religion-neutral. That is to say, delete the conditionality of religion, as recommended by Justice Ramanathan Mishra Commission.

8 Give proportionate share to Muslims in central and state council of ministers and in all nominated posts and appointments under the state & central governments.

9 Appoint Equal Opportunity Commission at the centre and in the states as recommended by Justice Sachar Committee.

Courtesy:Two Circle
 

The post Nine Point Proposal for Babri Masjid-dispute appeared first on SabrangIndia.