[https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ram-mandir-bhumi-pujan-full-text-of-pm-narendra-modis-speech-in-ayodhya/]

Goswami Tulsidas put in bad light

As generally happens with our PM, he resorted to lies regarding the destruction of Ram birth-place temple for building Babri Mosque too. According to his narrative, borrowed from the RSS shakhas, Ayodhya represented a continuous war between Hindus and Muslims over the Ram Temple for almost last five centuries.

While boasting of victory over the adversary (Muslims) he did not bother to look at the epic work of poetry in Avadhi language penned by Goswami Tulsidas, namely, Ramcharitmanas. This was the work which mesmerized India with the story of Lord Ram and the latter became a house-hold deity of every Hindu home, specially, in North India. He penned his above-mentioned work during 1575-76. According to the Hindutva version Ram birth-place temple was destroyed during 1538-1539. The Ramcharitmanas written almost 37 years after the so-called destruction of Ram’s birth-place temple should have mentioned this destruction. But it did not.

Are Hindutva zealots trying to say that the greatest story-teller and worshipper of Ram and his Court (Darbar), Tulsidas did not speak truth in his historic work? Is this an attempt to question the credibility of Goswami Tulsidas? Are the Hindutva zealots trying to say that Goswami Tulsidas kept mum on the issue of the destruction of a temple at Ram’s birth-place due to some ulterior motives?

Contempt of the Supreme Court Judgement

The Prime Minister, by claiming that the Ram Janmabhoomi [birth-place] “has become free from the centuries-old chain of destruction and resurrection” was openly contradicting the Supreme Court judgment on Ayodhya delivered on November 9, 2019 that Babri Mosque was not built after demolishing any temple, the appearance of idol of Ram Lalla on the intervening night of 22/23 December 1949 was illegal and the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992 was an “egregious violation of the rule of law”. The same judgment underlined the fact that “Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago”. In fact, PM should have been tried for contempt of the Court for his Ayodhya speech.

It is a different matter that despite all these findings the highest court of justice of India allowed construction of Ram Temple at the site of Babri Mosque. The more shameless was allowing Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a pocket organization of RSS which demolished the Mosque on December 6, 1992 to build the Temple!

[https://scroll.in/article/943337/no-the-supreme-court-did-not-uphold-the-claim-that-babri-masjid-was-built-by-demolishing-a-temple]

Selective Redressal of wrongs of History

The demolition of the Babri Mosque and building of a grand Ram Temple at Ayodhya has been justified by the Hindutva flag-bearers claiming that justice was being done to the wrongs of history. However, the Indian past looked through the Hindu Muslim binary has its serious limitations. One major problem is that despite India being a five-thousand-year-old civilization but it is only the period 0f approximately 700-800 years in which people with the Muslim names ruled/attacked India is under scrutiny.

Let us get acquainted what the most important ideologue of the RSS-Hindutva and the second chief of it, MS Golwalkar wrote about destruction of Somnath Temple in 1025-26 by Mahmud Ghazni.

According to him: “One thousand years back our people invited foreigners to invade us. A similar danger threatens us even today. How the glorious temple of Somnath was desecrated and devastated is a page of history. Mahmud Ghazi had heard of the wealth and splendour of Somnath. He crossed the Khyber Pass and set foot in Bharat to plunder the wealth of Somnath. He had to cross the great desert of Rajasthan. There was a time when he had no food and no water for his army, and even for himself left to his fate, he would have perished, and the burning sands of Rajasthan would have consumed his bones. But no, Mahmud Ghazi made the local chieftains to believe that Saurashtra had expansionist designs against them. In their folly and pettiness, they believed him. And they joined him. When Mahmud Ghazi launched his assault on the great temple, it was the Hindu, blood of our blood, flesh of our flesh, soul of our soul-who stood in the vanguard of his army. Somnath was desecrated with the active help of the Hindus. These are facts of history.” (MS Golwalkar’s speech in Madurai cited in ‘Organiser’ dated January 4, 1950, pp. 12, 15.)

If the RSS-BJP government is really serious about executing its core issue of undoing religious injustice in India’s past then they should start working to hand over Jagannath Temple at Puri to Buddhists immediately. Swami Vivekananda who is regarded as an icon of the Hindutva politics and resurgent Hindu India by RSS who was also the greatest narrator of ancient India’s past, unambiguously, declared that Jagannath Temple was originally a Buddhist Temple. According to his admission, “To any man who knows anything about Indian history…the temple of Jaganath [sic] is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them. We shall have to do many things like that yet. ” (Swami Vivekananda, ‘The Sages of India’ in The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. 3, Advaita Ashram, Calcutta, p. 264.)

It has been corroborated by another darling of the Hindutva camp, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. According to him Rath Yatra, an integral part of Jagganath Temple was a Buddhist ritual too.

According to Bankim: “I am aware that another, and a very reasonable, account of the origin of the festival of Rath [at the Jagganath Temple] has been given by General Cunningham in his work on the Bhilsa Topes. He there traces it to a similar festival of the Buddhists, in which the three symbols of the Buddhist faith, Buddha, Dharmma, and Sangha, were drawn in a car in the same fashion, and I believe about the same season as the Rath. It is a fact greatly in support of the theory, that the images of Jagannath, Balaram, and Subhadra, which now figure in the Rath, are near copies of the representations of Buddha, Dharmma, and Sangha, and appear to have been modelled upon them.” (Chatterjee, Bankim Chandra, ‘On the origin of Hindu festivals’ in Essays & Letters, Rupa, Delhi, 2010, pp. 8-9.)

In fact, Puri Temple was not the only one Hinduised. Founder of Arya Samaj, Swami Dayanand Saraswati while describing the heroics of Shankaracharya in Satyarth Prakash: “For ten years he toured all over the country, refuted Jainism and advocated the Vedic religion. All the broken images that are now-a-days dug out of the earth were broken in the time of Shankar, whilst those that are found whole here and there under the ground had been buried by the Jainis for fear of their being broken (by those who had renounced Jainism).” (SATYARTH PRAKSH BY Swami Dayanand Sarswati, chapter xi, p. 347.)

The Hindutva rulers who declare their love for indigenous religions like Buddhism and Jainism should begin to handover their usurped temples and Vihars at the earliest to them.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are the authors own.

Related:

Several ‘secular’ people applauded the Babri demolition: Ravi Gupta

Babri demolition accused to head Ram Temple Trust

1992 – BOMBAY, After the Babri Demolition ,The People’s Verdict

The post 31 years after Babri Mosque demolition perpetrators in power appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shortly after being acquitted in the Babri Masjid demolition case, one of the accused boasted in front of news channels of demolishing the mosque as well as future plans to attack other such mosques in the country.

The 62-year-old BJP member and former Chief of Shiv Sena’s North India faction, Jai Bhagwan Goyal, said that the group had always intended to demolish Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992. They first attempted to do so in 1990 but were stopped by the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh. Goyal said they succeeded with their “unflinching commitment” in 1992.

He also promised future plans to demolish mosques in Kashi and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura that as per right-wing narrative was constructed by Emperor Aurangzeb after demolishing a temple at Lord Krishna’s birthplace. Despite being acquitted, Goyal said that he was prepared for the death penalty for the crime was “an act of pride” for the man. He believed that the group’s acquittal meant they had the blessings of Lord Ram.

Similarly, former BJP MP Vinay Katiyar and another person accused in the demolition said that the decision to launch a similar movement in Mathura would be taken after consulting the saints. He even encouraged those seeking political mileage to join them.

It seems shocking that those claiming innocence moments ago in court would begin to flaunt their alleged crime mere moments after the CBI court’s verdict. It is a recent trend among discriminating leaders to boast involvement in the Babri Masjid demolition. Last year, BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur also claimed to have had a significant role in the demolition.

To say that such claims injure the secular spirit of India is a gross understatement. The question that one must consider is not the depths to which these people will lower themselves but at what point must they be stopped.

Meanwhile, citizens chose to vent their frustration about the unfortunate series of events on social media.

जय भगवान गोयल -“हां, मैंने किया।” मैने गिराया।
कोर्ट के जज – “नहीं, आपने नहीं किया ….?
Jai Bhagwan Goyal – “Yes, I did.” Supreme Court – “No, you did not …. #RIP_Justice ?#BabriMasjid #BabriDemolitionCase

— बेबाक आवाज (@bebakaawaj6) October 1, 2020

We Demolished #BabriMasjid, I Was Prepared For Death Penalty’, Says Jai Bhagwan Goyal After Being Acquitted #BabriMasjidDemolitionCase #BabriMasjid
Supreme Court-No you didn’t do it.
Everyone acquitted-Understandable,have a great day pic.twitter.com/htjq3SuyG9

— Yubaraj Ghoshal (@GhoshalYubaraj) October 1, 2020

Related:

Acquittal of Babri accused, gang rape of UP Dalit woman are interlinked; have roots in the history
Babri Masjid demolition judgment shocks India!
Krishna Janmabhoomi: Mathura court dismisses plea against Shahi Idgah
Bearing witness to the Babri masjid demolition

The post We always planned to demolish Babri Masjid: Jai Bhagwan Goyal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was the day when a court in Uttar Pradesh (UP) acquitted the leaders of the ruling right-wing Hindutva nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the highly publicised Babri Masjid demolition case. The ancient mosque was razed to the ground in 1992 by the supporters of the BJP in Ayodhya. The Hindutva Right continues to claim that the mosque was built by the Mughal invaders after destroying a temple of Lord Ram, a revered Hindu god.  

Although it has been well documented that the 1992 incident was the result of a well-planned conspiracy and a culmination of an ongoing agitation for Ram temple by the BJP, the court in UP being governed by the party has ruled in favour of the accused saying this was done by “anti-social elements” and exonerating those involved in mobilizing Hindu majority against the mosque for years.  

Those acquitted are former Deputy Prime Minister of India, L.K. Advani, besides few former union ministers. The verdict comes months after the Indian Supreme Court gave the title of the land to the Hindus even as the Prime Minister Narendra Modi has already laid the foundation stone for a grand Ram temple as per the promise made by BJP to the electorate.  

The question of restoring the land to the Muslims does not arise anymore, especially under Modi, who enjoys a brute majority in the parliament.  

While the September 30 decision was awaited, a Dalit woman, who was struggling for life in the hospital died after being brutally raped and tortured in UP. 20-year-old Manisha belonged to the so called untouchable community and was being harassed by the men from ‘upper caste’. She was assaulted two weeks ago. It has been revealed that the police too tried to shield the suspects and cremated the body of the deceased by keeping her parents away to hush up the evidence.  

Notably, the Chief Minister of the state Yogi Adityanath is notoriously known for giving free hand to the police to kill Muslims in faked encounters after blaming them to be criminals and terrorists, but right under his nose, the police have tried to save those responsible for the rape and murder of a Dalit woman.  

The two incidents are interlinked in historical sense.

The two developments have evoked ugly memories of December 6, 1992, the day when Babri Masjid was pulled down by the mobs. It was also the death anniversary of a towering Dalit icon and a scholar Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.  

Ambedkar had coauthored the Indian constitution that guarantees religious freedom and was a vocal critic of the Hindutva Right that believes in an orthodox caste system that discriminates against Dalits. Ambedkar himself grew up facing blatant discrimination from the ‘upper-caste’ Hindus and had warned that if ever India becomes a Hindu state it will have a devastating effect.  
His prophecy was proven right when the Babri Mosque was attacked under a BJP government in UP. It is hard to say whether the BJP goons had purposely picked December 6 as a day of action to send a message to the followers of Ambedkar, but this ugly coincidence was a reminder of what Ambedkar had forewarned about Hindu theocracy.  

Today, 28 years later that Hindutva privilege has repeated that by exonerating those involved in the demolition and trying to cover up a heinous crime against a Dalit woman. It is like the proverbial killing of two birds (read Muslims and Dalits) with one stone.  

It shouldn’t surprise anyone how the Muslim haters and casteists have become emboldened under the rule of Modi and Adiyanath. Since they both subscribe to the racist text of Manusmriti – a Hindu text that justifies caste-based atrocities, this was always anticipated in a BJP regime.  

The Muslims and Dalits have no choice but to revisit Ambedkar and find a way to fight back together instead of fighting separately on the question of religion and caste. These parallels should be an eye-opener for not just these two communities, but everyone considering how attacks on all the religious minorities, and the oppressed groups besides political dissidents have grown ever since Modi became the Prime Minister in 2014. From BJP perspective, they all are enemy aliens, who have been repeatedly othered for both short term electoral gains and to maintain Hindu supremacy.

More by Gurpreet Singh:

Canadian legislator honoured for standing up for Kashmir and minorities in India
Rally in Canada in support of a Sikh advocate who organized langar for Delhi CAA protesters
Free Safoora: Indians hold car rally in Canada in solidarity with student activist  

The post Acquittal of Babri accused, gang rape of UP Dalit woman are interlinked; have roots in the history appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Just hours after a special CBI court acquitted all accused in the criminal conspiracy case surrounding the demolition of the Babri Masjid, freshly acquitted BJP leader LK Advani welcomed the verdict. In an interview to NDTV he said, “Today’s judgment is significant. I welcomed the verdict saying ‘Jai Shri Ram’ when I got the news.”

Advani also released a statement saying, “The judgment vindicates my personal and the Bharatiya Janata Party’s belief and commitment towards the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement.” The statement goes on to speak about the previous verdict in the Ayodhya civil suit and Advani says, “Along with millions of my countrymen, I now look forward to the completion of the beautiful Shri Ram Mandir at Ayodhya.” He ends the statement with ‘Jai Shri Ram’.  

A copy of the statement may be viewed here:

Among political parties, the Congress issued a statement saying, “The decision of the Special Court to acquit all the accused in the Babri Masjid Demolition Case runs counter to Supreme Court Judgment as also the Constitutional spirit.” The entire statement may be read here:

The CPI (M) released a statement saying, “The verdict of the Special CBI Court at Lucknow acquitting all 32 accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case amounts to a travesty of justice. It took 28 long years for this verdict but not justice to be delivered.  All the top leaders of the BJP-VHP-RSS who were present at the scene guiding the criminal act have been found to be innocent of the charge of conspiracy to demolish the mosque.”

It added, “The Supreme Court in its Ayodhya judgment on November 8, last year had called the demolition an egregious violation of the law. Now, the Lucknow court has found the main perpetrators of this crime not guilty.” The CPI (M) also said, “This verdict will blemish the image of India as a secular-democratic country governed by the Constitution. The CBI must immediately appeal against this judgment.”

Meanwhile, civil society and human rights activists were shocked at the acquittal of all the accused. 

Jignesh Mevani tweeted, “Like Kapil Mishra is in reality a great messenger of peace, Babri demolition and Rath Yatra was in reality just a fake news. All media stories before 2014 was fake news, only post-BJP media is truth.”

1992 and 2019…
And in 2020: today, actually no one demolished #BabriMasjid.
Like Kapil Mishra is in reality a great messenger of peace, Babri demolition and Rath Yatra was in reality just a fake news. All media stories before 2014 was fake news, only post-BJP media is truth. pic.twitter.com/HbMnbjYnBm

— Jignesh Mevani (@jigneshmevani80) September 30, 2020

Human rights defender Teesta Setalvad also took to Twitter to urge citizens to take a closer look at the ramifications of the judgment:

2/Look at Doordsrshan n BBC Archival footage! Newstrack n Eye Witness! By India Today and HT! Listen to incendiary speeches by Vajpayee n Advani at Mathura days before Dec 6! Finally, read the much delayed Liberians Commission. More truth here than in Court Verdicts!

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) September 30, 2020

Giving the case a Jessica Lal like spin, journalist Sagarika Ghose tweeted, “Nobody demolished the Babri Masjid.”

Nobody demolished the Babri Masjid. #BabriMasjidDemolitionCase

— Sagarika Ghose (@sagarikaghose) September 30, 2020

Activist Kavita Krishnan tweeted about how the judgment could be a sign of things to come:

Judge sahab – your verdict has encouraged, incentivised the demolition of many more Mughal era heritage monuments of India including the Taj Mahal. Slogans to this effect are resounding on India’s hate TV screens. https://t.co/qWAeXRyyVJ

— Kavita Krishnan (@kavita_krishnan) September 30, 2020

Many other civil society members shared their shock:

New India: no one will be punished for the most public crime in contemporary history. #BabriDemolitionCase

— Saba Naqvi (@_sabanaqvi) September 30, 2020

मेरे प्यारे देशवासियों…

You’re innocent if you’ve carried out demolitions, threatened/ committed violence, sent gunmen into the streets.

You’re totally not innocent if you preach peace, want to read the Constitution, or base a protest on the methods of the freedom struggle.?

— Nilanjana Roy (@nilanjanaroy) September 30, 2020

Others on Twitter too expressed shock:

Shame on the #BabriMasjid for demolishing itself and creating so much confusion.

— Sayantan Ghosh (@sayantansunnyg) September 30, 2020

People like Sadhvi Pragya proudly recalled how she went there and destroyed #BabriMasjid with her own hands. There is no conspiracy here? There is no violence here? It’s pathetic how low the judiciary has fallen.#BabriDemolitionCase

— Arya (@RantingDosa) September 30, 2020

As per CBI court, Babri demolition wasn’t pre-planned.

It was Act of God.#BabriDemolitionCase

— Nirmala Tai (@CrypticMiind) September 30, 2020

So Advani’s Rath Yatra crossed 3000 km saying Mandir Wahin Banayenge, Ek Dhakka Aur Do Babri Masjid Tod Do. Friendly Fascist Vajpayee said ‘Zameen Samtal Karna Hoga’. Uma Bharati gave hateful speeches. But: no conspiracy. But, read Paul Brass and it is conspiracy. #BabriVerdict

— Subir Sinha (@PoMoGandhi) September 30, 2020

Related:

No one conspired to demolish Babri Masjid?

Babri Masjid demolition case: The long road to justice

Babri Masjid demolition case: Verdict likely on September 30

Court begins recording statements of Babri demolition accused

The post Babri Masjid demolition judgment shocks India! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Judgment in the long-drawn Babri Masjid demolition case is likely to be pronounced on September 30, 2020. This case is distinct from the Ayodhya land dispute that was a civil suit. The Babri Masjid demolition case is a criminal case related to the conspiracy behind the demolition.

Several Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) heavyweights have been named as accused in the case. These include, LK Advani, MM Joshi, Uma Bharati and former UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh.

The case that is being heard by a Special CBI Court in Lucknow, has had a tortuous journey with conspiracy charges having been dropped earlier. However, in April 2017, the Supreme Court restored the conspiracy charges when it allowed an appeal by the CBI against a discharge given by the Allahabad High Court.

The SC bench comprising Justices PC Ghose and RF Nariman also exercised extraordinary powers granted under Article 142 of the Constitution to the pending separate trial in Rae Bareilly Magistrate’s Court, clubbing it with criminal proceedings in the CBI court in Lucknow. The case in Lucknow court was on charges of conspiracy to demolish the mosque, and the other in Rae Bareli court was for instigating the crowd to raze the structure.

Moreover, at that time the SC had ordered that day-to-day proceedings be carried out and the trial be completed in two days. Subsequently the SC also directed the UP government to issue necessary orders to extend the tenure of the presiding judge who was all set to retire on September 30, 2019. Further extension of the deadline for finishing the trial was granted on May 8.

LK Advani’s statement was recorded via video-conferencing in July this year. This is significant given how it was Advani’s Rath Yatras that had helped build support for the Ram Temple movement in the 90s, sowing the seeds for othering and alienation of minorities.

At the time of delivering the verdict in the civil suit pertaining to the Ayodhya land dispute, the SC had observed that the destruction of the Babri Masjid was a violation of the law. The 16^th century mosque was allegedly razed by ‘kar-sevaks’ and sundry members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal on December 6, 1992. What followed was nationwide communal violence, and a divide between the majority and minority communities… a divide from which India didn’t quite emerge unscathed.

Related:

Babri Masjid demolition vs pulling down of statues of racists in the US

Newsrooms, Living Rooms and Class Rooms: Evolution of the Ayodhya Narrative

Court begins recording statements of Babri demolition accused

The post Babri Masjid demolition case: Verdict likely on September 30 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Karnataka police have booked four persons in light of the news of the Babri Masjid demolition reenactment by students at the Sri Rama Vidyakendra High School run by RSS strongman Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat.  In the play enacted yesterday, the school children recreated the tearing down of the 16th century Babri mosque and replacing it with a Ram temple. Bhat maintained that the play was an enactment of the ‘injustices’ in the country.

In response to an FIR registered based on a complaint by Aboobacker Siddiqui an activist with the Popular Front of India (PFI), Prabhakar Bhat, as well as Narayana Somaiyyaji, Vasant Madhav and Chinnappa Kotiyan have been charged under Sections 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 298 (uttering words, etc with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person) of the IPC by the Bantwal Town police.

Narayana Somayaji is the President of the Sri Rama Vidyakendra Governing Council, Vasant Madhav is the Convenor and Chinnappa Kotiyan is the member of the same.

The Babri Masjid demolition has been held as a criminal act by the Supreme Court. Yesterday at the ‘Kreedotsav’ a sports event at the school, the students dressed in white and saffron clothes waving the ‘bhagwa dhwaj’ were made to reenact the demolition of the Babri Masjid, among chants of ‘Bolo Shri Ramchandra Ki Jai.’

When he was contacted by reporters for a clarification by reporters, the RSS’ south-central region’s executive committee member Bhat said that he did not agree with the Supreme Court’s decision and that there was nothing in showcasing what he thought was a historical event.

Kiran Bedi and DV Sadananda Gowda along with other ministers had attended the event. While DV Sadananda Gowda claimed that he wasn’t there at the time the play was on, Kiran Bedi had tweeted about the play and said that the students of the school must be given a place in the Republic Day parade as well.

Related:

The post Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat booked for Babri Masjid demolition play in school appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Videos have surfaced from Sri Rama Vidyakendra High School in Karnataka with hundreds of children in white shirts and white pants and some others in white shirts and saffron dhotis running towards a poster of the BabriMasid reenacting the demolition, bringing down the Babri Masjid with anything they can get their hands on.

How do they sow seeds of hate?
Watch what happened in kalladka Prabhakar Bhat’s school yesterday.@PTI_News @IndiaToday @BTVI @DeccanChronicle @DeccanHerald pic.twitter.com/aEUjsWjXZO

— Lavanya Ballal | ಲಾವಣ್ಯ ಬಲ್ಲಾಳ್ (@LavanyaBallal) December 16, 2019

As the narrator says, ““They start demolishing the structure with anything they can get their hands on. With enthusiasm, Hanuman bhaktas with Hanuman’s anger, they bring down Babri structure. Bolo Shri Ramachandraki, Jai!” the monument has been brought down by the Class 11 and 12 students who are seen cheering in excitement. The play ended with the students showing a Ram temple being built in place of the mosque. They also assembled in formations to depict the Om symbol and the Lotus.

The school, located in Dakshina Kannada district’s Kalladka is owned by Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leader and the organization’s south-central committee member. The Chief Guests for the event were Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers DV Sadananda Gowda; Puducherry Governor Kiran Bedia and several ministers from Karnataka including H Nagesh and Sashikala Jolle, reported The News Minute (TNM).

While DV SadanandaGowda denied being present when the play was going on; he said he came in much later, KiranBediput out a tweet showing the kids working towards the formation of a Ram mandir, something she was rebuked for by many.

Another formation d school children made was of the proposed Shri Ram Mandir at #Ayodhya. All such performances enabled d school ensure all of its 3800+ school children participate in d annual festival of Sri Rama Vidya Kendra, Kalladka Village, near Mangalore @PTI_News @ANI pic.twitter.com/IdaoySuBY4

— Kiran Bedi (@thekiranbedi) December 16, 2019

A report by Daiji World stated her as saying that she thanked the founders and teachers of the school for doing things that gave as sense of pride about Indian culture and that the kids should also get a chance to display the same at the Republic Day parade in New Delhi.

When contacted by TNM to ask as to why the school would stage a play that could fray communal harmony, especially given the RSS’ involvement in the land dispute case, Kalladka Prabhakar said, ““It is not a mosque. It is just a building. It is a historical event that we are depicting. We have depicted Jallianwala Bagh as well. Did anyone highlight that? There are hundreds of instances like this and we have to show the injustices that have happened in our country.”

He added, “Who are Babur’s children? We are not against Mslims. We are against terrorists. The play was done to show historical events and what is the problem with it? Our temple was destroyed and then the structure was built. We have said Babristructure. It was not a masjid” maintaining that the school did not take any wrong decision in choosing this subject for the play.

Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat also mentioned that he was against the Supreme Court statement that the demolition was unlawful. He said, “Even though the Supreme Court has said that what happened in Babri was wrong, we have questioned that part of the judgement itself. We cannot accept everything that is said in the judgement. I don’t agree with it.”

Satish Bhat Shivagiri, the President of the school claimed that there was nothing communal about the play and they were simply depicting ‘developments’.

Bhat, popularly known as the ‘Controller in Chief’ of the RSS in coastal Karnataka, has been booked for hate speech multiple times, is seen as the key player in spreading communal tensions in the region. He had also led rallies and protests in the area after the demolition of the Babri Masjid. In 2017, he was said to have instigated the killing of an activist of the pro-Muslim Social Democratic Party of India, but BS Yeddyurappa, whom Bhat is close to had said that if Bhat was to be arrested for the same, the whole of Karnataka would burn up in flames.

The play that was performed in his school is just another direct attempt to flay communal tensions in the region especially when the matter has been settled by the apex court and the members of the Muslim community have accepted the decision with grace. The hypocrisy of the RSS was also noticed when in spite of saying that they would not celebrate the anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Masjid, they held an event, however low-key and also organized other events in UP honouring karsevaks for their ‘sacrifice’.  Not just this, it is an example of the abhorrent education that is being provided to the students. They are being poisoned to grow up with hate, being taught to single out communities, further ingraining a feeling of communal disharmony at a time when the secular fabric of India is already under threat.

Related:

Ayodhya Verdict: Has Faith Prevailed Over Justice?
After The Supreme Court Ayodhya Verdict, Time for Introspection and Reconciliation for Indian Muslims
Babri-Ayodhya verdict: Will appeal for peace apply to Hindutva hardliners in future?
Domino Effect: Hindu Mahasabha seeks withdrawal of cases against karsevaks

The post RSS school’s sports event shows kids enact demolition of Babri Masjid appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a surprise development, the Supreme Court, on March 21, 2017 urged the rival parties in the Ram Janamabhoomi – Babri Masjid (RJBM) case to negotiate and resolve the dispute in a spirit of give and take. The Chief Justice of India offered himself to be a mediator should both the parties agreed. The observations came on application of Subramanian Swamy seeking urgent hearing of the appeal against the order of Allahabad High Court dated September 30, 2010 in the RJBM title suit. Subramanian Swamy, a BJP leader, has no locus standi in the case and he is not a party in the Appeal. Yet the Supreme Court exercised its discretion and even asked the BJP leader to talk to all parties to the case and bring them to negotiating table.

It is not clear whether Swamy was prompted by the Prime Minister but the application seems to be made in the background of massive victory of the BJP in UP Assembly elections. Though the mandate was primarily sought for development – or sab kasaath, sab kavikas, the BJP might have seen this as most opportune moment to push the construction of Ram Temple on the site where BabriMasji once stood for 464 years before it was unlawfully demolished.

The parties to the Appeal before the Supreme Court did not feel the need to move the Court for urgent hearing of the case. Many other cases are pending before the Apex Court and which may be of real urgent nature. What persuaded the Court to spend its valuable time on this contentious case wherein one party to the case is in stronger position in the prevailing scenario while the other is more defensive and feeling diffident will be for the Court to satisfy itself. Litigants defending Babri Masjid title are naturally feeling extremely vulnerable and in a very weak position. Not agreeing to settle on the terms desired by the litigants who already have 2/3rds of the land in dispute according to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and are seeking the entire land would endanger the security of the community at worst and open to charge of being intransigent at best. Several attempts were made to arrive at negotiated settlement and all of them failed.

One attempt was made by the Shankaracharya and religious leaders from Muslim community. Muslim religious leaders gave favourable statements and nod at the initiative. They were hopeful of the initiative leading to an amicable settlement with the spirit of give and take. However, the SanghParivar which felt that a settlement would be reached without them being involved opposed the initiative. Statements were planted in the media that Shankaracharya was a devotee of Shiv rather than Lord Ram. Shankaracharya withdrew from the initiative and the settlement did not materialize.

The inhabitants of Ayodhya would have long settled the issue in the spirit of give and take had the dispute been left to them. The Head Priest of Hanumangarh, the largest temple in Ayodhya, MahantGyandas has organized iftaars for Muslims inside his temple and repaired Mosque situated on the land owned by his temple with their funds. Muslims have invited MahantGyandas, inside their mosques. Such was the amicable relations between Hindus and Muslims of Ayodhya during the peak of Ram temple agitation. The agitators were mobilized from outside.

The priest of Ram Janmabhoomi Temple – MahantLal Das too opposed the VHP-BJP led Ram Janmabhoomi movement. MahantLal Das was assassinated and his assassins have remained a mystery. The final attempt to settle the issue was made by Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant in the dispute, a simple man living in hut. Hashim Ansari died a few months ago after the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court. He was disillusioned with the Judgement and wanted to settle the issue. Hashim Ansari and the rival litigant MahantRamchandra Das Paramhans of the Ram JanamabhoomiNyas were good friends and remained so till the Mahant died in 2003.

Hashim Ansari told this author that they would not only eat from the same plate, they would also travel in the same vehicle to and fro Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court where the title suit was being heard. Had it been left to the people of Ayodhya, they would have in all likelihood resolved the dispute in the spirit of give and take. The inhabitants of Ayodhya enjoy the bonds of brotherhood and sisterhood and were vary of SanghParivar’s mobilization for construction of Ram Janambhoomi Temple as it disturbed peace of the town for days and they would lose their livelihood. The earlier negotiations failed primarily due to intransigence of the SanghParivar for whom the issue was more of a political weapon which they would pull out during elections rather than issue of faith.

If negotiations are held today, those defending the title of Waqf Board would be under extreme political and social pressure to give up whatever little they have got from the judgement of the Allahabad High Court. Whereas NirmohiAkhada and Ram Lalla, who have got 2/3rds of the land parcel would be negotiating for the rest of the 1/3^rd of the land with the political might of the State and Centre backing them. Does the Supreme Court want a “settlement” between hugely unequal parties or justice in accordance with the law? One of the legal doctrine is “he who wants justice should approach the courts come with clean hands” Those who mobilized and demolished the Babri Mosque cannot be said to have approached the court with clean hands.

A demand to construct a protective roof against the vagaries of nature on the chabutra outside the Mosque but within the precincts in the year 1885 enlarged to demanding the entire Mosque land and construction of Ram Janmabhoomi Temple on it not on the basis of law of the land, but on the basis of faith. While the claims did not succeed with the British Colonial government, it is the secular state that progressively gave in to the demands of manipulated faith of the cultural and political elite claiming to represent the entire majority community. The Allahabad High Court too ruled on the basis of unproven faith rather than on the basis of law of adverse possession.

From Ram Chabutra to claim over BabriMasji: failure of Justice
Let us examine this story. There are no two opinions that in the year 1528 a mosque was built by Mir Baqi, one of the Governors of the Mughal Emperor Babar. The SanghParivar maintains that this mosque was built after destroying a Ramjanmabhoomi temple, which existed on the land whereas the Muslim political leaders as well as most reputed historians of integrity insist that there is no credible proof that there was any Ramjanmabhoomi temple.

The District Gazetteer of 1905 notes that till 1855, Hindus and Muslims prayed in the same premises that is now contentious Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. After 1857 rebellion, an outer enclosure was put in front of the mosque and the Hindus who were forbidden access to the inner yard raised an outer platform (chabutra). The first signs of the dispute sometime in 1861 appear too close after the 1857 rebellion to warrant such a conclusion. A British officer who was officiating as a Commissioner and Settlement Officer, Faizabad, in 1861 wrote a book A Historical Sketch of Fyzabad Tehsil Including the Former Capital Ayodhya and Fyzabad. The book was based on what he found was “locally affirmed” and his own surmises – Ayodhya must at least have possessed a fine temple in the Janmasthan. The dispute was initially only regarding Chabutra adjoining the Babri Masjid. He further wrote: “It seems that in 1528 Babar visited Ayodhya and under his orders this ancient temple was destroyed”. There is slender evidence to conclude that Babar ever passed Ayodhya.

Hindu priests wanted a temple constructed on the Chabutra to be able to conduct their worship without vagaries of weather, as Chabutra was an open platform.

In the year 1885, one MahantRaghubarDass, claiming himself to be the Mahant of JanamAsthan had filed a suit on 19-1-1885 in the Court of Sub-Judge Faizabad, PanditHariKishan (Suit No. 61/280 of 1885). It was alleged in the said Suit that Chabutra of JanamAsthan was a platform of 21 feet towards East and West and 17 feet towards North and South. It was further alleged in the said Suit that as there was no building over it and the Mahant and other priests had to face grave vagaries of the weather. The Mahant therefore wanted permission to construct a temple over the said Chabutra of 21 X 17 feet, which had been prohibited by the Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad. The Suit 61/280 of 1885 was dismissed on 24-12-1885 by PanditHariKishan, Sub-Judge of Faizabad. Relying upon the site plan prepared by GopalSahai, the Learned Sub-Judge observed:

“The entrance to the enclosure is under a gateway on which appears the superscription of “Allah”. Immediately on the left is the platform or chabutra of masonary occupied by the Hindus. On this is a small superstructure of wood in the form of a tent. This chabutra is said to indicate the birthplace of Ram Chander. …

“… in between the mosque and Chabutra, there is a wall…and it is clear that there are separate boundaries between the mosque and Chabutra and this fact is also supported by the fact that there is boundary line built by the Government before the rent dispute”.
It was further observed that if temple was allowed to be constructed on the Chabutra at such a place, then there would be sound of bells of the temple and sankh, when both Hindus and Muslims passed from the same way. If permission was given to Hindus for constructing temple then one day or the other there would be rioting and thousands of people would be killed. Thus, the learned Sub-Judge opined that awarding permission to construct the temple at this juncture is to lay the foundation of riot and murder, hence in view of the policy and also in view of justice the reliefs claimed should not be granted. The Sub-Judge also rejected the reliefs sought on the ground of adverse possession and observed that:

“It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on the land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as that 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.”
The Appeal of MahantRaghubarDass against the judgement of the Learned Sub-Judge before the District Judge of Faizabad and the Judicial Commissioner, W. Young (Civil appeal No. 27 of 1886) was also dismissed. In his judgement dated November 1, 1886 observed:
“This spot is situated within the precinct of the grounds surrounding a mosque erected some 350 years age 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 mosques 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 (1) Sitakirasoi (kitchen of Sita) and (2) Ram ChanderkiJanmabhoomi (birthplace of Lord Rama)… I am further of the opinion that the civil courts have properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.”

Two things are to be noted here. The suit as well as the Appeal was rejected on grounds of adverse possession. The dispute was about the Chabutra situated in the precinct on which a building was sought to be erected and never the mosque itself. As set out in the judgement, certain elements from the Hindu community tried to persistently increase their rights – in the second and third round to the entire mosque itself. Even though the reliefs prayed for were not granted, the judgement tried not to antagonise the Hindu Community entirely by mentioning the atrocities of the tyrannical and bigot emperors (from whose tyrannical rule the colonial rulers claim to have “liberated” the sub-continent). It is not clear on what supporting evidence did the judges observe that the tyrannical Mughal Emperor out of bigotry demolished a temple 350 years ago to build a mosque in his name. Thus in spite of the judgements, the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy remained very much alive.

In 1934 riots, which were triggered off by the slaughter of a cow in the village of Shahjahanpur near Ayodhya, riotous mobs demolished part of the wall surrounding the mosque and damaged the domes. However, the mosque was restored at the cost of the Government.
Till December 22, 1949, Muslims offered namaz in the Babri Masjid. However, on the night of 22^nd December 1949, idols of BhagwanshriRamchandra were surreptitiously smuggled and installed inside the mosque. Constable Mata Prasad at Ayodhya Police Station reported the incident next day morning and the District Magistrate K.K. Nayar sent the following message to the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary by radiogram:

“A few Hindus entered Babri Masjid at night when the masjid was deserted and installed a deity there, DM and SP and force at spot. Situation under control, Police picket of 15 persons was on duty at night but did not apparently act.”
K. K. Nayar, who later contested elections on the then Jan Sangh ticket, wrote in his diary:

“The crowd made a most determined attempt to force entry. The lock was broken and policemen rushed off their legs. All of us, officers and men, somehow pushed the crowd back and held the gate. The gate was secured and locked with a powerful lock brought from outside and the police force was strengthened.”

Nayar also wrote to the Chief Secretary that in grave risk of large-scale riots it would not be desirable to attempt the removal of the idols through governmental agency. He also advised against stopping bhog and aarti but advised that the present pujari should be changed. Markandey Singh, Magistrate, First Class, and Additional City Magistrate, Faizabad-cumAyodhya after being “fully satisfied from information received from police sources and from other credible sources that a dispute between Hindus and Muslims of Ayodhya over the question rights of proprietorship and worship in the building claimed variously as Babri Masjid and JanmabhoomiMandir, Mohalla Ram Kot, within the local limits of my jurisdiction, is likely to lead to a breach of peace,” ordered the attachment of the “said buildings” under Section 145 CrPC and appointed PriyaDutt Ram, Chairman, Municipal Board, Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya, as receiver to arrange for the care of the property in dispute on December 29, 1949.

Then a civil suit number 2 of 1950 was filed on January 16, 1950 by Gopal Singh Visharad in the court of the civil judge, Faizabad, praying for a declaration that he is entitled to worship and visit without obstruction or disturbance ShriBhagwan Ram Chandra and others installed in the Janmabhoomi and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from removing these idols. Amongst the eight defendants were five Muslims and the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Deputy Commissioner and the Police Superintendent of Faizabad.

The civil judge N.N. Chadha, granted an interim injunction on 16/1/1950 allowing puja and darshan though the rights were in dispute. The Order was later modified on 19/1/1950 as follows:
“The parties are hereby restrained by means of the temporary injunction to refrain from removing the idols in question from the site in dispute and from interfering with the puja etc. as at present carried on.”
In addition to the above suit, three more suits relating to disputes over receivership and waqf were filed during the intervening period. The NirmohiAkhara also staked its claim for ownership of the disputed land.

A lawyer of Ayodhya, Umesh Chandra Pandey quietly moved an application on 25/1/86 in the Court of SadarMunsif, HariShakarDubey seeking directions restraining the respondents from imposing any sort of restrictions or hurdles in the darshan and puja, etc. of Lord Rama and others in the Janambhoomi offered by him and other members of the Hindu community. The Application was in regular Suit no. 2 of 1950. The Munsif refused to pass orders on the ground that the file of the leading case along with which the above suit was consolidated was requisitioned in the High Court. Umesh Chandra had no locus standi in the above suit, and had not even impleaded all the defendants in the suit as party respondents in the application. Umesh Chandra filed an appeal against the order of the Munsif before the District Judge, Faizabad, K.M. Pandey on 31/1/86. The district judge rejected the application of the Mohammed Hashim to be impleaded as a party in the appeal. The District Judge recorded the statements of District Magistrate, Indu Kumar Pandey and Senior Superintendent of Police, Karma Vir Singh to the effect that:
“…it is not necessary to keep the locks at the gates for the purpose of maintaining law and order or the safety of the idols. This appears to be an unnecessary irritant to the applicant and other members of the community. There does not appear o be any necessity to create an artificial barrier between the idol and the devotees. It appears that the opposite parties have remained a prisoner of indecision for the last 35 years. Somebody in his wisdom thought fit to put locks at the gates at any point of time and nobody since then has seen whether there is any necessity to retain locks or not”.

The District judge then 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 the idols inside the premises are allowed to be seen and worshipped by the pilgrims and devotees. It is undisputed that the premises are presently in the court’s possession and that for the last 35 years Hindus have had an unrestricted right or worship as a result of the court’s order of 1950 and 1951. If the Hindus are offering prayers and worshipping the idols, though in a restricted way for the last 35 years, then the heavens are not going to fall if the locks of the gates are removed. The district magistrate has stated before me today that the members of the Muslim community are not allowed to offer any prayers at the disputed site. They are not allowed to go there. … If this is the state of affairs then there is no occasion for any law and order problem arising as a result of the removal of the locks. It is absolutely an affair inside the premises. There is no justification for retaining locks after the positive statements of the district magistrate and the SSP Faizabad that the law and order situation can be very well kept under control by other means as well and for that end it is not necessary to keep the locks on these gates.”
The appeal allowed and the respondents – district magistrate, the city magistrate and the police superintendent of Faizabad were directed to open the locks forthwith and not to impose any restrictions or cause hurdle in the darshan and puja, etc. of the applicant and other members of the community in general. With the order of the District Judge, the site, which was in the register of waqf as a mosque for over over 400 years as a mosque was converted into a de facto temple. The procedure adopted by the district judge of recording the statement of the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of the Police was very unusual to the say the least. Application of Umesh Chandra Pandey was incompetent as he was not a party in the suit. The suit itself was not pending. Gopal Singh Visharad, the Plaintiff in the Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950 had died years ago and no substitution had been made in his place and as such the suit had automatically abated. Such an order could not be passed altering the situation after 36 years.  Also, contrary to the general procedure and practice was the fact that the District Judge rejected the application of the Muslims who were originally party to the suit to be impleaded as a party. The District Judge had no basis to conclude that Muslims would not be adversely affected and that too without hearing the applicants to be impleaded as a party.

The District Judge in effect adjudicated the rights of the contending parties without hearing all the parties to the suit on a very narrow and negative ground that there would not be any law and order problem if the locks were removed. The adjudication was not on strength of respective claims and the case of the parties, as all the parties concerned and the strength of their claims were not heard were not heard at all. Law and order problem is never a consideration while adjudicating rights of the party. If the courts adjudicate rights of the parties to litigation on consideration of law and order, what we will have is not rule of law but rule of might.

The background in which the judgement was delivered will not be out of place here. The SSP and the DM would not have given the statement about their confidence in being able to maintain law and order, without approval of the State and Central Government. The Rajiv Gandhi Government was on the one hand trying to appease the Muslim Fundamentalists on the issue of Sahabano and intended legislation for denial of maintenance to divorced Muslim women under S. 125 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the Government was also trying to appease the Hindu community by getting the locks of Ramjanambhumi-Babri Masjid opened for darshan and puja.

Supreme Court Judgement in Ayodhya case
The decade of 1980 will be remembered as a bloody decade with communal clashes all over the country as the issue of Ramjanambhumi was politicised and nationalised by the SanghParivar. The Ramjanambhumi, which had hitherto remained a dispute between some elements from both communities in Ayodhya, was taken to every nook and corner in most cities and even rural areas all over the country. The demand for which the mobilisation was aimed was to open the lock of the Babri Masjid and permit puja and darshan. After the lock was opened, the next demand was handing over the entire site for construction of Ramjanmabhumi Temple and shifting of the mosque outside panchkoshiparikrama.

Legally, it was difficult to achieve this fete without the intervention of the courts and the state. The issue of title of the property, which is the main legal issue involved in the dispute pending in the courts operates against the protagonist of Ramjanmabhumi temple. For right to worship cannot be claimed as an easement on somebody else’s property. So far as law is concerned, faith and belief, or even proof of place of birth of BhagwanRamchandra is also not a relevant issue to decide the title and / or grant right to worship. Agitational mobilisation by the SanghParivar was to pressurise the state and the courts to act and the pressure did work.

First the UP State acquired the place surrounding the place in the name of providing certain facilities to the pilgrims, the site on which Rajiv Gandhi laid foundation stone of the Ramjanmabhumi on in November 1990. Babri Masjid was then demolished on 6.12.92 by mobs mobilised by the SanghParivar. The Courts as well as the state allowed the mob to assemble in the naïve belief that the Mosque will not be touched. Then the Union Government issued ordinance named ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance’ on 7.1.93 for acquisition of 67.703 acres of land, including the site of Babri Masjid. The Ordinance was later replaced by an Act. The Union Government also made a Special Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court for the opinion of the Court on:

“Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram JanmaBhumi – Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood”.

The reference itself was slanted in favour of the majority community. The Court was called upon to give its opinion whether any Hindu religious structure existed prior to construction of Ram JanmaBhumi – Babri Masjid. … The structure that stood was certainly not “RamjanmaBhumi” but Babri Masjid admittedly constructed by Mir Baqi. The only contention of the protagonist of RamjanmaBhumi Temple being that the same was after demolition of JanamAsthan Temple. Secondly, no time frame was prescribed for examination of existence of Ram JanmaBhumi – Babri Masjid. If the referendum had been answered in positive, the Union Government would have been compelled to hand over the entire site on which Babri Masjid stood to the Hindu litigants or a trust or association. The Supreme Court however rejected the reference as superfluous.
The five judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court was also called upon adjudicate on the validity of the Acquisition Act in Ismail Faruqui Vs. Union of India (1994 (6) SCC 360). The Judgement delivered by Justice Verma on behalf of the majority held the Act as a whole to be valid, striking down only Section 4 (3) of the Acquisition Act on the ground that extinction of judicial remedy for resolution of the dispute without providing any alternative dispute resolution forum amounts to negation of rule of law. The Section 4 (3) is as follows:
“If, on the commencement of this Act, any suit, appeal or other proceeding in respect of the right, title and interest relating to any property which has vested in the Central Government under Section 3, is pending before any court, tribunal or other authority, the same shall abate.”

Even while holding Section 4 (3) to be void and unconstitutional, the majority Judgement upheld the Constitutional validity of the rest of the provisions of the Act, including that of Section 3 by virtue of which, right title and interest of the 67.703 acres of land area, including the site of Babri Masjid stood transferred and vested in the hands of the Central Government. The minority Judgement delivered by Justice Bharucha delivering judgement on behalf of himself and Justice Ahmedi held that the section 3, 4 and 8 are unconstitutional.

The majority Judgement held that the land of even mosque can be compulsorily acquired by the state and it stood on the same footing as that of other places of worship. While there can be no quarrel with that, the effect of compulsory acquisition could not be lost in the case at hand. The minority judgement held that secularism is absolute and

“the state may not treat religions differently on the ground that public order required it. … When adherents of the religion of the majority of Indian citizens make a claim upon and assail the place of worship of another religion and, by dint of numbers, create conditions that are conducive to public disorder, it is the constitutional obligation of the State to protect that place of worship and to preserve public order, using for the purpose such means and forces of law and order as are required. It is impermissible under the provisions of the Constitution for the State to acquire that place of worship to reserve public order. To condone the acquisition of a place of worship in such circumstances is to efface the principle of secularism from the Constitution…”
Section 7 of the Acquisition Act is slanted in favour of the Hindu community as section 7 (2) required maintenance status-quo as prevailed before 7-1-93, which would mean that idols must be retained where they were before 7-1-93 and puja as carried on as before. Section 7 would entail idol would remain and puja continue for an indefinite period.

The Ayodhya Judgement thus struck down only section 4 (3) of the Acquisition Act as per the majority Judgement and as a result of striking down Section 4 (3) all the Suits pending before the High Court revived and the High Court is now hearing the suit day to day. The minority Judgement, however, held that the Acquisition Act vested a whole bundle of rights in the Central Government, including that of the disputed site. According to Section 6 of the Acquisition Act, the Central Government was enabling provision and the Central Government could further transfer whole bundle of right and property to any authority or a body or a trust on terms and conditions that the Central Government might think fit to impose. Those terms and conditions are not specified in the Act, nor is there any indication in that behalf available. The majority Judgement however held that after the pending dispute was adjudicated, the Central Government would hand over the disputed site in accordance with the adjudication to appropriate authority, trust or body. In the event the adjudication is in favour of litigants from minority community, would the Central Government with any political party in power have the political courage to hand over the disputed site to a body, authority or trust of minority community to reconstruct the demolished mosque? That remains to be seen.

Conclusions
To summarise, admittedly, Babri Masjid was built by Mir Baqi in the year 1528 and is noted in the waqf register of Sunni Central Board of Waqf. In 1885 and 1886, the claim of the Hindu litigants was only on the Chabutra as they wanted to construct a structure to protect the devotees from the vagaries of the weather and no more. On the strength of adverse possession, the courts dealing with the dispute during the colonial period rejected the prayers of the Hindu litigants to construct any structure even on the Chabutra.

The prayers were rejected even though the courts held (it is not known on what evidence) that the Masjid was built on land held sacred by the Hindus but that occurred 356 years ago on the same spot. After independence, the Hindu litigants adopted incremental approach, slowly enlarging their rights and claims with combination of surreptitious acts, agitational mobilisation and repeated applications to the court. Surreptitious acts when no legal claim left on their side. Another round of litigation on threat of agitational mobilisation. The claims were based not on the strength of title to the property but on their right to unhindered and unrestricted worship.

After the idols were smuggled inside the Mosque, there was another round of litigation, which virtually ignored the title and turned the court into a receiver of the property giving the Hindus increasing access to the property as and by way of right to worship, while the Muslim community was denied the access in spite of the fact that the property was a waqf property. After the locks were opened in 1986 on the ground that there would be no problem maintaining law and order if the locks are open, the Hindu nationalist forces were emboldened even more. As they were mobilising their forces and indulging into hate propaganda, the State remained a mute bystander refusing to act and take preventive measures for maintenance of law and order. Even the courts when they had the opportunity did not act decisively and the hoodlums of Hindu supremacist forces were allowed to assemble in large numbers, ultimately resulting in demolition of Babri Mosque and construction of a make shift temple.

The Courts as well as the executive rewarded those who demolished the Mosque by legitimising the “rights” acquired by force in the name of maintaining status – quo and maintaining law and order. The Central Govt. acquired the disputed site and the surrounding areas under the Acquisition Act, thus depriving the Muslim litigants of their defence or claim of adverse possession to the disputed site. The Supreme Court majority Judgement legitimised the acquisition by state in the name of maintaining public order. The litigants from the minority community, we feel, are fighting a losing battle – not because their claim to the title of the disputed site is weak or defective, but because they cannot match the power of the Hindu supremacist forces in creating law and order problem, which is material in influencing the decision making in our country. The Hindu supremacist forces have enlarged their rights and claims from Chabutra to worship on the disputed site not because of their legitimate claim but by threatening not to obey the orders of the Court in matters of “faith”.

Let us pray that the Supreme Court won’t be swayed by the might of the parties and faith but will do justice focussed on Constitution and law of the country.

The post Rewarding Those Who Demolished the Babri Masjid: A History of the Ayodhya Dispute appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) reiterated its stand in ‘Hyderabad Declaration’ passed on the third and final day of its 26th plenary here.

“Babri Masjid is an essential part of faith in Islam and Muslims can never abdicate the Masjid nor they can exchange land for Masjid or gift the Masjid land. Babri Masjid is a Masjid and it shall remain a Masjid till eternity,” said a statement released by the board.

This assumed significance as an executive member of the board, Maulana Salman Hussaini Nadvi had mooted a formula after meeting Hindu leader Sri Sri Ravishankar on Friday that the land on which Babri Masjid stood till December 6, 1992, be given for building Ram temple. He suggested that an alternate land be allocated for construction of a mosque and an Islamic university.

Facing flak from board members for his controversial formula against the board’s stand, Nadvi did not attend the plenary on the second day Saturday and announced his “disassociation” from the board. The board on Sunday accepted his “disassociation” and announced that he is no longer a member.

“By demolishing Babri Masjid, it never loses its identity as a masjid. And according to Shariah, it always remains a Masjid,” said the statement read out by the board’s executive member Kalam Faruqui at a news conference.

“Without any doubt, we make it clear that the struggle for the reconstruction of Babri Masjid continues and the appeal in Supreme Court is being fought rigorously with all the resources available at the disposal of the Board. The country’s topmost lawyers are appearing on behalf of the Muslims and we believe that the Almighty Allah will make us successful in the Supreme Court,” it added.

Courtesy: Two Circles
 

The post Muslims will not give up Babri Masjid, says AIMPLB appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: India Today

The attack on the Muslim shrine was instigated by leaders of the Hindu nationalist Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), which is currently in power in India. BJP leaders continue to claim that the mosque was built by Babur—an Islamist ruler in 1528-29, after destroying a temple constructed at the site of birthplace of Lord Ram, one of the most revered Hindu gods.

During the 1980s, the BJP intensified its vicious campaign for the reconstruction of the Ram temple with an aim to polarize the Hindu majority for electoral gains. The matter was further complicated by the so-called secular Congress party that was in the power back then.

It began pandering to Hindu fundamentalists and allowed Hindu priests to perform rituals at the disputed site. The Congress government even launched Ramayan—a TV serial based on the Hindu epic of Lord Ram—on public broadcast.

During the years that followed, all actors playing the main characters, including Ram and Raavan, the villain of the story, joined the BJP. These ugly developments culminated in the demolition of the mosque by mobs who had gathered there after a call given by the BJP. 

Notably, the then Congress prime minister P.V. Narsimha Rao could not muster courage to stop the mobs from assembling in Ayodhya despite warning signs of an impending danger to the mosque.

Rao was previously a home minister of India during 1984 when an anti-Sikh massacre was engineered by his party following the assassination of the prime minister, Indira Gandhi, by her Sikh bodyguards. Thousands of Sikhs were targeted all over India by the mobs led by Congress party activists with the active help of the police. Rao failed to prevent both tragedies. 

As a budding journalist back then I was in Chandigarh, the joint capital of the northern Indian states of Punjab and Haryana. I still remember seeingHindu activists gathering at various temples under the command of BJP leaders in the city to be recruited and sent to Ayodhya on December 6.

They frequently raised provocative slogans and the public walls were smeared with inflammatory and hateful graffiti asking Hindus to be ready for the bloodshed in Ayodhya.

Those were the times when a draconian anti-terror law, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act (TADA), was in use. The law was primarily formulated to deal with Sikh extremists who were running a violent campaign for a separate state in Punjab.

Although everyone could see that Hindu fanatics were also indulging in terrorism and violence, TADA was only used to suppress the Sikh militancy in the region and the government never found it necessary to detain those gearing up to destroy Babri mosque.

Babri episode therefore needs to be understood in the broader context of sectarian politics being played in India by the ruling classes with impunity.

Ever since the mosque was destroyed, the communal environment of India has turned highly sensitive. The incident was followed by anti-Muslim pogrom in Mumbai by Hindu extremists.

In 2002, anti- Muslim carnage was instigated by the BJP government in Gujarat after a train bringing Hindu pilgrims from Ayodhya caught fire, leaving more than 50 passengers dead.

The current Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, was the chief minister of the western state of Gujarat back then. The Modi government blamed Islamic extremists for the incident following which Muslims were targeted across Gujarat by mobs led by BJP supporters. They used techniques similar to those applied against the Sikhs in 1984.

For all these bloody events, the Indian state—whose constitution guarantees religious freedom—needs to be held accountable. Such practices have given space to the BJP to grow over these years.

The ascendancy of BJP to power in 2014 under Modi with a brute majority cannot be delinked from these incidents, which represent a clear pattern of using the might of the state to keep minorities under the boot.

Twenty-five years later we see how attacks on religious minorities in India have grown and with the BJP in power, sectarian forces have gained undue legitimacy. So much so, Ram temple rhetoric has also increased, as calls are being made to construct the temple soon at the disputed site.

The courts have also failed to intervene and do justice to Muslims who feel insecure and alienated in the current environment.

Attacks on Muslims suspected of carrying beef have increased. The self-styled cow vigilantes continue to haunt Muslim travellers, particularly in BJP-ruled states, with the backing of the police.

Since Hindus consider the cow as a sacred animal, the sale and consumption of beef have been outlawed in these states. On the 25th anniversary of the Babri incident, a Muslim labourer was lynched and then set on fire by a Hindu fanatic in the BJP-ruled province of Rajasthan.

If this were not enough, he made a video of this violent act and posted it on social media. The main suspect in the crime, Shambhu Lal, openly justified his action on social media, accusing Muslims of conspiring Jihad in India.

Ironically, the Babri mosque was destroyed on the death anniversary of great Indian scholar Bhim Rao Amebdkar—who predicted the threat of Hindu nationalism to the secular fabric of society much before India gained official independence from the British in 1947. 

His prophecy was proven right when the Babri mosque was pulled down in 1992. The assault on the mosque was a direct challenge to the secular constitution of the country that Ambedkar co-authored. 

Western powers need to open their eyes to recognize the growing threat of Hindu supremacy. It’s hypocritical of the United States and Canada to go after Taliban in Afghanistan—following an outcry over the bombing of iconic Buddha statues by Islamic extremists in 2001—while continuing to ignore the misdeeds of the BJP so as to maintain cozy and diplomatic relations with India.

This is not to justify the actions of Taliban. Whether it was the demolition of Babri mosque or the bombing of Buddha statues, both actions were unacceptable and sacrilegious. But the outrage over one and silence over the other speaks volumes about the selective approach of the world leaders.

The BJP government in particular and the Indian state in general must be made accountable for the crimes against minorities in that part of the world.

Indians Abroad for Pluralist India and Radical Desi will hold a rally at 3 p.m. on Saturday (December 9) in Surrey’s Holland Park to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Babri mosque episode. 

Gurpreet Singh is cofounder of Radical Desi magazine. He’s also the author of Why Mewa Singh Killed William Hopkinson: Revisiting the Murder of a Canadian Immigration Inspector and Fighting Hatred With Love: Voices of the Air India Victims’ Families. Both were published by Chetna Parkashan. This article first appeared in a Canadian portal and is being reproduced following permission from the author.
 

The post The demolition of Babri mosque & Growing Threat of Hindutva Extremism appeared first on SabrangIndia.