In the year 2019, a Supreme Court bench comprising the aforementioned five judges had ruled in favour of construction of a Ram temple by a trust at the disputed site after the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992. While handing the disputed land for the construction of the Ram Temple, the bench had said that the razing of the mosque by thousands of kar sevaks or Hindu volunteers breached its 1991 order for status quo at the disputed site and its “obliteration” was a “calculated act” and “an egregious violation of the rule of law”. 

As per the social media post, the invitees to the said ceremony also includes over 50 jurists, which includes former CJIs, judges and lawyers. As per a report of the India Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and former Attorney General KK Venugopal are also among the invitees. It is unclear who all from the judiciary will be attending the said ceremony.

The post can be viewed here:

BIG BREAKING: The five Supreme Court judges, who gave the historic verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, have been invited as state guests for the consecration ceremony of the Ram Mandir on Jan 22. The invitees also include over 50 jurists including former CJIs, judges & lawyers. pic.twitter.com/Hs1rQLnKEi

— Law Today (@LawTodayLive) January 19, 2024

Related:

How and why the Ram Temple is just a political tool for the BJP  

Riddles of Ayodhya Ram Temple: Consecration of Bhagwan Ram’s idol, but which one?

From Ayodhya to Trivandrum, are Dalits still unsafe in India?

Three hundred Ramayans

Babri demolition to Ram Temple: A trajectory of Indian politics

The post Invites to Ayodhya temple inauguration extended to judges who gave the verdict in Babri Masjid demolition-Ram Janmabhoomi case 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.

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 case is being heard by a five member bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrchud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice SA Nazeer. On the very first day of the hearings, the apex court was told by the Nimrohi Akhada, one of the parties in the case that no Muslim had been allowed inside the structure since 1934 and that the area had been in possession of the akhada for hundreds of years. However, in response the SC cited the Allahabad High Court order that said Muslims were offering namaaz at the site before 1934.

The question of ownership versus possession was also raised to which the akhada said that their ownership was due to possession. A 2010 judgment by the Allahabad High Court had equally divided the 2.77 acre land between the Nimrohi Akhada, the Sunni Waqf Board and the deity Ram Lalla. The question of proof of the existence of a temple at the disputed site was also raised. It is noteworthy that an excavation carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India in 2003 had revealed the existence of a structure resembling a north Indian style temple under the Babri mosque structure.

Hearings will continue on Wednesday August 7. 

The post Day to day hearings begin in Ayodhya case: Highlights from Day 1 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.

Image Courtesy: PTI

Tension has been ripe since earlier this week when the highly communally provocative trailer of a film about the Babri Masjid dispute by UP Shia Waqf Board Chief Syed Waseem Rizvi was released. Then on Friday, Sakshi Maharaj made controversial statements about demolishing the Jama Masjid. On Saturday, Varanasi woke up to rumours that even the Gyan Vapi Mosque that was allegedly built at the site of the Kashi Vishwanath temple, will be brought down. All this poses a threat to the fragile communal harmony in the region.

Simmering Tension in Varanasi
The holy city of Varanasi, which is also the constituency of the Prime Minister, is particularly on the edge. “Muslim neighbourhoods are tense. People have started stocking food and other provisions. The feeling is that anything can happen tomorrow and they want to be prepared,” says Muniza Khan, CJP’s UP Program Coordinator. “The women are particularly worried and are ensuring that their children do not step out of their homes tomorrow. Even people who operate shops and small businesses plan to keep their shutters down and stay at home on Sunday,” she adds.

Local sources also tell us that several short rallies are being carried out across the city to urge youth to travel to Ayodhya to show support for the construction of the Ram Mandir. Many provocative slogans such as “Jo Shree Ram ke kaam na aye, vyarth uski jawaani hai,” are being chanted at these rallies to galvanise young men to become a part of the pro-Mandir movement.

Meanwhile Surendra Singh Baieria has threatened to “Break the Constitution” if required on November 25 at Ayodhya!

Even Christians have not been left in peace with members of the Akhil BHaratiya Vidyarthi Parishad painting a warning graffiti on the walls of a 64 year old Christian institution Matradham Ashram in the Chandmari area of Varanasi.

But a few important Hindu spiritual leaders have stated that the government or politicians should not be allowed to interfere in the dispute or draw political milage by exploiting people’s emotions.

Muslim groups appeal for Peace
But Muslim groups, senior clerics and social workers have taken the initiative to ensure that the minority community does not react violently to any provocation and that mob violence does not break out between Hindus and Muslims.

Clerics at the Gyan Vapi Mosque have urged people not to react to communal provocation. Mufti Batin Nomani, the Khatib and Imam of the Gyanvapi Mosque told us, “We are urging people to not pay attention to rumours and keep their emotions in check. We are asking them to maintain peace and harmony and not react violently to any form of provocation or violence.” Similar efforts are on across the state.

Frenemies try to outdo each other’s Hindutva
Meanwhile, over 5,000 Shiv Sianiks have already arrived on two special trains that were pressed into service just for this purpose. Section 144 was imposed in Ayodhya soon after the arrival of Uddhav Thackeray who is actively advocating temple construction. 
Meanwhile the Shiv Sena is organising maha artis in 288 assemblies in Maharashtra is a possible snub to the BJP with whom they share power in the state. This is plain posturing aimed at showing how they are more committed to Hindutva and building the Ram Mandir, than the BJP, with whom their relationship has always been bumpy. This should ring alarm bells given how similar maha artis were a precursor to the 1992-93 Bombay Riots.

The post Mass Mobilisation in Ayodhya, Tension in Varanasi, Muslim clerics appeal for calm appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Deccan Chronicle

A few days back while talking to a news channel he had shared the dark prophecy that India could become Syria if the mandir issue was not resolved soon.

“If the court rules against a temple, there will be bloodshed. Do you think the Hindu majority will allow it? They will garner resentment towards the Muslim community”.

As expected he was slammed for his ‘provocative remarks’ and looking at the fact that this statement which had the potential to further aggravate ‘disaffection between communities’ a few police complaints were also filed in different parts of the country.

What was disturbing to note, that neither the uproar nor the police complaints, had any sobering effect on this self-proclaimed ‘mediator’ in the Ayodhya dispute. He also stuck to the controversial statement he made a few days later in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh while talking to reporters. Reiterating his earlier statement he tried to justify it as part of his freedom of expression like other people. None of the reporters present dared ask him whether transgressing constitutional boundaries or set legal statutes could come under this claim or not.

Coming to such statements there is no ambiguity as far as the law is concerned.

Under the Indian Law, promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion is a recognized criminal offence. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) prescribes criminal prosecution for “wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot” (section 153); “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion” (section 153A); “imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration” (section 153B); “uttering words with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person” (section 298); “statements conducing to public mischief” (section 505 (1), b and c); and “statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes (section505 (2). Section 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in addition, allows an Executive Magistrate to initiate action against a person violating section 153A or 153B of the IPC.”

The “Guidelines to promote communal harmony” issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in October 1997 also point at the precise responsibility of the state machinery to deal with potentially inflammatory statements in the context of communal tension. Guideline 15 states that “effective will need to be displayed by the district authorities in the management of such situations so that ugly incidents do not occur. Provisions in section 153A, 153B, 295 to 298 and 505 of IPC and any other Law should be freely used to deal with individuals promoting communal enmity”. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India ratified in 1979, affirms that “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”.

A close reading of the spiritual guru’s statement would reveal that if the legal eagles decide, he will have to face tremendous hassles in wriggling himself out from the situation. A Congress Party activist had even said “[t]hat if FIR is not filed against Sri Sri’s controversial remark then he will move to Court and take legal action against him.”

Examples galore where people with sympathies towards right-wing causes go on making such statements without fear of any repercussion. What happens to people in all such cases is normally decided by your proximity to the powers that be.

Not some time ago, H Raja a veteran leader of BJP from Tamil Nadu had shared a warning on Facebook when Lenin’s statue was demolished by a rampaging mob associated with Hindutva Supremacist forces in Tripura

“Who is Lenin? What is his connection to India? What is the connection of communists to India? Lenin’s statue was destroyed in Tripura. Today Lenin’s statue, tomorrow Tamil Nadu’s EVR Ramaswami’s statue. “

Despite the fact that it had the potential to create disturbances all over the state there was no action against him. There were demands to arrest him and slapping Goondas Act against him from opposition parties. The controversial ex MLA distanced himself from the Facebook post and said that the page was maintained by various administrators. () The matter ended there.

While H Raja did not have to face any ‘music’ over an offensive post after a ‘clarification’, a teenage boy Zakir Tyagi from Muzaffarnagar was arrested for a satirical Facebook comment on a statement the chief minister Adityanath had made soon after he was elected last year. He ended up spending several weeks in jail after being accused of various crimes including sedition. His statement read like this

“Yogiji has said in Gorakhpur that goondas and badmashes must leave UP. Who am I to point out sahib Yogi Adityanathji, that there are 28 cases against you of which 22 involve serious charges”.

There are number of similar cases where one can be intimidated , harassed, tortured, jailed with frivolous cases being filed against her/him if you are nobody and dare to share say some morphed image of a ‘Great Leader’on social media or make some comment which appears ‘offensive’ to the hurt sentiment brigade.

And while one still awaits the official reaction towards the ‘provocative’ statement by Sri Sri Ravishankar, it is incumbent upon us to discern the various arguments which flow from it. But before coming to that, it would be opportune to look at the latest developments in the case and some background.
We know very well that Ayodhya, which has been a long time symbol of our composite heritage, was besmirched 25 years ago when a five-hundred-year-old mosque was demolished by vandals belonging to the communal fascist formations. As of now, the Supreme Court is seized of the case where it has decided that it will hear it as a ‘land dispute’ and the next hearing would be held on March 14.

One can recapitulate that the intervention of the Supreme Court had taken place after it had stayed a judgement of the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court which had effectively turned the suit of the ownership of land into a property dispute between three parties and emphasised people’s beliefs and sentiments as opposed to actual facts to be clinching factors in deciding a case.

The high court judgement had received widespread condemnation from civil society as well because it was clear that it was not delivered on sound legal principles and was driven by the point of settling the long-simmering dispute between the two communities at any cost. It was called a ‘Panchayati’ judgement where the word of the arbitrator/mediator was supposed to be the final word. The verdict had rather vindicated the long-standing demand by the Hindutva Supremacist forces that matters of faith were above any law and jurisprudence. It had caused tremendous jubilation in their camp then and with near victory in sight, they had even started raising other contentious issues between the two communities and had even demanded that Muslims should similarly rescind their claims on Mathura and Varanasi and thousands of other similar cases.

A careful reading of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s interview makes it clear that he was trying to reinvigorate the crux of the Allahabad judgement which had upheld majoritarian claims and disregarded justice.

The dispute, he said, could be simply resolved if Muslims “give up” their claims on Ayodhya. “Muslims should give up their claim on Ayodhya as a goodwill gesture… Ayodhya is not [a] place of faith for Muslims.”

By claiming that if the Supreme Court fails to uphold Hindutva demand then Hindus would erupt in violence, not only the spiritual guru was challenging the rule of law but also questioning constitutional principles before which there is no discrimination on the basis of caste, gender, community, race etc. It was also an ‘indirect appeal’ to all those people/formations who are sympathetic to the Hindutva cause that they remain ready for a new bout of frenzy.

People who are normally taken in by this soft-spoken Sadhu whose global spirituality programme which goes by the name of Art of Living (AOL) – which is a rage among the generation next – would feel surprised if they listen to his advocacy of such causes where he appears less like a spiritual man but more a politician owning allegiance with to the Hindutva Brigade.

As an aside, it can be noted that The Art of Living has established its network in 140 countries around the world and claims 20 million members. Many leading corporations like Oracle, Sun Microsystems and Cisco Systems hire AOL teachers to conduct seminars for their employees. Of course, behind the carefully cultivated image of playfulness, love and joy, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar cannot hide what Meera Nanda calls his ‘Hindu nationalist passion’ It has been an open secret that on matters of Ram Mandir and minorities he has always shown where his sympathies lie.

The British magazine The Economist had described his politics quite accurately:

‘Art of Living is open to people of all faiths. But, in fact, discussing the Ram temple, its guru starts to sound less like a spiritual leader and more like a politician, talking of the long history of “appeasement of the minority community”, and of the unfairness of a system that subsidises Muslims to go on the Haj to Mecca’. (Page 100, The God Market, Meera Nanda, Random House.)

Art of Living’s occasional metamorphosis into Art of Coercion is a logical conclusion of this vision.

Amen!

Subhash Gatade is the author of Pahad Se Uncha Aadmi (2010) Godse’s Children: Hindutva Terror in India,(2011) and The Saffron Condition: The Politics of Repression and Exclusion in Neoliberal India(2011). He is also the Convener of New Socialist Initiative (NSI) Email : subhash.gatade@gmail.com

Originally published https://newsclick.in/art-coercion

The post Sri Sri Ravishankar and the Art of Coercion ! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to media reports, senior Congress leader Tom Vadakkan told journalists that if such efforts were made by Sri Sri, it was appreciable, “While this matter subjudice, the court did say that this matter can be settled outside the court and if efforts have been made by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar to solve the problem, it is welcome decision. The point is, it must be discussed properly with the stakeholders and no pressure must be brought on anybody. If done amicably it is good for country.”[i]

It is sad that a hardcore Hindutva baba, Sri Sri Ravishankar is being presented as ‘mediator’ in the Ayodhya mosque demolition issue There are three critical issues to be kept in mind while accepting Sri Sri as a ‘mediator’.

Firstly, the demolition of mosque on December 6, 1992 was not the result of a conflict between Hindus and Muslims. It was an engendered conflict –that took many lives — between Hindutva organizations and the democratic-secular Indian polity. The mosque was demolished despite orders of Supreme Court, assurances by the RSS/BJP leaders to the Indian Parliament and then prime minister, Narsimha Rao. Both the IndianParliament and the prime minister then promised to rebuild the mosque at its original site.

Secondly, what is the inordinate hurry when country is awaiting judgments from the Supreme Court and lower courts in criminal as well as deewani  (ownership question) aspects of the case?

Thirdly, this baba is not a neutral ‘mediator’. He is an old RSS (which was responsible for demolition of mosque at Ayodhya on December 6, 2017) cadre who has been attending all major programmes of RSS. Earlier RSS and his supporters advanced the name of Dalai Lama, also a great pal of the RSS, but his name was withdrawn for his open hobnobbing with the RSS.

Sri Sri’s modus operandi, operations, gimmicks and close connections with RSS have been recorded by a renowned South Asia expert and journalist in his book, In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India, Doubleday, New York, 2007.
 

According to him:
 
“I was still several miles from the ashram. But I could already make out its imposing meditation hall illuminated in shimmering blue and white light. I had come to visit Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (not to be confused with Ravi Shankar, the classical sitar player), who is perhaps the most prominent of a new breed of highly successful Hindu evangelists, at his Art of Living Foundation near Bangalore in south India. It was evening and hundreds of devotees had already congregated for evening prayers. From close up, the meditation hall was even more striking. Rising to five stories, it had been built entirely from marble. The hall was shaped like a lotus. There were 1,008 marble petals covering the exterior of the building symbolizing the diversity of human consciousness. It was only a few years old. The funding for this extravagant construction had come from corporate donations-much of it from the software companies in nearby Bangalore-and revenues the foundation earns from its hugely popular course in breathing techniques and meditation. ‘Come inside,’ said the polite young lady assigned to show me around. ‘You are just in time to watch the guruji take his evening questions.’”
 
“The interior was even more striking, fashioned like a Roman amphitheatre. We sat on polished white marble steps looking down at the stage in the centre. I felt like I had stepped inside a large wedding cake. Above us the walls and ceilings were covered with pink lotuses. On the pillars that supported the dome around the central stage were the symbols of the world’s main religions: the Islamic Crescent, the star of David, and the Cross of Jesus. In the centre, much larger than the other representations, was a depiction of Laxmi, the Hindu goddess of wealth. Alone on the stage, on what looked to be a large throne, sat a man in flowing white robes with an equally flowing white robes with an equally flowing beard and silky locks of hair falling luxuriantly around his shoulders. It looked as if Jesus were shooting a shampoo advertisement. This was Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.
 
“There was some chanting and clashing of cymbals. Then the prayers ended and a hush descended over the hall. It was time for guruji to take questions. I, expecting people to ask about higher consciousness or metaphysics. But the questions consisted mostly of mundane queries about how to deal with recalcitrant teenagers, whether staying late in the office was a good thing, and how to choose a marriage partner. The guruji spoke in a quiet but sonorous voice. But his answers were more like those of an advice columnist than a prophet. Someone asked how she could truly know she was a good person. ‘You do not need to be sweetie-sweetie, goodie-goodie all the time,’ said guruji. The audience broke into delighted laughter. Puzzled, I looked around to see hundreds of shining eyes and overjoyed expressions. The next question, which came by e-mail and was read by one of guruji’s followers ended with: ‘I love you so much guruji.’ Someone asked about whether it was always wrong to pay bribes. ‘You shouldn’t be too idealistic all the time,’ said the guruji. ‘Sometimes you have to make little, little compromises.’ Again the audience erupted in laughter. I was beginning to wonder about the Art of Living’s breathing techniques. 
 
After the Q&A session had ended, I was told it was now time for my “audience” with Sri Sri Ravishankar. It took a while for the interview to begin because throngs of people had surrounded the guruji seeking his blessing. Half of them were westerners. ‘Can I have your blessing, guruji,’ shouted a blond woman as the guruji was finally entering the interview room. He turned slowly and placed his hands on the woman. Her face was a study in beatific joy. Then he entered the room. After we had settled down, I asked Sri Sri Ravi Shankar what he thought about the arrest of the Shankaracharya of Kanchi. ‘It was shock to me,’ he said. ‘It was also shock to hear about all the financial inefficiency in the mutt (temple). But I am not surprised at the lack of public reaction. The Hindus are a very docile people. We are a non-violent people. But maybe it has also to do with the fact that the institution never reaches out to people. Other sections of society don’t feel any attachment to his temple.”
 
“In contrast to Shankaracharya’s temple in Kanchi, which is dirty, the Art of Living Foundation was spotlessly clean. Its meeting rooms looked like executive boardrooms. There were liquid crystal displays. People from all walks of life and religion are welcome at the Art of Living Foundation. All sorts of credit cards are also accepted. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has a reputation for being a mystic and liberal.
 
“What is less widely known is the guruji’s close attachment to the RSS. He has shared platforms with VHP leaders at public meetings. I asked him whether the Ram Temple should be built in Ayodhya. ‘Suppose,’ he said, ‘that it was the birthplace of Jesus or Mohammed. What would you have done? Would you have tolerated another structure on that site? Let us build a temple to Ram and let the Muslims make this gesture as an act of goodwill and then the temple will also belong to Allah and to all Muslims.’ To Allah? I asked. ‘Yes, as you must have seen, we accept all paths to God. Sometimes we wish other religions would do the same.’
 
The guruji’s words reminded me of Advani’s desire to see more “Hindu Muslims” and more “Hindu Christians.” They also reminded me of an interview I had had with Narendra Modi in Gujarat. Modi had said: ‘We have nothing against people who are not Hindus what we cannot accept is when people say; we are whiter than white. Our religion as better than yours.’ As we saw, Modi demonstrated his opinion of such people in more robust ways. I wondered whether the guruji really believed in all this. He seemed courteous and gentle—although I suspected he might also be suffering from a mild dose of narcissism. ‘Why do people want to convert people to other religions?’ the guruji asked. ‘It is great pity. We should protect the cultural diversity of the planet and not try to change it.’ I pointed out that the Art of Living Foundation was thriving in places such as California, London, and the Netherlands. ‘Yes, but we are not a religion. We do not try to convert anyone. There are many paths to God.’
 
A few weeks later received a telephone call from Ram Madhav, the national spokesman of the RSS. ‘I am calling about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar,’ said Madhav. ‘I was talking to him the other day and he said he was disappointed with your article in the Financial Times. You only quoted his views on politics and the Shankaracharya. He said he was hoping you would quote his views on tolerance and spiritualism.’ It is true my article had lacked space to quote the guruji’s opinions on other matters. But I was surprised the guruji should have chosen the RSS—of all organizations—to convey his complaint.'”[ii][Bold text for emphasis]
 
Support by the Congress of this baba’s name as ‘mediator’ proves one fact once again that the former has not learnt any lessons from its past blunders in this case when it allowed the opening of the gates of mosque, pooja and shila poojan at the site, actually allowing a conflict to first fester and then explode in humungous proportions.
 
This latest move by the Congress, shocking and short sighted, to support a ‘mediator’ who has in the past declared support for one powerful side in the dispute (he has openly stated that eh stands for building a temple over the site of the demolished mosque)is suicidal for both secular, democratic India and the Congress.

[i]http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/cong-lauds-sri-sri-ravi-shankar-s-act-as-mediator-in-ayodhya-dispute/488632.html

The post Congress Falls Into Trap, Supports ‘Hindutva’ Baba, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as ‘Mediator in Babri Dispute appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: India TV

On Eid Ul Adha, Syed Wasim Rizvi, the director at Shia Central Waqf Board, was in Ayodhya to meet Mahant Suresh Das, one of the parties advocating the construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site.

The meet, which was done in the presence of the press, lent support to the construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site. Rizvi also asked for the construction of mosque but at a resonable distance from the Ayodhya in some Muslim dominant locality.

Rizvi also said that since Babar was a “cruel Mughal emperor”, the mosque should not be named after him. He proposed the name “Masjid-e-Aman” for the mosque.

Since the formation of the new government in Uttar Pradesh, talks, rumours and negotiations have accelerated in reference to Ram Janmabhoomi. Several trucks loaded with stones have already reached Ayodhya in past few months and they are already being carved in the Karsewakpuram.

The meeting on Saturday was followed by another meeting on Sunday when Rizvi met Bhaskar Das and Dharm Das of Nirmohi Akhara, which is one of the parties in the same case, and Suresh Das of Digambar Akhara. In this meeting too, both sides mutually agreed and embraced the construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site.

While Rizvi and the board are intervening in the matter in a personal capacity, the matter is currently under hearing in the Supreme Court of India. And as the matter is sub-Judice, the Sunni Central Waqf Board does not hold any influence in the issue.

A few days ago, Sunni Waqf Board’s chairman Zafar Ahmad Faruqi had condemned the practices of Rizvi and claimed that the Sunni Central Waqf Board is ready for mediation and talks but only with the original parties. Shia Waqf Board had also submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court asking to be one of the parties in the case, which the court refused.

With Rizvi’s intervention in the case, a dispute historically seen as Hindu vs Muslim is turning into Hindu us Sunni vs Shia case. However, this development will please Hindu parties in the case as Santosh Das welcomed Rizvi’s remarks and said that if Muslims are supporting for temple construction, what could be more pleasing in the case.

About the meeting, Rizvi told TwoCircles.net, “The only peaceful solution to the whole problem is that Muslims should welcome the construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site. Otherwise, there will always be a conflict between Hindus and Muslims.”

Rizvi, who is accused of creating differences among Shias and Sunnis, said, “Muslim population in Ayodhya is considerably low, and I think there are enough mosques for them in Ayodhya. Shia Waqf Board understands the need of a mosque, but that should be built at a far distance from the temple in a Muslim dominated locality.”

For Rizvi, the Sunni central waqf board does not hold any position in the case and stresses over the Shia Central Waqf Board as the main party.

He also said, “There are few ‘terrorist-like, ‘traitors’ and ‘Pakistan-funded’ Mullahs and Imams live in this country, who does not want a peaceful resolution in the case.”

Courtesy: Two Circles
 

The post Shia Waqf Board meets Hindu parties involved in Ayodhya case, reiterates support for Ram Mandir appeared first on SabrangIndia.

जरूरत से ज्यादा उत्साही भारतीय इंटेलिजेंस और अब साइबर सेल से लैस पुलिस नेटवर्क के लिए ऐसे भड़काऊ भाषणों और इन्हें देने वालों पर नजर रखना कठिन नहीं है। साथ ही वे भी आसानी से इस बात का पता कर सकते हैं क्या भड़काऊ या उन्माद फैलाने वाले भाषण और बयान देने वाले नेता आने वाले चुनावों में हिस्सा ले रही पार्टियों से जुड़े हैं?

राजनीति में धर्म के दुरुपयोग पर काफी हंगामा मचता रहा है। एक धर्मनिरपेक्ष राज्य होने के नाते भारत का कानून राजनीति में धर्म के दुरुपयोग की इजाजत नहीं देता। इसका मतलब यह है कि भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 153ए, 153बी और भारतीय जनप्रतिनिधित्व कानून की धारा 123ए और 123बी तहत धर्म के नाम पर लोगों का गलत उद्देश्य के लिए आह्वान करने, दो धर्मों या संप्रदाय के लोगों को आपस में भिड़ाने और एक धर्म को दूसरे से श्रेष्ठ बताने या धर्म के नाम पर धमकी देना जुर्म है। 

अभी चंद दिनों पहले सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने चुनाव में धर्म और जाति के नाम पर मतदाताओं से अपील के मामले में फैसला दिया। कोर्ट ने कोई गाइडलाइन तो नहीं दी है लेकिन एक मोटा सा सिद्धांत पेश किया, जिसके तहत धर्म, संप्रदाय या जाति  के नाम पर अपील पर रोक है। लेकिन लगता है कि  भाजपा के लोगों पर इसका कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता है। हाल में भाजपा के सांसद साक्षी महाराज ने एक खास समुदाय के खिलाफ भड़काऊ और आपत्तिजनक बयान दिए। और इस बारे में उनके खिलाफ चुनाव आयोग में शिकायत भी दर्ज की गई है।

इस बीच, व्हाट्सएप और इंटरनेट पर बजने वाले उन्मादी और भड़काऊ म्यूजिक, गाने और ऐसे विजुअल सामने आ रहे हैं जो न सिर्फ बखेड़ा करने में सक्षम हैं बल्कि वे सीधे तौर पर धमकी और चेतावनी देते लगते हैं। ऐसा ही एक एमपी थ्री ट्यून यहां बानगी के तौर पर पेश है। यह ट्यून बड़ी तेजी से इंटरनेट और मोबाइल पर फैल रही है।
गाने के बोल हैं –

“Suno papiyo tumhare Chatti pe ab Shiv tandav hoga…….ram mandir song (https://mp3tunes.ws/suno-papiyo-tumhari-chati-pe-d645232)

जो राम का नहीं मेरे काम का नहीं
बोलो राम मंदिर कब बनेगा?
पूछे राम भक्तों से अयोध्या
जा रही है आबरू महा-संग्राम चाहिए
आज कलयुग में राम भक्तों को अपना राम चाहिए
अब अयोध्या में राम मंदिर का निर्माण चाहिए
कार सेवकों की बलिदान को कैसे हम भुलायेंगे
पहले गोली खाई है अब फिर लहू बहायेंगे
जागो जागो अब शहीदों का सम्मान चाहिए
राम भक्तों अब शहीदों का सम्मान चाहिए
आज कलयुग में राम भक्तों को अपना राम चाहिए
अब अयोध्या में राम मंदिर का निर्माण चाहिए
सुनो पापियों तुम्हारी छाती पे अब शिव-ताण्डव होगा
गर मंदिर नहीं बना तो सरयू तट पे तुम्हारा शव होगा
राम के नाम पे हो कुर्बान वो हिन्दुस्तान चाहिए
आज कलयुग में राम-भक्तों को अपना राम चाहिए
अब अयोध्या में राम मंदिर का निर्माण चाहिए
आज कलयुग में राम-भक्तों को अपना राम चाहिए
राम मेरे राम, सीता सीता राम
पतित पवन सीताराम, रघुपति राघव राजा राम, राम मेरे राम
महंत बृजमोहन बाबा का भक्तों यही नारा है
अनुपम देवेन्द्र करो या मरो डरो न वक़्त तुम्हारा है
मोदीजी संसद में सच्चा प्रमाण चाहिए
छप्पन इंच सीने वालों का संविधान चाहिए
आज कलयुग में राम-भक्तों को अपना राम चाहिए
अब अयोध्या में राम मंदिर का निर्माण चाहिए

कोरस में गाया एक गीत इस तरह है-

सुनो पापियों तुम्हारी छाती पे अब शिव-ताण्डव होगा
गर मंदिर नहीं बना तो तुम्हारा सरयू तट पे सर होगा
राम के नाम पे हो कुर्बान वो हिन्दुस्तान चाहिए
आज कलयुग में राम-भक्तों को अपना राम चाहिए
अब अयोध्या में राम मंदिर का निर्माण चाहिए
आज कलयुग में राम-भक्तों को अपना राम चाहिए

Edited by : Arya Raghavendra  राम मंदिर का निर्माण चाहिए Bolo Ram Mandir Kab Banega Song by Devendra Pathak
 

यू ट्यूब पर ऐसे ही कई भड़काऊ और नफरत फैलाने वाले साउंड ट्रैक और वीडियो देखे जा सकते हैं। आरएसएस से कथित तौर पर जुड़े संगठनों खास तौर पर विश्व हिंदू परिषद कथित तौर पर इसका इस्तेमाल करती रही है। आने वाले चुनावों को ध्यान में रख कर तरह के गाने, भाषण औऱ भड़काऊ वीडियो अपलोड किए जाते रहे हैं। हालांकि अब इऩमें से कई फेसबुक पर ब्लॉक किए जा चुके हैं।

 
मौजूदा मोदी सरकार में शामिल लोगों के भड़काने वाले भाषणों का सिलसिला बदस्तूर जारी है। सरकार में शामिल मंत्री और सांसद जिस तरह से भड़काने वाले बयान और भाषण दे रहे हैं, वह हतप्रभ करने वाला है। जरूरत से ज्यादा उत्साही भारतीय इंटेलिजेंस और अब साइबर सेल से लैस पुलिस नेटवर्क के लिए ऐसे भड़काऊ भाषणों और इन्हें देने वालों पर नजर रखना कठिन नहीं है।

यूट्यूब पर योगी आदित्यनाथ के समर्थकों का यह वीडियो मौजूद है। इसे 3,00,000 लाइक मिले हैं।

 
सवाल यह कि क्या ऐसे भड़काऊ बयानों,वीडियो या भाषणों को रोकना सरकारी इंटेलिजेंस या पुलिस नेटवर्क की प्राथमिकता है। खास कर उस माहौल में जब मोदी सरकार में बहुसंख्यकों का दखल का बढ़ता जा रहा है।

The post इंटरनेट और सोशल मीडिया ने राजनीति में धर्म का दुरुपयोग आसान बनाया ? appeared first on SabrangIndia.