Though the Supreme Court has given its judgement on decades long dispute on Babri Mosque-Ram’s Birthplace on November 9, 2019 yet the Muslim party of this dispute is not satisfied with it because they are of the views that there are many contradictions in the judgement which has not made it above partiality. It instills the feelings in the Muslims of the country that they are deprived of justice in this case. It is the reason they are going to challenged this verdict of the Supreme Court by filing a Rit-Petition in the Highest Court. If we deeply analyzed the judgement, we find many flaws in it. The judgement and the contradictions in it are following.
The Supreme Court says in its judgement that the act of demolition of the Babri Mosque on December 6, 2019 was illegal and the placing of Idols in the Mosque under the Central Dome of the Mosque in the night of December 22/23, 1949 was an erroneous and an unholy act.
The Supreme Court also accept it that the Babri Mosque had been constructed in the 16th Century by Meer Baqi, the Army Chief of Babur.
The constitutional bench is of the views that the no Temple was demolished for the construction of the Babri Mosque.
“The Sunni Waqf Board could not prove its claims that it has possession on Babri Mosque for the long time without hindrance.” says SC. Infact Sunni Waqf Board had claimed it that it had possession on the Babri Mosque for a long time and ‘Namaz’ had been performed in it.
According to the decision of Supreme Court the disputed land in Ayodhya was is Government land as it has been shown in the record of Revenue Department. On the other hand the Court says that ‘Ram Chabutra’ and ‘Sita Rasoi’ outside Babri Mosque were existed before 1857.
On the basis of report of Archeological Survey of India (ASI), the Supreme Court says that no Islamic Structure was found under the Babri Mosque and these Artefacts had been found, they are not related with Islamic Structure.
According to the judgement of Court, Muslim party could not prove this point that before 1857 the Mosque was completely under their control. While the Hindu party has succeeded in proving it that worship on ‘Ram Chabutra’ situated outside the disputed area was under their control and they also worshipped there. They worshipped there before 1857 too.
The Court rejected the judgement of Allahabad High Court on this issue saying it that this dispute does not belong to the division of property. In its views it is illegal. The Allahabad High Court has divided the disputed land 2.77 Acre into three parts. One part for Babri Mosque, one part for Nirmohi Akhada and third part for Ramlala.
No one has opposed this claim that Ram Birthplace was in Ayodhya and Hindus have been believing it that the birth place of Ram has been under the Central Dome of Babri Mosque. From the details of Historical Hindu scriptures, claims of Hindu party about ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’ are verified. For this purpose ‘Skandpuran’ and ‘Padmapuran’ have been mentioned.
On the night of December 22/23, 1949 idols were placed in the Mosque. Religious faith of one person should not deprived the right of another person. We don’t refuse to accept a place of Mosque where ‘Namaz’ is performed.
The Highest Court gave reference of the reports of Archeological Survey of India (ASI) in its judgement again and again. This report had been prepared in 2003 by excavating the disputed site on the instruction of Allahabad Court by the then Director Hari Manzhi and Superintendent Incharge B. R. Mani.
In the report it had been said that no vacant lands were available around the disputed site. There had been inhabitants since 12th BC continuously. Besides remains of a Temple were found under the disputed structure, which suggest the possibility of a Temple in the past. Earlier between 1969-70 to 1975-76 an excavation was conduct by Professor B. B. Lal with his team around the disputed site of Ayodhya.
On March 22, 2003 an excavation was conducted by Archeological Survey of India (ASI) team under the supervision of then receiver and divisional commissioner Mr. Ramsharan Srivastava.
Advocates of both parties (Hindu & Muslim) were also present at the site. In this team experts of both communities were also present there. This team was led by B. R. Mani. The excavation works was done for near about 2 months in which 131 labours had been engaged. On June 11, 2003 Archeological Survey of India (ASI) had prepared his final report and has submitted it on August 2003, consisting of 574 pages before the Allahabad High Court.
Archeological Survey of India (ASI) has submitted its report in two parts in which Photographs, Maps, Graphics and detailed report are included. In this report Decorated bricks, Divine Idols, Round Shaped Temple made by bricks, drain and 50 pillars relating to a big building have been mentioned to be found. The above Idols and the big building found in the excavation are understood as a ‘Shiv-Parwati’ and a round shaped Temple. These remains understood to be of 7 to 10 AD. The fifty pillars found in the excavation testified the calim of a Temple.
Analysis of Judgement
After reading the above judgement of the Supreme Court, it seems that SC has given most importance to the unhindrance possession of the disputed land. The Court has accepted the claim of Hindu Party that ‘Ram Chabutra’ and ‘Sita Rasoi’ were in its continuous possession before 1857, while it did not find unhindrance possession of Muslim community on disputed land before 1857. This finding of the Supreme Court about the possession of Muslim community on the disputed structure is not very clear. Before the event of placing of Idols in the Babri Mosque on December 22/23, 1949. It was fully possessed by the Muslim community. After this event Muslims were stopped for performing the ‘Namaz’ in the Babri Mosque and thus their entry in the Mosque was banned. From that Day possession of Muslim community on disputed land ended. This situation in result of the step taken by local administration to ban the entry of Muslim community in the Babri Mosque. It means that Muslim community had possession on Babri Mosque fully without any hindrance. Besides they had full possession on the Babri Mosque from the date of its construction. The hindrance of the Muslim community on the possession of the Babri Mosque came when they were banned to enter the Babri Mosque and thus there possession on the Babri Mosque forcefully ended by the local administration. In this situation how could Muslim community maintain there possession without hindrance on the Babri Mosque? Did the Supreme Court Judges of the constitutional bench not think over this situation and not accepted the unhindrance possession theory of Muslim community on the Babri Mosque?
It should be remembered that Muslim community never stopped from entering in Babri Mosque in the past except in 1949 when the idols where placed secretely in the Mosque. From this date till today Muslim community had been lost their possession on the Babri Mosque. The judgment given by the Supreme Court keeping this situation in the mind against Muslim community is totally unjustifiable. In 1832 too, a dispute between Muslim and Hindu community was occurred over the possession of Babri Mosque but the local administration did not ban Muslims from entering the Mosque. But the possession on Babri Mosque of the Muslim community remained in their hand. This proves that Muslim community had unhindrance possession on Babri Mosque before December 22/23, 1949. But the Court has overlooked this important fact which is a big flaw of the judgement.
The Court says in its judgement that Babri Mosque had not been constructed after having demolished any temple but it also says it that the Babri Mosque had not been constructed on a vacant land. This also says it that there was a structure on this land. What kind of structure was it, it did not purified but it is clear that the structure was not a Temple as Supreme Court itself says that Babri Mosque had not been constructed after having demolished that Meer Baqi, the Army Chief of Babur had not get demolished any Temple. As far as recovery of remains of Temples under the Babri Mosque are concerned, these are not belongs to ‘Ram Temple’ but belonged to ‘Shiv Temple’. In addition to it no remains regarding ‘Ram Birthplace’ were not recovered from the excavation conducted by Archeological Survey of India (ASI) while the Hindu party had claimed that there was birthplace of ‘Ram’ under the Babri Mosque. Keeping this claim in mind on the night of December 22/23, 1949, Ramlala idol had been placed in the Babri Mosque. It is strange that no remains of birthplace of Ram under the Babri Mosque. Instead of it, the Court gave judgement of the disputed land in favour of Hindu party which is not justifiable. It is to be remembered that ‘Ram’ was born in the Palace of King Dasharatha on Januarty 10, 5114 BC. Under this situation remains found under Babri Mosque should be belonged to the 5114 BC as Hindu believed it but no such remains were found in the excavation. This fact proves it that there was no ‘Ram Birthplace’ under the Babri Mosque. It is to be mention here that these remains of Temples belonged to 7 to 10 BC. In this situation how can these remains be mades basis of very-very important dispute of Ayodhya-Babri issue. Who knows that under a vacant land are any Temple or any building. So when Babri Mosque was constructed, at that time no one know it surely that there were Temples under the around. It should be known that under every land remains of different think are found and remains of building and other things can be found under our houses too. It means that we should give up our possession from our houses. Keeping in view the fact that our houses have been constructed on the land where living places have been made by others Centuries ago. Thus the SC judgement on the Ayodhya-Babri issue on the basis of remains found in excavation conducted by Archeological Survey of India (ASI) is not understandable. The Court does not consider the existence of Babri Mosque and which has been stood for 16th Century and give its judgement on the basis of remains found under the Babri Mosque. Is this Justice? Infact this is not a judgement which could be expected from the Supreme Court as it lacks the wisdom and subtle thought of Supreme Court for which it is known.
One flaw of this judgement is to declare the land of Babri Mosque as a Government land and keep silent about the land ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’. The question is if Babri Mosque land is Government land, then why the ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’ is not a Government land as these religious sites how said the Babri Mosque but on the land of Babri Mosque. It should be mention here that the Muslim party has express its regret about never to stopped Hindus to worship on these religious site. So it is very surprising that the Supreme Court did not declare the land of these Hindu religious places as a Government land. The Supreme Court had rejected the claim of ownership of land of the Muslim community because of it being a Government land. On the other hand the Supreme Court does not think about the land of ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’ is the Government land and thus gives its judgement on this basis in favour of Hindu community. Had ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’ been situated before the construction of the Babri Mosque? The Answer is not in affirmative. The situation suggest that these three Hindu religious sites would have came into existence on the disputed after many decades of the Babri Mosque. In this situation if the inner land of Babri Mosque can be a Government land, then can the outer land where ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’ situated, not a Government land. This decision of the Supreme Court not understandable . If the Babri land is the Government land, then the ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’ land is also Government land. By ignoring this fact the Supreme Court stopped the way for getting justice for Muslims community. It seems that the Supreme Court has adopted this attitude deliberately. The judgement given by the Supreme Court in this case against Muslims community is illogical as on one hand the SC says that Babri Mosque did not build after demolishing of a Temple, the act of demolishing of Babri Mosque is illegal and the act of placing ‘Ramlala Idols’ in Babri Mosque secretely was an erroneous and an unholy. When the Supreme Court accept the facts then it must think of providing justice to Muslim community. In other words Muslim community should be awarded with favourable judgement in this case. But it did not do so.
These are the views of right thinking people of the country too about the judgement of the Supreme Court.
- Rohit Sharma Vishwakarma
The Supreme Court says in its judgement that the act of demolition of the Babri Mosque on December 6, 2019 was illegal and the placing of Idols in the Mosque under the Central Dome of the Mosque in the night of December 22/23, 1949 was an erroneous and an unholy act.
The Supreme Court also accept it that the Babri Mosque had been constructed in the 16th Century by Meer Baqi, the Army Chief of Babur.
The constitutional bench is of the views that the no Temple was demolished for the construction of the Babri Mosque.
“The Sunni Waqf Board could not prove its claims that it has possession on Babri Mosque for the long time without hindrance.” says SC. Infact Sunni Waqf Board had claimed it that it had possession on the Babri Mosque for a long time and ‘Namaz’ had been performed in it.
According to the decision of Supreme Court the disputed land in Ayodhya was is Government land as it has been shown in the record of Revenue Department. On the other hand the Court says that ‘Ram Chabutra’ and ‘Sita Rasoi’ outside Babri Mosque were existed before 1857.
On the basis of report of Archeological Survey of India (ASI), the Supreme Court says that no Islamic Structure was found under the Babri Mosque and these Artefacts had been found, they are not related with Islamic Structure.
According to the judgement of Court, Muslim party could not prove this point that before 1857 the Mosque was completely under their control. While the Hindu party has succeeded in proving it that worship on ‘Ram Chabutra’ situated outside the disputed area was under their control and they also worshipped there. They worshipped there before 1857 too.
The Court rejected the judgement of Allahabad High Court on this issue saying it that this dispute does not belong to the division of property. In its views it is illegal. The Allahabad High Court has divided the disputed land 2.77 Acre into three parts. One part for Babri Mosque, one part for Nirmohi Akhada and third part for Ramlala.
No one has opposed this claim that Ram Birthplace was in Ayodhya and Hindus have been believing it that the birth place of Ram has been under the Central Dome of Babri Mosque. From the details of Historical Hindu scriptures, claims of Hindu party about ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’ are verified. For this purpose ‘Skandpuran’ and ‘Padmapuran’ have been mentioned.
On the night of December 22/23, 1949 idols were placed in the Mosque. Religious faith of one person should not deprived the right of another person. We don’t refuse to accept a place of Mosque where ‘Namaz’ is performed.
The Highest Court gave reference of the reports of Archeological Survey of India (ASI) in its judgement again and again. This report had been prepared in 2003 by excavating the disputed site on the instruction of Allahabad Court by the then Director Hari Manzhi and Superintendent Incharge B. R. Mani.
In the report it had been said that no vacant lands were available around the disputed site. There had been inhabitants since 12th BC continuously. Besides remains of a Temple were found under the disputed structure, which suggest the possibility of a Temple in the past. Earlier between 1969-70 to 1975-76 an excavation was conduct by Professor B. B. Lal with his team around the disputed site of Ayodhya.
On March 22, 2003 an excavation was conducted by Archeological Survey of India (ASI) team under the supervision of then receiver and divisional commissioner Mr. Ramsharan Srivastava.
Advocates of both parties (Hindu & Muslim) were also present at the site. In this team experts of both communities were also present there. This team was led by B. R. Mani. The excavation works was done for near about 2 months in which 131 labours had been engaged. On June 11, 2003 Archeological Survey of India (ASI) had prepared his final report and has submitted it on August 2003, consisting of 574 pages before the Allahabad High Court.
Archeological Survey of India (ASI) has submitted its report in two parts in which Photographs, Maps, Graphics and detailed report are included. In this report Decorated bricks, Divine Idols, Round Shaped Temple made by bricks, drain and 50 pillars relating to a big building have been mentioned to be found. The above Idols and the big building found in the excavation are understood as a ‘Shiv-Parwati’ and a round shaped Temple. These remains understood to be of 7 to 10 AD. The fifty pillars found in the excavation testified the calim of a Temple.
Analysis of Judgement
After reading the above judgement of the Supreme Court, it seems that SC has given most importance to the unhindrance possession of the disputed land. The Court has accepted the claim of Hindu Party that ‘Ram Chabutra’ and ‘Sita Rasoi’ were in its continuous possession before 1857, while it did not find unhindrance possession of Muslim community on disputed land before 1857. This finding of the Supreme Court about the possession of Muslim community on the disputed structure is not very clear. Before the event of placing of Idols in the Babri Mosque on December 22/23, 1949. It was fully possessed by the Muslim community. After this event Muslims were stopped for performing the ‘Namaz’ in the Babri Mosque and thus their entry in the Mosque was banned. From that Day possession of Muslim community on disputed land ended. This situation in result of the step taken by local administration to ban the entry of Muslim community in the Babri Mosque. It means that Muslim community had possession on Babri Mosque fully without any hindrance. Besides they had full possession on the Babri Mosque from the date of its construction. The hindrance of the Muslim community on the possession of the Babri Mosque came when they were banned to enter the Babri Mosque and thus there possession on the Babri Mosque forcefully ended by the local administration. In this situation how could Muslim community maintain there possession without hindrance on the Babri Mosque? Did the Supreme Court Judges of the constitutional bench not think over this situation and not accepted the unhindrance possession theory of Muslim community on the Babri Mosque?
It should be remembered that Muslim community never stopped from entering in Babri Mosque in the past except in 1949 when the idols where placed secretely in the Mosque. From this date till today Muslim community had been lost their possession on the Babri Mosque. The judgment given by the Supreme Court keeping this situation in the mind against Muslim community is totally unjustifiable. In 1832 too, a dispute between Muslim and Hindu community was occurred over the possession of Babri Mosque but the local administration did not ban Muslims from entering the Mosque. But the possession on Babri Mosque of the Muslim community remained in their hand. This proves that Muslim community had unhindrance possession on Babri Mosque before December 22/23, 1949. But the Court has overlooked this important fact which is a big flaw of the judgement.
The Court says in its judgement that Babri Mosque had not been constructed after having demolished any temple but it also says it that the Babri Mosque had not been constructed on a vacant land. This also says it that there was a structure on this land. What kind of structure was it, it did not purified but it is clear that the structure was not a Temple as Supreme Court itself says that Babri Mosque had not been constructed after having demolished that Meer Baqi, the Army Chief of Babur had not get demolished any Temple. As far as recovery of remains of Temples under the Babri Mosque are concerned, these are not belongs to ‘Ram Temple’ but belonged to ‘Shiv Temple’. In addition to it no remains regarding ‘Ram Birthplace’ were not recovered from the excavation conducted by Archeological Survey of India (ASI) while the Hindu party had claimed that there was birthplace of ‘Ram’ under the Babri Mosque. Keeping this claim in mind on the night of December 22/23, 1949, Ramlala idol had been placed in the Babri Mosque. It is strange that no remains of birthplace of Ram under the Babri Mosque. Instead of it, the Court gave judgement of the disputed land in favour of Hindu party which is not justifiable. It is to be remembered that ‘Ram’ was born in the Palace of King Dasharatha on Januarty 10, 5114 BC. Under this situation remains found under Babri Mosque should be belonged to the 5114 BC as Hindu believed it but no such remains were found in the excavation. This fact proves it that there was no ‘Ram Birthplace’ under the Babri Mosque. It is to be mention here that these remains of Temples belonged to 7 to 10 BC. In this situation how can these remains be mades basis of very-very important dispute of Ayodhya-Babri issue. Who knows that under a vacant land are any Temple or any building. So when Babri Mosque was constructed, at that time no one know it surely that there were Temples under the around. It should be known that under every land remains of different think are found and remains of building and other things can be found under our houses too. It means that we should give up our possession from our houses. Keeping in view the fact that our houses have been constructed on the land where living places have been made by others Centuries ago. Thus the SC judgement on the Ayodhya-Babri issue on the basis of remains found in excavation conducted by Archeological Survey of India (ASI) is not understandable. The Court does not consider the existence of Babri Mosque and which has been stood for 16th Century and give its judgement on the basis of remains found under the Babri Mosque. Is this Justice? Infact this is not a judgement which could be expected from the Supreme Court as it lacks the wisdom and subtle thought of Supreme Court for which it is known.
One flaw of this judgement is to declare the land of Babri Mosque as a Government land and keep silent about the land ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’. The question is if Babri Mosque land is Government land, then why the ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’ is not a Government land as these religious sites how said the Babri Mosque but on the land of Babri Mosque. It should be mention here that the Muslim party has express its regret about never to stopped Hindus to worship on these religious site. So it is very surprising that the Supreme Court did not declare the land of these Hindu religious places as a Government land. The Supreme Court had rejected the claim of ownership of land of the Muslim community because of it being a Government land. On the other hand the Supreme Court does not think about the land of ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’ is the Government land and thus gives its judgement on this basis in favour of Hindu community. Had ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’ been situated before the construction of the Babri Mosque? The Answer is not in affirmative. The situation suggest that these three Hindu religious sites would have came into existence on the disputed after many decades of the Babri Mosque. In this situation if the inner land of Babri Mosque can be a Government land, then can the outer land where ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’ situated, not a Government land. This decision of the Supreme Court not understandable . If the Babri land is the Government land, then the ‘Ram Chabutra’, ‘Sita Rasoi’ and ‘Bhandara’ land is also Government land. By ignoring this fact the Supreme Court stopped the way for getting justice for Muslims community. It seems that the Supreme Court has adopted this attitude deliberately. The judgement given by the Supreme Court in this case against Muslims community is illogical as on one hand the SC says that Babri Mosque did not build after demolishing of a Temple, the act of demolishing of Babri Mosque is illegal and the act of placing ‘Ramlala Idols’ in Babri Mosque secretely was an erroneous and an unholy. When the Supreme Court accept the facts then it must think of providing justice to Muslim community. In other words Muslim community should be awarded with favourable judgement in this case. But it did not do so.
These are the views of right thinking people of the country too about the judgement of the Supreme Court.
- Rohit Sharma Vishwakarma
No comments:
Post a Comment