Historical Secular Judgment on Ayodhya-Interesting quotes By Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

Ayodhya - a true 'secular' verdict

Historical Secular Judgment on Ayodhya

Interesting quotes

By

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

“Cases were filed before the Court of Civil Judge Faizabad which was transferred on the request of Uttar Pradesh Government to Allahabad High Court resulting in constitution of a three member Special Bench by the Chief Justice. Claim was made that, Babur built a mosque at Ayodhya, known as Babri Mosque which was damaged in 1934 during communal riots and thereafter in December 1949 large crowd of Hindus desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque. On behalf of some of the defendants, it was alleged that not only in the outer courtyard but also in the inner courtyard people used to worship the birth place of deity and it is being worshipped from times immemorial”.

“The case of the plaintiffs is that at Ayodhya, Pargana Haveli Oudh there exists an ancient historic mosque commonly known as 'Babari Masjid' built by Emperor Babar about 433 years ago, after his conquest of India, and occupation of the territories including Ayodhya town. The said mosque was for the use of Muslims in general as a place of worship and performance of religious ceremonies”.

One defendant in his written statement: “Babar was not a fanatic but a devout Muslim who did not believe in destroying Hindu temples. It was Mir Baqi who was a Shia and commanded Babar's orders, who demolished ancient Hindu temple of the time of Maharaja Vikramaditya at Shri Ramjanambhumi and tried to raise a mosque like structure in its place with its material. Babar was not an emperor. He was a marauder. What was constructed was not a mosque nor it was constructed for use of Muslims in general. It was not known as Babri Masjid but described as Masjid Janamsthan in British times. The objective evidence of demolition of ancient temple and attempted construction of mosque at Ramjanambhumi existed in the form of 14 Kasauti pillars, sandal wood beams and other structural features of the building. The aforesaid act, however, is opposed to the tenets of Islam as disclosed by holy Quran and Fatwa issued by Muslim theologians”.

Faizabad Gazetteer 1960 has recorded an important fact at page 50 as under: “William Finch, the English merchant, who travelled through the Mughal Empire (1608-1611), says that Avadh is a city of ancient note, and seat of Potan King, now much ruined; the castle built four hundred years ago. Here are also the ruins of castle and houses of Ram Chandra, the Hero of Ramayan, which the Indians acknowledge for the great God, saying that he took a flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world. In these ruins Ramayana certain Brahmans who record the names of all such Indians as wash themselves in the river running thereby; which custom they say, has continued four lakhs of years (which is three hundred ninety four thousand and five hundred years before the world's creation).”

The three Judges Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Justice S U Khan and Justice D V Sharma, in their judgment decided that “the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure-the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus. The area within the inner courtyard belongs to members of both the communities-Hindus and Muslims since it was being used by both for decades and centuries. The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi Akhara. The open area within the outer courtyard shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara and Muslims. It is however made clear that the share of Muslim parties shall not be less than one third of the total area of the premises and if necessary it may be given some area of outer courtyard. It is also made clear that while making partition by metes and bounds (is a system or method of describing land, real property), if some minor adjustments are to be made with respect to the share of different parties, the affected party may be compensated by allotting the requisite land from the area which is under acquisition of the Government of India.

Justice Sudhir Agarwal, started his judgment with a Rig-Veda Shloka and said that, “During the Dissolution, there was neither existence nor non¬existence, and at that time neither Lok (world) was there nor was anything beyond the space. What encompassed all at that time? Where was the abode and of whom? What was the unfathomable and deep water? At that time there was neither death nor immortality, and there was also no knowledge of day and night in absence of the Sun and the Moon. In that stage of vacuum, Brahm (the Supreme Being) alone was imbibing life from His own power. There was nothing beyond or distinct from Him.”

“Prior to Creation, in the stage of Dissolution, there was darkness, everything was covered with darkness in an unknown state and this was all water and whatever existed, was covered all around with remarkable attributes of existence and non¬existence and this was possible due to the effect of great austere practice. None knows and none can tell as to from where and how the Creation took place, because even the scholars or those having foresight, were born after the Creation. Hence, none knows the source of this Creation. O scholar whether the Creation is sustained by the Creator or not, is known only to Him, who superintends this Creation from the supreme space or it may not be known even to Him.”

Justice Agarwal mentioned that, Sixty years and more passed since the first Suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad and more than twenty one years was over when it came before a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court (on transfer of the suits from the Court of Civil Judge Faizabad). They examined 533 exhibits, 87 witnesses deposing in about 13990 pages, gone through more than a thousand reference books on various subjects like History, Culture, Archaeology, Religion etc. and in different languages like Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu, Persian, Turkish, French etc.; innumerable archaeological artifacts kept in the record room; dozens of C.Ds. and other records; and, the period of events ranging from crores to more than 550 years; religious faith, sentiments and pathos of millions of people of not only this Country but abroad also. All these gave them some indication towards length, width and depth of the dispute before them observed Justice Agarwal.

According to the Judges, the entire dispute relates to the land situated in village Kot Rama Chandra (Ramkot at Ayodhya), Pargana Haveli Avadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad. At the disputed site there was an old structure--centre of controversy among two major communities of this country, i.e., Hindus and Muslims. Amongst Hindus also a religious sect known as “Ramanandi Vairagis” has an independent and separate claim. It is claimed by Hindus in general that the disputed site is the place where Lord Rama was born and it is his birthplace. There existed a Rama temple at the site which was demolished in 1528 by Mir Baqi, a Commander of Babar, and, he constructed the said disputed structure which the Muslims claimed to be “Babari Mosque”. The claim of Hindus is that there cannot be another birthplace of Lord Rama. Therefore, by its very nature they cannot give away such a unique and singular pious place. Ramanandi Vairagis, however, claim that the structure was not a mosque but continued to be a “Rama temple” throughout and worshipped as such, it belongs to them, and they have been in continuous possession and management till December' 1949. They, however, are in agreement with the orthodox Hindus' general belief that the site in dispute is the birthplace of Lord Rama.

Justice Agarwal said that, “It is averred that from the public record of unimpeachable authority, it is established manifestly that the premises in dispute is the place where Maryada Purushottam Shri Ramchandra Ji Maharaj was born as the son of Maharaja Dashrath of Solar Dynasty. According to the traditions and faith of devotees of Bhagwan Shri Ram, it is the place where he manifested himself in human form as an incarnation of Bhagwan Vishnu. The place has since ever been called Shri Ramjanambhumi by all and sundry through the ages. The place itself has been the object of worship as a Deity by the devotees of Bhagwan Shri Rama as it personifies the spirit of Divine, worshipped in the form of Shri Ramlala or Lord Ram, the child. The Sthan was thus deified and has a juridical personality of its own even before the construction of a Temple building or the intallation of idol of Bhagwan Shri Rama thereat. Hindus do not worship the stone or the metal shaped into the form of their Ishta Deva or the stone of Saligram which has no particular shape at all. They worship the Divine.”

Justice S.U. Khan, in his prelude mentioned that, “here is a small piece of land (1500 square yards) where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable land mines. We are required to clear it. Some very sane elements advised us not to attempt that. We do not propose to rush in like fools lest we are blown. However we have to take risk. It is said that the greatest risk in life is not daring to take risk when occasion for the same arises. Once, angels were made to bow before Man. Sometimes he has to justify the said honor. This is one of those occasions. We have succeeded or failed? No one can be a judge in his own cause”. Then the judgment of him followed saying that the entire country is waiting with bated breath for the same.

Justice Khan referring to demolition of mosque in 1992 said that, “a very large crowd of Hindus (Kara Sewaks) gathered at the spot and demolished constructed portion, boundary wall and Ram Chabutra etc. situated in the premises in dispute in spite of the interim orders passed by Supreme Court and this Court and makeshift structure/ temple was constructed at the place which was under the central dome and the idol was replaced there. The demolition caused almost unprecedented communal disturbance and divide. In independent India only the frenzy and madness which was unleashed immediately after independence and partition of the country could surpass the magnitude of the situation triggered by the demolition. The demolition was by design, as asserted by some, or it was sudden, spontaneous and unplanned and was a result of outburst of pant up feelings of the mob which had gathered there for Kara Seva (religious service), as asserted by others?”

“One may not fully agree with Marx in his interpretation of history relating that only and only with economics. However, it will be perilous to deny even partial truth in the said approach. At the time of the demolition our economy was in shatters. However, it goes to our credit that we the people of India showed remarkable resilience and disproved the doomsday predictors. Neither the misplaced ecstasy nor the abject despondency survived long. The demolition did not prove Indian equivalent of storming of the Bastille and it remained a turning point in Indian history when history refused to turn. We could again sing with fresh charm Sare jahan Se Achcha Hindustan hamara..”.

In his Epilogue, Justice Khan said that, “my judgment is short, very short. Either I may be admired as an artist who knows where to stop, particularly in such sensitive, delicate matter or I may be castigated for being so casual in such a momentous task. Sometimes patience is intense action, silence is speech and pauses are punches”.

“I have not delved too deep in the history and the archaeology. This I have done for four reasons. Firstly this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits. Secondly I was not sure as to whether at the end of the tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded). Thirdly having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians. Fourthly, the Supreme Court… has held as:”¬

“As far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims. Reliance on borderline historical facts will lead to erroneous conclusions.”

Observing that this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it, he wanted to remind both the warring factions and said:

“The one quality which epitomized the character of Ram is tyag (sacrifice)”.

“When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters. However the Quran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span there from Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed. Under the sub-heading of demolition I have admired our resilience. However we must realize that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed”.

Justice Khan quoted two verses of Iqbal and then observation of Darwin that, “Only those species survived which collaborated and improvised.”

Justice Khan finally says that, “Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message--opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible – or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not negligible minority (Maximum member of Muslims in any country after Indonesia is in India.) In other countries either the Muslims are in huge majority which makes them indifferent to the problem in question or in negligible minority which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand”.