Ayodhya
Dispute Resolution
What HC
stressed on is still relevant
Vanam Jwala
Narasimha Rao
The Hans India
(22-10-2016)
Six Years ago a special bench of Allahabad High Court decided on dividing
Ram Janamsthan between the two contending parties. As neither wanted splitting of
the property, the Supreme Court was moved. The apex court stayed the order, and
is yet to begin hearing the case. Nevertheless, the observations of the erudite
judges of the special bench that sought to put the issue in its proper perspective,
stressing the need for Hindus and Muslims to cooperate and collaborate for resolution
of the conflict with a spirit of tolerance, still holds true-Editor
Six years ago in
the month of October every newspaper and to that matter the entire media gave
prominence to the historical secular Judgment on Ayodhya dispute. The Judgment
notwithstanding with the decision of the court had in it several interesting
aspects including quotes from ancient and modern writings like Rig-Veda, Karl
Marx, Quran, Iqbal, Prophet Mohammad and Darwin making
it an encyclopedic reading. The Judgment was delivered on 30th
September 2010.
Cases were filed before the Court of Civil Judge
Faizabad in 1989 which were 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. 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.
The case of the plaintiffs was 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. It
was damaged in the year 1934 during communal riots and thereafter on 23.12.1949
large crowd of Hindus desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque.
The disputed property was attached under and the suit was filed for declaration
and for delivery of possession beyond the period of limitation. The question
before the court was whether
the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built and by whom? Whether the
mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple? Whether the idols were
placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949? Etc.
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, which 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 was it 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 that
“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 Ramayana, 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).”
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 Sudhir Agarwal, started his judgment with quoting from a Rig-Veda Shloka and said that, “During the Dissolution,
there was neither existence nor nonexistence, 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 nonexistence
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. Oh 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.”
“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”.
However, the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha and Sunni Wakf Board moved the Supreme Court, challenging part of the verdict and the Apex Court stayed the
order splitting the disputed site in three parts and said that status quo will
remain. The two judge bench of Supreme Court also remarked that the HC verdict
was surprising as no party wanted a split of the site. As the records in the case were in several languages - Arabic,
Persian, Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi - and would have to be translated
into English to read and interpret for the appeals to be taken up and as such it
may take many more years before it is heard. Thus the case is now pending in
Supreme Court. End
No comments:
Post a Comment