Verdict on Ram Janambhoomi- Conviction of Hindus now legally recognized

As a sequel to the matter posted by me two days back and as a knee jerk reaction to the verdict pronounced by the three judge bench of the Allahbad High Court on the Ayodhya Title Suit of the place popularly referred to as Ram Janambhoomi by the Hindus and Babri Masjid by the Muslims i am elated but not euphoric about the judgment rendered today. Before i venture to opine on the judgment per se, i would reproduce the gist of what has been held by the three judges in thier independent orders-

WHAT THE JUDGES SAID
Justice S U Khan
"Disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belong to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque, but it was constructed on the ruins of the temple or some of its material was used in the construction of the mosque."

Justice Sudhir Agarwal
" It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janma Sthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiff- Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman. and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants, Rajendra Singh and others."

Justice Dharam Veer Sharma
"The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama. Disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain, but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus it cannot have the character of a mosque. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The ASI has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23 December 1949."

From a reading of the observations made by the learned judges above the following conclusions are clearly established most of it by unanimity and therefore could be considered incontrovertible i.e

1 That the place where the idols have been placed of Lord Ram below the main dome which was demolished in 1992 was the actual birthplace of Lord Ram .
2 That the idols placed at the present location within the precincts of the complex should not be disturbed
3 That the mosque was built under the directions of the Mughal Emperor Babur on the ruins of a temple which Justice S U Khan ruling that it was not by destroying an existing temple but on the ruins of an ancient dilaptated Hindu Temple.
4 That the title suit of the Sunni Wakf Board claiming the ownership of the entire land is barred by limitation and hence dismissed.
5 That the idols of Ram Lalla were placed for worship below the dome which then existed on December 23rd, 1949.
6 That the report of the Archaelogical Survey of India (ASI) submitted in April 2003 should be accepted almost in toto, which is the basis for concluding that a Hindu Temple existed at the disputed(I hope no longer) site.

While it could be just reading of a judgment for a lot of the present generation some of whom could not care less, it a moral, physiological and emotional victory for the thousands who led the movement for reclaiming the complex under a sincere and honest belief that their Lord Ram was born at that very site, and for those of us who supported the movement in full during those historic days of the 90's. For the families of the Kar Sevaks who died for the cause, this could be a consolation and bring some succor to their lives which had been saddened by the death of the near and dear ones. To me personally with the streak of RSS ideology inbuilt and inculcated over the years, it is a sense of personal achievement which I am proud of and not apologetic about.

On the down side of the Judgment although i may be accused as a Hindu of being too avaricious, it is perplexing to note that the land has been ordered to be divided into three parts by a majority view with Justice Sharma dissenting by ordering that the entire land should be given to the Hindus, when the title suit of the Sunni Wakf Board claiming the title to the entire property has been dismissed. It is like stating that your title claim to the property is null and void but you can occupy one portion of it. To this extent the judgment appears to have political leanings to it with a flavour of judicial brinkmanship. The Question which could be posed by the parties to the suit in the coming days is that whether the Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by dividing the property which was not even canvassed in the plaint of the respective parties nor buttressed in their arguments over the last 50 years. Interestingly one third of the land has been ordered to given to Lord Ram Lalla thereby further lending credibility and acceptance to the proposition that the almighty can be regarded as an “artificial jurisdic person “ who can sue and is capable of being sued. As most of the temples are managed by trusts in the name of the Lord, the same would probably be followed in this case as well.


I have watched most of the talk shows after the judgment and an array of speakers kept referring to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 as a barbaric act. I wonder that whether the same act could be referred to in the same manner even after this judgment which has in its own way also established the fact that the Babri Masjid was constructed on top of the ruins of a Hindu Temple by using some parts of the debris of the temple was against the tenets of Islam as held by Justice D V Sharma. That being the case were not the Kar Sevaks who undertook the demolition of the masjid only seeking to correct a historic wrong now recognized and upheld by this judgment. Why and how could that be then termed as a dastardly act?

In one of the talk shows titled Ayodhya Verdict aired on NDTV and anchored by the pseudo secular Barkha Dutt where a host of legal and social luminaries made thier viewpoint, the anchor was taking objection to the word Grand(emphasis supplied) Temple being proposed by the BJP and the Hindu organisations and kept suggesting that this meant that these organisations were already taking an aggressive posture. This only strengthens my earlier view that this particular anchor gets so obsessed with her rhetoric that she makes an issue out of a non issue. Yes the fact is that if and when a temple is built it would be a Grand temple truly symbolic of the struggle which went into achieving it and there is no necessity of making it a simple symbolic structure as was suggested by some of the participants in the debate. As Ravishankar Prasad Senior Advocate and Spokesman of the BJP aptly mentioned when being interviewed by Ms Dutt "India has to look at a mindset beyond Barkha Dutt and not be influenced by her intelligent orchesrty of a debate".

As mentioned in my previous blog it was echoed by most of the speakers in various talk shows that “India must move on “ and take this verdict in its stride as the country has more important and emergent issues to address.

On a lighter vein the popular joke doing the rounds is that “Hindus have agreed to allow the mosque to be built at the portion of the disputed site allotted to the Sunni Wakf Board with a pre condition that it has to be built under the supervision of Mr Suresh Kalmadi, so that it would not last long.

Jai Shri Ram

Ashok Raghavan

Judgement on Ram Janambhoomi Dispute-Decision at last

It has been quite some time since i wrote something on my blog as i was professionally pre occupied. The desire to start writing again was triggered by the programme on NDTV 24/7 anchored by the well known face of NDTV Barkha Dutt as part of "We the People" on the subject "Ayodhya- Is reconciliation possible ?" which was aired on 26-9-10. As usual Barkha Dutt in her inimitable style managed to meander the conversation towards the pseudo secular view she oftens demonstrates by posing questions in a manner so as to solicit answers which were structured to once again show the whole world how the Sangh Parivar diabolically planned and executed the demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6th December 1992 at Ayodhya. It has become a fashion for the elite to proclaim thier secular credentials in talk shows just to show the world how broad minded they are.


The topic revolved around the discussion "Is Reconciliation Possible ?". The word reconciliation when reduced to common parlance means softening of a hard stand, meeting the other view halfway, learning to live with the circumstances and environment, lending a conciliatory hand etc. The various connotations of this term may not be appropriate when it comes to solving the Ram Janambhoomi Babri Masjid Dispute as in this case the reconcilation in not just about what has to be done in future to appease both communities but about trying to convince the Hindus that this was not the birthplace of Lord Ram the mytholigical Hindu God, which is a matter of faith of the Hindus and therefore outside the realms of judiciary.

Reconciliation therefore is required in the minds of the Hindus that Lord Ram was not born in the existing place and in the minds of the Muslims that they need to give up thier right on the disputed land purely to appease the majority community, which we all know is next to impossible. History has it that a British Judge Lord Chamers who was adjudicating the same matter about 140 years ago had abandoned the idea of reconciling the two parties to the dispute by simply stating that it was impossible for him to decide on a matter which supposedly took place centuries ago.

During the programme "We the People" cited above one of the speakers was observed making a passionate plea that if the Hindus apologise for the diabolical act of demolising the Masjid on 6th December 1992, the Muslims could consider giving up thier rights over the disputed land. This propostion is not only outrageous but is divisive in nature as remarks such as these would only increase the divide further with the Hindus demanding that the Muslims apologise for the act of Babur( or Aurangzeb as per a new theory) who ordered the destruction of the temple at the disputed site and erected a mosque on the same.

In my opinion, it will be in the interest of all concerned to let the Court deliver the judgement and deal with the turbulences emanating as a consequence instead of making attempts to postpone the same by filing frivolous petitions before the Court. In other words the time has come for the Government to " bite the bullet and not take evasive action". As we all know " time is the best healer and the passions arising in the aftermath of the judgement would be doused by passage of time because we all have to live with the truth that " we have one life and that it has to carry on" unmindful of our personal beliefs and convictions.

The delay in rendering the judgement is a legal endurance test being foisted on all concerned with the Supreme Court allowing a petition of a person who was not even a party to the title suit to be heard and even adjudicated. The Government would be foolish to even attempt to delay and bury the judgement by getting it entangled in a legal maze from which it would be difficult for the parties to disentangle themselves thereby giving a decent burial to this issue.

The fresh eruption of violence in Kashmir is a classic case of what delay could cause and how skirting your feet over an issue could have unprecedented ramifications. Kashmir in only one part of the Country and Ayodhya could become an infectious and contentious issue for the rest of the Country, if not handled properly.

I am glad that the three judge bench of the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a frivolous petition seeking to delay the Allahbad High Court judgement which is now to be pronounced on 30th September. Justice delayed is Justice denied and i hope in this case that inspite of a delay of about 60 years justice is not denied. The Supreme Court has probably taken this stand as in thier opinion and rightly so " Executive incompetency to handle the consequences of a judicial judgement cannot be a reason for withholding the judgement itself".

Awaiting the verdict with guarded anxiety.

Regards

Ashok Raghavan