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