Startling Facts about the Demolition of the Babri Mosque in India

By Zafarul Islam Khan

India's current Home Minister L.K. Advani, who led the Hindu ultra-Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to power on the wave of the cry to build a 'Ram Temple' at the site of the Babri Masjid, and personally oversaw its demolition on 6 December 1992, has been claiming all these years that he is not responsible for the demolition. He and his camp followers made many wild claims during these past nine years: BJP and VHP leaders raising slogans after the That the central government of Narasimha Rao mosques demolition is responsible for the demolition; that the rivalry between certain leaders of the parliament led to the demolition; that the Pakistan military intelligence (ISI) people provoked the mob to go on rampage and that Advani was in fact exhorting the masses not to demolish it. Recorded evidence shows that this man led the symbolic religious caravan, Rath Yatra, across the country, leaving behind a trail of anti-Muslim riots, and killing over 3000 Muslims and burning and looting their properties in many states. On the day of the mosques destruction, Advani was sitting on a platform from where slogans like 'ek dhakka aur do, Babri Masjid tod do' (give another push, demolish the Babri Mosque) were being raised. After decades in which the BJP continued to hold two parliamentary seats, that dubious movement led to the increase in the number of seats to almost 180 (out of a total of 545). For the last three years, this party has been ruling India, heading a coalition of discordant parties. Headed by Justice Liberhan, a judicial inquiry has been in action in the Babri demolition case since December 16, 1992. BJP members have grossly misused their platform to air their biases, misinformation and lies. Within the government, they have tried to change the secular outlook of the state and have been trying to effect changes in every department and field of life, especially culture and education. In previous appearances before the Liberhan Commission, Advani has uttered many conflicting remarks: Once he claimed that the demolition was the most agonizing moment of his life, in another sitting he said the Ram Temple movement was a source of pride for Hindus. In yet another

appearance he confessed that the Babri demolition helped his party consolidate its vote bank. All along, the message has been that the party was not responsible for the demolition. Wild claims have been made by BJP, VHP and Bajrang Dal members since the demolition. The fact is that the demolition was a culmination of a decade-long movement by politicians with an unpopular political stream: It was based on the assumption that by raising the issue of the Ram Temple, they can mobilize Hindu voters for their political party. Throughout this process they achieved their goal, but they also polarized Indian society. Even if this ilk somehow disappears from the scene, India will need decades to undo the hatred and disharmony created by this movement. Recently, a source from within Advani's own household has unveiled the truth about his misinformation campaign. Gauri Advani, his daughter-in-law said, in a statement to the Liberhan Commission, that her father-in-law conspired with BJP leader Vinay Katiyar, the then leader of the militant youth outfit, Bajrang Dal, to demolish the Babri Masjid. Iska kaam kar do. Kya, Babri Masjid ka kalank nahin mit sakta? [Finish this off.. Is the blot of the Babri Mosque irremovable?'] Gauri alleged that Advani asked Katiyar in a meeting just before leaving for the Rath Yatra. In a testimony filed before the Liberhan Commission, Gauri said that she was present at the meeting when the two leaders allegedly discussed plans for the Babri demolition. Gauri requested that she be made a witness before the commission to tell the truth about the demolition. She called Mr LK Advani's statement before the Commission as nothing but a bundle of lies based upon concocted and false facts. In her 10-page long testimony, the estranged daughter-in-law decried Advanis statement before the commission that he was anguished by the Babri demolition and that he had nothing to do with it. Currently a practicing solicitor in London, Gauri was Advanis special assistant from November 1989 until her marriage to Jayant in October 1991. She is now seeking divorce from Advanis son Jayant. Gauri said that, as Advanis special assistant, she had looked after his New Delhi parliamentary constituency from where he contested and won election to Parliament. [Gauri] at that time had deep faith in the ideology which Mr. L.K. Advani used to propagate, and she took whatever Advani would tell her as gospel truth, Gauri said in the testimony.

According to Gauri, on or around November 28, 1991, an application was introduced to the Supreme Court seeking permission to carry out a symbolic Kar Seva (voluntary religious service) in Ayodhya. Anticipating favorable orders from the Supreme Court, Advani decided to start another Rath Yatra from Varanasi to mobilize Kar Sevaks (volunteers). Gauri said that she and Advanis wife Kamala accompanied him to Lucknow on the morning of November 30, 1992, when all of them left for Varanasi. Before the start of the Rath Yatra (on December 1, 1992), Mr. Vinay Katiar came to meet Mr. L.K. Advani. The applicant [Gauri] was also present at this meeting. It was in this meeting that Mr. L.K. Advani and Mr. Vinay Katiyar, in the presence of the applicant, conspired to demolish the Babri mosque. Mr. L.K. Advani told Mr. Vinay Katiyar that the ultimate aim of the Rath Yatra is not only to do Kar Seva and appease Hindu sentiment but also to garner votes and come to power at the Centre, Gauri stressed in her application. She alleged that Advani told Katiyar that, the movement to build the Ram Temple at Babri mosque had to be taken to its logical end, i.e., coming to power at the Centre, and that would not be possible without demolishing the Babri mosque as that will unite the Hindu vote bank in favour of the BJP. Gauri went on to say, the applicant remembers that Mr. Vinay Katiyar looked at the applicant and then said to Mr. Advani that, Hum to aapke aadesh ka intizaar kar rahen hain aur agar aap bole to masjid ka namonishaan mita de' [We are waiting for your permission and if you say we will erase every trace of the mosuqe]. Mr. Advani at that time smiled and then said, To intizaar kis baat ka? Kaam kar do, ghulaami ke nishaan kab tak rahenge. Masjid ko dhawasth karke dikhao sahi samay aa gaya hai' [So what you are waiting for? Do the job. How long this symbol of slavery will remain. Destroy the mosque. Right time has come]. Gauri claimed she was not surprised at Advanis outpourings as even at home the family members used to say that the Kar Seva in Ayodhya would not remain restricted to Bhajan [religious songs] or Kirtan [religious music]. It was common during discussions at home that the BJP can only come to power by playing the 'religion card,' she said. Gauri said that after the Babri demolition, Advani exulted on returning home: Jo karne gaye the, woh kar aye [We did what we had gone to do]. Gauri Advani also disclosed that during and after the demolition of the Babri mosque, L.K. Advani got various silver gifts in the form of Hindu gods and goddesses, swords and bricks from Hindu individuals, associations and temples. Since Advani and his family members did not follow Hinduism, all these silver items/gifts were melted in Bombay (with the help of Sarla

Advani, sister of Kamla Advani who lives in Bombay) to make silver utensils and cutlery items that are now used in the Advani household. L.K. Advani used to claim at home that he does not believe in Hindu gods and goddesses, and that keeping them at home serves no useful purpose. He therefore, decided to melt these gift items to use the silver to make utensils and cutlery items. The BJP has refused to comment on Gauris testimony and the claims made therein. Senior party leader J.P. Mathur said, We have not seen it. When we read it, we will talk about it.

BABRI MASJID ISSUE

Historical perspective:Ayodhya has remained the birth place of lord Ram which fact is not only admitted religiously but historically . The place where the Babri Masjid was located was called Ramkot which signifies the fort of ram. In 1527 when Babur intruded the central Indian parts he deputed one Mir Babri as his viceroy in the region. It is historically admitted that several Hindu temples were destroyed in the era including the one located at Ramkot at Ayodhya. Since the temple at Ramkot was constructed to commemorate the birthplace of Lord Ram, the muslim invaders demolished it at named it after emperor Babur. Since the very beginning both Hindus and Muslims used to worship inside the disputed structure. The Hindus have been protesting against the conversion of Ramkot into a mosque and as early as 1853 there were disputes between the Hindus and Muslims during the rising of Nawab Wajitd Ali Shah of Awadh on the issue. In 1855 during the great mutiny, the Hindus were not allowed to enter the structure hence there were again violence on the issue. In 1833 Hindus again attempted to construct a Chabutra which was restrained by the then Deupty /commissioner. One Pandit Harikishan filed suit for permission to construct chabutra for worship which suit was dismissed , appeals filed against the orders were also dismissed. The court had however given a categorical finding in the matter :-

 I found that Masjit built by Emperor Babur stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya..It is most unfortunate that Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 358 years ago it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo. In such a case as the present one any innovation would cause more harm and derangement of order than benefits During the communal riots of 1934, one portion of the wall of the mosque was damaged by Hindus which was subsequently reconstructed by the British Government. On 22/12/49 during midnight Hindus erected some part of the temple and started worshipping the statutes of Ram inside the structure, the Indian Government ordered for the removal of the statutes but the District Magistrate Mr KK Nair inability in carrying out the orders. A civil suit was filed in the court of Faziabads distruct civil court on 16/1/50 by Sh Gopal Singh Visharad which is still pending decision. It is important to state that before 1950 the structure was called Masjid-i-Janamsthan signifying the origin of the name. HISTORICAL , ARCHEALOGICAL FACTS:Paleographic evidence of Hindu Temple on the site are found on the inscription on a thich stone slab containing 20 lines, 30 Shlokas composed in Sanskrit and inscribed in Nagri script recovered from the debris of the demolished structure in 1992 besides that more than 250 artifacts showing the existence of Hindu temple were also recovered which are very important evidence of existence of a Hindu Temple at site which was later converted into a Mosque. The Archeology Society of India has also conducted excavation and study of various structures and the rubble of the demolished Mosque and came to the conclusion of temple under the mosque , the distinctive features of the temples of north India were found present in the rubble. In 1984 VHP launched a massive movement for removal of the locks at the gate of the temple which was allowed by the local administration of Faizabad. The massive movement finally resulted into the demolition of the Babri Mosque on 6/12/92 by Kar Sevaks. The government of India appointed Justice Liberhan commission to enquire into the demolition , which submitted its report on 30/6/09 after 16 years of the

incident. This report tried to blame some prominent members of BJP & VHP against which hot debates are going on in political circles and the Indian Parliament. There was a leak in the said report in November 2009 which led to uproar in the Parliament which is still continuing.

Babri Masjid controversy at a glance

23 Sep 2010 10:01:00 Font size:

The Ayodhya issue is a political, historical and socio-religious debate. The controversial issue of Ram Janambhoomi and Babri Masjid has always been a big influence on Indian politics for several decades. The disputed land at Ayodhya in Faizabad district of Uttar Pradesh has always played major role in disturbing the communal harmony of India.

Ayodhya dispute at a glance: The main issues revolve around access to the birthplace of the Hindu God Rama, the history and location of the Babri Mosque at the site, and whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create the mosque. The tension started with the Mughal emperor Babar, who entered India after defeating Hindu King Rana Sangram Singh in 1527. Babar made his general Mir Banki in-charge of the area. Banki visited Ayodhya in 1528 and reportedly built a mosque destroying a Hindu Temple. The first Hindu-Muslim riot broke out over the issue in 1853 during British rule. Following the clashes, the then British government erected fences around the place to devide the HinduMuslim worship area. Muslims were allowed to offer prayers inner part of the mosque and Hindus to worship outer side of the disputed construction. In the year 1949, the both communities moved the court claiming ownership of the land. Later, the Faizabad District Magistrate declared the place as disputed land and locked the main door of Babri Masjid. On January 16, 1950, one Gopalsingh Visharad filed a petition in Faizabad district court seeking rights for Hindus to visit their lord and offer pujas to Ramlala. In a retaliating suit, the Babri Masjid side also filed a petition on February 21, 1950, claiming that the land should be handed over to Muslims because structure was built by Babars General Mir

Banki in 1528. Anger Hindus hold massive demonstration outside the court against the petition. In the year 1959, the Nirmohi Akhara had filed a claim petition in the court and requested transfer of land from the receiver. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) formed a committee to build Ram Temple at disputed place in Ayodhya in 1984. Later on February 1, 1986, the court granted permission to Hindus to offer pujas at Babri masjid on a petition filed by one Umesh Chandra Pandey. The judge ruled that the temple be opened for unrestrained Hindu worship. Subsequently, the Vishwa Hindu Parihad started a nationwide campaign for the replacement of the existing mosqueturned temple with a proper temple structure. Just after the court verdict in favour of Hindus, Muslim community formed Babri Masjid Sangharsh Samiti to fight for the place. The Ayodhya issue was intensified in 1989 following VHPs move to lay down foundation stone for Ram Temple at the controversial monument on November 11. In the year 1990, the then prime minister Chandrashekhar tried to find out the solution through dialogue but the outcome was zilch. On December 6, 1992 the structure was demolished by karsevaks, despite a commitment by the government to the Supreme Court that the mosque would not be harmed. More than 2000 people were killed in the riots following the demolition.

On December 16, 1992, Liberhan Commission was set up by the Government of India to probe the circumstances that led to the demolition of Babri structure. It has been longest running commission in India's history with 48 extensions granted by various governments. In 1994, the apex court directed acquisition of 70 acres of land at disputed place and maintained the status quo till the final decision on ownership. In his order, the Supreme Court stated that it would not be in favour of democracy if the land was given to a particular community without ownership decision. On June 30, 2009, Liberhan Commission submitted its finding before the Prime Minister but the report was not made public yet. On 23 November 2009 the Liberhan commission report was leaked to the media. The leaked report concluded that the demolition was planned by top leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The hearing on the ownership of land was completed on July 25, 2010 and final verdict will be delivered by Special Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court on September 24, 2010. Once again the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy has taken centrestage in the country. The debate over the ownership started off between Hindus and Muslims. Heat air has been blowing in the political gallery. State governments have been on high alerts following the possible backlash after the verdict. On the other hand, religious leaders once again swing into the action to take the mileage. In this series, former BJP leader Kalyan Singh visited the Ayodhya on September 16 along with 200 supporters.

The Central government also made an appeal to maintain calm and peace after the verdict. In its appeal government said that the verdict will not be final it will be one step forward to find out the permanent solution to the dispute. Considering the sensitivity of Verdict, the Special Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has called counsels of the both party to find out any possibility of amicable solution into the matter on September 17. In the lieu with past examples of Hindu-Muslim communal harmony, the High Court hopeful about out of court settlement to set another example of unity. Common people also want an amicable solution on Friday to avoid any unrest in the country. But the million dollar question is remained unanswered. What will happen if both the parties failed to find out any solution into the matter? The verdict is awaited for September 24. If the verdict goes in favour of Babri mosque, it will definitely hurt Hindus sentiments. Muslims will feel the heat of partiality if it goes against them. It seems no conclusion of this dispute in the both circumstances. However, meeting and discussion are on to douse the fire calmly but it will be important to see next development after the court verdict.

Ayodhya debate
The Ayodhya debate is a political, historical and socio-religious debate that was most prevalent in the 1990s in India, centred around a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya. The main issues revolve around access to the birthplace of the Hindu God Rama, the history and location of the Babri Mosque at the site, and whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create the mosque. The Babri Mosque was destroyed by hardline Hindu activists during a political rally which turned into a riot on December 6, 1992.

Contents
[hide]

1 Religious background

o o

1.1 Ram Janmabhumi 1.2 History of Babri Masjid

2 Early historical surveys

2.1 The Mahant Ram Case

3 Post-independance

3.1 The title cases

4 Hindu nationalism 5 Demolition of Babri Masjid 6 Contradictory View 7 Timeline of the debate 8 See also 9 References 10 Further reading

Religious background
At the centre of the debate is the status of the land known as Ram Janmabhumi, on which the original Babri Masjid was built.

[edit]Ram

Janmabhumi

Main article: Ram Janmabhumi

Ayodhya is revered by devout Hindus as the birthplace of ancient King of India and Hindu God Rama, believed by Hindus to be an avatar ofVishnu. The original Hindu temple was demolished or dramatically modified on the orders of the Mughal Emperor Babur and the mosque was built in its place.[citation needed]

[edit]History

of Babri Masjid

A view of the Babri Mosque, pre-1992

Main article: Babri Masjid When the Muslim emperor Babar came down from Farghana in 1527, he defeated the Hindu King of Chittorgarh, Rana Sangram Singh at Fatehpur Sikri, using cannon and artillery. After this victory, Babur took over the region, leaving his general, Mir Banki, in charge as Viceroy. Mir Banki enforced Mughal rule over the population. Mir Banki came to Ayodhya in 1528 and built the Mosque.[1] The main reason to build the Mosque in Ayodhya was because it served as a central point of India under the Mughal Empire. Later on the Mughal Empire shifted to Delhi. Mir Baqi after building the mosque named it after his master Babar. Before the 1940s, the mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan ("mosque on birthplace") by Indian Muslims.[1] The Babri Mosque was one of the largest mosques inUttar Pradesh, a state in India with some 31 million Muslims.[2]

[edit]Early

historical surveys

In 1767, Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler records Hindus worshipping and celebrating Ramanavami at the site of the mosque. In 1788, Tiefffenthaler's French works are published in Paris, the first to suggest that the Babri Masjid was on the birthplace of SriRama, saying that "Emperor Aurangzeb got demolished the fortress called Ramkot, and erected on the same place a Mahometan temple with three cuppolas" reclaimed by Hindus through numerous wars after death of Aurangzeb in 1707 A.D like they earlier fortified it during Jahangir's rule as Ramkot. During the 19th century, the Hindus in Ayodhya were recorded as continuing a tradition of worshiping SriRama on the Ramkot hill. According to British sources, Hindus and Muslims used to worship together in the Babri Mosque complex in the 19th century until about 1855. P. Carnegy wrote in 1870: "It is said that up to that time [viz. the HinduMuslim clashes in the 1850s] the Hindus and Mohamedans alike used to worship in the mosque temple." Claims have been made that worship took place on a platform called the "Ram Chabutara" prior to Independence. According to British sources, Hindus and Muslims (who came from Faizabad) used to worship together in the Disputed Structure in the 19th century until about 1855. P. Carnegy wrote in 1870: "It is said that up to that time, the Hindus and Mohamedans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since the British rule a railing has been put up to prevent dispute, within which, in the mosque the Mohamedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings." [3] This platform was outside the disputed structure but within its precincts. In 1858, the Muazzin of the Babri mosque says in a petition to the British government that the courtyard had been used by Hindus for hundreds of years.

[edit]The

Mahant Ram Case

In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Ram moved the courts for permission to erect a temple just outside the Babri Masjid premises. Despite validating the claim of the petitioner, the Faizabad District Judge dismissed the case citing the passage of time.[4] On 18 March 1886, the judge passed an order in which he wrote: I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the Masjid built by Emperor Babar stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to

the west and south it is clear of habitations. It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to agree with the grievances. (Court verdict by Col. F.E.A. Chamier, District Judge, Faizabad (1886)[5]

[edit]Post-independance
There were several later mosques in Faizabad district in which pilgrim city of Ayodhya falls. But, Ayodhya has almost negligible [6] Muslim population though there are substantial numbers of Muslims 7 km away at District Headquarters Faizabad. The Babri Mosque at Ayodhya where Muslims never offered Namaz since 1947 independence became famous due to the importance of the disputed site where Hindus have been offering Pujas to Lord Ramlala from even before 1947 independence. Since, 1948 Indian Government order Muslims were not even permitted to be near the site for at least 200 yards but locked the main gate and allowed Hindu pilgrims to enter through a side door. Also, the 1989 Allahabad High Court order opened the locks of the main gate and restored the site for eternity to the Hindus. However, when Hindus wanted modifications of the dilapidated Islamic style structure built by General Mir Banki on orders of Mughal invader Babur fromUzbekistan (Farghana town) and did Shilanyas (inauguration) of a proposed new grand Temple with Government permissions, there were Muslim unrests in many parts of India and Government moved court. Since, then the matter is sub-judice and this political, historical and socio-religious debate over the history and location of the Babri Mosque, is known as the Ayodhya Debate. Recently on court ordersArcheological Survey of India dug the spot and found a previous ancient temple that was demolished or modified to create the later Mosque under Babur.[7] References such as the 1986 edition of the Encyclopdia Britannica reported that "SriRamas birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Mughal emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple".[8] According to the Hindu view, the ancient temple could have been destroyed on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur. This view has been supported by findings of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which carried out an excavation in Ayodhya.[9] The latest archeological evidence comes from examination of the site after the destruction of the Babri Mosque. The Archaeological Survey of India under Braj Basi Lal, although initially published as finding no significant structures as these

reports were based on inconclusive facts and were mere a media leak, subsequently put forward evidence of a pre-existing temple predating the mosque by hundreds of years as its final report.

[edit]The

title cases

In 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad filed a title suit with the Allahabad High Court seeking injunction to offer 'puja' (worship) at the disputed site. A similar suit was filed shortly after but later withdrawn by Paramhans Das of Ayodhya.[10] In 1959, the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious institution,[11] filed a third title suit seeking direction to hand over the charge of the disputed site, claiming to be its custodian. A fourth suit was filed by the Muslim Central Board of Wakf for declaration and possession of the site. The Allahabad high court bench began hearing the case in 2002, which was completed in 2010. However, the bench withheld its verdict till September 24. After the Supreme Court dismissed a plea to defer the high court verdict, the high court set September 30, 2010 as the final date for pronouncing the judgement.[12][13]

[edit]Hindu

nationalism

The Ayodhya debate has grown along with a revival of Hindu Nationalism. The issue of the disputed structure had remained inactive for four decades, until the mid-1980s.[14] The Hindu Nationalist movement pressed for reclamation of three of its most holy sites which it claimed had suffered at the hands of Islam, at Ayodhya, Mathura and Varanasi. L K Advani, the leader of the BJP in his memoirs argued, "If Muslims are entitled to an Islamic atmosphere in Mecca, and if Christians are entitled to a Christian atmosphere in the Vatican, why is it wrong for the Hindus to expect a Hindu atmosphere in Ayodhya?" The legal case continues regarding the title deed of the land tract which is a government controlled property.[15] While the Muslim parties want the Babri Mosque to be reconstructed through a court order, the Hindu side wants a law in parliament to have a temple constructed,[16]saying faith in the existence of Ram Janmabhoomi cannot be decided in a court of law. The situation regarding the Ram Janmabhoomi has been compared to the Temple Mount controversies and claims in Israel by right wing blogger Daniel Pipes. In particular, Pipes writes:

Ayodhya prompts several thoughts relating to the Temple Mount. It shows that the Temple Mount dispute is far from unique. Moslems have habitually asserted the supremacy of Islam through architecture, building on top of the monuments of other faiths (as in Jerusalem and Ayodhya) or appropriating them (e.g. the Ka'ba in Mecca and the Hagia Sophia inConstantinople).[17] Nobel Laureate V. S. Naipaul has praised Hindu Nationalists for "reclaiming India's Hindu heritage".[18] He further added that the destruction of Babri mosque was an act of historical balancing[19] and the repatriation of the Ramjanmabhoomi was a "welcome sign that Hindu pride was re-asserting itself."[20]

[edit]Demolition

of Babri Masjid

By the middle of the 20th century, Hindus in the area were claiming that the Mosque had not been used by Muslims since 1936, and they took over the 'unused' mosque in 1949. A movement was launched in 1984 by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP party) to reclaim the site for Hindus who want to erect a temple dedicated to the infant SriRama (Ramlala), at this spot. On 6 December 1992 the structure was demolished by karsevaks,[21] 150,000 strong, despite a commitment by the government to the Indian Supreme Court that the mosque would not be harmed.[22][23] More than 2000 people were killed in the riots following the demolition. Riots broke out in many major Indian cities including Mumbai, Delhi and Hyderabad[citation needed] On 16 December 1992, Liberhan Commission was set up by the Government of India to probe the circumstances that led to the demolition of Babri structure. [24] It has been longest running commission in India's history with several extensions granted by various governments. Politicians like L.K.Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi were alleged to be influential in the demolition. On 23 November 2009 the Liberhan commission report was leaked to the media. The leaked report concluded that the demolition may have been planned by top leaders of theBharatiya Janata Party or All India Muslim League to terrorize the country .[25] Many Muslim organizations have continued to express outrage at the destruction of the disputed structure and carried out the 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya along with strong opposition to building of the proposed new temple even threatening the Head of current Ram Temple (at same spot since 1992). [26]

[edit]Contradictory

View

It was until about 1990 the standard view that an ancient Ram Janmabhoomi temple was demolished and replaced with the Babri Mosque. References such as the 1986 edition of the Encyclopdia Britannica reported that "SriRamas birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Mughal emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple".[27] However, there are some contradictory viewpoints, indicating that there may not have been a significant Hindu temple at the site. In hisCommunal History and SriRama's Ayodhya, Professor Ram Sharan Sharma writes, "Ayodhya seems to have emerged as a place of religious pilgrimage in medieval times. Although chapter 85 of the Vishnu Smriti lists as many as fifty-two places of pilgrimage, including towns, lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., it does not include Ayodhya in this list."[28] Sharma also notes that Tulsidas, who wrote the Ramcharitmanas in 1574 at Ayodhya, does not mention it as a place of pilgrimage. This suggests that there was no significant Hindu temple at the site of the Babri Mosque.[28] After the demolition of the mosque in 1992, Professor Ram Sharan Sharma along with Historians Suraj Bhan, M.Athar Ali andDwijendra Narayan Jha wrote the Historian's report to the nation saying that the assumption that there was a temple at the disputed site was mistaken, and no valid reason to destroy the mosque.

Timeline of the debate

Year Date Event

1528

The Babri Masjid was built in Ayodhya in 1528. Hindu groups claim it was built after demolishing a temple.

1853

The first recorded communal clashes over the site date back to this year.

1859

The colonial British administration put a fence around the site, denominating separate areas of worship for Hindus and Muslims. And that is the way it stood for about 90 years.

1949

In December of that year, idols were put inside the mosque. Both sides to the dispute filed civil suits. The government locked the gates, saying the matter was subjudice and declared the area disputed.

1984

The movement to build a temple at the site, which Hindus claimed was the birthplace of Lord Ram, gathered momentum when Hindu groups formed a committee to spearhead the construction of a temple at the Ramjanmabhoomi site.

1986

A district judge ordered the gates of the mosque to be opened after almost five decades and allowed Hindus to worship inside the disputed structure. A Babri Mosque Action Committee was formed as Muslims protested the move to allow Hindu prayers at the site.

1989

The clamour for building a Ram temple was growing. Fronted by organizations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, foundations of a temple were laid on land adjacent to the "disputed structure."

1990

The then BJP president Lal Krishna Advani took out a cross-country rathyatra to garner support for the move to

build a Ram temple at the site. VHP volunteers partially damaged the Babri mosque. Prime Minister Chandrashekhar intervened and tried to negotiate with the various groups. But talks failed.

1991

Riding high on the success of Advani's rathyatra, the BJP became India's primary opposition party in Parliament and came to power in Uttar Pradesh.

1991

The movement for building a temple gathered further momentum with Karsevaks or Hindu volunteers pouring into Ayodhya. Bricks were sent from across India.

1992

December The Babri mosque was demolished by Karsevaks. 6 Communal riots across India followed.

1992

Ten days after the demolition, the Congress government December at the Centre, headed by PV Narasimha Rao, set up a 16 commission of inquiry under Justice Liberhan.

1993

Three months after being constituted, the Liberhan Commission began investigations into who and what led to the demolition of the Barbri mosque.

2001

Tensions rose on the anniversary of the demolition of the mosque as the VHP reaffirmed its resolve to build a temple at the site.

2002

February 27

At least 58 people were killed in Godhra, Gujarat, in an attack on a train believed to be carrying Hindu volunteers from Ayodhya. Riots followed in the state and over 1000 people were reported to have died in these.

2003

The court ordered a survey to find out whether a temple to Lord Ram existed on the site. In August, the survey presented evidence of a temple under the mosque. But Muslim groups disputed the findings.

2003

A court ruled that seven Hindu leaders, including some September prominent BJP leaders, should stand trial for inciting the destruction of the Babri Mosque.

2004

An Uttar Pradesh court ruled that an earlier order which November exonerated LK Advani for his role in the destruction of the mosque should be reviewed.

2007

The Supreme Court refused to admit a review petition on the Ayodhya dispute.

2009

The Liberhan Commission, which was instituted ten days after the demolition of the Barbri mosque in 1992, submitted its report on June 30 - almost 17 years after it began its inquiry. Its contents were not made public.

2010

The Allahabad High Court to pronounce its verdict on four title suits relating to the Ayodhya dispute on September

30, 2010[13]
Read more: SC defers hearing on Ayodhya plea - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-defers-hearing-on-Ayodhyaplea/articleshow/6602545.cms#ixzz10tfdAnmV The petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, then approached the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court verdict on Friday. The two judges who heard the case differed, resulting in the Chief Justice stepping in.

Babri Masjid A radio message sent at 10.30 a m on December 23, 1949 by the district magistrate K K Nayar to the chief minister Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant, the chief secretary and the home secretary, read thus: A few Hindus entered Babri Masjid at night when the Masjid was deserted and installed a deity there. DM and SP and force at spot. Situation under control. Police picket of 15 persons was on duty at night but did not apparently act. This message was based on police constable Mata Prasads report to the Ayodhya police station earlier.

The Babari Masjid Question: History, Law & Politics

A G Noorani

IT is all to the good that, at long last, judges of the Special Bench hearing the Babari Masjid case visited on May 4, 2002 the site of

the mosque which was demolished on December 6, 1992. The three judges who comprised the bench hearing the case are Justices S R Alam, Sudhir Narain and Bhanwar Singh. The PTI report on the visit said that they were apprised by the officials of the security arrangements and facilities provided to the devotees for having darshan of the Ram Lala in the make-shift temple.

REFRESHING CHANGE IN JUDICIARYS ATTITUDE The bench has begun to record evidence in the case daily; itself or through a commissioner appointed by it. People are looking forward to a just verdict from the bench. It is not widely known that the Supreme Courts ruling on March 13, 2002 was the first instance of a judicial pronouncement in favour of the aggrieved party, the Muslims, in the half century of litigation in the matter as is well known despite the Attorney-General Soli J Sorabjees energetic intervention the court forbade religious activity of any kind on the land acquired by the government of India after the demolition. It included the site and areas adjacent to it. This writer would not go as far as Justice V R Krishna Iyer did on November 10, 1989 when he said, the judiciary will be described as the villain of the peace. In his view it lacked the guts to face the issue (The Times of India, November 11, 1989). Certainly the record since December 1949 was most disappointing. The Supreme Courts ruling of March 13, 2002 came as a refreshing change. The record proves three things. First, in the past the Hindus did not seek possession of site of the mosque at all. They sought permission to build a Ram temple on a chabutra (platform) outside the mosque but adjacent to it within the compound. Had the permission been granted in the late 19th

century, none of the nonsense about the site of the mosque being the birthplace of Ram, belatedly aired decades later, would have been heard. Secondly, till October 1949, on the eve of the take-over of the mosque and its conversion into a temple on December 22-23, 1949, the governmentsponsored efforts were on precisely in that direction --- the chabutra and no other place. Thirdly, the Babari Masjid was very much a mosque where namaaz was said right till its forcible takeover with the help of K K Nayar, the deputy commissioner of Faizabad, later a Jan Sangh MP, and with the connivance of chief minister G B Pant who foiled the attempt by prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru to set right the wrong. Let the record speak for itself.

THE RECORDS SPEAK THE TRUTH On January 29, 1985, Raghubar Das who claimed to be the mahant of the Janmasthan Ayodhya, filed a civil suit against the secretary of state for India in council for a decree for awarding permission to construct a temple over the Chabutra Janmasthan situated in Ayodhya and restraining the defendant from prohibiting or obstructing the plaintiff in the construction of the temple. The dimensions of the chabutrawere specified. Para 2 of the plaint read thus: the chabutra of Janmasthan is 21 feet towards East and West and 17 feet towards North and South, and therein Charan Punya lies and there also a small temple over it, which is worshipped. If in his view the sanctum sanctorum of the temple lay in the mosque, the mahant would surely have claimed it or at least mentioned it. No reference was made to the mosque. The suit was keenly contested. The plaintiff, the government pleader, one Mohammed Asghar and his pleader were fully heard. Themahant argued

that if a temple is constructed no harm is done to any one and the worship which is done at present will continue in the same manner in future also. That was at the chabutra. The sub-judge of Faizabad, Pandit Hari Kishan Singh, however, dismissed the suit by judgement dated December 24, 1985. The judge found that the plaintiff was, indeed, in possession of the chabutra and collected the offerings made there. In 1855 after the fight amongst Hindus and Muslims, a boundary wall was constructed to avoid future disputes, so that the Muslims should worship inside that wall and the Hindus should worship outside that wall, hence the chabutra and the land which situate (sic!) outside the boundary wall, belong to Hindus and the plaintiff. He explained why he declined to decree the suit. It a temple is constructed on the chabutra at such a place, then there will be sound of bells of the temple and sankh when both Hindus and Muslims pass from the same way and if permission is given to Hindus for constructing a temple then one day or the other a criminal case will be started and thousands of people will be killed. The plaintiff appealed to the district court. The judgement of the district judge, Col F E A Chamier, in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1885, dated March 18, 1886, is as instructive. He had read the Gazetteeer of Oudh, as had Pandit Hari Kishan; but was more impressed. The errors in theGazetteer and in English writings on Babur and Ayodhya have been fully exposed by now; most notably by Sushil Srivastava of the Department of Medieval and Modern History, University of Allahabad in Probe India (January 1988) and in an article in this volume. (See also the letter by Indrajit Datta and nine others in The Statesman, October 22, 1989).

The district judge remarked: I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the masjid built by the Emperor Babur stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya, that is to say to the west and south it is clear of habitations. It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that even occurred 356 years ago it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo. In such a case as the present one any innovation could cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit.
He added: this chabutra is said to indicate the birthplace of Ram Chandra. In front of the gateway is the entry to the masonry platform of the masjid. A wall pierced here and there with railways divides the platform of the masjid from the enclosure on which stands the chabutra (Italics mine). The judge noted: the true object of the suit was disclosed by B Kuccu Mal (the plaintiffs pleader) yesterday when we were standing near the masjid namely that: the British government as no respecter if persons was asked through its courts to remedy an injustice committed by a Mohammedan Emperor. Even so, the claim was to the chabutra, not the mosque. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that there is no injuria, nothing which would give a right of action to the plaintiff (vide, Muslim India, March 1986, pp 105-8 for the texts). The mahant appealed, once again, on May 25, 1886 to the highest court in the province. He contented that the district judge was wrong in cancelling the findings of the sub-judge, declaring the right of property to rest in the plaintiff, and that the district judge was wrong in stating that the masjid was built by Emperor Babur. The judicial commissioner, W Young, also dismissed the appeal by his judgement dated November 1, 1886 and observed:

This spot is situated within the precinct of grounds surrounding a mosque erected some 350 years ago owing to the bigotry and tyranny of the emperor who purposely chose this holy spot, according to Hindu legend, as the site of his mosque. The Hindu seem to have got very limited rights of access to certain spots within the precinct adjoining the mosque and they have for a series of years been persistently trying to increase those rights and to erect buildings on two spots in the enclosure namely: (1) Sita-ki-Rasoi (kitchen of Sita) and (2) Ramchander-kiJanmabhoomi (birthplace of Lord Rama). The executive authorities have persistently refused these encroachments and absolutely forbid any alteration of the status quo.
An inquiry was conducted in 1936 by the then commissioner of waqfs under the UP Muslim Waqfs Act, and it was held that the Babri Masjid was built by Babur who was a Sunni Muslim. The report was published in the official gazette dated February 20, 1944. This was found in 1945 litigation between the Shia Central Board of Waqfs and the Sunni Central Board Waqfs in the court of the civil judge, Faizabad. The civil judge, S A Ahsan, in his judgement dated March 23, 1946, held that the mosque was founded by Babur Shah and that evidence showed that the mosque has been used by the members of both sects. The mosque and its appurtenant land, a graveyard know as Ganj-eShaheedan Qabristan, were registered as Waqf No. 26 Faizabad with the UP Sunni Central Board of Waqfs under the Act of 1936.

PRECEDING THE TAKEOVER The city magistrates note of October 10, 1949 shows how close the authorities were to averting a tragedy of grave proportions:

D.C

As per your orders, I went to the spot and inspected the site and enquired all about it in detail. The mosque and the temple both are situated side by side and both Hindus and Muslims performed their rites and religious ceremonies. Hindu public has put in this application with a view to erect a descent (sic!) and Vishal temple instead of the small one which exists at present. There is nothing in the way and permission can safely be given as Hindu population is very keen to have a nice temple at the place where Bhagwan Ram Chandraj was born. The land where temple is to be erected is of Nazul. However, campaign was mounted preceding the takeover. There was sustained harassment of Muslims. The background has been recorded in two reports by the waqf inspector Mohammad Ibrahim, dated December 10 and 23, 1949, respectively to the secretary of the Waqf Board.
The first report complained that any Muslim going towards the masjid is accosted and called names, etc. People there told me that there is a danger to the masjid from the Hindus The second report recorded the inspectors impressions on December 22, 1949 the last day before the takeover of the mosque. It is relied on by the VHP presumably because at one place it complained that namaz (prayer) andazan (the call for prayers) were not being said. But it did record that the Friday prayers were being said and Subhe (dawn) namaz is also done (sic!). Then it is locked. He recorded also that the keys of the lock of the masjid are with the Muslims. The abnormalities are all faithfully recorded: When the namazis (worshippers) leave, from the surrounding houses shoes and stones are hurled towards the namazis. Muslims, out of fear, do not utter a

word. Lohia also visited Ayodhya after Raghodas and gave a lecture. Dont harm the graves The Bairagis said masjid is Janmabhoomi and so give it to us I spent the night in Ayodhya and the Bairagis are forcibly taking possession of the masjid.. Both these witnesses are fully corroborated by two incontrovertible and uncontroverted documents --- a radio message sent at 10.30 a m on December 23, 1949 by the district magistrate K K Nayar to the chief minister Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant, the chief secretary and the home secretary. It read thus: A few Hindus entered Babri Masjid at night when the Masjid was deserted and installed a deity there. DM and SP and force at spot. Situation under control. Police picket of 15 persons was on duty at night but did not apparently act. This message was based on police constable Mata Prasads report to the Ayodhya police station earlier. Here is a translation of the FIR lodged by Sub Inspector Ram Dube, Police Station Ayodhya, on December 23, 1949, as certified by the office of the city magistrate on February 11, 1986: According to Mata Prasad (paper no. 7), when I reached to (sic) Janam Bhoomi around 8 oclock in the morning, I came to know that a group of 50-60 persons had entered Babri Mosque after breaking the compound gate lock of the mosque or through jumping across the walls (of the compound) with a stair and established therein an idol of Shri Bhagwan and painted Sita Ram, etc, on the outer and inner walls with geru (red loam). Hans Raj on duty asked them to defer but they did not. These persons have already entered the mosque before the available PAC (Provincial Armed Corps) guards could be commanded. Officials of the district administration came at the site and involved themselves in necessary arrangements. Afterwards, a crowd of 5-6 thousand persons gathered around and while chanting bhajans and raising religious slogans tried to enter the mosque but were deferred and nothing untoward happened thereon because of proper arrangements. Ram Das, Ram Shakti Das and 50-60 unidentified others entered

the mosque surreptitiously and spoiled its sanctity. Government servants on duty and several others are witnesses to it. Therefore it is written and filed.

On December 26, 1949, Nehru asked Pant to interest himself personally in the matter. On January 9, 1950, Sardar Patel also remonstrated with him: Any unilateral action based on an attitude of aggression or coercion cannot be tolerated. Nehru offered to go to Ayodhya himself. Pant dissuaded him. Finding Pant immune to his pleadings, Nehru turned to the states home minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. I fear that we are leading again for some kind of disaster. To Nehru, the worst feature of it was that some of our own people should have approved of it. Pant could not have failed to perceive the significance of the rebuke.

DISHONEST GAME PLAN There was, however, one official of impeccable secular credentials who was indignant at what had happened, the states chief secretary Bhagwan Sahay, later governor of Kashmir. He squarely posed two questions to Nayars chief, the district commissioner, who met him in Lucknow: Why did the district authorities not take precautions to prevent the planting of the idol in the mosque and why was the idol not being removed? The commissioner conveyed these queries to Nayar whose replies of December 26 and 27, 1949 to Sahay gave him away. He dishonestly denied that there were grounds for suspecting the forcible takeover though a yajna had been on there for days, maliciously referred to the mosques in Mathura and Varanasi, refused to remove the idols and asked to be relieved if the government so insisted. He admitted that the installation of the idol in the mosque has certainly been an illegal act.

But what is more, he formulated a game plan for the government in detail on December 27, 1949. Events since have followed precisely the course which he so shrewdly anticipated knowing the communal atmosphere of the times --- attach the mosque; exclude Muslims completely; allow Hindus certain rights of worship; and let the civil courts decide. He admitted that this solution is open to the criticism that it perpetrates an illegal position created by force and subterfuge and that it does not immediately restore the status quo which existed before the illegal act. But, during the pendency of the civil proceedings, Muslims could be induced to give up the mosque voluntarily to the Hindus in return for another mosque built for them at no less cost. The BJPs line today is based on the perpetuation of what even Nayar conceded was an illegal position created by force and subterfuge. The next stage was reached in 1986. A 28 years old local lawyer Umesh Chandra Pandey filed an application on January 25, 1986 in the court of the munsif seeking removal of the restrictions on the puja. It was an application in the civil cases to which he was a party and he did not implead the Muslims who were parties to the suit either. The munsif declined, judiciously enough, to pass orders since the file in the main case of 1961 was in the High Court and orders could be made only in that suit. An appeal was filed on January 31 and heard on February 1, 1986. An application by Mohammed Hashim, who came to know of the proceedings for being impleaded, was rejected. K M Pandey, the district judge of Faizabad, recorded the statements of the district magistrate and the superintendent of police on the issue of law and order and in forty minutes ordered the opening of the locks. He observed, It is clear that it is not necessary to keep the locks at the gates for the purpose of maintaining law and order or the safety of the idols. This appears to be an unnecessary irritant to the applicant and other members of the community.

Having refused to hear the Muslim altogether, the judge said, After having heard the parties it is clear that the members of the other community, namely, the Muslims, are not going to be affected by any stretch of imagination if the locks of the gates were opened and the idols inside the premises are allowed to be seen and worshipped by the pilgrims and devotees. It is undisputed that the premises are presently in the courts possession and that for the last 35 years Hindus have had an unrestricted right of worship as result of the courts order of 1950k and 1951. If the Hindus are offering prayers and worshipping the idols, though in a restricted way for the last 35 years, then the heavens are not going to fall if the locks of the gates are removed. The district magistrate has stated before me today that the members of the Muslim community are not allowed to offer any prayers at the disputed site. They are not allowed to go there. He did not mention that it was due to duress. It is pointless to trace the events since the order of February 1, 1986 did not come as a surprise. TV crews were present.

AFTER THE DEMOLITION Nor was that all. The bench of the Supreme Court which heard the Ayodhya case after the demolition, refused to give an advisory opinion on the the presidents reference about the prior existence of a temple. But it upheld the legality of the acquisition of certain area in Ayodhya Act 1993 by a majority (3-2) headed by Justice J S Verma, and said the Hindus had the right to puja of the idols installed on the site after the demolition. The minority judgement by Justice S P Bharucha pointed out, Section 7(2) perpetuates the performance of puja on the disputed site. No account is taken of the fact that the structure thereon had been destroyed in a most reprehensible act. The perpetrators of this deed struck not only against a place of worship but at the principles of secularism, democracy and the

rule of law (White Paper, para 1.35). No account is taken of the fact that there is a dispute in respect of the site on which puja is to be performed; that, as started in the White Paper, until the night of 22-12-1949/23-12-1949, when the idols were placed in the disputed structure, the disputed structure was being used as a mosque, and that Muslim community has a claim to offer namaz thereon. They added: When therefore adherents of the religion of the majority of Indian citizens make a claim upon and assail the place of worship of another religion and, by dint of numbers, create conditions that are conducive to public disorder, it is the constitutional obligation of the state to protect that place of worship and to preserve public order, using for the purpose such means and forces of law and order as are required. It is impermissible under the provisions of the constitution for the state to acquire that place of worship to preserve public order. To condone the acquisition of a place of worship in such circumstances is to efface the principle of secularism from the constitution. Thus the crime of December 6, 1992 was sanctified by an act of parliament and condoned by a majority judgement of the Supreme Court. Then, on March 13, 2002, the Supreme Court referred the case to a large bench which will hear it in July 2002. There the matters stand