Tag: ayodhya babri

Ayodhya Residents Struggle to Reconcile Rampant Demolitions With City’s Age-Old Culture

Amidst rampant construction and demolition efforts, at risk are people’s houses, businesses and a 275-year-old mosque.

Ayodhya (Uttar Pradesh): There was a sense of unease during the Eid prayers at the 275-year-old Khajur ki Masjid in Faizabad this time.

Parvez Alam, a utensil vendor who doubles as the caretaker of the mosque had just one worry: was there a way the mosque could be spared? 

He had reason to be concerned. The shops below the right minaret of the mosque had been demolished – pretty much like any other structure on either side of the road from Sadatganj to Nayaghat in Ayodhya.

The Ayodhya administration has undertaken work to build the Rampath, a grand road leading to the Ram Janmabhoomi temple which is nearing completion. A part of this nearly three-century-old mosque is now at risk of demolition.

“This is Allah’s house. If he wants to save it, it will be saved. We can only try our best,” says caretaker Alam.

Fourteen mosques and Islamic shrines under the Sunni Waqf Board and this mosque called the Khajur ki Masjid under the Shia Waqf Board have come in the way of the road widening plan and have either had their structures altered or are facing partial demolition.

In the latter, a minaret needs to be demolished to build 2.5 metres of the road. Locals say that they are unsure of what will become of the structure in the absence of the minaret and the pillar that supports it and the mosque. In multiple pleas to the administration, the Wakf secretary has requested the District Magistrate to not demolish the mosque.

Thirty temples on the path have been affected as well, say administration.

“All religious structures are treated equally, and we have demolished everything within the specified width of the Rampath. Approximately 30 temples have also been demolished, and their idols were respectfully taken to other temples,” Amit Singh, the additional district magistrate of Ayodhya said.

“If we treat a 200-year-old mosque as an exception then someone can use the same for their house. You will see that nine metres of a famous temple in Hanuman Garhi is also marked for demolition,” he added.

The minaret of Khajur ki Masjid in the background is to be demolished for the widening of the Rampath. Photo: Vipul Kumar and Alishan Jafri

For Nitin Mishra, a resident of Ayodhya who practices at the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court, the demolition drive comes very close to entirely destroying the city’s cultural heritage.

“There are many old temples on the pathway and many of them have been partly demolished too. They have their own customs and people are attached to their temples. The entire exercise could have been avoided. It is a diverse city and that diversity is being replaced entirely,” Mishra says.

A partly demolished house on the under construction Rampath. Photo: Vipul Kumar and Alishan Jafri

There is also the question of what becomes of the city after these changes. Residents say that so far Ayodhya was the poor man’s pilgrimage site but the new changes would alter the city’s culture and its relationship with locals. Professor Raghuvansh Mani Tripathi who teaches English at the Siddharth University and whose house was partly demolished during the Rampath road widening drive, feels that Ayodhya is on its way towards becoming a commercial city.

A bird’s eye view of the path leaves you with the impression of a lightning bolt having sliced through several buildings, including houses, shops, and shrines on both sides of the road.

A city and a temple

The construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya has been one of the foremost stated goals of the Bharatiya Janata party and its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The Ram Janmabhoomi temple is likely to be inaugurated in January next year, before the Lok Sabha polls, and the BJP government has already hailed it as one of its top achievements in the past decade. 

However, in Ayodhya many residents are struggling to identify with this “new Ayodhya.” 

Columnist K.P. Singh, for one, sees the recent spate of changes as an attempt to radically metamorphosise the Ganga-Jamuni syncretic culture that represented Ayodhya into an exclusively Hindu city. Singh feels that the diversity of Ayodhya is being destroyed by the drive that has shown scant regard for the city’s own heritage. 

“The BJP does not fear turning the anger of Ayodhya residents into their loss in the 2024 general elections. They want to benefit from projecting Ayodhya as the model ideological city on a national level before the 2024 elections, no matter what backlash they face in Ayodhya itself,” said Singh. He suspects that for electoral mobilisation, the BJP could well issue a call of ‘Ayodhya chalo (come to Ayodhya).’

The initial proposal was to create a 24-metre-wide and 13-kilometre-long Rampath. After protests by locals, the width was reduced to 20 metres since a large part of the old city had very narrow and busy streets with sprawling markets and densely inhabited neighbourhoods.

“Why is this road being constructed when there are other options available,” asked Nandu Gupta, the president of the Samajwadi Party Trade Union in Ayodhya. According to Gupta, to prevent this chaos, the best option available was the route from behind the Janmabhoomi to Faizabad. A total of 4,500 shops and 2,000 families have been affected by the four road projects, namely Rampath, Bhakti Path, Janmabhoomi Path, and Dharmpath.

Also read: As Ram Mandir Nears Completion, Ayodhya’s Traders Bear Hidden Costs

“Approximately 2,000 of these shops have been completely demolished, with promises made to provide shops in different parts of Ayodhya. However, not more than 400 shops are being provided at a rate of Rs 9,500 per square meter. This means that a shopkeeper will need to spend Rs 15 lakh for a shop in a good area,” Gupta added.

However, the administration has a slightly different version.

ADM Singh said that around Rs 100 crores have been allotted by the government for the compensation of land and buildings, including 2,200 shops, 800 houses, 30 temples, nine mosques, and six mazars that fall within the ambit of the Rampath. “Currently, 285 shops have been completely demolished, and more than 350 shops will be allotted to the owners of fully demolished shops on lease for 30 years, which will cost them around Rs 10 lakhs for each shop,” he added.

An old structure at Faizabad. Photo: Vipul Kumar and Alishan Jafri

Mahendra, who practices homeopathy and whose rented chambers have been reduced to less than half of its original size complained about the loss of business on the route. He pointed out that the compensation will be provided to the landlords, and not to the tenants operating their business from the shops. Renting spaces in other locations is expensive, he adds. “The shops that are being allocated by the development authority in exchange for the ones being demolished for the Rampath project are very costly, and only big businessmen can afford them,” he said.

Local businesses on the 13-kilometre route of the Rampath have suffered too.

“In January of this year, the partial demolition of my house meant that I lost my beauty parlour, and my husband lost the general store he used to run. My husband is now operating the store in a small space in front of the house. I received Rs 1,60,000 as compensation for the building, but it would cost me around Rs 10 lakh to make it liveable after the demolition,” said Neelam Maurya. Maurya’s beauty parlour is now shut.

Also read: Construction on the Ayodhya Mosque Is Yet to Begin. Here Is Why

Legal loopholes 

Nitin Mishra also claimed that there are legal loopholes in the entire exercise.

“We have been pointing out that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 have not been applied. Instead, the government has used a sale and purchase model, passed through an ordinance, to buy the land,” he said, adding that by the time an individual can approach the court, bulldozers will have reached her building.

Most of the people in these areas are tenants, he added, implying that few would want to open a chapter of conflict with the government.

Advocate Intezar Hussain who is representing the Khajur ki Masjid Waqf reiterated Mishra’s point on the legal aspects having been neglected. There was no invitation of objections, he said. 

Intezar also claimed that the compensation is based on the circle rate (land price fixed by the government) of 2017, which is significantly lower than the rate in 2023. On March 1, 2023, the Wakf Committee filed a writ petition in the high court to move the road by 2.5 metres to the opposite side of the mosque, ensuring the preservation of the mosque’s minaret. The land on the opposite side also belongs to the Shia Waqf Board, Hussain claimed. 

Additionally, the advocate said, the Places of Worship Act is being violated in the process of demolishing the minaret of the Khajur ki Masjid.

ADM Amit Singh said the demolition “is not being rushed” and that mosque caretakers have been given time to construct a supporting pillar.

Some shops outside the mosque have already been demolished but the caretaking committee did not object to it.

Journalist Husain Rizvi of India TV, a resident of Faizabad tweeted, “Many temples and mosques have been removed by the people themselves for the Rampath…The administration should show a flexible approach in the case of Khajur ki Masjid.”

Singh, however, turned down the possibility of making an exception for this mosque.

Advocate Hussain also asks if in a secular state a government can destroy religious places of one religion to make way for pilgrimage sites of another religion. Many Muslims, a local said, have complied readily with the administration.

Activist Azam Quadri said, “Babri Mosque was taken away from us, and the injustice continues as our mosques are being destroyed due to the Rampath project.”

Also read: Ayodhya: Once There Was A Mosque

 AIMIM leader and Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi has been one to condemn the “illegal attempt” to demolish the historic mosque of the Shia community in Ayodhya.

A municipal mess

Locals claim that they are finding it difficult to travel from one part of the city to the other as arterial road are either blocked or dug up.

Some complained about large construction pits that can lead to fatal accidents, especially in the rain. “There are no radium strip cautionary blockades either. What you are seeing is an improved condition. You can imagine how it must have been a few months ago,” homeopathy practitioner Mahendra said. After a point, the correspondents had to get off their motorcycle and travel on foot into the city.

On July 13, a Kanwar Yatri named Rajaram Chauhan died on the under construction Bhaktipath Road after falling into a water-filled pit, which had an exposed electrical wire. “We are working on fixing the faults in the safety measures of the construction, and the death of the Kanvariya is currently under investigation,” ADM Amit Singh said responding to the allegations of neglect by authorities. He told The Wire that in places where officials have not adopted standard safety measures, the administration has acted against them.

In a recent speech, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath said that commuters will temporarily face problems but that in the coming months, the roads of Ayodhya will look like the Rajpath in Delhi. “And we have named it Rampath after Lord Ram. Earlier Ayodhya did not have such broad roads,” he emphasised.

Last month Jitin Prasada, the state’s public works department minister, had asked officials to speed up the work on the arterial road. And in March 2023, district magistrate Nitish Kumar had reportedly threatened legal action against contractors for the slow pace of the road widening project.

Citizens increasingly get agitated by what they describe as the civic havoc wreaked by multiple road development projects, the Rampath in particular, that have brought the city to a standstill.

On July 13, the official Twitter account of the UP government tweeted a report in the Hindustan Times, quoting the following excerpt:

“Spotlight on Ayodhya Ji as development picks up pace. Along with the construction of a grand Ram temple, which is to be opened in January 2024, Ayodhya Ji is also bracing for a major transformation, with the new Ayodhya Ji bearing little or no resemblance with the old city that found mention in the Vedas.”

Contrary to his government’s tweet, purporting to endorse the line that the city will have “little or no resemblance” to the city of the Vedas, Adityanath has said that the “Treta Yuga” will come back with the unveiling of the new Ayodhya.

Professor Raghuvansh Mani Tripathi, quoted earlier in the piece, said that meetings with members of parliament and legislative assembly have not yielded results. 

The Wire tried to reach out to Lallu Singh, the BJP MP from Ayodhya for a comment but he was unavailable. 

“There was no need for the Rampath as there is already a four-lane road that connects with Ayodhya. Due to the Rampath project, a large number of houses and shops have been demolished. Most of these lands are Nazul lands. So the government is not compensating for the land but only for the buildings,” Tripathi said, adding how business owners will have to spend much more to relocate their businesses.

“My father bought the house in 1971 through mutation of property and other necessary documentation. I received Rs 5 lakh as compensation for the partial demolition. I lost two out of four rooms in this process. Now it is difficult for my family to adjust in this space,” Tripathi said.

SP trade unionist Nandu Gupta fears that in order to enhance the aesthetics of the newly constructed road leading to the temple, the administration will also clear the street vendors and small thela owners who have been earning their livelihoods on the roadside.

Gupta said that he and his comrades wrote a letter to the deity Ram, asking him to protect his Ayodhya and its people.

Babri Demolition Case: CBI Files Objections Regarding Appeal Filed in Allahabad HC

The agency contended that the appellants were not the victims in the case and hence did not have the right to file the present appeal against the acquittal of the accused.

Lucknow: The CBI on Monday submitted objections on the maintainability of a criminal appeal filed in the high court here against the acquittal of all 32 accused, including former deputy prime minister L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti, in the Babri mosque demolition case.

A bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Renu Agrawal of the Allahabad high court fixed September 26 for the next hearing on the appeal of Haji Mahboob Ahmad and Syed Akhlaq Ahmad.

When the matter came up before the Lucknow bench on Monday, CBI counsel Shiv P. Shukla and government advocate Vimal Kumar Srivastava raised objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal.

They contended that the appellants were not the victims in the case and hence did not have the right to file the present appeal against the acquittal of the accused.

Earlier, the appellants had filed a revision petition against the acquittal but Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh had held that it was not maintainable under Section 372 of CrPC, which deals with the provision of appeals in criminal cases.

On the request of the petitioners, the court had directed its office to convert and treat it as a criminal appeal.

Accordingly, the criminal revision was converted into a criminal appeal and listed before the appropriate division bench.

The appellants said that they were witnesses in the trial and were victims owing to the demolition of the disputed structure.

The Babri mosque was demolished by “Karsewaks” on December 6, 1992.

After a long legal battle, the special CBI court on September 30, 2020 pronounced the judgment in the criminal trial and acquitted all the accused.

The trial judge had refused to believe newspaper cuttings, video clips as evidence as the originals of the same were not produced, while the entire edifice of the case rested on these pieces of documentary evidence.

The trial judge also held that the CBI could not produce any evidence that the accused had a meeting of mind with Karsewaks who demolished the structure.

Assailing the findings of the trial court, the appellants have pleaded that the trial court committed an error in not convicting the accused despite ample evidence being on record.

The trial judge did not appreciate the evidence of conspiracy from the right perspective, they said.

In the petition, the appellants have urged the high court to set aside the judgment of September 30, 2020 and hold all the 32 accused guilty.

(PTI)

Babri Demolition Trial: Murli Manohar Joshi Deposes, Pleads Innocence

The senior BJP leader accused the then Congress government of falsely implicating him and called the CBI’s witnesses ‘liars’.

Lucknow: Deposing in the Babri Masjid demolition case, veteran BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi on Thursday asserted before a special CBI court that he was innocent and implicated in the case by the then Congress government at the Centre.

The 86-year-old leader made his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code through a video conference to the court of special judge S.K. Yadav, who is holding the trial in the case.

Former deputy prime minister L.K. Advani, 92, is also slated to depose before the Lucknow court through video links from New Delhi on Friday.

In his deposition to the court, Joshi accused the then Central government of falsely implicating him out of political vendetta.

He also refuted the prosecution evidence saying they all were “false and inspired by political reasons”.

The entire investigation was conducted under political influence and he was charged on the basis of false and fabricated evidence, Joshi told the court.

At this, the judge asked him why then the prosecution witnesses have deposed against him and Joshi retorted that all the witnesses are liars. They have deposed due to political reasons and under the influence of police, he claimed.

During the court proceeding, the court posed as many as 1,050 questions to Joshi and he replied to each one of them.

As the judge sought Joshi’s comment over various pieces of evidence led by the CBI on the basis of different video clippings and newspaper cuttings, the former Union human resource development minister said the entire evidence is “false and fabricated”.

During the proceeding, judge Yadav apprised Joshi of the statement of a CBI witness, in which he had averred that Kalyan Singh was sworn in as Uttar Pradesh chief minister on June 25, 1991, and went to the Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya the next day along with his cabinet colleagues.

Also read: The Political Undertones of Choosing August 5 for Ayodhya Ram Temple ‘Bhoomi Pujan’

The judge told Joshi that, according to the CBI witness, Kalyan Singh had pledged for building the temple at the very place, chanting Ram lalla hum aayenge, mandir yahi banayenge (Lord Ram, we will come and make the temple here itself).

The judge then asked Joshi to explain the statement of the CBI witness.

Joshi replied that it was true that Kalyan Singh had gone to Ayodhya but, he said, the rest of the averment of the prosecution witness was false.

The judge also showed Joshi a photograph taken on June 26, 1991, at the Ram Janmabhoomi premises, in which he is seen standing with the then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh and asked the BJP leader to explain it.

Joshi dubbed the photograph as fake, pointing out that there was no negative of the photograph on the CBI records.

The photograph was handed over by one Swapna Das Gupta to the CBI during the investigation.

The judge also referred to many newspaper reports on alleged statements of Advani and Shiv Sena’s late chief Bala Saheb Thackeray on the Ram Janmabhoomi issue and sought Joshi’s response to them.

Joshi asserted that the relevant news items were false and were made part of the investigation by the CBI due to political malice and ideological differences.

Joshi told the court that he would present evidence in his defence at the appropriate stage of the trial.

After Joshi completed his deposition to the court, judge Yadav asked his office to send a copy of his statement to the CBI in New Delhi.

The CBI will then get Joshi’s statement signed by him in New Delhi and send it back to the court in Lucknow.

The court recorded Joshi’s statement in the presence of his counsel Vimal Kumar Srivastava, K.K. Mishra and Abhishek Ranjan.

The counsel for prosecution agency CBI, Lalit Singh, R.K. Yadav and P. Chakravarti too were present in the court during its proceeding.

The court is presently at the stage of recording the evidence of various accused, totalling 32, in the Babri mosque demolition trial after examination of the prosecution witnesses.

A photograph of the Babri Masjid from the early 1900s. Copyright: The British Library Board

At this stage of the trial, an accused gets the opportunity to refute the prosecution evidence against him.

The mosque in Ayodhya was demolished on December 6, 1992, by ‘kar sevaks‘ who claimed that an ancient Ram temple existed at the same site.

Advani and Joshi were among the BJP leaders, spearheading the Ram Janmabhoomi temple movement at that time.

The court is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the case to complete its trial by August 31 as directed by the Supreme Court.

BJP leader and former Madhya Pradesh chief minister Uma Bharti had appeared in person earlier this month before the court to make her deposition in the case.

In her testimony, she too had accused the then Congress government at the Centre of implicating her in the case due to political vendetta.

Another senior BJP leader and former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh too in his deposition to the court on July 13 had accused the then Congress government at the Centre of levelling “false and baseless allegations” against him in the Babri mosque demolition case.

Singh, during whose tenure as UP CM the mosque in Ayodhya was demolished, had said that he was falsely implicated in the case.

SC Dismisses PILs Seeking Preservation of Ramjanmabhoomi Artefacts, Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Fine

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishan Murari said that the court has already given its verdict in the Ayodhya case and the PIL is an attempt to overreach the judgment.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed two ‘frivolous’ PILs seeking preservation of artefacts recovered from the Ram Janmabhoomi site at Ayodhya.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishan Murari said that a five-judge bench has already given its verdict and this is an attempt through PIL to overreach the judgment.

The counsel appearing for the petitioners said the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust has also accepted that there are many artefacts in the area that need protection.

The bench sought to know as to why the petitioners have come before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

“You should stop filing such frivolous petitions. What do you mean by this petition? Are you saying that there is no rule of law and the five-judge bench judgement of this court will not be followed by anyone?” the bench said, adding that it intends to dismiss both the petitions.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the court should also consider imposing costs.

The bench said that a cost of Rs 1 lakh each is imposed on both the petitioners which should be paid within one month from Monday.

Also read: The Political Undertones of Choosing August 5 for Ayodhya Ram Temple ‘Bhoomi Pujan’

Petitioners Satish Chindhuji Shambharkar and Dr Ambedkar Foundation have moved the top court seeking preservation of artefacts recovered from the disputed site during the court-monitored excavation done during the hearing of the contentious issue at Allahabad high court.

They have also sought to preserve the artefacts which would be recovered after digging the foundation for the new Ram temple at Ayodhya and said that it should be done under the supervision of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

On November 9, settling a fractious issue that goes back more than a century, the Supreme Court in a historic verdict backed the construction of a Ram temple by a trust at the disputed site in Ayodhya and ruled that an alternative five-acre plot must be found for a mosque in the Hindu holy town.

Delivering a unanimous judgement on a case that has long polarised the country and frayed the secular tapestry of Indian society, a five-judge bench of the apex court headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said the faith of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the site was undisputed and he is symbolically the owner of the land.

Babri Demolition Case: Advani to Depose on July 24; Murli Manohar Joshi on July 23

The court is recording the statements of the 32 accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code to enable them to plead their innocence if they so want.

Lucknow: A special CBI court on Monday set July 24 as the date for recording the statement of former deputy prime minister L.K. Advani in the 1992 Babri mosque demolition case.

The 92-year-old BJP leader’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be recorded through video conferencing.

In his order, Special Judge S.K. Yadav also fixed July 23 for recording the statement of BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi through video conferencing.

The court is recording the statements of the 32 accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code to enable them to plead their innocence if they so want.

The court, which is conducting day-to-day hearings to complete the trial by August 31, as directed by the Supreme Court, set July 22 for former Shiv Sena MP Satish Pradhan to depose before it through a video link.

Also read: The Political Undertones of Choosing August 5 for Ayodhya Ram Temple ‘Bhoomi Pujan’

On Monday, it recorded the statement of accused Sudhir Kakar who appeared in person, though earlier he wanted to depose through a video link.

Like the other accused, Kakar claimed that he was innocent and was falsely implicated by the then Congress-led central government for political reasons.

The court will record the statement of accused Ram Chandra Khatri on Tuesday.

BJP leader Uma Bharti had earlier this month appeared in person before the court.

She had also accused the then Congress-led central government of framing her due to political vendetta.

The mosque in Ayodhya was demolished on December 6, 1992, by ‘kar sevaks’ who claimed that an ancient Ram temple had stood on the same site. Advani and Joshi were leading the Ram temple movement at that time.

Ayodhya and After: Why Muslims Should Not Reject the Five Acre Compromise

The call by some Muslim leaders and organisations will play straight into the hands of the Hindutva organisations. 

The Ayodhya verdict by the Supreme Court has drawn much legitimate criticism from various sources, especially for some of its glaring inconsistencies. The sum total of the verdict is that the Babri Masjid, or a new version of it, will have to move from the site it had occupied for over four centuries to an alternate location of five acres at a “prominent place” in Ayodhya.

The verdict hides an awesome irony if we retrace our steps to the 1980s. That is when the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute had begun to emerge on the national agenda. An offer was made by the Hindu side of the dispute to move the entire structure of the Babri Masjid intact on a train to another site, which would not be far from its current location, if the 2.77 acres was handed over to them.

Also read: Ayodhya Verdict: India’s Muslims Sought Dignity, Not Land

The reference was to the technology successfully used in Egypt for moving an ancient monument to another site during the 1950s to make way for the Aswan dam. The offer was rejected on two grounds, one theological, the other political: a piece of land once occupied by the house of Allah was non-negotiable; and that once this demand was met it would lead to a series of similar demands for other sites, especially Kashi and Mathura.

The verdict has implicitly rejected the first ground. And even as it, along with a law enacted in 1991, closes the door on the second, future political twists and turns hold no such guarantee. If the present regime can revoke solemn guarantees given to Kashmir under Article 370 in a jiffy, how long would it take to supersede the 1991 law? A massive popular mobilisation will be on the cards to drop it.

It would be fascinating to speculate on what might – or for that matter might not – have happened if the offer had been accepted. If the Muslim leadership (it is very hard to speak of the Hindu and the Muslim leadership in the singular) had announced that although historical and archeological evidence does not support the theory of a temple, much less a Ram temple, being demolished for the building of the Babri Masjid (which has been argued in writing by many historians and archeologists, including this writer, in fact even by the Archeological Survey of India’s report which is the verdict’s solid basis), in view of the strong belief of our Hindu brothers that this was the site of Lord Ram’s birth, we are happy or at least willing to hand it over to them for a grand Ram temple – provided no such demand is repeated in other cases.

Also read: For A Young Girl Who Fled Home in December 1992, Ayodhya Verdict Brings No ‘Closure’

Most likely, the dispute would have ended peacefully and for all time, and the communal conflagration we have witnessed since the 1980s would have subsided. A most likely result might have been that the BJP and the Sangh parivar would not have gained the traction they have and would not have become the dominant force in Indian politics and society that they are now.

Indeed, Muslims would have been hailed as the victors who honoured the very Indian ethos of sacrifice and tolerance. At least there was one in two chances for this outcome; now there is none. But only great visionary leaders can lead their communities to crossing such far sighted thresholds of history.

Now that the Supreme Court has rightly or wrongly “overruled” both the theological and the political grounds of a compromise and has offered another “compromise” – that of five acres of land for a mosque within Ayodhya, underlining the illegality of the demolition of the Babri masjid – the Muslim community ‘leadership’ has the option of accepting or rejecting it.

Also read: Why Sikhs Are Angry With the Ayodhya Judgment

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has decided to seek a review of the verdict, which is its constitutional right, but simultaneously to reject the offer of the five acres. The AIMPLB has always seen itself as the exclusive custodian of the Muslims in India and its control over the Shariat jurisprudence as independent of the Indian constitution. This has often landed the Muslim community in jeopardy such as on the Shah Bano case, which is the root cause of the phenomenal rise of Hindutva.

Nothing will suit the Hindutva organisations and their ideology more than this rejection by “Muslims”. For central to that ideology is the “othering” of the Muslim community, the difference between Hindus and Muslims commuted into active and irremediable hostility. The rejection of the compromise will lend even greater strength to the existing ‘us versus them’ ideology, the community virtually accepting its status as ‘them’. The victims of the ‘us versus them’ ideology are always on both sides, but then, always, one side pays an inordinately higher price for it than the other.

The author taught medieval history at JNU.

For A Young Girl Who Fled Home in December 1992, Ayodhya Verdict Brings No ‘Closure’

The Supreme Court ruling is riddled with contradictions but its biggest problem is the loss of faith it has triggered among Muslims about the possibility of justice.

I was travelling abroad when the Supreme Court registry announced that the Ayodhya verdict would be pronounced on Saturday morning. My immediate instinct as a journalist was to cut short my trip and take the first available flight back to Delhi.

I was driven, of course, by the professional impulse of covering this momentous day first hand, but also because the issue had a lot of personal meaning for me and I wanted to be back with my family and friends and colleagues – my own people, so to speak – when the judgment was delivered.

The Supreme Court decided in favour of the Hindu plaintiff – arguing that Muslims could not sufficiently substantiate their claim over the disputed land – and now a Ram temple will be built at the place where a mosque, which stood for close to five centuries, was illegally brought down on December 6, 1992.

Many newspaper editorials have hailed the judgment for finally bringing ‘closure’ to an issue that for decades polarised the Indian polity and resulted in violence and the loss of lives. But has this judgment really brought closure for India’s Muslims? Does it give them the chance to move on?

Also read: Supreme Court’s Ayodhya Verdict Rests on a Glaring Contradiction

Sitting in The Wire’s studio on Saturday, I tried my best to fulfil my professional duties of dispassionately analysing the judgment but memories from 27 years ago constantly interfered with my train of thought. Memories of how, as a 12-year-old girl, I held my younger brother – who was barely a few weeks old – and ran for my life through the pitch-black darkness of the night on December 6, 1992.

All this while, I thought that I had buried that little girl from western Uttar Pradesh in the graveyard of my memory, never to return and haunt me with her vulnerability and insecurity again. I believed I had left behind the desperate sounds of our Muslim neighbours banging at our door to tell us that a riot had broken out, shouting, ‘Us taraf se chadhaai aa rahi hai’ (People from the other side will be here any moment), and asking us to leave our house to save our lives.

VHP procession marking the 23rd anniversary of the demolition of Babri Masjid. Credit: File Photo

I remember my stubborn father not paying any heed to the pleas of his neighbours, insisting there was no need to run because his ‘Hindu neighbours could never harm him or his children’. I remember his tearful eyes when the realisation dawned that we were indeed in danger. That look on his face while locking our house and looking at it one last time with love and pain before fleeing for a ‘safer’ place.

I had thought those scary hours of getting separated from my family after the riots broke out, or those long, cold nights of living in a refugee camp set up by fellow Muslims for families displaced by riots, those restless days that turned into unending weeks before I could finally go back to school and be reunited with my best friend Vandana, were a distant memory.

But I was wrong. For when I heard TV anchors and even their liberal studio guests insisting the Ayodhya judgment had brought “closure”, those memories came cascading back.

Also read: Ayodhya Dispute: Was Public Peace Privileged Over Justice?

Besides other aspects of the judgment that several jurists are finding problematic, there is a fundamental contradiction that simply does not allow for ‘closure’. The Supreme Court itself noted that the forced placing of idols inside the mosque that took place one night in December 1949 was illegal and the mosque was thus “desecrated”. It also unequivocally acknowledged that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was unlawful.

But the tragic irony is that it still ends up handing the disputed land to none other than the perpetrators who demolished the mosque and unleashed violence across India, including in my little qasba.

The judgment is not just self-contradictory but tilts unmistakably towards one side. The Hindu plaintiffs were held to a lower burden of proof of possession than the Muslim plaintiffs. The court recognised that both parties had claims and worshipped at the disputed site but chose a majoritarian conception of ‘social peace’ to give the land to one side rather than doing what was right or just.

Also read: What the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya Judgment Means for the Future of the Republic

The reaction to the Ayodhya judgment from the main opposition parties – both national and those which operate from Uttar Pradesh, including the ones that call themselves ‘secular’ and claim first right over Muslim votes – has been disappointing. They too believe the judgment is the best solution to this age-old dispute. Barring the few honourable exceptions among political commentators and jurists who have expressed their reservations or even criticism about the judgement, the country at large seems to have welcomed it.

The Muslim community has also largely been quiet and non-reactive. A few religious/social leaders maintain that they respect the Supreme Court’s verdict although they disagree with it. But should the lack of reaction from the Muslim community at large be seen as acceptance of the verdict? Has the court been successful in its ultimate objective of delivering a verdict not leading to disturbance of social peace?

Or is this silence emanating from the fear Muslims at large have of a backlash against them from not just the majority community but from a system that has so openly worked against them and their interests since the Narendra Modi government first came to power in 2014? Has the humiliation and helplessness resulting from brazen anti-Muslim politics – including gau raksha and ‘love jihad’ – made them lose hope for justice and parity in their own country?

Also read: Justice A.K. Ganguly: ‘If Babri Masjid Was Still Standing, Would SC Have Had it Demolished?‘

What can be worse for a democracy when its largest minority group does not hope for justice but fearfully settles for a verdict that they know is no less than injustice to them? It was the Muslims who suffered the razing of their place of worship; they were also the victims of the violence which followed. The community sought redressal and placed its faith in the institutions for justice.

From patiently waiting for the criminals who demolished the Babri Masjid to be punished  to the expectation that the title suit outcome would put an end to the Hindutva agenda of converting mosques into temples , the majority of the Muslims of India accepted the supremacy of the law. But today, they have retuned empty handed from the Supreme Court.

From the government to opposition, from civil society, the media and the courts, Muslims of India today find themselves standing alone in the fight for their existence with no hope for equality or dignified citizenry.

And that scared and vulnerable young girl who had to flee her home because of the actions of violent majoritarian goons 27 years ago has the right to say she feels disappointed and betrayed by what the highest court of the country has done.

Sunni Waqf Board Should Not Accept 5-Acre Plot in Ayodhya: Jamiat Chief

“We don’t want land. Muslims don’t need land,” the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind chief said.

New Delhi: The Sunni Waqf Board should not accept the 5-acre plot which the Supreme Court in its Ayodhya judgment has directed the Centre to allot for a mosque, head of prominent Muslim body Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind (JUEH) Maulana Arshad Madani said on Thursday.

He said the Jamiat had asserted that the Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case, based on evidence, will be respected by it.

Maulana Madani, however, said the judgment was “beyond understanding”.

Sources said an executive committee meeting of the Jamiat on Thursday could not reach a consensus on whether to file a review petition on the Ayodhya verdict and a decision will be taken on Friday.

The court accepted that placing idols in a mosque and demolishing it is illegal.”But the court gave its decision in favour of those responsible for it,” he said.

The JUEH president also said the court has accepted that the Babri mosque was not built by demolishing a temple during Babur’s rule.

Also read: Justice A.K. Ganguly: ‘If Babri Masjid Was Still Standing, Would SC Have Had it Demolished?’

Settling a fractious issue that goes back more than a century, the Supreme Court, in its verdict in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title case on Saturday, said the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land should be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla, who was one of the three litigants in the case.

The five-judge Constitution bench also directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya to build a mosque.

Asked about his views on whether the land should be accepted by the Muslim side, Madani said, “The land has not been given to us. They have given the land to the Sunni Waqf Board.”

“Our opinion is that the Sunni Waqf Board should not accept the land, but finally it is up to them,” said the head of JUEH, which was also a litigant in the case.

“The issue is about rights not about land. We don’t want land. Muslims don’t need land,” he said.

Madani said that according to religion, a mosque remains a mosque irrespective of ‘namaz’ is being held or not.

“The SC said it was a mosque and not made by destructing a temple. For us, according to religion, it is still a mosque,” Madani said.

Responding to a question, he asserted that whatever they have to say on the verdict they will say only within the country.

Babri Demolition Case: Tenure of Special Judge Extended

The tenure of the special judge has been extended till he delivers the judgment in the Ayodhya demolition case.

New Delhi: The Uttar Pradesh government on Friday told the Supreme Court that it has complied with its direction and extended the tenure of the special judge, who is conducting trial in the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case involving BJP veterans L.K. Advani, M.M. Joshi and Uma Bharti.

A bench of Justices R.F. Nariman and Surya Kant perused the affidavit and office memo placed before it by the chief secretary of Uttar Pradesh.

Also Read: The Untold Story of How the Rama Idol Surfaced Inside Babri Masjid

Senior advocate Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, told the bench that the government has complied with the top court’s direction and extended the tenure of the special judge till he delivers the judgment in the Ayodhya demolition case.

“We are satisfied that the needful has been done,” the bench said while disposing of the matter.

Babri Demolition Case: As Kalyan Singh Rejoins BJP, CBI Moves Court to Summon Him

Singh has finished his five-year tenure as Rajasthan governor, which granted him constitutional immunity from facing trial in civil and criminal cases.

New Delhi: Former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh rejoined the Bharatiya Janata Party on September 10, opening himself for a trial in the Babri Masjid demolition case. Singh has finished his five-year tenure as Rajasthan governor, which granted him constitutional immunity from facing trial in civil and criminal cases.

Soon after senior Uttar Pradesh leader Kalraj Mishra was sworn in as the new Rajasthan governor, Singh accepted the saffron party’s membership in presence of Uttar Pradesh BJP chief Swantatra Dev Singh,  his son Rajveer Singh, currently the Lok Sabha MP from Etah, and grandson Sandeep Singh, who is now the minister of state for finance in UP.

Within hours, the Central Bureau of Investigation moved a special court, seeking permission to summon Kalyan Singh to stand trial in the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case.

The Supreme Court in April 2017 had ordered that criminal conspiracy charges against senior BJP leaders like L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and 16 others be revived. However, it also said that Kalyan Singh could not be brought in as an accused as he enjoyed immunity under Article 361 of the constitution. The apex court had told the CBI that prosecution could start against him only when he ceases to be a governor.

The CBI chargesheet alleged that then chief minister Kalyan Singh allowed the demolition despite having assured the National Integration Council that it would not be allowed. The Supreme Court had only permitted a symbolic “kar sewa” at the site but it was eventually demolished by scores of Hindutva activists. Singh is also accused of not deploying enough central forces to prevent the demolition.

A special CBI judge in 1997 had said that Singh acted contrary to his assurances and prima facie found him as having participated in the criminal conspiracy. Singh, however, pleaded not guilty and stepped down from the position of chief minister after the demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992.

Upon rejoining active politics, Singh told reporters in Lucknow that he won’t be contesting elections anymore but quitting politics would have meant quitting public service for him.

But political analysts believe that Singh’s induction will help the BJP give a fillip to its Ram Mandir agenda ahead of the 2022 assembly polls in the state. His return will also help the BJP consolidate the significant OBC Lodhi community in the upcoming by-elections in 13 assembly seats. Singh, a Lodhi leader, has a great hold over the community.

Singh’s re-induction appeared to be merely a formality, as he, even as the governor of Rajasthan, made no attempts to be perceived as holding a constitutional position. In March this year, amidst the heat of the Lok Sabha election campaign, Singh was in the middle of a controversy when he unabashedly praised Narendra Modi and added that his re-election was a necessity for the country.

“We are workers of BJP. Going by that, we definitely want the BJP to win. Everyone wants that once more, Modi-ji should become PM. It is necessary for the country and the society that Modi-ji becomes PM,” he had said as the Rajasthan governor.

After much hue and cry, the president’s office condemned his statement and said “no one in a constitutional post is permitted to campaign” for anyone. However, it added that since it did not receive any complaint, it could not take any action against Singh.

Meanwhile, the special court accepted the CBI application to summon Singh. As the trial is being conducted on a day-to-day basis, the application may come up for adjudication on September 11.

(With PTI Inputs)