Babri masjid case

The dispute about the mosque is a creation of the East India Company officials as a part of
their divide and rule policy. Since then a group of communal Hindus had been always
intolerant to other religions and have tried many times to demolish the very Mosque.In
the intervening night of December 22-23,1949, the mahants with the permission District
Magistrate put an idol right below the arch of the mosque.Next morning when locals
came into mosque,they were surprised to see the Hindu idol in the mosque.Then a group
of local Muslims asked the magistrate to get the idol removed but he took no action
because he himself was involved in this conspiracy.

This criminal act created a fuss all over India.The leaders of the Jamiat-e-ulema Hind
Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni,Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Maulana Hifzurrehman
Seoharwi personally took up the matter with the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who
then wrote to the UP chief Minister that the idol be removed very immediately. But
unfortunately, no action was taken and the idol could not be removed despite the orders
from the Prime Minister. Since then the dispute was in court but on entirely illegal orders
the mosque was opened for hindu worship on 25th January 1986. It is very unfortunate
what foreign rulers could not do despite their anti-muslim conspiracies were done by the
Indian republic and the votaries of secularism.

Judgement

The court handed down a decision to split the disputed land into three portions: one-
third of the land to be given to the Sunni Central Boards of Waqfs, one-third to the
Nirmohi Akhara and one-third to the party for ‘Ram Lalla’. The court further ruled that the
area where the idols of Ram are still present shall be given to the Hindus in the final
decree, and the rest of the land shall be divided equally by meters and bounds among the
three parties.

My overview

In my opinion, the judgement on Babri Masjid seems to have been a mark of more a
political pragmatism than a legal one- giving something to both Hindus and Muslims in a
bid to maintain harmony and peace among the minority muslims and the majority
Hindus.The verdict is ostensibly in favour of Hindus and the belief of Hindus that the site
was the birthplace of Lord Ram is well upheld. But the ruling at the same time did not
represent a loss of hope to Muslims either. The High Court judgement is unlikely to spark
off violence as neither side is made a gross loser by the verdict. What is however painful is
to think in retrospect:”If the dispute had been disposed off by a court in the
1950s,1960s,1970s, or even in 1991 the illegal demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992
could have been avoided and the resultant riots would not have occurred.

The following are some of the quotes from one of the three judges in the Babri Masjid
Title suit. It shows unambiguously that the decision was a political order to save india
from more communal riots and bloodshed

1. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again,at least quickly.”Today the pace
of the world is faster than it was in 1992, he says.” We may be crushed.
Justice khan says he did not delve too deep into history and archaeology, for four
reasons.
2. Firstly, this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits.
3. Secondly, i was not sure as to whether at the end of tortuous voyage i would have
found a treasure or faced a monster ( treasure of truth or monster of confusion
worst confounded).
The truth might hurt either the Muslims or the Hindus.
4. Thirdly, having no pretence of knowledge of history i did not want to be caught in
the crossfire of historians( or superstitious believers)
5. Regarding his fourth reason, As far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned there is
no room for historical facts and claims. Reliance on borderline historical facts will
lead to errorneous conclusions.
In fact it has led to erroneous conclusions as we see. The judges avoided clashes
but killed the justice.

Justice khan and Agarwal seems to recognize the Hindu sentiment, that this was
Ram Janmabhoomi, needs to be respected and built a case for the right to prayer
at that site on this speculative basis.”
He says it is speculation because “.... no one can really pin point where the
mythical Lord Ram was born or even that centuries ago prayer in fact took place at
this site to commemorate the birth of Lord Ram.”
I completely disagree with justice khan and agarwal because his interpretation is
based on the religious sentiments of the people not on the laws.
On one hand India was using modern technology in the “Aadhaar” identify project
to bring social services to poor Indians, it was also going “back to the Middle Ages”
when the Allahabad High Court pronounced its verdict on the Ayodhya property
dispute which dates back five centuries. The court he says, recognizing the
importance of communal harmony, made a compromise on the judgement.