30 September 2010 Last updated at 14:58 GMT ; B B C News

Ayodhya judgement: key excerpts

An Indian court has ruled that a disputed holy site in Ayodhya should be split between Hindus and Muslims. Hindus believe the site is the birthplace of one of their most revered deities, Lord Ram, but Muslims say they have worshipped there for generations. The three judges, two Hindu and one Muslim, were divided on whether a Hindu temple had been demolished to build a mosque on the site and on whether the mosque was legitimate, according to Muslim tenets, but in a majority verdict, they gave control of the main disputed section to Hindus.
Continue reading the main story Related stories

Verdict divides India holy site Has India's flashpoint moved on? Q&A: The Ayodhya dispute

Here are key excerpts from the summary of the court's ruling: "The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. "The disputed building was constructed by Babur, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque. "The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. "It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi [birthplace] of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan [Lord Ram's slippers], Sita Rasoi [Goddess Sita's kitchen], other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan, ie a birthplace as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial. "After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23 Dec 1949.

"It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. "It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam. "Accordingly, all the three sets of parties - ie Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara [a Hindu sect] - are declared joint title holders of the property/premises in dispute... to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed. "However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree. "It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra [Ram's square] and Sita Rasoi [on a map of the site]. "It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the central government. "The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30 September 2010 Last updated at 16:35 GMT

Ayodhya verdict: Indian holy site 'to be divided'

Some Hindu groups celebrated after the verdict

A court in India has said that a disputed holy site in Ayodhya should be split between Hindus and Muslims, but both sides plan to appeal. In a majority verdict, judges gave control of the main disputed section, where a mosque was torn down in 1992, to Hindus. Other parts of the site will be controlled by Muslims and a Hindu sect. The destruction of the mosque by Hindu extremists led to widespread rioting in which some 2,000 people died.
Continue reading the main story Related stories

Has India's flashpoint moved on? Q&A: The Ayodhya dispute Ayodhya judgement: key excerpts

It was some of the worst religious violence since the partition of India in 1947. Officials urged both sides to remain calm and respect the Allahabad High Court's verdict. Hindus claim the site of the Babri Masjid is the birthplace of their deity, Ram, and want to build a temple there. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has appealed for calm. In a statement, he said: "My appeal to all sections of the people is to maintain peace and tranquility and to show respect for all religions and religious beliefs in the highest traditions of Indian culture." The court ruled that the site should be split, with the Muslim community getting control of a third, Hindus another third and the remainder going to a minority Hindu sect, Nirmohi Akhara, which was one of the early litigants in the case.

Continue reading the main story Long-running Ayodhya dispute

Centres on land 130ft (40m) x 90ft (27m) where mosque stood Court cases over the issue date back to 1949 - so far 18 judges have heard the case 1992 report blamed Hindu nationalist politicians for role in the mosque demolition Key issue is whether the temple was demolished on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur in 1528 Other questions are whether the mosque was built according to Islamic law and whether idols were put inside it by Hindus in 1949 Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis Ayodhya verdict: Indian reaction

It said that the current status of the site should continue for the next three months to allow the land to be peacefully measured and divided. The Hindus will keep the area where a small tent-shrine to Ram has been erected, lawyers said. "The majority ruled that the location of the makeshift temple is the birthplace of Ram, and this spot cannot be shifted," said Ravi Shankar Prasad, a lawyer for one of the parties to the suit.

'No-one's victory'
Both Hindu and Muslim lawyers say they will appeal against the ruling in the 60year-old case to the Supreme Court, which is likely to delay a final decision still further. "We have to study the judgement in details," said Zafaryab Jilani, lawyer for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.
Continue reading the main story Analysis

Sanjoy Majumder BBC News, Ayodhya

Ayodhya is calm after the verdict was delivered. There is still a heavy security presence. Police armed with automatic rifles and wearing riot gear can be seen everywhere. They are asking everyone to stay indoors, remain calm and not react to the verdict.

Many people are standing on their balconies or the roofs of their homes, taking in the scene. Some flash a victory sign but otherwise the mood is subdued. The disputed site is heavily guarded, its entrance behind barricades. These restrictions will stay in place since the legal battle is still not over. But many people here say they want to move on and above all want peace. "It's an 8,500-page order. The court has said a status quo will be maintained at the site for three months so we have time to appeal in the Supreme Court." He told the BBC: "We hope peace and tranquility will be maintained." The head of the right-wing Hindu group Rashtriya Samajsevak Sangh, Mohan Bhagwat, said: "It is no-one's victory, no-one's defeat. "The temple for Lord Ram should be built; now everyone should work unitedly to ensure that the temple is built at the site." Nearly 200,000 security personnel were deployed across northern India to quell any unrest in the wake of the verdict. However, there have been no reports of violence so far. Some Muslims have given a cautious welcome to the judgement, suggesting it could begin a process of reconciliation, says the BBC's Mike Wooldridge in Delhi. Correspondents say the Ayodhya ruling could not have come at a worse time for the authorities - they already have their hands full dealing with security preparations for the Delhi Commonwealth Games which begin on Sunday. However, the BBC's Soutik Biswas in Delhi says the verdict is a test of India's secular identity and much has changed in the country since the mosque was destroyed in 1992 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------29 September 2010 Last updated at 10:49 GMT

Ayodhya: Has India's flashpoint town moved on?

By Soutik Biswas BBC News, Ayodhya

Ayodhya is an ancient pilgrim town

VN Arora is a teacher in the only college in India's northern pilgrim town of Ayodhya where Hindu fanatics tore down a mosque and triggered off nationwide religious riots nearly two decades ago. He does not teach the scriptures or Hindu mythology in this ancient, templestudded sacred town. Instead, Mr Arora lectures students on defence and strategic studies at Saket College, which has over 18,000 students on its rolls. In 1992, when the 16th Century Babri mosque was destroyed, the college taught 14 subjects. Today, it offers 29, including diplomas in computer sciences, biotechnology and fashion design. "I have over 2,000 students and nine teachers in my department. We teach warfare, geopolitics and international relations. All this is very popular with the students of Ayodhya," says Mr Arora, an avuncular and sprightly man of 59. So has India's flashpoint town moved on? Has it begun to live down its infamy as a place which prised open the country's religious fault lines and triggered off some of the worst rioting since independence?

Moving on
On the surface, it appears so.

Ayodhya's residents live under the shadow of security

Student numbers at Mr Arora's college have trebled since December 1992, when the mosque was torn down. There are more than a dozen English tutorials in town. The place has a couple of hotels. Two sugar and a paper factories are chugging along. "The young want to move on and move out. They want to swim with the mainstream. It is no longer 1992," Mr Arora says. But not everybody is convinced by this argument. Bimalendu Mohan Pratap Mishra, a scion of Ayodhya's princely family, is one of them. "Ayodhya was and remains a pilgrim town at heart. Change comes slowly to such places," he says, reclining on a shiny blue sofa in his whitewashed palace. Mr Mishra is possibly right. In the dank, serpentine lanes of this town of 40,000 mostly Hindu people and several thousand Hindu temples, faith hangs heavy. Throngs of ochre-robed gurus and mendicants make their way through the town's bustling bazaar, selling risque films, devotional music and videos and kitschy religious bric-a-brac.
Continue reading the main story INDIA'S LONG-RUNNING DISPUTE

Ayodhya dispute centres around land 130ft (40m) x 90ft (27m) where the mosque stood Court cases over the issue date back to 1949 - so far 18 judges have heard the case A 1992 report blamed top Hindu nationalist politicians for a role in the demolition A key issue is whether the temple was demolished on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur in 1528 Other questions are whether the mosque was built according to Islamic law and whether idols were put inside it by Hindus in 1949 Q&A: The Ayodhya dispute

"We are going to college and migrating to big cities for work. But Lord Ram resides in our hearts always, he resides in every corner of Ayodhya," says Chetan Pandey, a student. There is no evidence that the hero of the popular Indian epic Ramayana was a historical character. But a mixture of faith, sentiment and myth have led many Hindus of Ayodhya - and elsewhere in India - to believe that Ram was born at the very site in Ayodhya where the Babri Mosque was built in the 16th Century. "But there was no religious tension between Hindus and Muslims here till December 1949 when an official allowed an idol of child Ram [Ram Lalla] to be placed inside the mosque under the cover of darkness," says VN Arora, who was born in the city.

'Inventing a reality'
These moves, in the words of historian Mukul Kesavan, "invented the reality of Ram worship in a mosque" and ensured that a "medieval mosque continuously in use till the mid-1930s was prised open for Hindu worship". So why did a sleepy pilgrim town and "birthplace of Ram" turn into a religious battleground?

Many locals believe infamy was foisted on Ayodhya by Hindu fanatics who "invaded" it to demolish the mosque on the back of a Hindu nationalist movement whipped up across India by a group of militant Hindu organisations associated with India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party. More than a dozen Muslims were killed by mobs in the aftermath of the demolition in the town, and at least 260 Muslim shops and homes gutted. The destruction of the mosque also led to riots across India, in which about 2,000 people were killed. Locals say it was again the handiwork of fanatics from outside, though others say that some locals connived in the killings and pillage. The transformation of a sleepy pilgrim town into a "Hindu Vatican", as many Hindu nationalists prefer to call it, has been a boon and bane for its residents.

The dispute has hit business in the town

The number of pilgrims and visitors to the town shot up after the demolition of the mosque, boosting the local economy. At the same time, locals and shop owners suffer when security is tightened after intelligence pours in of an impending terror attack. The pilgrim traffic dries up and Ayodhya slips back into its tense, troubled state. It has been happening now in the days leading to a judgement by the high court in Allahabad. The court will decide on Thursday who owns land where the mosque stood. Even the students of Mr Arora's college are suffering: over the last fortnight, security forces have taken over the place, shutting out the students and teachers. The demolition of the mosque earned Ayodhya a notoriety which locals say they want to bury by embracing the court judgement.

No Answer

The chain smoking 90-year-old Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant involved in the court cases, insists that he will accept the court's ruling "gracefully" - even if it goes against Muslims. Sitting in his poky home, the Ayodhya-born former tailor had been blowing hot and cold about the consequences of an adverse judgement against Muslims. "If we win, we will not celebrate it. If the Hindus win, we will not take to the streets against the verdict," Mr Ansari says.

Mr Ansari is the oldest litigant in the land ownership case

Some distance away, in a narrow lane, the priest of the makeshift temple at the disputed site, Acharya Satindra Kumar Das, says people want a settlement to the dispute. "Ayodhya is suffering because this impasse lingers on. It has given the place a sad image. But I see no compromise happening, because either the Hindus or the Muslims have to make a sacrifice. And that won't happen," he says. Ayodhya will have to wait longer to bury its ghosts - Thursday's judgement is certain to be challenged by the losing side in the Supreme Court. "Then will it continue in the courts for another 60 years?" asks Pradeep Prajapati, who sells bangles near the heavily secured site where the mosque once stood. "How long can we live with this apprehension?" It is a question that all of India is asking, and nobody has an answer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30 September 2010 Last updated at 14:15 GMT

Q&A: The Ayodhya dispute

The Babri Mosque was torn down by Hindu zealots in 1992

An Indian court has ruled in a majority verdict that land around a demolished mosque in the northern town of Ayodhya should be split three ways between Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara Hindu sect. The BBC examines key questions surrounding the bitter dispute which, nearly two decades ago, prompted some of India's worst religious violence since partition. What is the row about? Hindus and Muslims have been at loggerheads for more than a century over the Babri mosque in Ayodhya, in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. Hindus claim the mosque was the birthplace of one of their most revered deities, Lord Ram, and that it was built after the destruction of a Hindu temple by a Muslim invader in the 16th Century. Muslims say they offered prayers at the mosque until December 1949, when some people placed the idols of Ram under the cover of darkness in the mosque. The worship of the idols began soon after. Over the next four decades, Hindu and Muslim groups went to court over the control of the site and the right to offer prayers there. The dispute flared in 1992 when a Hindu mob destroyed the mosque, and nearly 2,000 people died in subsequent religious riots across the country. What does the court order mean? Allahabad High Court's ruling on Thursday addressed three questions. It said that the disputed spot was Ram's birthplace, that the mosque was built after the demolition of a temple and that it was not built in accordance with the tenets of Islam.

Following the decision, Hindus hope to see a temple built on the site, while Muslims demanding the reconstruction of the mosque are likely to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case has already languished in India's famously sluggish legal system for so long that most of the original petitioners have died. What exactly did the judges say in their ruling? The court ruled in an 8,500-page judgement that two-thirds of the disputed site should be allocated to Hindu groups, with the remainder to Muslims. For the first time in a judicial ruling, it said that the disputed site was the birthplace of the Hindu god. The court ordered that the current arrangement at Ayodhya - which is currently the site of a makeshift Hindu temple - should be "maintained as the status quo" for three months to allow time for any appeals against the judgement. What exactly did the court say about the conflicting claims to Ayodhya? The court ruled that the disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram, who is "both a juristic person and a deity". The two Hindu judges on the three-judge panel said that the building constructed by the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India, Babur, was not a mosque because it was built "against the tenets of Islam" on the site of a demolished Hindu temple. However the Muslim judge in the case dissented from this view, arguing that no temple was destroyed and that the mosque was built on ruins. The two Hindu judges also agreed that the Ayodhya site was found by the Archaeological Survey of India originally to have been "a massive Hindu religious structure" and that Hindus had been worshipping there as a "sacred place of pilgrimage... since time immemorial". It also ruled that Hindu idols were placed in the disputed structure in 1949 - a point which Muslims argue is important because that act, they say, triggered much of the tension over Ayodhya that remains today. What are the political implications? This politically radioactive case presents the ruling left-of-centre Congress party with a terrible dilemma.

Endorsing a pro-Hindu verdict would harm the secular party's links with the Muslim population; a pro-Muslim ruling could lead to ordering the eviction of Hindu groups from the site. Any decision against Hindus, who make up an estimated 80% of the population, would award political capital to the opposition Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. When did Hindu-Muslim tensions last escalate? More than 50 people died in February 2002 when a train carrying Hindu activists returning to Gujarat from Ayodhya was set alight, allegedly by a Muslim mob. At least 1,000 people - mainly Muslims - died in the violence in the state that erupted afterwards. Have religious tensions eased in India in recent years? Definitely, yes. It is now not as easy to mobilise young people under the banner of religion as it was in the early 1990s. India's economic boom has changed priorities, and development is now the key issue.
17 September 2010 Last updated at 11:13 GMT

India appeals for calm ahead of Babri mosque verdict

The mosque's destruction was one of India's most bitterly contested events

The Indian cabinet has issued a written appeal in major newspapers, calling for calm ahead of a court verdict next week on the long-running Ayodhya dispute.

On Friday, a court in Lucknow city refused to defer the ruling which is due to be announced on 24 September. The court is to rule who owns land in the northern town of Ayodhya, where the 16th Century Babri mosque was destroyed by Hindu mobs in 1992. Hindus claim the site is the birthplace of their god, Lord Ram. The destruction of the mosque led to widespread rioting between Hindus and Muslims, and some 2,000 people died. It was some of the worst Hindu-Muslim violence since the partition of India in 1947. 'Sensitive issue' The cabinet appeal carries the name and photograph of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and it takes up half a page in major newspapers. "The government appeals to all sections of society to maintain peace and order after the delivery of the judgement," the appeal reads. "There should be no attempt whatsoever made by any section of the people to provoke any other section or to indulge in any expression of emotion that would hurt the feelings of other people," it says. Officials say the appeal will also be carried in various languages on Indian radio over the coming days. The BBC's Chris Morris in Delhi says it is a sign of just how sensitive, and potentially inflammatory, the dispute in Ayodhya is. India's home ministry has already warned that the legal decision is likely to evoke sharp reactions and communal passions. And the state government in Uttar Pradesh, where Ayodhya is, has asked for 50,000 extra security forces to deal with any law and order problems. Hindu fundamentalist groups are still determined to build a temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya and now the court is about to issue a legal ruling on what is a contentious matter of faith, our correspondent adds. Meanwhile, an application to defer the judgment because of fears about the security situation was rejected by court on Friday. A three-judge special bench of the court rejected the application filed by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi.

Mr Tripathi had asked for the decision to be postponed to give the two sides times to reach an amicable settlement through reconciliation. The judges also fined him 50,000 rupees (700; $1,100) for wasting the court's time. Now that the plea has been rejected, India is holding its breath and hoping for calm in a week's time

Heavy security for India mosque site ruling

Advertisement 30 September 2010 Last updated at 08:50 GMT Help Nearly 200,000 security personnel are being deployed in northern India ahead of a court ruling on the long-running Ayodhya religious dispute. Helicopters are keeping watch overhead and authorities have urged calm amid fears the ruling could spark unrest. The Allahabad High Court will decide who owns land where Hindu mobs tore down a 16th Century mosque in 1992. The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder reports from Ayodhya on the security situation. ======================================================= 30 September 2010 Last updated at 14:12 GMT

Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis

The religious site where the Babri mosque was destroyed in 1992 in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya has been a flashpoint between Hindus and Muslims for years. BBC News looks at the troubled history of the disputed holy site. 1528: A mosque is built on the site which some Hindus say marks the spot where one of the most revered deities in Hinduism, Lord Ram, was born. 1853: First recorded incidents of religious violence at the site. 1859: British colonial administration erects a fence to separate the places of worship, allowing the inner court to be used by Muslims and the outer court by Hindus.

1949: Idols of Lord Ram appear inside mosque, allegedly placed there by Hindus. Muslims protest, and both parties file civil suits. The government proclaims the premises a disputed area and locks the gates. 1984: Hindus form a committee to "liberate" the birth-place of Lord Ram and build a temple in his honour, spearheaded by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad party (VHP). Then Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Lal Krishna Advani, now home minister, takes over leadership of campaign. 1986: District judge orders the gates of the disputed mosque to be opened to allow Hindus to worship there. Muslims set up Babri Mosque Action Committee in protest. 1989: VHP steps up campaign, laying the foundations of a Ram temple on land adjacent to the disputed mosque. 1990: VHP volunteers partially damage the mosque. Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar tries to resolve the dispute through negotiations, which fail the next year. 1991: BJP comes to power in Uttar Pradesh state, where Ayodhya is located. 1992: The mosque is torn down by supporters of the VHP, the Shiv Sena party and the BJP, prompting nationwide rioting between Hindus and Muslims in which more than 2,000 people die. 1998: The BJP forms coalition government under Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. 2001: Tensions rise on the anniversary of the demolition of the mosque. VHP pledges again to build Hindu temple at the site. Jan 2002: Mr Vajpayee sets up an Ayodhya cell in his office and appoints a senior official, Shatrughna Singh, to hold talks with Hindu and Muslim leaders. Feb 2002: BJP rules out committing itself to the construction of a temple in its election manifesto for Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. VHP confirms deadline of 15 March to begin construction. Hundreds of volunteers converge on site. At least 58 people are killed in an attack on a train in Godhra which is carrying Hindu activists returning from Ayodhya. Mar 2002: Between 1,000 and 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, die in riots in Gujarat following the train attack. Apr 2002: Three High Court judges begin hearings on determining who owns the religious site.

Jan 2003: Archaeologists begin a court-ordered survey to find out whether a temple to Lord Ram existed on the site. Aug 2003: The survey says there is evidence of a temple beneath the mosque, but Muslims dispute the findings. Mr Vajpayee says at the funeral of Hindu activist Ramchandra Das Paramhans that he will fulfil the dying man's wishes and build a temple at Ayodhya. However, he hopes the courts and negotiations will solve the issue. Sept 2003: A court rules that seven Hindu leaders should stand trial for inciting the destruction of the Babri Mosque, but no charges are brought against Mr Advani, now deputy prime minister, who was also at the site in 1992. Oct 2004: Mr Advani says his party still has "unwavering" commitment to building a temple at Ayodhya, which he said was "inevitable". Nov 2004: A court in Uttar Pradesh rules that an earlier order which exonerated Mr Advani for his role in the destruction of the mosque should be reviewed. July 2005: Suspected Islamic militants attack the disputed site, using a jeep laden with explosives to blow a hole in the wall of the complex. Security forces kill five people they say are militants, and a sixth who was not immediately identified. June 2009: The Liberhan commission investigating events leading up to the mosque's demolition submits its report - 17 years after it began its inquiry. Nov 2009: There is uproar in parliament as the Liberhan commission's report is published and it blames leading politicians from the Hindu nationalist BJP for a role in the mosque's razing. Sept 2010: Allahabad High Court rules that the site should be split, with the Muslim community getting control of a third, Hindus another third and the Nirmohi Akhara sect the remainder. Control of the main disputed section, where the mosque was torn down, is given to Hindus. A lawyer for the Muslim community says he will appeal.

1992: Mob rips apart mosque in Ayodhya

A mob of Hindu militants has torn down a mosque and attacked other Muslim targets in the north Indian town of Ayodhya, in one of India's worst outbreaks of inter-communal violence. The gathering at the mosque began as a religious procession organised by three right-wing Hindu groups, including the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Hindu extremists have been campaigning to get rid of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya, a focus for Hindu-Muslim hostility for decades.

They want to build a Hindu temple in its place, to mark what they believe to be the birthplace of the Hindu warrior king, Lord Ram. Court order A court has already ordered that the mosque be protected from demolition. The leaders of the three parties promised to stand by the court's decision, and said today's demonstration would be limited to a religious ceremony symbolising the laying of the first bricks of a Hindu temple. But before the ceremony could start, the 200,000-strong crowd broke through police cordons. They used hammers to knock down the three domes of the mosque, and then tore at the bricks with their bare hands until the building was totally destroyed. The government had brought in hundreds of extra police, but eyewitnesses said they stood by and allowed the destruction to take place. The mob also turned on Indian and foreign journalists recording the scene, before moving on to attack Muslim houses and property in the area. Backlash feared The violence has sent shockwaves throughout the country. Security forces throughout the north are on high alert, fearing a backlash from India's 120 million strong Muslim population, and the government has sent paramilitary reinforcements to the area. The cabinet met in emergency session and dismissed the BJP-led government in Uttar Pradesh for failing to protect the mosque. The state - and its 150 million inhabitants - will be ruled directly from New Delhi. The Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao, has repeatedly appealed for calm in radio and television broadcasts. "What happened today is a matter of great concern and shame for all Indians," he said. The leader of the BJP, Lal Krishna Advani, described the incident as "very unfortunate", and appealed to the crowd still at the Babri mosque site to leave.

Demonstrators tore the mosque down using just hammers and their bare hands

In Context The destruction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya triggered some of the worst inter-communal violence since More than 2,000 people died in rioting throughout India.

The BJP's leader, LK Advani, resigned as leader of the opposition, accepting "moral responsibility" for the vi He subsequently became deputy prime minister in the BJP government of Atal Behari Vajpayee.

He was among seven Hindu leaders ordered to stand trial in 2003 for inciting violence at Ayodhya, but char

In government, the BJP distanced itself from its previous hardline agenda, and agreed to leave the Ayodhya

A panel of three High Court judges is still trying to determine who owns the Babri mosque site.

In February 2002, one of the Hindu groups involved in the 1992 demonstration, the VHP, again called hund A train carrying activists returning from Ayodhya was attacked and at least 58 people killed.

The incident sparked another wave of rioting throughout Gujarat in which up to 2,000 people, mainly Muslim

What next after Ayodhya verdict? Wait and watch

HT correspondent, Hindustan Times

Lucknow, September 30, 2010

First Published: 20:49 IST(30/9/2010) Last Updated: 21:38 IST(30/9/2010)

The Allahabad High Court's verdict in the Ayodhya land case on Thursday is a complicated one but it may have built the ground for an amicable settlement to the dispute. The Lucknow bench of the High Court said that the disputed land in Ayodhya where a makeshift temple was built after

related stories

PM, senior ministers to review Ayodhya verdict Political parties welcome Ayodhya verdict

demolishing the Babri Mosque in 1992 was Lord Ram's birthplace. However, it ruled that the land be split among three contesting parties -- Hindu Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board -- equally. A three-judge bench of the court invited suggestions from all the parties for demarcation of the land. Suggestions for an amicable settlement in the dispute would depend on what the contesting parties do after the court verdict. The parties may first and foremost move the Supreme Court. The Sunni Waqf Board and the Hindu Mahasabha have already indicated that they might do so. They are "partly disappointed" by the High Court verdict, but at the same time they maintain "it's a step forward." The second option is to amicably work out the demarcation of the disputed premises as directed by the High Court. This could mean co-existence of Mandir and Masjid at the disputed site.

Lawyer and BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad on Thursday appealed Muslims to respect the sentiments of Hindus and help in building a Ram temple in Ayodhya. "After this ruling, I make a humble appeal to the Muslims of this country, please accept this verdict, please help in the construction of a temple... It will lead to a new brotherhood in the country," he said. Zafaryab Jilani, Mushtaq Ahmed Siddiqui and Syed Irfan Ahmed, the lawyers representing the Muslim side in the Babri suit, had earlier in the day said in a joint statement that Lord Ram had been described as "Imam-e-Hind" by the poet Allama Iqbal. "The personality of Lord Ram is not at all in dispute in the Ayodhya case," they said. Even Hari Shankar Jain, Counsel for Hindu Mahasabha, has said: "The status quo at the disputed is not going to get disturbed. It's a title suit and the party losing the case will have enough time to appeal before the Supreme Court. We will be building 'Rashtra Mandir' and not Ram Mandir in which all communities should come forward to build." The parties' statement gives hope for an amicable settlement but much would depend on their action

Hindu Mahasabha to challenge land division

Press Trust Of India

Lucknow, September 30, 2010

First Published: 20:44 IST(30/9/2010) Last Updated: 20:46 IST(30/9/2010)

Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, one of the early litigants in the Ayodhya title suits, on Thursday said it would challenge the Allahabad High Court order to divide the "Ramjanambhoomi" land in three parts. "We have decided to challenge the decision to divide the Ramjanambhoomi land in three

related stories

Ayodhya verdict: Wakf Board to move SC against Allahabad HC order

parts", said state president of ABHM Kamlesh Tiwari. "Our fight for the Ramjanmbhoomi was acknowledged by the entire bench unanimously", he said. He said the legal battle was initiated by Mahasabha president of Faizabad Gopal Singh Visharad in Janauary 16, 1950

Disputed structure built against the tenets of Islam: Judge

Press Trust Of India

Lucknow, September 30, 2010

First Published: 20:39 IST(30/9/2010) Last Updated: 20:41 IST(30/9/2010)

Holding that the disputed site in Ayodhya is the birth place of Lord Ram, Justice Dharam Veer Sharma onThursday said the structure constructed by Babar was against the tenets of Islam and cannot have the character of a mosque. "The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque," the judge said in his judgement on the Ayodhya title suits. He said the disputed structure was constructed on the site of the old structure after its demolition. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that it was a massive Hindu religious structure, he said. The judge said the disputed site "is the birth place of Lord Ram" and that a "place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity." "The spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for anyone to invoke in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless," Justice Sharma said. He said the idols of Lord Ram were placed ion the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of December 22-23, 1949. The judge held that the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP and another main petitioner Nirmohi Akhara were barred by time for claims for title. He said it established that the property in suit is the site of "Janmabhoomi of Ram Chandraji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other objects of worship that existed on the property in suit." It has also been established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janmasthan and visiting it as a sacred placed of pilgrimage "as a right since time immemorial". After the construction of the disputed structure it has been proved that the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22-23.12.1949.

"It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard also they were worshipping," he said. Justice Sharma said, "it is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam."

:
, 30, 2010, 16:47[IST]

: , . . . . . , . 3 . . . , , . . , . . . , .

. . 14 , . .

, , . . . . 13 . 60 . . . .

, . . , , , . . . . . .

, . , , . . . . , , , .

1 Oct, 2010, 05.48AM IST, H M Seervai,

Babri: Constitution disregarded

supreme court | india| babri masjid| ayodhya

The destruction of the masjid was a serious crime under Sec 295, IPC. The destruction violated the Constitution as it denied to every Muslim or a section thereof, the freedom of religion guaranteed to them by Articles 25 and 26 of our Constitution. The destruction of the masjid put an end to all previous controversies raised by Hindu organisations about their alleged right to erect a temple on the place where the masjid stood. This is because no court will give any assistance to those who unilaterally by criminal acts destroyed the subject matter of the dispute and violated the Constitution and the law. After December 6, 1992, the earlier controversies were replaced by one question: What was the duty of the central government once the Babri Masjid had been destroyed by the unconstitutional acts of a fanatical Hindu mob? To this, there can be only one answer: the Babri Masjid must be rebuilt, and Prime Minister (P V Narasimha Rao) gave that answer on December 7, 1992, when he said that he considered it his duty to rebuild the Babri Masjid. Far from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet discharging their duty to rebuild the Babri Masjid by taking valid legal steps to make such rebuilding possible, they have sidetracked the real question, thereby evading their clear duty. On January 7, 1993, the President promulgated The Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ordinance, 1993. Also, on January 7, 1993, the President , acting under Article 143(1), referred the following question for the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court: Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the areas on which the structure stood? Some of the recitals to the Ordinance state that the lands at Ayodhya were being acquired to maintain public order and to promote communal harmony and common brotherhood amongst the people of . The Ordinance and Presidents reference are interconnected, for recital 5 to the reference states that notwithstanding the vesting of the area acquired in the central government, the Centre proposes to settle the said dispute after obtaining the opinion of the and in terms of the said opinion .The Ordinance and the Presidents reference cannot possibly achieve the objectives set out in those measures. First, it is well settled that an advisory opinion binds nobody, not even the Supreme Court. Secondly, no court, much less the Supreme Court, would answer a question which required the court to carry out research not only in 500 years of history and archaeology but also in myths and legends contained in epic poems and in folk lore. Further, under Article 143(1), the Supreme Court may give its opinion but is not bound to do so. If, as is almost certain, the Supreme Court declines to give its opinion, the Ordinance and the reference cannot achieve the central governments objective of settling the dispute in the light of that opinion . Further, the central government cannot settle the Babri Masjid dispute. It can be settled only in one of three ways: By the parties to it setting out their respective cases for the decision of a competent court, and the Supreme Court is not a competent court of original jurisdiction for this purpose. Secondly, the parties can agree to the dispute being settled by arbitration. And, thirdly, the parties can settle the dispute on the

terms agreed upon between themselves. Therefore, the Ordinance and reference cannot resolve the Babri Masjid dispute. The Ordinance is void because it violates the fundamental rights of Muslims and Muslim denominations to the freedom of religion conferred on them by Articles 25 and 26. Clause 3 of the Ordinance vests the area acquired in Ayodhya in the central government . Clause 4(1), inter alia, vests all movable and immovable property in the acquired area in the central government. Clause 4(2), inter alia, extinguishes all trusts on which such property is held. Also, all restrictions imposed on the use of such property by any court, tribunal or other authority would cease to have effect. Clause 4(3) puts an end to all pending suits, appeals or other proceedings in relation to the properties vested in the central government. Clause 9 states that the provisions of the Ordinance states that the provisions of the Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law or in any decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority. But the provisions of the Ordinance cannot override the provisions of our Constitution . The SC has held in cases too numerous to mention that any law which extinguishes a religious trust or removes the trustees or managers of pro perties movable and immovable belonging to a religious trust is void, as violating Articles 25 and 26. (Excerpts from a two-part article by an eminent lawyer published in ET in April 1993)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 30, 2010, 9:30 PM IST Who Are the Nirmohi Akhara? Krishna Pokharel And Tripti Lahiri The Allahabad High Court delivered a complex verdict in the Babri Masjid case today, dividing the sacred site into three parts one for Muslims and two for Hindus. They had to deal in their case with a most unusual cast of characters, including the Hindu god Lord Ram himself, who was named as a party to the case by one of the (human) Hindu litigants. Here is a glossary of some terms from the case that may not be familiar to all: Nirmohi Akhara One third of the site will go to the Nirmohi Akhara, a group of Hindu ascetics who are devotees of none other than Lord Ram. Their name means, roughly, Group Without Attachment. They have given up the material world for the company of their god. They are sadhus or Hindu holy men often characterized by the hermetic tendencies. They claimed in court that there is no mosque called Babri Masjid at the site in Ayodhya, nor did the Mughal commander Babur make any conquest or any occupation of territory in India. They also claimed the site is of ancient antiquity and has existed before the living

memory of man. Lord Ram and his court representatives receive another third of the site. Ram Janmabhoomi Literally, this phrase means the land Ram was born on. Hindu groups refer to the property in Ayodhya where the medieval Babri mosque stood, and that was at the heart of the 60 year dispute with this phrase. Ram is one of the most revered incarnations of one of the deities of a Hindu trinitythe god of preservation, Vishnu. Sunni Waqfs Board This is an elected legal body that oversees Sunni Islamic properties endowed for religious or charitable purposes. The plaintiff in the case that was decided Thursday was the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, which supervises these properties in the state where the town of Ayodhya is located. The board gets the third portion of the site. Ram Lalla This refers to Hindu idols placed in the central dome of the mosque, allegedly in 1949. The phrase specifically refers to Ram as a baby or a young child. Parts of the Hindu suits revolved around seeking access to these idols and having them remain there, while the Muslim plaintiffs wanted them removed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Akhada means a 'group' and in this context implies a group of sadhus not a group of wrestlers; Sects is a close but not exact English equivalent of Akhadas. The Hindu Vaishnavite sadhus are organized into 12-15 major akhadas or congregations with tens of thousands of sadhus each. Nirmohi Akhada is one of the oldest and most respected akhadas in the Hindu Vaishnavite hierarchy
nirmohi akhara meaning Nirmohi Akhara | Nirmohi Akhara Wiki | what is Nirmohi Akhara | Nirmohi Akhara Verdict One third of the site will go to the Nirmohi Akhara, a group of Hindu ascetics who are devotees of none other than Lord Ram. Their name means, roughly, Group Without Attachment. They have given up the material world for the company of their god. They are sadhus or Hindu holy men often characterized by the hermetic tendencies.
1

They claimed in court that there is no mosque called Babri Masjid at the site in Ayodhya, nor did the Mughal commander Babur make any conquest or any occupation of territory in India. They also claimed the site is of ancient antiquity and has existed before the living memory of man. Lord Ram and his court representatives receive another third of the site. Nirmohi Akhara (or Nirmohi Akhada) is a group of monks who were doing their daily rituals near the disputed land and claimed that they had been staying there since decades and that the disputed land in Ayodhya belongs to them. This group has came into light in connection with the Ayodhya dispute since 1959, when it filed a title suit claiming that they own the disputed site of Babri mosque. Nirmohi Akhara intially filed a suit in January 1885. They requested the consent of the sub-judge of Faizabad to construct a temple for the Hindu god Rama, called the Ram Chabutra, very adjacent to the Babri mosque which was constructed by the Mughal emperor Babar in 1528 (16th century). But the permission was denied as the sub-judge felt that two different religious construction with so much proximity could lead to the public disorder. And since then, the group has been claiming their land in the form of suits to construct the temple there. On September 30, 2010, the Allahabad court three-panel bench has given a verdict allotting a 1/3rd part of the dispute land to the Nirmohi Akhara group. The Nirmohi Akhada is now headed by Mahant Bhaskar Das.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------