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 60-
year-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, temple-
studded 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, bio-
technology 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
I
n

C
o
n
t
e
x
t
T
h
e

d
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

B
a
b
r
i

m
o
s
q
u
e

i
n

A
y
o
d
h
y
a

t
r
i
g
g
e
r
e
d

s
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

w
o
r
s
t

i
n
t
e
r
-
c
o
m
m
u
n
a
l

v
i
o
l
e
n
c
e

s
i
n
c
e

p
a
r
t
i
t
i
o
n

i
n

1
9
4
7
.

M
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

2
,
0
0
0

p
e
o
p
l
e

d
i
e
d

i
n

r
i
o
t
i
n
g

t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t

I
n
d
i
a
.

T
h
e

B
J
P
'
s

l
e
a
d
e
r
,

L
K

A
d
v
a
n
i
,

r
e
s
i
g
n
e
d

a
s

l
e
a
d
e
r
o
f

t
h
e

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
,

a
c
c
e
p
t
i
n
g

"
m
o
r
a
l

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
"
f
o
r

t
h
e

v
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
.

H
e

s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y

b
e
c
a
m
e

d
e
p
u
t
y

p
r
i
m
e

m
i
n
i
s
t
e
r

i
n

t
h
e

B
J
P

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

A
t
a
l

B
e
h
a
r
i

V
a
j
p
a
y
e
e
.

H
e

w
a
s

a
m
o
n
g

s
e
v
e
n

H
i
n
d
u

l
e
a
d
e
r
s

o
r
d
e
r
e
d

t
o

s
t
a
n
d

t
r
i
a
l

i
n

2
0
0
3

f
o
r

i
n
c
i
t
i
n
g

v
i
o
l
e
n
c
e

a
t

A
y
o
d
h
y
a
,
b
u
t

c
h
a
r
g
e
s

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

h
i
m

w
e
r
e

d
r
o
p
p
e
d
.

I
n

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
,
t
h
e

B
J
P

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
d

i
t
s
e
l
f

f
r
o
m

i
t
s

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

h
a
r
d
l
i
n
e
a
g
e
n
d
a
,

a
n
d

a
g
r
e
e
d

t
o

l
e
a
v
e

t
h
e

A
y
o
d
h
y
a

i
s
s
u
e

t
o

t
h
e

c
o
u
r
t
s
.

p
a
n
e
l

o
f

t
h
r
e
e

H
i
g
h

C
o
u
r
t

j
u
d
g
e
s

i
s

s
t
i
l
l

t
r
y
i
n
g

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

w
h
o

o
w
n
s

t
h
e

B
a
b
r
i

m
o
s
q
u
e

s
i
t
e
.

I
n

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
2
,

o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

H
i
n
d
u

g
r
o
u
p
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
i
n

t
h
e

1
9
9
2

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

t
h
e

V
H
P
,

a
g
a
i
n

c
a
l
l
e
d

h
u
n
d
r
e
d
s

o
f

v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

s
i
t
e

t
o

b
e
g
i
n

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

t
e
m
p
l
e
.

t
r
a
i
n

c
a
r
r
y
i
n
g

a
c
t
i
v
i
s
t
s

r
e
t
u
r
n
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

A
y
o
d
h
y
a

w
a
s

a
t
t
a
c
k
e
d

a
n
d

a
t

l
e
a
s
t

5
8

p
e
o
p
l
e
k
i
l
l
e
d
.

T
h
e

i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t

s
p
a
r
k
e
d

a
n
o
t
h
e
r

w
a
v
e

o
f

r
i
o
t
i
n
g
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t

G
u
j
a
r
a
t

i
n

w
h
i
c
h

u
p

t
o

2
,
0
0
0

p
e
o
p
l
e
,

m
a
i
 n
l
y

M
u
s
l
i
m
s
,

d
i
e
d

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."

అయధయపై తరుప: వవదసపద సథల ంలన రమజనమ

భూమ
గురువరం, సపటంబర 30, 2010, 16:47[IST]

లకన: అయధయ కసుల అలహబద హైకరుట లకన బంచ గురువరం సయంతరం సంచలనతమకమైన,
చరతరతమకమైన తరుపను వలువరంచరు. తరుపపై ముగుగరు నయయమూరుతలు భననభపరయలు వయకతం
చశరు. మజరట నరణయనన పరగణనలక తసుకవలన కరుట పరతనధులు చపపరు. వవదసపదమైన సథలం
రమజనమ భూమక సంబంధంచందన కరుట నరధరంచనటుల నయయవదులు చపపరు. సునన వకఫ్ బరుడ
పటషన ను కరుట కటటవసంద. వవదసపద సథలం రమజనమ భూమనన, అకకడ నుంచ రమ లల
వగరహలను తలగంచకడదన హైకరుట తరుప ఇచచనటుల నయయవదులు చపపరు. అపపల క కరుట 3 నలల
గడవ ఇచచంద. తరుపను హైకరుట మూడ వభగలుగ వలువరంచంద. వవదసపద సథలనన మూడ
భగలుగ హైకరుట వభజంచద. మూడ సథలలల ఒకట హందపలక, మరట ముసలంలక చందనవన,
మూడద నరమహ అఖడక చందందన హైకరుట సపషటం చసంద. రమ లల వగరహలునన సథలం రముడక
చందందన తరుప చపపంద. సత రసయ, రమ చబుతర సథలం నరమహ అఖడక చందందన తలపంద.
మగత సథలం సునన వకఫ్ బరుడక చందందన తరుప సపషటం చసంద. మూడ నలల పటు యథతథ సథత
కనసగుతుంద. కగ, హైకరుట తరుపపై సుపరంకరుటక వళతమన సునన వకఫ్ బరుడ అంటంద.

కరుట హల క చల దూరంగ మడయక ఏరపటుల చశరు. ముగుగరు నయయమూరుతలు తమ తరుప

పఠలను చదవరు. కరుట హల ల వయజయలు దఖలు చసన 14 మంద, వర నయయవదులు ఉననరు.
నయయమూరుతలు తరుప వలువరంచ బయటక వళలపయన తరవతన తరుప సరంశం మడయక తలస
వధంగ ఏరపటుల చశరు. నయయమూరుతలు ఎస యు ఖన, సుధర అగరవల, డవ శరమలత కడన
అలహబద హైకరుట లకన తరసభయ బంచ గురువరం సయంతరం తరుప వలువరంచరు. ముగుగరు
నయయమూరుతలు వడవడగ తమ తరుపలు వలువరంచరు. గురువరం నలుగుననర పరంతంల తరుప
పరతులు మడయ చతులలక వచచయ. కరుట చుటూట వయ మందత కటుటదటటమైన భదరత కలపంచరు.
మతతం 13 వల వంగూమలలను తసుకననరు. 60 ఏళల తరవత అయధయ కసుల తరుప వలువడంద. తరుప
పఠనన కరుట పరతనధులు చదవరు. సునన బరుడ పటషన ను కరుట తసపచచంద. అనన అంశలపై హైకరుట
తరుప వలువరంచంద.
మడయక, పరతవదులక మతరమ తరుప కపలను అందంచరు. తరుపక అనవయలు చయవదదన
అంతక ముంద జలల కలకటర మడయను కరరు. అందరూ సమనవయంగ ఉండలన, హైకరుట తరుపపై
సుపరంకరుటక వళలడనక వలుటుందన యుపఎ చైర పరసన సనయ గంధ, పరధన డకటర మనమహన సంగ,
బజప అగరనత ఎల క అదవన తరుపనక ముందు పరజలక వజఞపత చశరు. అయధయలన భూవవదంపై ఐదు
వయజయలు దఖలయయయ. వటల ఓ వయజయనన ఇద వరక ఉపసంహరంచుకననరు. మగత నలుగు
వయజయలపై కడ తరుప వలువడంద. ఐట కంపనలక సగం రజ సలవ ఇచచరు. బలక్ ఎసఎంఎస లపై
తదుపర ఆదశలు వచచ వరక నషధం వధంచరు.

అవంఛనయ సంఘటనలు జరగకండ కందర, రష పరభుతవలు దశవయపతంగ అపరమతతమై ఉననయ.

తరుపపై సంయమనం పటంచలన పరటలక, మతలక అతతంగ రజకయ నయకలు, పదదలు పరజలక
వజఞపత చశరు. కరుట వదద భర భదరత ఏరపటుల చశరు. కసుత సంబంధం ఉనన నయయవదులను తపప
ఎవరూ లనక వళలకండ చరయలు చపటటరు. లకనల హలకపటరలత గసత ఏరపటుల చశరు. కరుట తరుపను
అంగకరసూత శంతసమరసయలను కపడలన, సంయమనం పటంచలన పరధన డకటర మనమహన సంగ,
యుపఎ చైర పరసన సనయ గంధ, హం మంతర ప. చదంబరం పరజలక వజఞపత చశరు

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 President’s 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 President’s 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 government’s 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?
Top of Form
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 trinity—the 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
1

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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------