Ayodhya Verdict

Email sent to Chief Justice of India on 5-Dec-2019

Respected Chief Justice of India,

I was watching running commentary of Ayodhya verdict in TV on 9-Nov along with my 17 years old daughter. Suddenly she asked me "Why Hindus and Muslims are fighting over a piece of land? Are they mad?". I replied yes, they are as mad as Duryodhana who refused to give 5 villages to Pandavas and our Judiciary is as helpless as Bhishma, Dronacharyya and Kripacharyya to stop this madness.

At the end of the verdict she asked me "Why couldn't Supreme Court give 5 acre of land to both Hindus and Muslims outside the disputed site which could be used for something else". I replied, "Five wise men didn't think Ayodhya issue is as simple as you thought it to be."

This verdict is a big let down of youth of India who aspires to be Nobel Laureates like Abhijit Banerjee or missile man like Abdul Kalam. They don't care about Mandir-Masjid.
 

I read 1000+ page verdict and I find number of observations very interesting

1. Faith and belief of Hindus that Janmaasthan of Lord Ram is the place where Babri mosque was constructed led to damage of the mosque in 1934, communal riot in 1855, desecration of the mosque in 1949 and finally destruction of the mosque in 1992. Such blind and extreme faith contradicts very spirit of Hinduism and secular fabric of our constitution. Should the court indulge such extreme faith by handing over the disputed site to Hindu group? A great opportunity was lost to nail on religious fanaticism of all communities.
2. Supreme Court observed, there is no dispute that the structure on the disputed site was a mosque. 
1. Hindu belief of temple converted to mosque has been rejected
3. Supreme Court observed, mosque existed since 1528

1. There is no concrete evidence that Mosque was built in 1528
2. Justice Agarwal of Allahabad High Court observed "However, applying the principle of informed guess, we are of the view that the building in dispute may have been constructed, probably, between 1659 to 1707 AD i.e. during the regime of Aurangzeb"
3. William Finch who arrived in India in August 1608 didn't talk about Masjid but mentioned about temples. He described Ayodhya as ruined city.
3. Supreme Court observed that Muslims offered regular prayers until 1934 from 1857 when the partition wall was set up, after which until 22 December 1949 only Friday prayers were offered

1. Justice S U Khan of Allahabad observed - This is sufficient for continuous possession and use (by Muslims).
4. Controversy immediately after independence

1. Supreme Court observed, the controversy entered a new phase on the night intervening 22 and 23 December 1949, when the mosque was desecrated by a group of about fifty or sixty people who broke open its locks and placed idols of Lord Ram under the central dome. 
2. Supreme Court observed, on 29 December 1949, a preliminary order was passed under Section 145 of the CrPC 1898 by the Additional City Magistrate and while ordering attachment, a receiver was appointed. 
3. Supreme Court observed, on 5 January 1950, the receiver took charge of the inner courtyard and prepared an inventory of the attached properties. Under the Magistrate‘s order, only two or three pujaris were permitted to go inside the place where the idols were kept, to perform religious ceremonies like bhog and puja. Members of the general public were restricted from entering and were only allowed darshan from beyond the grill-brick wall
1. Why pujaris were allowed inside inner courtyard? Between 1857 to 1949 no bhog or puja was offered inside inner courtyard.
4. Supreme Court observed, on 19 January 1950, the ad interim injunction in Suit 1 was modified in the following terms: ―The opposite parties are hereby restrained by means of temporary injunction to refrain from removing the idols in question from the site in dispute and from interfering with puja etc. as at present carried on.

1. A great injustice was done to Muslims when they were barred from performing Namaz inside the Mosque since 29-Dec-1949 by the  order of Additional City Magistrate because some miscreants put Hindu idols inside central dome and no attempt has been made by GoI under secular PM Pandit Nehru and HM Sardar Patel to remove those idols so that Muslims could resume their Namaz. They have been performing Namaz for 90 years since 1857 as per documentary evidence. 
5. Supreme Court observed that the possibility of any idol under the central dome prior to 22-23 December 1949 stands excluded on a preponderance of probabilities

1. So, Hindu worship in the form of Puja or Bhog inside the mosque is ruled out. 
6. Supreme Court observed, the Muslims have not been in possession of the outer courtyard

1. There is no documentary evidence to suggest that Hindus took possession of outer courtyard before 1743, the year traveler Tieffenthaler visited India
7. About construction of the mosque 

1. Supreme Court concluded, no temple was demolished for the construction of the mosque. 
1. 100 years old Hindu belief has been rejected.

1. Most of travelogue and gazette contradicted the above fact. They believed there was a 'fine temple in the Janmasthan, for many of its columns are still in existence and in good preservation, having been used by the Musalmans in the construction of the Babri mosque​'. Account of these travelers and gazetteers was based on Hindu belief that temple was destroyed to build the mosque.  
2. Above observation by the court confirms that Hindu sentiment was not hurt when mosque was built. Hindus during 1528 never claimed or believed that site of the mosque was birthplace of Lord Ram. 
1. Supreme Court observed, the foundation of the mosque is based on the walls of a large pre-existing non Islamic underground structure with 85 pillar bases comprised in 17 rows each of five pillar bases. The pre-existing structure dates back to the twelfth century. 
2. Supreme Court observed, the ASI report does not conclude that the remnants of the pre-existing structure were used for the purpose of constructing the mosque. 
3. Supreme Court observed, the pillars that were used in the construction of the mosque were black Kasauti stone pillars. ASI has found no evidence to show that these Kasauti pillars are relatable to the underlying pillar bases found during the course of excavation in the structure below the mosque. 

1. So, mosque was built from scratch without converting any existing temple.
4. Supreme Court observed, while the ASI report has found the existence of ruins of a pre-existing structure, the report does not provide: (a) The reason for the destruction of the pre-existing structure. Since the ASI report dates the underlying structure to the twelfth century, there is a time gap of about four centuries between the date of the underlying structure and the construction of the mosque. No evidence is available to explain what transpired in the course of the intervening period of nearly four centuries
1. It can be safely assumed that the temple which was built around twelfth century was destroyed naturally over 400 years. If Hindus really believed that twelfth century temple was Janmaasthan of Lord Ram, temple would have been maintained or rebuilt after its destruction due to natural cause. 
2. Faith and belief of Hindus about Janmaasthan triggered much later after construction of Babri Masjid may be during 1600 AD. It is to be noted that there were many Hindu temples around disputed site during 1528. Robert Montgomery Martin estimated the number of temples in Ayodhya was 360. While there was no confusion that Ayodhya was the birth town of Lord Ram, on the balance of probability, Hindus during 1528 were not sure which temple was actual site of Janmaasthan. Hence no opposition to construction of Masjid when it was built. 
3. It is also to be noted that population of Muslims were negligible to Hindu population during 1528 and Hindus didn't feel threatened. Over the course of next 100 years as conversion from Hinduism to Islam started picking up, faith and belief of Hindus about Janmaasthan of Lord Ram started pointing at Babri Masjid as an excuse to get rid of Masjid in protest of conversion.

9. Supreme Court observed, historical records of travellers (chiefly Tieffenthaler and the account of Montgomery Martin in the eighteenth century) indicate - Identifiable places of offering worship by the Hindus including Sita Rasoi, Swargdwar and the Bedi (cradle) symbolising the birth of Lord Ram in and around the disputed site

1. Sita Rasoi, Swargdwar were in outer courtyard. Sri Acharya Mahant Bansidhar Das deposed that Ramchabutra is also called Bedi and the word can be used for a small or large Chabutra. Ramchabutra was in outer courtyard. 
2. Justice Sudhir Agarwal observed that the idol existed at Ramchabutra. The idols were shifted inside the structure on 22/23 December 1949. 
3. Tieffenthaler in his account noticed 'On the left is seen a square box raised 5 inches above the ground, with borders made of lime, with a length of more than 5 ells(5) and a maximum width of about 4 ells. The Hindus call it Bedi'. When one enters through Hanumat Dwar, only door until 1877, Ramchabutra was on the left in the outer courtyard. Tieffenthaler referred Ramchabutra as Bedi. He never said that Bedi was in inner courtyard. 
4. So, there was no bedi or idol inside the Mosque. Hence, Hindu worship inside the Mosque cannot be established.

10. Supreme Court observed from various travelogue and gazette​ that the Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century. On the other hand, the Hindus have established exclusive possession over the inner courtyard and that they were visiting it for offering prayers

1. On the balance of probability is it possible that a mosque is left deserted for 330 years (1528 to 1857) after its construction in 1528 and that too       under Muslim rule?
2. By default, mosque is exclusive to Muslims, temple is exclusive to Hindus, Church is exclusive to Christians and so on. People from other religions can enter into mosque. That does not give other communities exclusive right over the mosque. So, Muslims don't need to prove exclusive possession of the inner courtyard prior to 1857.
3. Why the possession needs to be exclusive to establish rights of Muslims over inner courtyard? A mosque will always remain a mosque whether Namaz was offered daily or weekly or monthly. 
4. If Muslims don't have the right to offer Namaz in a mosque, who else would have? 
5. Hindus made multiple attempts to take control of inner courtyard. Hindus may have visited the mosque, but whether they have offered prayer or Bhog inside the mosque was not substantiated by documentary evidence. Also, it is accepted by the court that there was no idol inside the mosque until 1949. 
6. Hindu festivals like Ram Navami, Sawan Jhoola, Kartik Poornima, Parikrama Mela and Ram Vivah are very elaborate and pompous and attracts many times more devotees than routine Namaz. On the balance of probability, it is highly likely that Hindu festivals caught the eye of travelers and gazetteers. They didn't find it noteworthy to document routine Namaz. However almost every travelogue and gazette​ mentioned that the structure was Masjid built after demolishing a temple which court has rejected. But the court accepted description of Hindu festival by the same travelers and gazetteers​ to establish exclusive rights of the Hindus to the disputed site both inner and outer courtyard. Can the court be selective?
7. It is accepted that inner courtyard has been used regularly by Muslims for offering Namaz since 1857 till 1949, over 90 years - Is 90 years not sufficient for continuous possession and use of Babri Masjid by Muslims?
8. This verdict mostly relied on account of traveler Tieffenthaler who visited India between 1743-1785 and Robert Montgomery Martin born in 1801. So, there is no credible first hand written history of Ayodhya regrading Babri Masjid and Hindu festival between twelfth century and 1743 because most of the travelers and Gazetteers visited India as referred in the verdict after 1743 except William Finch (1608-11)  who never mentioned about Babri Masjid. Thus, Hindu claim of continuous use of inner and outer courtyard of the disputed site since 1528 cannot be established.
9. When the mosque was built in 1528 was there any worship by Hindus inside the mosque?
10. It is not known when the conflict between Hindus and Muslims started over inner courtyard.
11. If we assume that Hindus worshiped inside the mosque along with Muslim Namaz, it neither gives Hindus more rights nor dilutes Muslim claim over the inner courtyard.  
12. Court admitted, the inner courtyard has been a contested site with conflicting claims of the Hindus and Muslims. 

1. Which claim is closer to truth cannot be determined now after 450 years. We cannot even say with certainty that mosque was built in 1528.

11. Supreme Court observed, on the balance of probabilities, there is clear evidence to indicate that the worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unimpeded in spite of the setting up of a grill-brick wall in 1857. Their possession of the outer courtyard stands established together with the incidents attaching to their control over it.
1. When Hindus started worshiping at the outer courtyard is not known, definitely not during 1528

12. Supreme Court observed, as regards the inner courtyard, there is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857. 

1. No travelogue and gazette ever mentioned that there was any idol placed inside the mosque between 1528 to 1857. Court also had the similar opinion that the possibility of any idol under the central dome prior to 22-23 December 1949 stands excluded on a preponderance of probabilities.
2. Again, on the balance of probability would any Hindu worship in a mosque and that too without any idol?
3. According to Carnegy, before 1855 (before railing has been put up by British), the Hindus and Mahomedans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. He basically talked about outer and inner courtyard.
4. Belief of exact location of Ram Janam Bhoomi changed thrice

1. In 1855, a spot outside the structure of Babri Masjid in a corner of the courtyard was claimed as the Janmasthan
2. Prior to 1855, ―the undisputed Ram Janmasthan was the old Janmasthan Sita Rasoi Mandir across the street on a mound facing the Babri Masjid
3. On 22 December 1949, the Janmasthan claim was shifted from Ramchabutra to a place inside the mosque beneath the main dome of the Babri Masjid

13. Supreme Court observed, the report of the Waqf Inspector of December 1949 indicates that Muslims were being obstructed in free and unimpeded access to mosque for the purposes of offering namaz. 

1. It is a matter of shame of Indian democracy and failure of successive government to remove all obstructions so that Muslims could access Babri Masjid for the purposes of offering namaz 

14. Supreme Court observed, the Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago

1. Shouldn't the inner courtyard of the disputed site be handed over to Sunni Central Waqf Board to rectify the gross injustice to Muslims?

15. Supreme Court observed, the Muslims were dispossessed upon the desecration of the mosque on 22/23 December 1949 which was ultimately destroyed on 6 December 1992. There was no abandonment of the mosque by the Muslims. This Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution must ensure that a wrong committed must be remedied. Justice would not prevail if the Court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims who have been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law. The Constitution postulates the equality of all faiths. Tolerance and mutual co-existence nourish the secular commitment of our nation and its people... we direct that land admeasuring 5 acres be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board either by the Central Government out of the acquired land or by the Government of Uttar Pradesh within the city of Ayodhya

1. Why Hindus are not allotted 5 acre of land instead. Sentiments of Muslims were hurt by Hindus first by damaging the mosque in 1934, followed by desecration in 1949 and finally by destruction of the mosque in 1992. Still the disputed site was handed over to Hindu group just because of 'Hindu faith' that Ram was born at the place where central dome of the mosque was built. Since court rejected Hindu belief that mosque was built after destroying Ram temple, Hindu sentiment has never been hurt by Muslims on Ayodhya issue.

16. Supreme Court observed, Essentially, the setting up of Ramchabutra within a hundred feet or thereabouts of the inner dome must be seen in the historical context as an expression or assertion of the Hindu right to worship at the birthplace of Lord Ram

1. Birthplace of Lord Ram could be any of the 360 temples in Ayodhya. There is no documentary evidence when such expression of Hindu right on inner dome as Garbh Griha triggered? It could be after virtual fall of Mogul Empire around 1707, not when mosque was built in 1528 

17. Supreme Court observed, the physical structure of an Islamic mosque did not shake the faith and belief of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site

1. Faith and belief of Hindus does not allow forceful eviction of devotee of other religions from their place of worship. Hindus and Muslims peacefully practiced their religions till 1855 at outer and inner courtyard respectively. 

18. Supreme Court observed, even after the construction of the dividing wall by the British, the Hindus continued to assert their right to pray below the central dome. This emerges from the evidentiary record indicating acts of individuals in trying to set up idols and perform puja both within and outside the precincts of the inner courtyard

1. Misadventure of some extreme believers continued from 1857 through 1934 to 1949 to 1992. Such misadventures should have been sternly dealt with by GoI after independence. To revive peaceful coexistence of Hindu worship and Muslim Namaz in outer and inner courtyard, mosque should be rebuilt.

19. Supreme Court observed, the reports of the Waqf Inspector of December 1949 indicate that the Sadhus and Bairagis who worshipped and resided in the outer courtyard obstructed Muslims from passing through the courtyard, which was under their control, for namaz within the mosque. Hence the Waqf Inspector noted that worship within the mosque was possible on Fridays with the assistance of the police

1. Such thing goes against faith and belief of Hindus - respect other religions.

20. Supreme Court observed Muslim witnesses have acknowledged the presence of symbols of Hindu religious significance both inside and outside the mosque

1. Presence of Hindu religious symbol inside inner courtyard does not dilute claim of Muslims over the inner courtyard as they offered regular Namaz from 1857 to 1949. 

21. Supreme Court observed, all forms of belief, worship and prayer are equal

1. So long one's belief, worship and prayer don't contradict other's belief, worship and prayer. On disputed site, Hindu's belief caused obstruction to Namaz by Muslims

22. Supreme Court observed, Even after the setting up of the Ramchabutra, pilgrims used to pay obeisance and make offerings to what they believed to be the 'Garbh Grih‘ located inside the three domed structure while standing at the iron railing which divided the inner and outer courtyards... Despite the construction of the wall in 1858 by the British and the setting up of the Ramchabutra in close-proximity of the inner dome, Hindus continued to assert their right to pray inside the three-domed structure

1. Only way to honour Hindu sentiment of Garbh Griha is to allow Hindus to enter into the Mosque for Darshan of Garbh Griha (without offering any prayer) when Muslims were not offering Namaz.
2. Stopping of Namaz and allowing exclusive Hindu prayer or demolition of the mosque and building a new Hindu temple is not the way to respect Hindu sentiment.
   
   

In Summary

1. When mosque was built in 1528, there was neither Ram Lalla Virajman nor Sunni Central Waqf Board. Their claim for disputed site now has no basis. Disputed site belongs to GoI after independence.
2. There is a 450 years old mosque built without demolishing any temple and is in good condition. How Muslims can be denied of offering Namaz since 23-Dec-1949. Where does the question of proof of exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since 1528 arise ? If not Muslims who else can offer Namaz in a mosque. If the mosque was not demolished in 1992, would the inner courtyard still be handed over to Ram Lalla Virajman? Why Govt of India didn't remove the idols from the mosque in 1949 so that Namaz could be resumed.
3. Hindu faith and belief don't allow damaging or desecrating or demolition of any religious structure. When the mosque was demolished by Hindus in 1992 in the pretext of Ram Janmashtan, Hindu sentiment was shattered. Govt of India should have rebuilt the mosque immediately after its destruction in 1992.
4. Carnegy observed - Ajudhia, which is to the Hindu what Macca is to the Mahomedan, Jerusalem to the Jews. 
5. Hindu faith and belief of Ayodhya as birth town of Lord Ram has been accepted and respected by Muslims. But faith and belief of Hindus that central dome of the mosque was the Garbh Griha is far fetched because there were 360 temples in Ayodhya in sixteenth century and birthplace of Lord Ram could be any one of these temples. Such faith does not justify desecration or demolition of mosque. There was no such belief during 1528, at least not documented anywhere.
6. There is no documentary evidence that Hindus offered prayer or Bhog inside mosque from 1528 to 1949.
7. It is not known when did Hindus first claim inner courtyard of the disputed site as Garbh Griha, (most likely in nineteenth century), not during 1528
8. Since temple demolition theory was rejected by the Supreme Court, Muslims should have unconditional right to the inner courtyard of the disputed site and it is necessary to build a new mosque by GoI for offering Namaz. Hindus can also build a temple in the outer courtyard.

Finally 

Neither Hindus nor Muslims can claim exclusive right over the disputed site which can be converted into a great tourist spot if all underground 85 pillars are completely excavated and restored. The remaining 68 acre of land can be used for man made lake and a palace at the middle. Let people of Ayodhya and rest of India live in peace.

Thanks

Satyaki

9836944557