Nov 9, 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ram Temple ::: Some debates and controversies

Sept 30, 2010 : Sweet shop owner and his children

In the first week of December, 2019, a review petition was filed by Jamiat Ulemma-i-Hind general secretary Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi. 

It said the Nov 9, 2019 verdict had fourteen errors. The chief of them being the court granted ‘relief’ to those who violated the laws, demolished Babri Masjid in 1992 and repeatedly flouted the orders of the Supreme Court itself. 

The debate on Facts as against the Faith had figured in 2010 also. But perhaps the worst indictment of the 2019 (Nov 9) verdict was that it essentially remained ‘majoritarian’ in character.

Something which has been debated is that why the apex court decided to consider that for the Hindus, the entire complex as a whole was of religious significance. This leads to further debate on the merit of the court’s contention why the verdict directed the Muslims to build their Masjid elsewhere. "In the absence of historical records with respect to ownership or title, the court has to determine the nature and use of the disputed premises as a whole by either of the parties." 

There are various aspects related to these issues. 

The Babri Masjid stood for 464 years until it was demolished in 1992.

Prior to that on December 22, 1949, the Ram Lalla's idols were put inside the mosque and the same Ram Lalla filed a suit in 1989 and said that the mosque was constructed in 1528. 

Another feature of Nov 9, 2019 order is that the verdict was perhaps delivered also based on travelogues and oral depositions. 

In this context comes the observation of one of the judges – there is no material to identify the exact place of Ram Janambhoomi but the visit of Guru Nanak Devji to Ayodhya for Darshan at the Janambhoomi of Ram is an ‘event’ which depicted that the pilgrims were visiting the place even before 1528, when ‘invader’ Babar demolished the earlier temple and constructed the Babri Masjid.

Trying to strengthen this argument, academician P K Vasudeva wrote in ‘The Statesman’ – “The visit of the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak Dev, in 1510-11 AD supports the faith and belief of Hindus that the site was the birthplace of the deity.”  

The Supreme Court also says that at times even Sikhs were involved in the row.

“On 10 December 1949, Mohd Ibrahim who was the Waqf Inspector submitted a report to the secretary of the Masjid stating that Muslims were being prevented from offering namaz Isha (the namaz at night) at the mosque, due to the fear of Hindus and Sikhs and there was an apprehension of danger to the mosque”.

The apex court order says one Rajinder Singh, appeared as a witness for defendant No.2 in Suit No.4, as a person having interest in the study of religious, cultural and Historical books of Sikh Cult. 

“......he has referred to several books about Sikh Cult and history. He also stated in his examination-in-chief that Guru Nanak Devji had sought darshan of Shri Ram Janma Bhumi Temple at Ayodhya. The period during which Guru Nanak Devji went to Ayodhya and had darshan stated to be is 1510-1511 A.D”.

Along with his statement, he has annexed various Janma Sakhies, which records visit of Guru Nanak Devji at Ayodhya and Darshan of Ram Janma Bhumi. Justice Sudhir Agarwal (of Allahabd High Court in 2010) in his judgment has also referred to Page 64 various Janma Sakhies, which were referred to and relied by the witnesses.

Interestingly, the highest court of the land held that the Muslims had failed to prove an exclusive right in the inner courtyard where the mosque was located. 

The five-member bench also ruled and quite importantly – “The existence of an Islamic structure at a place considered sacrosanct by the Hindus did not stop them from continuing their worship at the disputed site and within the precincts of the structure prior to the incidents of 1856-57”.

Though disputed, one school of thought says nowhere the court has said that the Hindus had ‘exclusive’ right of worship or possession of the entire premises.

But the Hindus have been awarded ‘exclusive possession’ of the land but it would be erroneous to suggest that the entire property has been declared in favour of the Hindus.

Lessons from History

Now that after the verdict, no untoward incident reported from anywhere in the country, I bow down in humility before the faceless characters in Ayodhya-Faizabad region – common people - whose slightest provocation in whatever manner could have resulted in bloodshed like in the 1990s.

Thus, it's essential to draw lessons from these. I have always believed that one of history's great lessons is that whoever controls the principal assets of his age emerges a winner. It may be stated that those who owned the machines dominated the industrial age and the landowners gained control and ruled the agricultural age. 

The oriental values of our civilization from time immemorial have spoken about peace and co-existence notwithstanding the differences. In our times too, today, I may sound a bit idealistic; the need for such lofty values cannot be underestimated.

The fact that this is an age of confrontation and materialistic happiness makes it imperative that one gives enough importance to oriental civilisational values. In retrospect, the Ayodhya verdict both in 2010 and in 2019 and the developments related in more ways than one have left several lessons for the common people and the stake holders. 

Even as after the Supreme Court verdict, the focus has been and will certainly be on the verdict of the highest court of the land, it needs to be underlined that the September 30, 2010 verdict by the Allahabad High Court had also left certain things to cherish about. 

One primary aspect, I think, that should be underlined is the emphasis on peace and reconciliation made by Justice S U Khan, a prominent figure of the three-member august bench. The most laudable aspect of Justice Khan’s ruling (2010) is his appeal to the Indian Muslims to tell the world the “correct position” of Islam. 

Oct 1, 2010: A day after Allahabad HC verdict - A Muslim teacher

I find the observation extremely salutary, universal and relevant. “Indian Muslims have (also) inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are, therefore, in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand,” Justice Khan had ruled. 

In fact, if this aspect of Justice Khan’s ruling is adhered to, many misgivings on Jihad as propounded in Islam could also be put to rest.

True to the spirit of the words of wisdom of Justice Khan, Indian Muslims would also do well to understand what London-based author, Irfan Hussain wrote for Pakistani newspaper, ‘The Daily Times’.

Hussain had  pointed out- “Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster. Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. 

"These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage. 

When these warriors settled in India, they ruled as absolute despots over a cowed Hindu populace. For generations, their descendants took their martial superiority over their subjects for granted. 

When the British exposed the decadence of the Moghuls and seized power, the Muslims — especially the aristocracy — tried to cut deals with the new rulers to ensure that they would be treated differently from the Hindus.”

Dec 6, 1992 

These aspects had relevance in 2019 and beyond. 

Now on a different plane, a contention has been emphasised that the Supreme Court verdict has ‘respected’ or rather given credence to the majority sentiment. It is also suggested that the minority Muslims have been granted the land as an act of ‘charity’.  These views can be well contested. 

The Supreme Court has sought to make it clear that the land grant is an ‘act of restitution’ for a wrong.  That wrong is clearly set out through an indictment of the Hindu side for ‘the act of desecrating the mosque’ in December 1992.

If the Bench was complicit in appeasing the Hindu sentiment, then it would not expose the criminality of December 6,1992 - that defined the acts of the ‘majority’ at the time.