Ayodhya: Battle for Peace - Taking a closer view at the dispute and politics

Did Manmohan Singh reject Sonia's nominee as Lok Sabha Speaker?
Did Atal Behari Vajpayee oppose L K Advani over alliance with Shiv Sena?
- Answer to these questions are in the book 'Ayodhya: Battle For Peace' penned by your's truly this blogger --- ha ha Nirendra Dev.

- Into his second term since 2009, the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh is getting more assertive and “persuasive in pushing his personal preferences”. "Grapevine is a senior parliamentarian was denied the Lok Sabha Speaker’s post in 2009 even after his name was cleared formally by UPA alliance in a joint sitting,” it says.
“If the conjectures are to be believed, NCP chief Sharad Pawar,
Trinamool chief Mamata Banerjee and even top Congress leaders had
reportedly complimented the said member for being chosen for the
coveted office in June 2009; when Dr Singh threw in the Dalit-woman
card to elevate his ‘Water Resources Minister’ Meira Kumar for the key
job,” says the book, a publication of New Delhi-based Har-Anand
Publication.
It further says, Dr Singh’s admirers are reported to have floated the
theory that the 2009 mandate for UPA was in effect a mandate for him. His media advisor has already spoken against Congress in a public function; and yet continues to enjoy the Prime Minister’s confidence."
Among other things it argues “the overall future cannot be very good for the communal forces in South Asia” and cites the illustration of the return of Sheikh Hasina regime in Bangladesh in 2008 as a glaring instance.
“The manner in which people responded to the September 30 ruling offers enough reasons to keep the secular disposition optimistic that the days of fundamentalism are numbered for the common man has had enough of it and long since rejected the same".
It also throws light on politics of Rath Yatra of BJP stalwart Advani and in the context of alliance building with Shiv Sena, says, "when he (Advani)and Pramod Mahajan floated the idea of an alliance with Shiv Sena, there was strong opposition from the likes of Jaswant Singh and to an extent by Atal Bihari Vajpayee himself. However, Advani reportedly argued that in the past Congress and socialists had joined hands with Sena to end the leftists’ control on the trade union politics."

Amid high drama in national polity over scams and alleged 'Hindu
terror' under RSS, the book also cautions Congress against going
overboard on ‘Hindu terror’ saying in the process Congress is only
preparing the ground "for political polarization (based on religions)"
"The Hindus in general are anguished as well as shell-shocked at the
allegation that their faith, known for its tolerance, is being linked
to terrorism. They believe the Congress party led by a Christian and
that too a foreign lady is indulging in politics to defame the Hindu
organizations and thus win over its lost support base among the
Muslims. There was a deliberate attempt to blow up the issue of ‘Hindu
terror’ just on the eve of beginning of monsoon session of parliament
in 2010".
"The Muslims should learn to live in harmony as the confrontationist
path does them no good," it says.
(ends)

Indian Foreign Policy - An Enigmatic Journey

The Indian foreign policy in circa 2010 remained as intangible as it
has been always barring some success in terms of getting Big 5 led by the US knocking its doors.
Otherwise it was typical of its characteristic, more often delivering mixed signals with itself unable to pursue diplomatic billiard well and at the same time often proved vulnerable to fall as a victim. In the process,
India saw a few smaller countries especially in neighbiurhood often snubbing it. Even on crucial front like climate change, India seems too eager to oblige the US.
But in 2011, the government of India is all set to chart out on a more promising roadmap in the coming year with a much brightened possibility of entering the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Keeping that prestigious berth as a virtual ‘jewel in the crown’, in the coming months New Delhi is likely to focus on improving its ties in the neighbourhood, often neglected Africa and the crucial the Indian Ocean rim.
Even during last two years the government has able to improve its relations with countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar, Bhutan and Sri Lanka.

Among the major global players, all five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the US, China, Britain, Russia and France — came calling on India in 2010 extending all round friendship even as each one of them sought India’s help for reviving their economies.

In the neighbourhood front and other smaller nations, India has been lately trying to consolidate its relations. Bangladesh under a longtime friend Sheikh Hasina has been very cooperative during the last two years especially in fostering stronger economic ties and as well as helping Indian government curb the activities of northeast India’s insurgent groups in that country.
Now peace process with ULFA is heading towards a positive direction, thanks to Sheikh Hasina regime's help to arrest the chairman Arabind Rajkhowa and others.
It is the sagacity of the leadership in respective countries in South Asia now that there is a growing realization that economic potential and especially the power front and infrastructure building should be exploited well.
There’s still a large untapped potential to cooperate further to mutual benefits with countries like Bhutan and Nepal.
Taking the Indo-Bangladesh ties to a new high, India has also offered to sell the surplus electricity from the northeastern state of Tripura.

The External Affairs Minister S M Krishna is expected to visit Dhaka in a few months. The Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh is also likely to follow.
Similarly on Nepal front, the External Affairs secretary Ms Nirupama Rao is likely to lead a delegation in January.
Similarly, New Delhi has scripted a much stronger tie with another strategically sensitive Myanmar and would strengthen them further with new projects. No wonder, the US was not amused a bit.
Truly, India has been doing its best in fulfilling several developmental commitments. This approach is in fact ideally suited to be the ‘model for development cooperation’ India has been stressing with Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh where in the people from these countries can work together for economic prosperity.

In the coming months, Indian foreign policy managers will also explore other options of diplomatic tools: like marine partnership and energy cooperation and would undertake concrete steps to bridge the gulf with African countries as also strengthen its bond in the Indian Ocean rim.

In this context, countries those will come in focus include Nigeria, South Africa, Mauritius, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Ghana.
Official estimated also say put together these countries account for around 50-60 per cent of India’s total bilateral trade in Africa.

India along with other countries like Brazil and South Africa in blocks like IBSA and BRIC has also inched ahead to enhance India-Africa partnership that has today obviously led to counterbalance the monopolistic G7 nations on the global economic plane.
Among the highlights, an Africa Forum is on card sometime next year and it will be South Africa’s turn to host the IBSA summit in 2011.

During last one year or so, the government of India has also extended cooperation to international community to fight terrorism in general as also help combat the sea piracy. Besides offering itself as a pro-development partner for Afghanistan, New Delhi would also give itself greater engagement in Indian Ocean rim with countries like Mauritius, Mozambique and Seychelles.
There is a growing realization that India ought to enhance its presence in Africa and subsequently build up lasting strategic partners in the continent in order to play a vital role in reshaping the global economy aftermath the 2008 recession and the more recent ‘Greek crisis’ in European economy.

In recent months, therefore, India has tried to strengthen defence ties with smaller countries like Ghana, Nigeria, Lesotho and Botswana.
In the end it must be said that sustaining a lasting friendship in international relation is a continuous stream. The new thinking in foreign policy, therefore, ought to have broader scope as well as show greater flexibility for setting up new goals and compromises.
New Delhi’s foreign policy engine rooms under the constant hawk's eye of the PMO – knows it pretty well.
(ends)

Has Congress also forgotten the ghost of Bofors?

The web dictionary of the word ‘despicable’ covers a wide range of equally strong words: appalling, dreadful, wicked, disgraceful, vile, shameful …..the list would go on. Actually, in her address to the plenary session of the Congress on December 19, Ms Sonia Gandhi chose to describe the opposition attack on the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh for alleged corruption charges virtually mushrooming under the UPA carpet (read regime) by that select word, ‘despicable’.
In effect it means, the Congress president wants to use all the above adjectives for the opposition parties especially her principal rivals, the BJP.
Seeking to take the battle on corruption to the enemy camp, the Congress president dubbed the BJP's personal attack on Dr Singh as 'downright despicable'.
“He is the embodiment of sobriety, dignity and integrity,” Ms Gandhi said about her hand-picked prime minister, who unlike UPA I is now allegedly doing some muscle-flexing often against the powerful 10 Janpath. She also chose the occasion to compliment the Prime Minister for his “silence” on various charges from the opposition – prime among them being the official explanation why the government was against the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). This answer ought to be answered particularly because the repeated Congress explanation is that the party has nothing to fear on all the charges of corruption!
Even in her address to the plenary session, Ms Gandhi spoke at everything else on corruption and alleged RSS-terror link, but there was no explanation why her party is not in favour of JPC. A demand – apparently even agreed to by key UPA allies like Sharad Pawar-led NCP and Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress.
“On your behalf, I want to compliment him (PM) for his wise leadership, for remaining calm amidst the storm,” Ms Gandhi waxed eloquently from her written speech.
The speech was otherwise well drafted reportedly with intervention of old war horse and expert draftsman Pranab Mukherjee, Sonia’s political secretary Ahmed Patel and Dr Singh’s point man, Kapil Sibal.
Meeting against the backdrop of a stalemated parliament and threat of a similar show looming large even for crucial budget session from February over corruption scandals and Congress denial of JPC, Sonia Gandhi outlined a five-point agenda to deal with corruption, including fast-tracking cases of graft against public servants and politicians “like us’.


Terming corruption as a "disease spreading throughout the society", she outlined multi-prong steps to tackle corruption and among other things called for full transparency in public procurement and contracts and that whistleblowers should be protected. Counseling her party men to abjure “vulgar display of wealth”, she advised simplicity and austerity for celebrating occasions like marriages and birthdays.
Making her presidential speech on the backdrop of Rahul Gandhi’s wikileaks controversy, she lashed out at the BJP and singled out RSS for alleged terror links.
"Congress makes no distinction between organizations of the majority and minority communities who indulge in communalism and related acts of terrorism. They are all dangerous and must be all defeated,” she practically endorsed her son’s remarks even as another party general secretary Digvijay Singh harped on his agenda and said the biggest challenge to the country is RSS and BJP. “The way Hitler's Nazi party had targeted Jews, RSS is targeting Muslims. Even in the army, they have sent their people. In Malegaon blasts, two army officers were caught. The terror in the entire country has roots in Advani's Rath Yatra,” he said.

The Congress efforts in these party sessions seem clear: deflect the nation and media from the raging debate on corruption and the Congress complexity and talk more about secularism – a card that goes well with Congress’ vote bank, “Muslim minorities”.
But, the nation’s heart would continue to beat looking for more genuine answers.
Madam Sonia, Where's Mr Quatrochi?

Foot in the Mouth Syndrome: Over to Jairam Ramesh

For suave Jairam Ramesh, Indian MoS Environment, it’s the proverbial case of foot in the mouth syndrome. Known as a ‘good and ingenious’ glib talker, this time at Cancun Climate Change Summit he opened his mouth little more than he should have and thus dragged both himself and the beleaguered UPA government to the receiving end of much brickbats.
Some one who loves to go out of the "box", the Environment and Forest Minister, his detractors say, by way of remarks has shifted the ‘goalpost’ on climate change negotiations. Back home opposition says it’s sell out. The charge is, however, denied by the government even as the PMO, reeling under much attack on corruption, also issued a veiled snub on the suave minister.

If the taste of the pudding is in it’s eating, in diplomacy and international negotiations, winning new friends and to be flexible is the real success mantra. Ramesh and his supporters say, this has precisely happened in the Cancun Climate Change Summit 2010. India has emerged as a key voice in the key conclave along with two influential global players China and the United States opposing the legally binding emission cut.
At the same time, they insist, India has opened the door for negotiations.
But at what cost - remains a question.

The rough weather that he has landed is the creation of a man who loves to fondle his hair and gesticulate with his hands while delivering speeches in parliament – trying to present himself before the camera as an intellectual academician!
Ramesh also wants to present himself as a unique synthesis of a ‘science-knowing-nature-loving-Rahul Gandhi loyalist’ politician. This syndrome –of thinking oneself beyond the size of his shoes – say his detractors - is singularly responsible for getting him the snub from the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, who had to issue a statement saying nothing much must be read in the remarks from Ramesh.

Sadly, the PMO had to make the remark about none other than the leader of the Indian delegation at the summit. When the Prime Minister says “nothing much must be seen” in the minister’s remarks – one obvious question startles the observers is why did the Prime Minister give such a free hand to the minister of state for environment.
To a large extent; these only reflect Congress internal power bickering as Ramesh is not only a mere Rahul loyalist. Over the months, Ramesh has also made his pro-environment tilt as the union minister deciding principally by the tour map of Rahul Gandhi.
Rahul has accordingly rewarded by his appreciation of Ramesh at IIM, Ahmedabad as a 'performing' minister; notably the Gandhi scion forgetting to mention the likes of Pranab Mukherjee, the principal trouble shooter of the government.
Therefore, how much damage control can this half-hearted clarification from the Prime Minister can make really remains to be seen?

Objective analysis at this juncture suggests that by Ramesh remarks at international for a, New Delhi has definitely crossed a red line previously seen as inviolate and is also marking a virtual culmination of dilution of its commitment to the
Kyoto Protocol. Rightly summed by his critics at the moment is inescapable conclusion that India had gone along with the US line on climate negotiations.

Sunita Narain, Director, CSE, said, “The minister has shifted goalpost unnecessarily, even when we are not getting anything in return. Instead of putting pressure the entire strategy should be to somehow let the US get off the hook.”
The climate change negotiations is a long drawn battle. But Ramesh has probably committed a blunder for India.
There is a feeling that this US-tilt was deliberate and was with prior sanction of the PMO- Dr Singh's citadel and the foreign policy engine room.

Master Manipulator Manmohan running short of tricks

Time seems to be finally catching up with the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, an underestimated politician and perhaps an overestimated economist. In today’s scenario that he has landed vis-à-vis 2G spectrum, one wishes it is proved wrong, that he is also an ‘overestimated’ honest man! At least, politically, he is not.
The handling of Rs 1.76 lakh crore scam proves that point rather convincingly. Well, the practical argument is he and the Congress party leadership – of virtuous Rahul Gandhi and saint Sonia (sic) – was arm-twisted by DMK. So was the left with regard the Nuclear deal with the United States. But on that Congress and Dr Singh claimed to have taken a principled stand “in national interest”, did not succumb to Prakash Karat pressure; but on 2G spectrum the story was different. Why?

But no longer. The façade is not working anymore.
Till date, Dr Singh used to enjoy the best of the world. While Sonia Gandhi got her share of blame – from time to time for political mishandling or so; an helpless Pranab Mukherjee sweat it out to convince partners, opposition parties and party men as the chief troubleshooter. On the other hand, Dr Singh gave unto himself the role of enjoying the power --- somewhat a Brahminical power without responsibilities.

The responsibilities, he implied was of Sonia Gandhi and Pranab Mukherjee, ironically his boss many years ago.
But the tested adage of P V Narasimha Rao – law will take its own course – has now caught up with Dr Singh. It’s the law which is inferring that he has erred in handling the 2G spectrum issue in more ways than one.

Having said these, one needs to point at certain internal issues within Congress and how the party has itself to be blamed for the present impasse.

The special steering committee meet on November 3, 2010 concentrating solely on RSS bashing and leaving corruption fungus in the safety of AICC cupboards should haunt it any day.

There is already talk about slowly and certain but minor scuffle between Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and the party – even if not Congress president Sonia Gandhi herself.
She is still considered too powerful for ‘non-political’ character like Dr Singh, though his admirers and adversaries feel slowly the ‘underestimated’ politician in him is showing some glimpses of verb.
Into his second year since 2009, perhaps, he is trying to be little more forceful and persuasive in pushing his personal preferences. Grapevine is a senior parliamentarian from Andhra Pradesh was denied the Lok Sabha Speaker’s post in 2009 even after his name was cleared formally by UPA alliance in a joint sitting.

If the conjectures are to be believed, NCP chief Sharad Pawar, Trinamool chief Mamata Banerjee and even top Congress leaders had reportedly complimented the said member for being chosen for the coveted office in June 2009; when Dr Singh threw in the Dalit-woman card to elevate his ‘Water Resources Minister’ Meira Kumar for the key job. Kumar was already sworn in as Minister and also allocated portfolio.

There are elements in Congress party who suggest that even while allocating the portfolios, Dr Singh was little more aggressive this time unlike 2004. Making Anand Sharma the commerce minister is seen as Dr Singh’s personal intervention as a special case. Similarly, when A Raja and Prithviraj Chavan moved out of his ministry, all their portfolios were passed on to another trusted lieutenant of Dr Singh, Kapil Sibal. Anand Sharma and Sibal are reportedly being rewarded for backing Manmohan Singh during turbulent days of nuclear deal with the US “by going out of the way”.

Dr Singh’s admirers are reported to have floated the theory that the 2009 mandate for UPA was in effect a mandate for him.
He is the real TINA, there is no alternative, before the Congress party.
His media advisor has already spoken against Congress in a public function; and yet continues to enjoy the Prime Minister’s confidence.
On November 16, 2010 itself, the Supreme Court posed a question for the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh why he delayed in giving sanction for prosecuting Raja for his alleged involvement in Rs 1,70,000 crore 2G Spectrum scam. "For good governance, there must be some time-limit for granting sanctions, if not three months. But 11 months is too long," said the Supreme Court.
"Why was there alleged inaction and silence on the part of the sanctioning authority who is the Prime Minister. Application should have been dealt with urgently. The facts are self speaking," the two-judge bench of Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly remarked.
"I don't recall any incident in the past 60 years of the Supreme Court making such remarks against the PMO. And I believe that the Prime Minister should respond to the Supreme Court immediately," said Advani.
The CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury demanded that the Prime Minister should get his act together on the bizarre episode. Supreme Court has also rightly questioned the manner P J Thomas was appointed as CVC.

Prime Minister needs to do so explanation. The date with destiny could be around and cannot be postponed for ever. India’s heart today beats for some of these explanations!

Obama praises Gandhi, focusses on Indian agro-energy issues

It would be a red letter day, November 8, 2010 for the central hall of Indian parliament as Barack Obama becomes the 4th US president to address the esteemed audience comprising of Indian law makers and other dignitaries.
The US president Mr Barack Obama seemed to have adoped a multi-pronged approach to focus on his India policy going beyond the conventional sense of the terms like economic cooperation and trade and instead has indcated towards addressing the core issues of India's priority areas like energy and agriculture.
In his address to the joint session of parliament at the central hall,
Mr Obama said both the countries sharing several commonality,
strengths and challenges can work together in three vital areas. ".... as global partners we can promote prosperity in both our countries. Together, we can create the high-tech, high-wage jobs of the future," he said
adding with his visit the stage is already set for beginning the much
talked about implementation of civil nuclear agreement.
"This will help meet India’s growing energy needs and create thousands
of jobs in both our countries," President Obama said even as he
stressed on the need to forge partnerships in high-tech sectors like defense and civil space. He also said, the US administration has "removed" Indian organizations from so-called “entity list" and both the countries can work together to reform "our controls on exports".
On the agriculture front, he has sought to address the growing
challenge of Indian farmers in the form of getting more accurate
weather predictions.
"Together, we’re going to improve Indian weather forecasting systems
before the next monsoon season,' he made a virtual pledge before
Indian law makers
and said his government aims to help millions of Indian farming
households save water and increase productivity; improve food
processing, avoid wastage of
food produces and enhance climate and crop forecasting to avoid losses
that cripple communities and drive up food prices.
In a much innovative measure, he also said, US will share "India’s
expertise with farmers in Africa" to meet the demand of global food
security. "This is an indication of India’s rise—that we can now
export hard-earned expertise to countries that see India as a model
for agricultural development,' he said.
He said his country would also work together with India to make the
country's second agricultural revolution called 'Evergreen Revolution'
more successful and
sustainable.
Earlier in the day, India's 'Monsoon Mission' had received a shot in
the arm with the signing of a pact that will enable its scientists to
use American models to better forecast rainfall. Under the pact,
signed on the sidelines of the visit of US President Barack Obama,
scientists at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) will
be able to use the Model Climate Forecast System 2.0 of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for monsoon prediction.
The agreement provides for setting up of a 'monsoon desk' in NOAA
under which one scientist at the American organisation would be
exclusively earmarked for consultations with his Indian counterpart.
"We will start using the model on an experimental basis from next year
to predict the Indian monsoon," Earth Sciences Secretary Shailesh
Nayak said.
Other salient feature was his glowing tributes to Indian pristine past and
the Father of the Nation, peace apostle Mahatma Gandhi.
Paying glowing tributes to the resilience of India as a new global player as well as its pristine glories and ‘treasured past’, the US president exuded confidence that
“the relationship between the United States and India—bound by our shared interests and values—will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century.”
‘This is the partnership I have come here to build. This is the vision that our nations can realize together,” he said.
On India’s traditional oriental values, he said “India not only opened our minds, she expanded our moral imagination” and went onto observe that even his (Obama’s personal) “confidence in our shared future” is grounded in his respect for India’s treasured past—a civilization that has been shaping the world for thousands of years. “Indians unlocked the intricacies of the human body and the vastness of our universe. And it is no exaggeration to say that our information age is rooted in Indian innovations—including the number zero,” he said.
President Obama praised the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, and noted his influence on Martin Luther King and the non-violent resistance that exemplified the American civil rights movement. "I am mindful that I might not be standing before you today, as president of the United States, had it not been for Gandhi and the message he shared and inspired with America and the world," Mr Obama said
On a rare personal note, he said for him and his wife Michelle, the US president said this visit has held ‘special meaning’. “Throughout my life, including my work as a young man on behalf of the urban poor, I have always found inspiration in the life of Gandhiji and in his simple and profound lesson to be the change we seek in the world.”
Pointing out both the nations share the same commonalities like strong democracies with revolutionary commitment towards “we the people”, he said there were wide range of global issues and for a where both sides and the by working together can make immense contributions.

But all said and done and keeping the rhetoric aside, we Indians should understand that he needs to catch hold of India more with the resolute grip of a friend in need. The US today is no longer what it used to be,
all powerful. And true to Obama's own words, India has already 'emerged' in the global scene. One urnestly hopes, Dr Manmohan Singh's government does not crawl before the Americans at a time when he can show some firmness and probably US needs India more than we need the Americans.

(ends)

ASI excavation and other issues related to Ayodhya imbroglio

Besides the legal issues per se related to the Ayodhya case, I suppose the verdict also sparked off a debate on the relevance of historical and archeological studies and can these findings be taken with certainty. In fact, thinking is also that the original error committed in this issue was when the court of the land was expected to decide on such an emotive issue. Thus debating now on whether a court could decide anything based on historical studies and archeological findings is perhaps only academic.

Archaeology by web dictionary Wikipedia, is the study of past human societies, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data including artifacts, architecture, biofacts and cultural landscapes. Also known as the study of the art, customs and beliefs of ancient times, archaeology is often considered to be both a science and a humanity.

In this context, one must take note of the Presidential reference made to the Supreme Court in January 1993 by the Narasimha Rao government seeking an advisory opinion on this question: “Whether a Hindu Temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?”

On October 24, 1994, the Supreme Court, rightly so, declined to give any opinion saying it was “ill-equipped” to examine and evaluate matters related to archeology and history.
The matter was heard by a five-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice MN Venkatachaliah, Justice AM Ahmadi, Justice JS Verma, Justice GN Ray and Justice SP Bharucha. The majority judgement written by Justice JS Verma on behalf of Chief Justice Venkatachaliah, himself and Justice Ray had said the Presidential reference was ‘superfluous and unnecessary’.

On March 5, 2003, the Allahabad High Court ordered excavation of the land and in the ultimate analysis, the Archeological Survey of India findings were largely cited for ordering retention and continuation of the Ram Lalla’s idols at the ‘make-shift’ temple, erected after the demolition of the Mosque in December 1992.
In fact, the ASI excavation clearly showed distinctive features of a 10th century temple below the ruins of the Babri Mosque. It further mentions discovery of 50 pillar bases, decorated bricks bearing features of 10th century, deities of Hindu gods and goddesses, lotus motifs, and curved architectural pieces, say experts.
It has been also argued by historians that when the Babri Masjid was demolished an inscription was unearthed which said that 'a temple was constructed by a King Nayachandra in the 12th century to honour Ram.' But the Muslims had rejected the ASI report saying it as a 'concoction' of the ASI to please its 'political masters', the BJP-led Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board had said the report was ‘inconsistent’ with the interim report submitted earlier.
Nevertheless, in his ruling, Justice Sharma contended that “the Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure” even as he 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.”
But there remained certain questions on the findings of Archeological Survey of India as well.
There is a school of thought which counters that the ASI’s report was ‘not above controversy’ as on the possibility of Hindu temple its argument rested primarily on ‘pillar basis’ – which according to them could not be ascertained as no final words could be said purely based on the pillars. In fact, the Muslims clergy in Faizabad say the alleged existence of pillars too has been debated by historians on material evidence relating to ASI’s excavation.
They maintain Archaeological Survey of India’s own excavations of certain animal bones as well as of the use of ‘surkhi’ a typical characteristic of Muslim presence would challenge the possibility of a Hindu temple.
The Sunni Board or Muslim Personal Law Board contest ASI reports but accept the authenticity of the discovery of archeological materials. They refuse to take evidence as conclusive evidence that it was a Hindu temple. Even the main advocate for Muslims in the title suit, Zafaryab Jillani, said that the ASI has 'misinterpreted the findings'. The allegation has been also that the ASI report of ignoring the discovery of glazed tiles and pottery indicative of Muslim settlements in the area before Babar's invasion.

However, from the Hindu point of view, Mahant Brijmohan Das, chief priest of Dasarth Garhi in Ayodhya countered this saying “we never disputed the fact Muslims came and set up a Mosque there. We only say they did it after demolishing a temple”.

He said three crucial questions related to Ayodhya case were - Whether the disputed structure that is, Babri Masjid was constructed over some other pre-existing structure after demolishing it? Whether that preexisting structure was a Hindu Temple? And whether that temple, if any, was located on Lord Rama’s birth place in Ayodhya?
The Hindu argument is also that originally there was a Vishnu Temple earlier at the same spot where the Masjid was erected after demolishing the same. This temple of Lord Vishnu, according to faith, existed from time immemorial. It was renovated several times and the temple as well as worship of Ram Lalla, they say is referred to in many texts and inscriptions. This temple of Vishnu was erected exactly on the same holy spot where Lord Rama was born and around the place, Sita’s kitchen, Hanuman’s house, Kaikeyi’s palace etc were all located and worshipped even since Vikramaditya era and even published in official gazettes brought out by the British government.

Those countering these versions say most of the official gazettes prepared during British rule especially in the 19th century were based on here-says.

The Muslims have on the contrary argued that there were official documentation which claimed that the Hindu claim was erroneous and the place used to be a Masjid.

On September 29, a day before the verdict IUML UP unit chief Dr Ghani was a confident person though anxious about other kind of repercussions. He said documentary evidence cannot go against Muslims. Here are some of the points, which Muslims thought would sail them through in the case.

On 23 December 1948, the Inspector of Waqfs, Mohammed Ibrahim alleged harassment and stoning of the Namazis going to the mosque and that yet prayers continued to be offered on Fridays.
Radio message on December 23, 1949, by District Magistrate K.K. Nayar to the Chief Minister, Chief Secretary and Home Secretary: “A few Hindus entered Babri Masjid at night when the Masjid was deserted and installed a deity there.”
The State of Uttar Pradesh, in a document signed by Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad, J.N. Ugra, on April 25, 1950 had claimed “it has for a long period been in use as a mosque for the purpose of worship by the Muslims and not a temple”.
Another strong argument from the Muslims has been that false claims have been made by Hindus on the findings of inscription of Lord Vishnu on December 6, 1992. The Hindu groups had claimed that during the demolition of the Babri mosque in December 1992, three inscriptions on stone were found. The most important one was the inscription that the temple was dedicated to Lord Vishnu, slayer of Bali. The Muslim allegation was that the said Hari-Vishnu inscription corresponded to an inscription dedicated to Vishnu that was supposedly missing in the Lucknow State Museum. However, the museum authorities had denied the inscription (stone) had gone missing from the museum. He showed the inscription of his museum at a press conference and it was different in shape, colour and text contents from the Vishnu-Hari inscription.
Another argument from Muslims was that Richard M Eaton, an American historian of medieval India, in his ‘Essays on Islam and Indian History’ documented in details about 80 major instances of destruction of the Hindu temples between 1190 and 1760. But the list did not include any Ram temple at Ayodhya.
The Muslim League leader Dr Ghani had also claimed that “Litigation in the 19th century was only for permission to build a temple at and near the chabutra – and not the mosque”. Subsequently even till 1948-49, till the idol was placed, there were only efforts to build a Ram temple on the chabutra (platform) outside the mosque but within its complex.

This Ram chabutara, which has been now allotted to the sect Nirmohi Akhara, falls on the left hand side as one walks through strictly barricaded security arrangement for the make-shift Hindu temple.

(ends)