 |
| Ayodhya Ram Mandir |
1. అయోధ్య రామమందిరం కోసం ప్రజాపోరాటం
క్రీ.శ-1528 బాబర్ ప్రధాన సేనాధిపతి అయిన మీర్ బాకీ అయోధ్యలోని రామ జన్మభూమి మందిరాన్ని కూలగొట్టాడు. 1528 నుండి 1934 మధ్య కాలంలో దీని కోసం 76 యుద్ధాలు జరిగాయి. ఈ యుద్ధాలన్నీ ఎన్నో తరాల హిందువులు అయోధ్య రామజన్మస్థలం కోసం చేసినవే. ఆ తరువాత 90వ దశకంలో ఇది దేశవ్యాప్త ఉద్యమం అయింది. మర్యాదాపురుషోత్తముడైన శ్రీ రాముని జన్మస్థలంలో మందిరం కోసం హిందువులు
500ఏళ్లుగా సాగిస్తున్న పోరాటపు సంక్షిప్త వివరాలు చూద్దాం –
- బాబర్ కాలంలో (క్రీ.శ1528-1530) 4 యుద్ధాలు జరిగాయి.
- హుమాయున్ కాలంలో(క్రీ.శ 1530-1556) 10 యుద్ధాలు జరిగాయి.
- అక్బర్ కాలంలో (క్రీ.శ 1556-1606) 20 యుద్ధాలు జరిగాయి.
- ఔరంగజేబు కాలం లో (క్రీ.శ 1658-1707) 30 యుద్ధాలు జరిగాయి.
- నవాబ్ షాదిత్ ఆలీ కాలంలో (క్రీ.శ 1770- 1814) 5 యుద్ధాలు జరిగాయి.
- నసీరుద్దీన్ హైదర్ కాలంలో (క్రీ.శ 1814-1836) 3 యుద్ధాలు జరిగాయి.
- వాజీద్ ఆలీషా కాలంలో (క్రీ.శ 1847-1857) 2 యుద్ధాలు జరిగాయి
- బ్రిటిష్ వారి హయాంలో (క్రీ.శ 1912-1934) 2 యుద్ధాలు జరిగాయి.
- ఇలా 1934వరకూ హిందూ సమాజం మొత్తం 76 యుద్ధాలు చేసింది.
1528లో బాబర్ ప్రధాన సేనాని మీర్ బాకీ రామ మందిరం నాశనం చేసిన నాటి నుండి, ఈ వివాదం ఒక ఉద్యమం లా సాగుతోంది. 1528 నాటి నుండి అన్ని తరాల వారు రామ జన్మభూమి కోసం పోరాడుతూనే ఉన్నారు. ప్రతి తరంలో ఈ ఉద్యమాన్ని మరింత ముందుకు నడిపించే ప్రయత్నం చేస్తూ వచ్చారు.
1934 సంవత్సరం..
అయోధ్యలో కొందరు ముస్లిములు ఒక గోవును హత్య చేయడంతో, హిందూ ముస్లిం వర్గాల మధ్య ఘర్షణ జరిగింది. ఆవును చంపిన కసాయి వాళ్ళని తుదముట్టించారు. ఆ తరువాత హిందువులు బాబ్రీ కట్టడoపై దాడి చేయడంతో దానికున్న మూడు గుమ్మటాలు దెబ్బతిన్నాయి. హిందువులు కట్టడాన్ని స్వాధీనం చేసుకున్నారు. అయితే, బ్రిటిషు వాళ్ళు హిందువులనుంచి బాబ్రీ కట్టడాన్ని స్వాధీనం చేసుకుని, దెబ్బతిన్న గుమ్మటాలను బాగుపరచమని హిoదువులమీద జరిమానా విధించారు. 1934 సంవత్సరం నుంచి ఏ ముస్లిం బాబ్రీ కట్టడoలోకి ప్రవేశించలేదు.
శ్రీరామ జన్మభూమి ఒక రాజకీయ ఉద్యమమా?
కచ్చితంగా కాదు. శ్రీరామ జన్మభూమిలో ఆలయం నిర్మించడం అంటే కేవలం సున్నం ఇటుకలు పేర్చడం కాదు. హిందువులకు ఇది సాంస్కృతిక పునరుజ్జీవనం మరియు హిందూ అస్తిత్వానికి సంబంధించిన అంశం. అది మర్యాదా పురుషోత్తముడైన శ్రీ రాముడు జన్మించిన స్థలం. ఆ ఉద్యమం హిందువుల సామూహిక సాంస్కృతిక చైతన్యానికి చిహ్నం.
బాబ్రీ కట్టడాన్ని ధ్వంసం చేయడం ద్వారా, ఒకప్పుడు కొందరు జరిపిన దౌర్జన్యానికి, వినాశనానికి, ఈనాటి ముస్లిములు మూల్యం చెల్లించాలని కోరుతున్నారా?
బాబ్రీ కట్టడoపై ఈనాటి ముస్లిముల దృష్టి ఏమిటి అనేది అసలు విషయం. వారు దాన్ని తమ పవిత్ర స్థలంగా భావిస్తున్నారా? ఔను అని సమాధానమైతే, వారు బాబర్, ఇంకా ఇతరుల క్రూరమైన దాడులను తమ సొంతం చేసుకుంటున్నవారవుతున్నారు. ఈనాటి ముస్లిములు ఈ దౌర్జన్యం, వినాశనంతో తమను తాము దూరం చేసుకోవడం సరియైన పద్ధతి. హిట్లర్ నేరాలకు, ఘోరాలకు ఈనాటి జర్మన్లు క్షమాపణ కోరుకుంటారు. దాన్ని బట్టి వారు నాజీ ఇజాన్ని ఎంతమాత్రం సమర్థించరని అర్థమవుతుంది.
హిందువులు కేవలం మూడు పవిత్ర స్థానాలను (అయోధ్య, మథుర, కాశీ) మాత్రమే, అదీ న్యాయస్థానాల ద్వారా లేక సంప్రదింపుల ద్వారా, శాంతియుతంగా తిరిగి ఇవ్వమని కోరారు. ఇవేకాక అనేక వేలాది దేవాలయాలు దోపిడీకి, విధ్వంసానికి గురయ్యాయి. వాటిపై మసీదులు కట్టారు. అయినా వాటినన్నిటినీ తిరిగి ఇవ్వాలని హిందువులు కోరట్లేదు.
ఆక్రమణ గుర్తులుగా నిర్మించిన కట్టడాలు
1918 లో రష్యా ఆక్రమణ అంతమైనప్పుడు పోలండ్ ప్రజలు వార్సాలో చేసిన మొదటి పని రష్యన్లు నిర్మించిన రష్యన్ ఆర్థొడాక్స్ క్రిస్టియన్ కెథడ్రల్ ను కూలగొట్టడం. నిజానికి పోలాండ్ ప్రజలు క్రిస్టియన్లు, జీసస్ ను ఆ కెథడ్రల్ లో పూజిస్తారు కూడా. కానీ వారు రష్యా నిర్మించిన కెథడ్రల్ ను ఆరాధనా స్థలంగా భావించలేదు. ఆ కట్టడాన్ని తమ బానిసత్వాన్ని గుర్తుతెచ్చే ప్రదేశంగా భావించి దాన్ని కూల్చి వేసారు.
12వ శతాబ్దంలో స్పెయిన్ ను మూర్ లు స్వాధీనం చేసుకున్నారు. అంతే కాకుండా అక్కడి ప్రజలను బలవంతంగా క్రైస్తవ మతం నుండి ఇస్లాం మతం కు మార్చారు. 16 వ శతాబ్దం లో క్రైస్తవులు మూర్స్ నుండి స్పెయిన్ ను తిరిగి స్వాధీనం చేసుకున్నప్పుడు వారు తమ దేశంలో ఉన్న ముస్లింలకు తిరిగి క్రైస్తవ మతాన్ని స్వీకరించడం, మూర్స్ తో పాటు దేశం విడిచి వెళ్లడం లేదా చావడం అనే మూడింటిలో ఏదో ఒకటి ఎంచుకొమ్మన్నారు. మసీదులన్నింటిని చర్చ్ లుగా మార్చివేశారు. ఈ పునః క్రైస్తవీకరణ కూడా బలవంతంగా జరిగింది.
అయోధ్య లో ప్రస్తుతం ఉన్న ఆలయం స్థానంలో భవ్యమైన దేవాలయం నిర్మించాల్సిన అవసరం ఏమిటి?
రామ జన్మభూమి ఉద్యమం కేవలం ఇటుకలు, సున్నానికి సంబంధించినది మాత్రమే కాదు. ఇది దేశం, సంస్కృతులకు తిరిగి గౌరవం సాధించడం. ప్రజలు తమ గొప్ప గతాన్ని గుర్తుచేసే దేవాలయాలు నుండి ప్రేరణ పొందుతారు. కాబట్టి ఈ ప్రదేశం లో సరైన, పూర్తి స్థాయి ఆలయం ఉన్నప్పుడు మాత్రమే ఇది సాధ్యపడుతుంది.
ఎస్సీ వర్గానికి చెందిన ఒక వ్యక్తి ఆలయ పునాది రాయి వెయ్యడం నిజమేనా?
అవును, బీహార్ కు చెందిన శ్రీ కామేశ్వర చౌహాల్ కు నవంబర్ 10 1989 నాడు రామజన్మభూమి ఆలయ పునాది రాయి వేసే గౌరవం దక్కింది. శ్రీ రామజన్మభూమి ఉద్యమపు అద్భుతమైన సమైక్యతా స్ఫూర్తికి, శక్తికి ఇది స్పష్టమైన సంకేతం.
రామమందిరం ఉండేదనడానికి ఆధారాలు.. తరువాయి భాగంలో
How Ayodhya Ram Mandir was demolished and how RJB movement evolved: A Timeline of events
Here is a s a brief timeline:
1528 AD – Mir Baki, the Commander-in-Chief of Babur destroys the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi Temple at Ayodhya
76 –the number of battles that have been fought from 1528 till 1934
Anatomy of these 76 battles fought by several generations of Hindus to reclaim the Shri Ram Janambhoomi temple
During Babur’s rein
- 1528 –1530 AD
- 4 battles were fought
During Humayun’s rein
- 1530 – 1556 AD
- 10 battles were fought
During Akbar’s rein
- 1556 –1606 AD
- 20 battles were fought
During Aurangzeb’s rein
- 1658—1707 AD
- 30 battles were fought
During Nawab SaadatAli’s rein
- 1770—1814 AD
- 5 battles were fought
During Naseeruddin Haider’s rein
- 1814 —1836 AD
- 3 battles were fought
During Wajid Ali Shah’s rein
- 1847 –1857 AD
- 2 battles were fought
During British regime
- 1912 till 1934 AD
- 2 battles were fought
So the Hindu Society fought a total of 76 battles till the year 1934.
Ram Janmabhoomi has been a people’s movement right since 1528 when Babur’s commander Mir Baki destroyed the temple. Every generation since 1528 has been fighting to claim the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple…and each generation did whatever they could to take the movement forward.
Right since 1528 Hindus have constantly surged ahead in their fight to secure the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site.
The year 1934
After a few Muslims slaughtered a cow in Ayodhya, a pitched battle ensued between the Hindus and Muslims…the butchers who had slaughtered the cow were decimated…..and subsequently the Hindu society attacked the Babari structure thereby damaging all its three domes and took possession of the Babari structure.
However, Britishers forcibly took back the Babari Structure from Hindu Society and imposed a penalty on Hindus to carry out repair work of the damaged domes.Since 1934 no Muslim has ever dared to enter the premises of Babari structure.
Is the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi a political movement?
No certainly not. For Hindus, a temple at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi is not an issue of mere bricks and mortar.It is an issue of our cultural resurgence and identity, where Shri Rama, as maryada purushottam, has a prime place of importance. The movement is an expression of the collective consciousness of the Hindu ethos.
In destroying the Babari structure, does it not mean that the present day Muslims are being asked to pay a price for the mistakes of those who indulged in vandalism and destruction?
The real issue is how the present day Muslims view the Babari structure. Do they consider it as their holy place? If the answer is yes, then they end up owning the barbarism of Babur and others like him. The right way for Muslims is to distance themselves away from such vandalism and barbarism of the past. When the Germans are asked to apologise for the crimes of Hitler, they do not hesitate to do so, clearly indicating that they do not own Nazism.
Hindus have asked for a peaceful return, through judiciary and negotiations, of only three of their holy sites (Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi) that were vandalised. Hindus are not asking for thousands of other temples that were plundered, looted, destroyed and mosques were built thereupon.
What has been the case with similar historically vandalised sites?
In 1918 in Warsaw, at the end of first Russian occupation of Poland (1614-1915), one of the first things that Polish people did was to bring down the Russian Orthodox Christian Cathedral that was built by Russians in the centre of the town. This was done despite the fact Poles are Christians by faith and Jesus Christ was worshipped in that Cathedral. The Poles demolished the Cathedral built by Russians because they viewed the Cathedral not as a place of worship rather a structure that reminded them of their slavery.
Around the 12th century, Spain was conquered by Moors and the people were forcibly converted from Christianity to Islam. In the 16th century, when Christians recovered the whole of Spain from Moors they gave Muslims in their country only three choices—reconvert to Christianity,leave the country along with the Moors, or be killed. All the Muslim places of worship were converted back to Christian churches. This re-Christianisation was also done with force.
Why do we need to have a grand temple at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi, in place of the existing functional temple?
The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement is not only about bricks and mortar, but as the one that will restore honour of the nation and its culture. People take great pride inand receive inspiration from temples which signify their glorious past. This can be done only when we have a proper and full-fledged temple at the site.
Is it true that the foundation stone for temple was laid by a person who belonged to the Vanchit Varg?
Yes, Shri Kameshwar Chaupal of Bihar had the honour of laying the foundation stone of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi temple on November 10, 1989. It is a clear sign of the immense unifying power of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement.
Archaeological evidence
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) after extensive excavations has established it beyond doubt that there did exist a grand temple at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site that was razed down to build Babari structure. The excavations done by ASI establish that the Janmabhoomi site was occupied prior to 7th century BC.
Literary Evidence
(a) Sanskrit Literature
(b) Books by Muslim writers, and
(c) Works and reports by foreign writers.
Sanskrit Literature
Several Sanskrit epics, Purans, Upanishads, poetries, and religious scriptures from the time of Maharishi Valmiki till modern days have numerous instances that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Shri Ram. There is also a detailed description about several holy places pertaining to Shri Ram in the AyodhyaMahatmya wherein the significance of Shri Ram Janmabhumi Mandir is narrated after mentioning the location of this Mandir.
Epics— Valmiki Ramayana, Ram Upakhyan of Mahabharat (Van Parva), Yog Vasisth, Adhyatma Ramayan, Raghuvamsh etc.
- Poetries:- Ramgeet-Govind, Geet Raghav, Ram Vilas, Ram Ashtak etc.
- Dramas:- Pratima, Abhishek, Uttar Ramcharit, Hanumannatak, Prasanna Raghav, Ramabhyudaya etc.
- Akhyan:- Bruhat Kathamanjari, Champu Ramayan, Katha Saritsar etc.
- Purans:- Vishnu, Brahmand, Vayu, Koorma, Padma, Skanda, Narad etc.
- Upanishads:- Ramottar Tapaniya, Ram Rahasya etc.
- Other Religious Scriptures:- Jaiminiya Ashwamedh, Hanumat Vijaya, Hanumat Sanhita, Bruhat Koushal Khand, etc.
Books by Muslim Writers
1. Sahifa-e-Chahal Nasa-ih-Bahaddur Shahi :
by the daughter of Alamgir, son of Bahadur Shah (End of 17th century and beginning of 18th century) The Masjids, which have been built on the basis of orders of Badashah (Ba Farman-e-Badashahi) are not permitted to hold Namaz prayers, nor to read the Khutba therein. The Hindus (Kufr) have lot of faith in the Hindu temples situated in Mathura, Benaras, Avadh etc. Like the birth place of Kanhaya, Sita Rasoi (kitchen), Hanuman Sthan, where he had sat in the proximity of Shri. Ramachandra on return after the Lanka victory. All these places were destroyed and Mosques were built on those spots only with a view to display the Islamic power. These Masjids have not been given the permission to hold Juma and Jamiyat (Namaj offered on Juma). But it was made mandatory not to worship any idols in them nor should any sound of conch shells be allowed to fall on the Muslim ears…
2. Hadika-e-Shahda
by Mirzha Jan – 1856 Mirza Jan, who claims that he has studied various ancient sources indepth, asserts in his statements that the earlier Sultans did encourage the propagation and glorification of Islam and trampled the non-believers (Kufr) i.e. Hindu forces. Thus they redeemed Faizabad and Avadh of this mean tradition (Kufr) …… This (Avadh) was a very big center of worship and the capital city of the kingdom of Ram’s father. There was a majestic temple on the spot a huge Musjid was constructed there and a small canopy Mosque (Kanati Masjid) on the spot, where there was a small Mandap. The Janmasthan temple was the original birthplace (Maskat) of Ram. Adjacent to it, there is the Sita Rasoi. ……Sita is the name of Ram’s wife. Hence Badashah Babar constructed a tall (Sarbuland) Masjid on that spot under the guidance of Moosa Ashikan. The same Mosque is known as Sita Rasoi till today.
3. Fasana-e-Ibrat:
by Mirza Rajab Ali Baig Sarur During the regime of Badashah Babur, a grand Mosque was constructed on the site pertaining to Sita Rasoi in Avadh. This was the Babari Masjid. Since the Hindus were not strong enough to oppose, the Masjid was constructed under the guidance of Sayyad Mir Ashikan…..
4. Gumgasht-e-Halat-e-Ayodhya Avadh :
by Moulavi Abdul Karim (Imam of Babari Musjid) – 1885 While giving details of the Dargah of Hazrat Shah Jamal Gojjari, the author writes that there is Mahalla Akbarpur on the east of this Dargah, whose other name is Kot Raja Ramachandra. There were some Burz (Large cells with domes) in this Kot. There was the house of birth (Makan Paidaish) of the above-mentioned Raja (King) and the Rasoi (Kitchen); besides, the western Burz, and this premise is presently known as Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita. After demolishing and wiping out these houses (i.e. Janmasthan and Sita Rasoi), Badashah Babar constructed a grand (Ajim) Masjid on that spot.
5. Tarikh-e-Avadh: by Allama Mohammed Nazamul Ghani Khan Rampuri – 1909
Babar constructed a grand Mosque under the protection of Sayyad Ashikan on the very same spot where once stood the temple of Janmasthan of Ramachandra in Ayodhya. Just adjacent to it stood the Sita Rasoi the date of the Mosque's construction is Khair Banki (Al Hizri 923). Till today this is known as Sita Rasoi. That temple stands just beside this…..
The names of the books written by some other Muslim authors that have quotations confirming the construction of the Masjid after destroying the temple are as follows:-
- * Zia-e-Akhtar: by Haji Mohammed Hassan – 1878
- * Kesar-ul-Tawarikh or Tawarikh-e-Avadh Vol.II: by Kamaluddin Hyder Hussain Al Hussain Al Mashahadi.
- * Asrar-e-Haqiqat: by Lachhami Narayan Sadr Kanongo Assistant of munshi Moulavi Hashami
- * Hindostan Islami Ahad : by Moulana Hakim Sayid Abdul Hai – 1972
Works and Reports by foreign authors
1. History and Geography of India:
by Joseph Typhentheller – 1785 Babur constructed a Masjid after demolishing the Ram Janmsthan temple…and using its pillars. Hindus refused to give up the place and they continueto come to that place in spite of the efforts by Mughals to prevent them from coming there. That they constructed a platform called Ram Chabutara in the compound of the Masjid. They circumambulate it for three times and prostrate flat on the ground before it. They were following this devotional conduct at Ram Chabutara and inside the Masjid also.
2. Gazetteers of the Province of Oundh – 1877:
This confirms that the Mughals had destroyed three important Hindu temples and constructed Masjids in those places. Babar built Babari Masjid on Ramajanmbhumi in 1528
3. Faizabad Settlement Report – 1880
This report confirms the fact that Babar got constructed the Babari Masjid in 1528 on the place of Janmasthan temple that marks the birthplace of Ram.
4. The Court Decision:
by Judge Colonel F. E. A. Chaimier While reading out his decision on the Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1885 after personally inspecting the site of the Babari Masjid, the district judge had said, “It is most unfortunate to have built a Mosque on the land, which has been considered as holy, especially by the Hindus. But the time of finding a solution for this complaint has lapsed. Because this event has taken place 356 years ago.”
5. Indian Archaeological Survey Report:
by A. Fuhrer – 1891 Fuhrer accepts that Mir Khan had built the Babari Mosque on the same place of Ram Janmabhumi by using several of its pillars. He has further confirmed that Aurangzeb had similarly constructed two other Mosques at Swarg Dwar and Treta Thakur Mandir in Ayodhya.
6. Barabanki District Gazetteers:
by H.R. Nevil – 1902— Nevil states that a number of conflicts arose between Hindu priests of Ayodhya and the Muslims from time to time about the piece of land, where upon once stood the Junmasthan temple, which was destroyed by Babar and a Mosque was constructed on that place.
7. Encyclopaedia Britannica,
15th edition Vol. I – 1978:- There is a mention of construction a Mosque by Babar in place of a temple that existed on the birthplace of Ram prior to 1528 AD. A photograph of the existing structure is also given in this Encyclopaedia, which has been referred to as a Mosque constructed on the birthplace of Ram in Ayodhya of Uttar Pradesh state in India. Similar information was furnished in its earlier editions as well.
Other books
8. Travel Report : by William Finch – 1608-11
9. Historical Sketch of Faizabad ; by P. Carnegy – 1870
10. Imperial Gazeteer of Faizabad – 1881
11. Babar Nama (English) : by Enete Beberis – 1920
12. Archeological Survey of India – 1934
13. Ayodhya ; by Hans Becker – 1984
14. Ram Janmbhumi V/s Babary Musjid : by Coenrad Elst – 1990
Examination of the evidence submitted by the All India Babari Masjid Action Committee
None of the documents submitted by them have any evidentiary value and are merely opinions of people with political inclinations.There is no testimony that could show that Babur or any other Muslim Chieftain saw a vacant plot of land in Ayodhya and thereupon ordered the construction of a Masjid there.
Efforts to posit Buddhism against Shri Ram do not hold ground. The fable of Shri Ram finds a place in Buddhist Akhyanas. It has been very proudly said in the Buddhist sources that Buddha belonged to the Ikshwaku clan as Shri Ram did. They have tried to question the historicity of Ramayana by asserting that there are many versions of Ramayana. Yet again this does not hold ground. There are two different stories about the creation in the Bible. Two different genealogies are given about Jesus. In fact, every story of Jesus’s life is given by authors differently in various Gospels. But no serious intellectual concludes from this that Jesus was never born.
Three Judges of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court
- Justice Dharam Veer Sharma
- Justice Sudhir Agrawal
- Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan
Date of Judgement: September 30, 2010
- * The total area is approximately 1,480 square yards or 13,320 square feet.
- * Two of the three judges have ordered for allotment of 1/3rd area to each of the three main Plaintiffs (complainants) respectively—Nirmohi Akhara, Muslims, and Ramallah Virajman. The court has dismissed the suit of the Sunni Waqf Board.
- * The Government of India had acquired about 70 acres of land surrounding the disputed premises. This land is other than the disputed area and is in the possession of the government of India.
- * Although the suits were heard by a three-judge special bench of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, yet the three judges wrote and delivered their judgments separately since this court was functioning like a trial court.
- 1. Excerpts from Verbatim Gist of the findings by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma
- 2. The disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram. The place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of the divine worshipped in birth place of Lord Rama as a child. The Spirit of the 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 also.
- 3. 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.
- 4. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of the old structure after the demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
- 5. It is established that the property in the suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols, and other objects of worship existing upon the property in the suit.
It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place 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 was proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23-12-1949 (December 22/23, 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.
Excerpts from the Verbatim Gist of the findings by Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan
- It is not proved by direct evidence that the premises in dispute including the constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.
- Excerpts from the Verbatim Gist of the findings by Justice Sudhir Agarwal
- The area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama as per the faith and belief of Hindus.
What kind of evidence did the three-judge Bench go through before they gave out their verdict?
The Judges took into account evidence from Muslim scriptures, the Muslim Waqf Act, Hindu scriptures, Skanda Puran, Historical accounts written by Muslim historians, the Diary of a French Jesuit Priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, Gazetteers and books written by British officials and historians, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Carved stone blocks and inscription found from the debris of the structure, report of the Ground Penetrating Radar Survey (GPRS), report of the GPRS-inspired excavations conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and oral cross-examinations and statements of approximately 85 witnesses.
Why did Ramlala win?
A Praan-Pratishthit Vigraha (deity) is a living entity that can fight its own case and is a juridical person. But being a perpetual minor the Praan-Pratishthit Vigrahathereforeneeds a guardian to fight its legal battles. Late Shri Deoki Nandan Agrawal, a retired judge of Allahabad High Court had filed Sri Ramlala’s case as the deity’s Next Friend. According to Hindu scriptures and the Present Law the deity can hold the property, nobody can have adverse possession over it.
Further, the place Janmasthan of Bhagwan Shri Ram is not merely a property but being sacred the place itself is a deity and is worshipped. It can also fight its own case as Plaintiff (complainant). This provision in the Hindu scriptures has been there since time immemorial and the Courts of Law always accepted these accreditations.
Why was the case of the Sunni Waqf Board Dismissed?
The Muslim Scriptures and Law lay down that no Wakf can be created on another’s property (the Deity’s seat, the Deity’s Home, or the Temple) and Namaz offered in a Mosque thus erected is not accepted by Allah. In the eyes of the law, therefore, the three-domed structure did not exist.
Neither Babur nor his commander-in-chief Mir Baki were the owners of the disputed site so it could not be offered to Allah. Further, even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that Muslims were in occupation of this site since 1528, then also it was never continuous, uninterrupted, and peaceful. Long occupation does not endow ownership rights. Moreover, the Waqf Board had to divulge as to whose property Babur occupied and whether he did it with the knowledge of the true owner. Also, it is the view of the Supreme Court that ‘Mosque’ is not an essential part of Islam, Namaz can be offered anywhere, even in an open ground. The Waqf Board was neither considered by the Court of Law to be the owner of the disputed land nor was the structure in question accepted to be a valid mosque according to Islam. So Suit No. 4 filed by Sunni Waqf Board was dismissed by the Court declaring it time barred.
Justice Sudhir Agrawal on some of the issues framed in the Suit of Sunni Waqf Board as Plaintiff (Complainant)
1. Whether the building (the three-domed Babari structure) had been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same?
Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s Answer:– Affirmative, Yes.
2. Whether the building (the three-domed Babari structure) had been used by the members of the Muslim community for offering prayers from time immemorial?
Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s Answer:–The building in question (the three-domed Babari structure) was not exclusively used by the members of the Muslim community. After 1856-57, the outer courtyard was exclusively used by Hindus, and the inner courtyard was visited for the purpose of worship by the members of both communities (Hindus and Muslims).
3. Whether the plaintiff (Sunni Waqf Board) were in possession of the property in suit up to 1949 and was dispossessed from the same in 1949?
Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s Answer:— Negative – Against the Sunni Waqf Board.
4. Whether the plaintiffs (Sunni Waqf Board) have perfected their rights by adverse possession as alleged in the plaint (complaint)?
Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s Answer:– Negative, against the plaintiffs (Sunni Waqf Board) and Muslims in general.
5. Is the property in suit of the site of Janma Bhumi of Shri Ramchandraji?
Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s Answer:– It is held that the place of birth as believed and worshipped by Hindus is the area covered under the central dome of the three-domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure in the inner courtyard in the premises of dispute.
6. Whether the Hindus in general and defendants, in particular, had the right to worship the Charans and Sita Rasoi and other idols and other objects of worship, if any, existing in or upon the property in suit?
Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s Answer:– Affirmative, Yes.
7. Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri Ram Janam Bhumi or Janmasthan and have been visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times immemorial?
Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s Answer:–Affirmative, Yes.
8. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit from 1528 A.D. continuously, openly, and to the knowledge of the Defendants and Hindus in general?
Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s Answer:–Answered in Negative, against the plaintiff (Sunni Waqf Board) and Muslims in general.
9. Whether the building (the three-domed Babari structure) was landlocked and could not be reached except by passing through places of Hindu worship?
- Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s Answer:–Yes, to the extent that building was landlocked and could not be reached except of passing through the passage of Hindu worship.
- Justice Dharam Veer Sharma on some of the issues framed in suit of Sunni Waqf Board (Plaintiff or complainant)
1. Whether the building in question described as mosque in the attached map was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiff (Sunni Waqf Board)
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma’s Answer:– Decided against the Plaintiff (Sunni Waqf Board)
2. Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same?
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma’s Answer:–Decided in favour of defendants (the Hindu society in general) and against the plaintiff (Sunni Waqf Board) on the basis of ASI report.
3. Whether the building had been used by the members of the Muslim community for offering prayers from time immemorial?
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma’s Answer:–Decided against the Plaintiff (Sunni Waqf Board)
4. Whether the plaintiff (Sunni Waqf Board) were in possession of the property in suit up to 1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949?
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma’s Answer:– Decided against the Plaintiff (Sunni Waqf Board)
5. Whether the plaintiffs (Sunni Waqf Board) have perfected their rights by adverse possession as alleged in the plaint (complaint)?
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma’s Answer:– Decided against the Plaintiff (Sunni Waqf Board)
6. Is the property in suit of the site of Janm Bhumi of Sri Ramchandraji?
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma’s Answer:– Decided against the Plaintiff (Sunni Waqf Board) (and in favor of Hindu society in general)
7. Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri Ram Janm Bhumi or Janmasthan and have been visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times immemorial?
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma’s Answer:– Decided against the Plaintiffs (Sunni Waqf Board) (and in favor of Hindu society in general)
8. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit from 1528 A.D. continuously, openly, and to the knowledge of the Defendants and Hindus in general?
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma’s Answer:– Decided against the Plaintiff (Sunni Waqf Board).
9. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs, or any of them, entitled?
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma’s Answer:– Plaintiffs (Sunni Waqf Board) are not entitled to any relief. The suit is dismissed with easy costs.
10. Whether the building is landlocked and cannot be reached except by passing through places of Hindu worship?
- Justice Dharam Veer Sharma’s Answer:– Decided against the Plaintiffs (Sunni Waqf Board) and in favor of the defendants (the Hindu society in general).
- Justice Sudhir Agarwal on some of the issues framed in the Suit of Ramlala Virajman (Plaintiff No. 1) and Asthan Ram Janm Bhumi (Plaintiff No. 2) and Next Friend (Plaintiff No. 3)
1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 & 2 (Ramlala Virajman & Asthan Ram Janm Bhumi) are juridical persons?
Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s Answer:–Plaintiffs 1 & 2 both are juridical persons.
2. Whether the idol in question was installed under the central dome of the disputed building in the early hours of December 23rd, 1949 as alleged by the plaintiff:
Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s Answer:–Affirmative. The idols were installed under the central dome of the disputed building in the early hours of 23rd December 1949.
3. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid erected after the demolition of Janmasthan Temple at its site?
- Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s Answer:– Affirmative (Yes).
- Justice Dharam Veer Sharma on some of the issues framed in a suit of Ramlala Virajman (Plaintiff no. 1), Asthan Ram Janm Bhumi (Plaintiff no. 2), and Next Friend (Plaintiff no. 3)
1. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babari Masjid erected after the demolition of Janmasthan Temple at its site?
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma’s Answer:–Decided against Sunni Waqf Board and in favor of the plaintiffs. (So in general, Justice Sharma decreed that the disputed Babari structure was indeed built after demolishing the Shri Ram Janmasthan temple).
Courtesy: K Bharat on Wednesday, April 19th, 2017 at TheIndianVoice (http://theindianvoice.com/how-ram-mandir-demolished/)
Source: www.arisebharat.com Courtesy : VskTeam
