Ayodhya Verdict

Marxist Historians' Fictitious Critique - I

By Raman Nanda

Marxist historians' critique of the Ayodhya verdict is remarkable for the eminence of
the critics and reliance on brazen lies about the verdict itself. It exposes  fault lines of
the secularist discourse; it also raises concerns  about intellectual probity and
writing of history itself.

(The author is a freelance journalist, email: raman_media@yahoo.co.in)

Historians’ critique -- widely endorsed by mainstream media -- relies on inventive

assumptions: the verdict “ignored” evidence and relied on “Hindu beliefs”. [1]

The Allahabad High Court, while unanimously pronouncing that Babri Mosque was
built over temple(s), rejected historians’ narrative ruling out ‘Ram temple or any
temple”. [2] Relying on Prof. D.N.Jha and others work, Muslim parties pleaded that
Babri Masjid was built in 1528 on virgin land. [3] This argument collapsed.
Excavations showed that Babri Mosque was built atop a previous structure, which
was conceded by archaeologists of Muslim parties. Archaeological Survey of India
said this structure, dated to 10th -12th century, had “distinctive features associated with
temples of north India”. Professors Irfan Habib and Suraj Bhan came up with a new
theory: the excavated structure could be a Sultanate period one-wall Kanati mosque or
a roofless Idgah, presence of animal bones and use of surkhi-lime established
exclusive Muslim presence. Muslim parties, significantly, did not plead this theory.
Historians’ critique reiterates these formulations: the one that was conceded and
another that was not even pleaded!

They alleged that Justices Sudhir Aggarwal and Dharam Veer Sharma’s inference of a
Hindu temple (a) “takes no account of presence of animal bones and use of ‘surkhi’
and lime mortar” which are “characteristic of Muslim presence”; (b) relies on
“manifestly fraudulent” inferences about “debated” pillar bases and  (c) with “no
proof” accepts Hindu “belief”. Historians also alleged that the verdict converted
Hindu “belief” into an argument for property entitlement. Each of these allegations is
baseless.

Prof Romila Thapar heads the list of “impartial” critics which includes several
historians and archaeologists who deposed on behalf of pro-mosque parties.[4]

Animal Bones a ‘decisive’ evidence?

Historians have alleged that finding of animal bones -- “decisive evidence” that
established Muslim presence and ruled out a temple -- was ignored by the verdict.
Whereas, the verdict examines this evidence in abundant detail. The verdict cites
Muslim parties’ contention that animal bones were found in “NBP, Gupta, post
Gupta, Early Medieval, Medieval and Mughal levels”; that “bone fragments with cut
marks are a sure sign of animals being eaten at the site and, therefore, rule out the
possibility of a temple existing at the site at relevant time”; that “animal sacrifice has
not been claimed for any Ram temple” and that ASI did not get bones examined
scientifically, hence its report was tainted.[5]

Muslim parties’ claims were contradicted by their own archaeologists. Prof. Suraj
Bhan and Dr. Jaya Menon deposed that animals were sacrificed in certain temples. Dr.
R.C.Thakaran said he had read excavation reports on temple sites where animal bones
had been found though, in those cases, there was no dispute about Idgah/mosque.[6]
Dr. Supriya Verma said “bones are not associated with any particular community”
and “tell us about the food habits of the society”

Justice Aggarwal observed that examination of animal bones – reported from fills
brought from neighbouring areas to level the ground – will throw light “only about the
area of their origin”, they will have “no bearing on the nature of the layers of the
excavated site”, hence objections against ASIs inference on grounds of animal bones
had “no substance”. Further,  

“it is not the case of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) or other witnesses that bones in such
abundance could have been found in Islamic religious place i.e. Mosque, Idgah etc.
The Islamic scriptures clearly show place of worship cannot be used for residence
purpose or for eating, sleeping etc. It is prohibited.” [7] 

Justice Sharma observed:

“Bones have been found in and from the layer of the Gupta period when Islam had not
come into existence from which fact it is crystal clear that the user of the flesh of
those creatures if any were not the Muslims”. He further said, Lord Ram himself used
to hunt; saints, cows, parrots etc. attached to a temple are buried in temple compound,
hence bones can be found at a Hindu Shrine, but not at a mosque site, for,  “building
mosque over bones is strictly prohibited.” [8] 

The judge also cited a Supreme Court verdict:

“In Rg. Vedic times goats, sheep, cows, buffaloes and even horses were slaughtered
for food and for religious sacrifice and their flesh used to be offered to the Gods.” [9]
Justice Aggarwal concurred: partaking animal flesh as prasad and depositing bones
below the floor of temples where animal sacrifice was practiced was well known. [10]

Relying on a precedent[11] that documents collected incidentally during execution of a

ministerial task do not constitute evidence Justice Sharma observed:

“ASI excavation team was not appointed to collect the bones from the different strata
and get those bones chemically examined. ASI excavation team has collected bones
and made inventory thereof which was not necessary for drawing the conclusion that
whether there was any existing structure prior to 16th century or not. As such
challenge to the ASI report on this superficial ground is liable to be rejected.”[12]

Historians’ allegation – animal bones ignored – is baseless; their claim that animal
bones ruled out a Hindu temple is contrary to the deposition of their archaeologist co-
signatories as also living tradition of animal sacrifice in several temples to celebrate
Lord Ram’s return to Ayodhya.[13] 
The ‘Islamic’ Surkhi-lime

Historians’ allegations that the court ignored surkhi and lime mortar are baseless, and,
misdirected.  Muslim parties contended that use of surkhi-lime mortar was a
distinctive feature of Islamic construction and “no single example is offered by the
ASI of any temple of pre-Mughal times having such a lime-surakhi floor”.[14] The
Hindu parties’ countered: Lime-surkhi was used in temples from pre-Mogul, indeed
pre-Islamic times. Pre-6th century construction at the disputed site itself used surkhi-
lime, brick temple of Gupta period in Bhitari (Gazipur, UP) used sand and lime in 6:1
ratio, 10th century A.D. Lingaraj temple at Bhubhaneshwar used lime plaster with 3:1
lime-silica ratio.[15] They also cited Marxist historian Prof. R.S.Sharma’s work
according to which in Basti and Mathura “flooring was made of brick concrete mixed
with lime” which “indicates the use of Surkhi” during “early centuries of Christian
era”. [16]  Pro-mosque experts conceded use of lime mortar in India from pre-Islamic
times. Prof. D. Mandal said:

“Lime mortar was definitely used from Neolithic period." [17] 

Prof. Suraj Bhan concurred:

“lime mortar was found to have been used in the 3rd century AD during the Kushana
period in Takshshila and Pakistan, but its use was very limited.”[18]

“Whether lime mortar or lime plaster was from a particular period or not”, Justice
Aggarwal observed, was a “subsidiary” question since the “experts of the
objectionists parties” had admitted that the disputed structure was not built on
unoccupied land and that there existed a previous structure whose walls and
foundations were used by the disputed structure. [19] Besides, the judge observed,
evidence on Kanati Mosque-Idgah theory – since it had not been pleaded before the
court -- was impermissible in law.

Thus, the allegation that the court took “no account of” arguments about surkhi and
lime mortar, besides being incorrect, is also misdirected.

Faulting Judges for ‘ignoring’ Idgah that wasn’t pleaded

 The manner in which Professors Irfan Habib and Suraj Bhan propounded the hitherto
unheard of Kanati Mosque – Idgah theory betrays their attitude to history. As Prof.
Suraj Bhan told the court:

“I and Prof.  Habib had given this statement that remains of old mosque or Eidgah had
been found beneath the disputed site and not of any temple. If this propaganda that
remains of temple were found at the disputed site, had not taken place, there would
have been no occasion for me and Prof. Irfan Habib to give the above statement.” 

A new theory concerning a sensitive temple-mosque dispute declared to the nation to

counter media reports! Prof. Suraj Bhan conceded that he challenged ASI’s report
“based on my knowledge existing prior to the submission of ASI’s report in court.”
That Prof. Suraj Bhan challenged ASIs report without reading it did not go down well
with the court. Justice Aggarwal, referring to Prof. Suraj Bhan’s allegations of bias
and lack of professionalism in ASIs report, noted:

“We find on the contrary, predetermined attitude of the witness against ASI which he
has admitted.” (Justice Aggarwal, Para 3826)

Deposition on this theory evidently led to an odd situation. Amidst opposition by

Hindu parties to evidence on it, Dr. Jaya Menon said:

“It was Dr. Supriya Varma and myself, who, for the first time, said that there was an
Idgah under the disputed structure. I did not know that the plaintiffs of OOS no. 4 of
1989 had not claimed any Idgah under the disputed structure."[20] 

 Justice Aggarwal recorded:

“Normally, it does not happen but we are surprised to see in the zeal of helping their
clients or the parties in whose favour they were appearing, these witnesses went ahead
than what was not even the case of the party concerned and wrote totally a new story.
Evidence in support of a fact which has never been pleaded and was not the case of
the party concerned is impermissible in law.” (para 3986).

Historians’ critique impliedly – and Prof. Irfan Habib, in his writings, explicitly –
have assailed the verdict for “ignoring” Idgah-Kanati Mosque theory. Doesn’t matter
that it was not even pleaded by the Muslim parties! None of the judges gave any
finding on it. Historians’ allegation that the court – or rather two judges – “ignored”
evidence about Idgah is misdirected and bizarre, to say the least.

Wishing away Pillar Bases

Contrary to historians’ allegations, their professorial archaeologist co-signatories

affirmed the integrity of excavations and conceded pillar bases. "In my presence,
nothing took place such as the said archaeologists building something secretly or
forcibly, Prof. D. Mandal told the court.[21] Prof. Suraj Bhan concurred:

“The ASI Report had a feature not amenable to criticism. It was that they (the
excavators) have discovered many walls and floors and some pillar bases beneath the
Babri mosque, and all these constitute evidence.” [22]  

Dr. Supriya Verma said pillar bases that form “part of the Z series of trenches are
acceptable to me” [23], Dr Jaya Menon, on being shown Plate no. 36, 37, 38 of the
ASI report said “all these photographs are insitu photographs of pillar bases”.[24]

Pillars hardly needed to be found. Fourteen kasauti pillars, with engravings of Hindu
Gods and Goddesses, were used in Babri Mosque itself, they are detailed in narratives
from late 18th century onwards, their pictures were on record and are available online
in annexures to the verdict. Some pillars and their fragments were also found. As Dr.
Jaya Menon acknowledged: “The motif of Ghat (pot) is visible on this pillar…”[25]

The “debate”, if any, related to only four of the fify pillar bases excavated by ASI.[26]
Justice Aggarwal, while not agreeing with allegations about creation of pillar bases,
observed

“even if, for a moment, we assume” that the experts thought pillar bases in trenches
G-2 and F-6 were created, “that will not be sufficient to belie and also cannot explain
several other pillar bases found by ASI whereagainst no such complaint is there.”
(Justice Aggarwal, para 3895)
Historians have chosen to orchestrate disproven – and rather dubious -- allegations of
two of their archaeologist co-signatories.  Dr. Supriya Verma and Dr. Jaya Menon
alleged – on the basis of “close observation” – creation of pillar bases in trenches G2,
ZF1, F3 and F6. On examining site records, the court found that the experts were not
even  present at the site on the days pillar bases were discovered in these trenches. Dr.
Supriya Verma admitted:

“I do not know as to when the trenches referred in para 3 of objections dated 7th June,
2003 were excavated, since I was not present at the time of excavation of above
referred trenches”.[27] 

Justice Aggarwal also noted a pattern: allegations about creation of pillar bases mostly
related to trenches where GPR survey had reported anomalies and there was a
likelihood of finding pillar bases.

“It can easily be appreciated that the mind of two experts instead (of) working for the
assistance of the Court in finding a truth, tried to create a background alibi so that
later on the same may be utilized to attack the very findings.”[28]  

The experts did precisely that. [29]

  Converting possession into ‘belief’

Historians’ have, rather mischievously, argued that the verdict offered “no proof” of
antiquity of “Hindu belief” in Lord Ram’s birth-site being the disputed site.  The
relevant issue, as framed by the court, was: “Have the Hindus been worshipping the
place in dispute as Sri Ram Janam Bhumi or Janam Asthan and have been visiting it
as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times immemorial?”[30] This,
obviously, was an issue of evidence, not belief per se.

Evidence on Ayodhya, and indeed Lord Ram’s birthplace, as a pilgrimage pre-dated

Babar’s arrival in India. Such evidence included Sikh religious records on Guru
Nanak visiting Ayodhya in 1510-11, bathing in Saryu river and having darshan of
Lord Ram (i.e. Ram’s idol). [31] The tradition of pilgrimage, judges note, continued
despite demolition of the temple and construction of a mosque at the site:
* Excavation of a 10th-12th structure with distinct temple features at the site and
discovery of a ‘Vishnu Hari Temple’ inscription, authentically dated to that period,
discovered at the site. [32]

* William Finch, in India from 1608-11, mentions reverence for Lord Ram’s
birthplace in ruins of his ‘castle and houses’,  presence of Brahmins and practices
associated with major Hindu pilgrimages: Brahmins recording names of visitors who
bathe in river Saryu. This custom, Finch records, was said to be continuing for four
lac years.[33] (Finch, judges note, makes no mention of mosque)

* Austrian Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, sometime during 1766-71, observed

Hindus worshiping at the ‘three-domed Mohamadden temple".

“On the left is seen a square chest, raised, five inches from the ground covered with
lime… The Hindoos call it Bedi, the cradle; and the reason is, that there formerly
stood here the house in which Beshan (Vishnoo) was born in the form of Ram …They
still pay a superstitious reverence to both these places; namely, to that on which the
natal dwelling of Ram stood, by going three times round it, prostrate on the earth.”[34]
(This account, Justice Aggarwal notes, is the earliest mention of a mosque at the site)

*Tiefenthaler also wrote:

“On the 24th of the month Tshet (Choitru), a large concourse of people celebrate here
the birth-day of Ram, so famous throughout India.”

*Gazetteer of India -- published in 1854, republished in 1858 – says: a ‘quadrangular

coffer of stone’, pointed out as “the cradle in which Ram was born” is “accordingly
abundantly honoured by the pilgrimages and devotions of the Hindoos.”[35]

* P. Carnegy, Commissioner, Oudh, wrote: “Hindus and Mahomedans alike used to

worship in the mosque-temple” upto 1855 when violent clashes occurred. British rule
put up a railing “within which in the mosque the Mahomedans pray, while outside the
fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings”, Carnegy
wrote in his report in 1870. [36] (This is the earliest reference cited by Muslim parties
on namaz being offered at the site, Justice Aggarwal notes.)
*Disregarding the Iron-grilled partition put up in 1856-57, Hindus and Sikhs installed
the ‘nishan’ of Lord Ram and were performing puja inside the mosque, Mohammad
Asgar, alleged keeper of the mosque, said in his complaint dated 30th November,
1858. The complainant wanted the ‘nishan’ and those praying inside the mosque to be
removed. Judges note that there is no evidence of any eviction having taken place. [37]

*From 1856 to 1934 too there is evidence of Hindus worshipping in the inner
courtyard. Further, there is “no evidence on record” suggesting any restriction on
praying inside the building. “It was the admitted case of Muslim parties and their
witnesses that the doors of the iron grilled dividing wall were never locked until
December 22, 1949”, Justice Aggarwal observed.[38]  Interestingly whereas Justice
Aggarwal observed that from 1855 till 1934 there is “no evidence whatsoever that
Namaz was actually offered in the inner courtyard”, Justice Khan concluded that “till
1934 Muslims were offering regular prayers”.  

* Post-1934 riots till 1949, Hindus were worshiping in the inner courtyard on a
regular basis, Muslims were offering namaz “only on Fridays”, Justices Sudhir
Aggarwal and S.U. Khan inferred. [39]

Yet, historians claim that the verdict offers ‘no proof’ of antiquity of Hindu ‘belief’!
Lest the word ‘proof’ cause any confusion, the verdict cites Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act, which says:

"A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it the Court
either believes to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition
with its existence." (emphasis ours) 

Evidence cited by the verdict, as is obvious to any prudent person, more than
adequately measures up to legal test. 

Flawed assumptions about law

Marxist Historians then proceed into the legal terrain on erroneous assumptions about
the facts of the verdict as also law. They voice concern that “such belief” was
“converted” into an argument for property entitlement.  Firstly, the court did not go
merely by “belief”; it went by evidence of possession/use of place for worship.
Secondly, it did not go by evidence of possession by Hindus alone, but by both
communities. Thirdly, possession is an eminently valid legal argument in a suit for
title. The bench unanimously inferred that none of the litigants could prove their title,
the property was ‘nazul’, i.e. government property, and, since the state did not stake
its claim the court went by well established principle, ‘possession follows title’.
Justices Sudhir Aggarwal and S.U.Khan’s majority verdict – on evidence of
possession – ordered a three-way division.  Outer courtyard was undisputedly in
possession of Nirmohi Akhara; in the inner courtyard, including the building, Hindus
and Muslims had been praying. The court’s order that the area worshiped as Lord
Ram’s birth-site[40] under the central dome be included in the 1/3rd share of Hindus is
consistent with Supreme Court verdict which held:

"Places of worship of any religion having particular significance for the religion stand
on a different footing and have to be treated differently and more reverentially".[41]

Incidentally, the Supreme Court judgment – delivered on an appeal in connection with

this very case – was relied upon by all the three judges.  One is at a loss to figure out
which aspect of three-way division is contrary to evidence, law or “secular values”.

Historians’ allegation that the verdict -- which is on a civil suit -- gave “legitimation”
to demolition of  Babri Mosque in 1992 and did not affix liability for the demolition is
wide off the mark for that was beyond the scope of the civil suit.

Let’s also briefly look at the larger picture from the standpoint of “Hindu values”,
wherein, desecration or demolition of places of worship is abhorred. It can well be
argued that the judges unanimously held that Babri Mosque was built over temple(s)
with two judges categorically ruling that a Hindu temple had been demolished to
build the mosque. The bench also unanimously held that Hindus have been
continuously praying at the site. The judges who inferred that Muslims too prayed at
the site observed that they did so intermittently. Pro-temple lawyers argued that the
Hindu temple was usurped by Muslims and used for prayers on the strength of
Mughal/British rule. From the standpoint of equity – and secular respect for all
communities right to their places of worship – the inference should be obvious. A
speculation: What if the Supreme Court decides that the site legitimately belongs to
the Hindus? Would that, then, be a blow to “secular values”? Or a recognition of
rights of all religions to their places of worship consistent with secular values? 

(To be continued)

Joint statement by 45-odd intellectuals including historians Romila Thapar, Irfan

[1]
Habib, D.N.Jha, K.N. Panikkar K.M. Shrimali and Arjun Dev, published in several
newspapers.

[2]Justices Sudhir Aggarwal and Dharam Veer Sharma inferred that a Hindu temple
was demolished to build Babri Mosque, Justice S.U.Khan inferred that the structure
beneath the mosque was a temple, but could “also” be a Buddhist temple and that this
structure was not demolished.

[3] D.N.Jha, Suraj Bhan, R.S.Sharma and Athar Ali’s  booklet, ‘A Historians Report to the Nation’ in
1991was, as the verdict records, “heavily relied upon” by Muslim parties. The authors claimed: “1. No
evidence exists in the texts that before the 16th century (and indeed before the 18th century), any
veneration attached to any spot in Ayodhya for being the birth-site of Rama. 2.There are no grounds for
supposing that a Rama temple, or any temple, existed at the site where Baburi Masjid was built in
1528-29.”

[4]The critics who deposed before the court are: historians Suvira Jaiswal and Shireen
Moosvi and arhcaeologists Prof. Suraj Bhan, Prof. D.Mandal, Dr. Supriya Verma, Dr.
Jaya Menon, Dr. R.C.Thakran, Dr. Ashok Dutta and Dr. Sita Ram Rao.

[5]  Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3960

[6] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3969.

[7]  Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3968

[8] Justice Dharam Veer Sharma’s verdict Pg 82-83

[9] Supreme Court verdict in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar AIR 1958 cited in Justice
Sharma’s verdict on Pg 82-83

[10] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3969-70

[11]Jagat Bhai Punja Bhai Palkhiwala & Ors. v. Vikram Bhai Punja Bhai
Palkhiwala & Ors, Gujarat, 1985.

[12] Justice Sharma’s verdict, Page 50;

[13] Animal sacrifice in temples on Diwali continues to be  reported from Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan
and Tripura. During four-day celebrations, cattle, goat and sheep are sacrificed in temples amidst
singing of mantras in Ani and Nirmand (Kullu district), Shillai (Sirmaur) and Chopal (Shimla) district
in Himachal Pradesh where this festival, interestingly, commences on the dark ‘Amavasya’ night, a
month after Diwali in the rest of India; news of Ram’s return to Ayodhya, according to folklore,
reached here later (Deccan Herald, December 4, 2011) . Animal sacrifice in connection with Diwali
continues in Udaipur in South Tripura, where buffaloes, goats and pigeons are sacrificed at night in the
presence of thousands of devotees at Tripura Sundari Temple

 (Hindustan Times, Oct 17, 2009), this practice continues in Kartarpur near Jaipur,
Rajasthan (The Hindu, Nov 1, 2010). Sacrifice of animals in temples and public
places during ‘Ayudha Puja’ continued till recently in Karnataka, where it was banned
in 2007 (The Hindu,Oct 19, 2007)

[14] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3991, 4.5 and also in Annexure 3, Pg 56

[15]"Town planning,building and building materials" by H.C.Bhardwaj, cited in

Justice Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3991, X-XV

[16] Perspectives in Social and Economic History of Early India by R S Sharma, Pg 181, cited in
Justice Aggarwal’s verdict,  Para 3991, IX

[17]Prof. D. Mandal deposed: “I agree with the observation of Prof. H.C. Bharadwaj
at page 73 of his article that gypsum mortar/plaster was used in the Harappan period. I
agree with the observation in the latter part of this para that gypsum was used as
mortar in the Kalibangan period also. . . . Lime mortar was definitely used from
Neolithic period." (Justice Aggarwal, Para 3799)

[18] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3799

[19] Justice Aggarwal’s verdict, para 3986

[20] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3983

[21] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3799-b

[22] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3719

[23] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3737

[24] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3738.

[25] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3959

[26]Of these four pillar bases, according to Justice Aggarwal’s verdict, three were in
trench F-6 and one in trench G-2. 

[27] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3715

[28] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 3990

[29] Dr. Supriya Verma and Dr. Jaya Menon, writing in EPW Dec. 11, 201, implied
that they were present at the site when they claimed to have made close observation
but did not sign the register. However, Dr. Supriya Verma, has deposed that she was
“not present” at the site when pillar bases were excavated. The experts have also
erroneously claimed that Justice Aggarwal upheld their allegations about creation of
pillar base in trench F6 whereas the judge clearly said “we are not agreeable to the
allegation”, but “even if, for a moment, we assume….”.

[30] Issue No. 14, OOS 4 of 1989

[31] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 4384

[32] The inscription was deciphered by Epigraphist Dr. K.V. Ramesh, whose expertise was accepted by
rival parties. Justice Sharma saw the inscription as evidence of Ram temple at the site; Justice
Aggarwal said the inscription, though authentic, “by itself” was not conclusive evidence that such a
temple existed at the site itself. For, the inscription had been found among the debris on Dec 6/7, 1992. 

[33] Finch wrote: “Heere are also the ruines of Ranichand [S] castle and houses, which
the Indians acknowled[g]e for the great God, saying that he tooke flesh upon him to
see the Tamasha of the World. In these ruines remayne certaine Bramenes, who
record the names of all such Indians as wash themselves in the river running thereby,
which custome, they say hath continued foure lackes of yeeres”

[34] Justice Sharma’s verdict, Pg 55-56

[35]  Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 4224

[36] Justice Sudhir Aggarwal’s verdict, Para 4258

[37]The context is spelt out in a letter by a local thanedar to his superiors on October
28, 1858: “Today Mr. Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa resident of Punjab, organised
Hawan and Puja of Guru Govind Singh and erected a symbol of Sri Bhagwan, within
the premises of the Masjid. At the time of pitching the symbol, 25 sikhs were posted
there for security.” (para 2961-62)

[38] Justice Aggarwal, para 1903

[39] Justice S.U.Khan’s verdict, Pg 231

[40] Justices Aggarwal and Sharma held that on the portion of the site believed and
worshipped as Lord Ram’s birth place since time immemorial stood the central dome
of the mosque, Justice Khan held that it was so worshipped only since recent times.

[41] Dr. M. Ismail Farooqi Vs. Union of India, SC 1994