Aayushi Jain, XI D

Babri Masjid Verdict

The Ayodhya dispute is a political, historical and socio-religious debate in India that revolves
around the claim over the land in Ayodhya, which is considered scared by Hindus as it is believed to
be the birthplace of Lord Ram while Muslims seek to defend the Babri Masji at the site. It is a
dispute that dates back to before the first battle of independence of India.
There is a two fold discussion about this subject : a) Did Babar, or another Muslim ruler, really
demolish a Hindu temple to build the mosque in its place? b) If so, is it justified to right the
wrongs of history by demolishing the existing structure and replacing it with a brand new
Mandir?
The biggest problem for India's national unity and integrity in the twentieth century has no
doubt been what Indians call 'Communalism', the political conflict between the religions,
especially between Hindus and Muslims. The most conspicuous communal bone of contention
in India in the years 1986-1990 has certainly been the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid issue.
The material object of the controversy is quite small: an unimpressive mosque-structure on a
hilltop in Ayodhya, the town traditionally considered as the birth place of the protohistorical
hero Ram. This architecturally rather uninteresting building is known as the Babri Majid,
Babar's mosque. As such, it has been named after Babar, the first Moghul emperor, implying it
was built on his orders, or in honor, in 1528.
Many Hindus believe that Ram was born on the very spot where Babar's mosque is standing.
Therefore they call it Ram Janamabhoomi, Ram's birth-ground. They also believe that Babar's
men built the mosque after demolishing a temple which was standing on the same spot in
commemoration of Ram. Some Hindu organizations want to rebuild this temple, which implies
removing the present structure. The Hindus had already taken control of the building in 1949,
when the mosque was not in regular use any more. They installed idols and converted the
mosque into a temple.

By orders of the government, however, the worshippers could only offer puja from outside. In
1986, it was ruled by the court that the temple be opened for unrestrained Hindu worship.
Subsequently, the Vishwa Hindu Parihad started a nationwide campaign for the replacement of
the existing mosque-turned temple with a proper temple structure. They claimed that the
mosque was the birthplace of one of their most revered deities, Lord Ram, and that it was built
after the destruction of a Hindu temple by a Muslim invader in the 16th Century.
The verdict could have proven a major political quandary for the government. A verdict in
favour of the Hindus would have forced the government to uphold the verdict, making it
unpopular with Muslims, a key vote bloc. Whereas, A ruling for the Muslims would have meant
the government would have to push Hindu groups out of the site, a political minefield.

However, Sixty years after it first went to court, a mature and modern judgement of the
Ayodhya title suit was pronounced on 30th September,2010 by the Lucknow bench of the
Allahabad High Court comprising Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V
Sharma.It was decided that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with 1/3
going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Lord Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the
construction of the Ram temple, 1/3 going to the Islamic Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining
1/3 going to a Hindu religious denomination Nirmohi Akhara. While the three-judge bench was
not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did
agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site

However, the High Court Verdict is not a final decision on the case. Any Political party or
Religious Group can give appeal on this case and the case will go to seek the decision of
Supreme Court. This will make the case take a few more years to complete.
Babri Masjid Case is one of the most awaited case in India. The importance of this case is
that , it is between two religions and Hindus and Muslims have once fought with each other
few years back.

Since the Ayodhya issue is a matter of faith, it is not so easy to resolve through court
interventions. We have been unable to evolve a consensus on it. It is ingrained in the minds of
Indians and will remain thus as long as religion remains the centre of politics.
However, both the religions can learn to have an understanding of the other religion. They can
also build the capacity to keep their respective religions alive beyond physical symbols.
Let both communities respect the court verdict. Let the verdict create a new chapter in
communal harmony. We, as a nation, should stand together at this time of crisis, and not fight
amongst ourselves as it will test our true self.

The new generation that has risen post-1992 has no bitterness. Nor does it have the time to
indulge in the issue. Rather, there is so much to fight for at this stage— this case is not one of
them. There is no winning or losing in this. Of what value is a sentiment of hate and
intolerance that corrodes society and our very souls? As humanity there is more that connects
us than divides us. Mandir or Masjid, these are mere shells — our God resides within us. We
are humans, first and foremost. We belong to a religion by the chance of birth into a household
or by fate. Let not the latter take away the human in us.