In the name of faith

VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN
in Lucknow and Ayodhya

The verdict in the Ayodhya title suit faces criticism for banking more on faith and belief than on historical evidence.
RIGHT through the run-up to the announcement of the verdict by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the six-decade-old title suit on the disputed land in Ayodhya on which the Babri Masjid once stood, there was little doubt that the judgment would be a historic one. It was widely expected to have a lasting impact on Indian society, especially in terms of its politics and judiciary. But when the actual pronouncement came on September 30 – through three separate judgments from Justices Dharam Veer Sharma, Sudhir Agarwal and Sibghat Ullah Khan, after a six-day delay resulting from an intervention by the Supreme Court – such expectations were belied, especially on account of the manifold dimensions of the verdict. While its social and political effects were indeed evident across the country, its most striking impact was on the structure of established judicial practice.
Debates in several forums pointed out that the tools of jurisprudence employed by the judges in formulating the verdict marked a significant departure from the usual structure of judicial practices. Central to this perception is the use of faith and belief as vital factors influencing the judgments, especially on a question relating to a title suit in a property dispute. These two amorphous categories clearly got precedence in the judgments over other material factors such as title deeds. This departure from accepted norms and procedures of judicial practice is expected to have wide-ranging social and political consequences.
In brief, the majority verdict from the three judgments is as follows: That the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three equal parts among the parties to the dispute, namely, Ram Lalla (Infant Ram), represented by his Sakha (or close friend) Triloki Nath Pandey; the Nirmohi Akhara, which has staked its claim to the property since 1885 and ran a place of worship on the premises; and the Sunni Central Waqf Board, which claimed to have had possession of the disputed structure and the land around it since the 16th century.
While putting forward this three-way division, the verdict also held that the place under the central dome of the demolished Babri Masjid is the birthplace of Ram as per the faith and belief of Hindus and hence should belong to Hindus as represented by Pandey. A makeshift temple of Ram has existed there since December 6, 1992, the day the Babri Masjid was demolished.
Justice Sharma, who accepted and decreed the suit made on behalf of Ram Lalla, completely held, along with the certification of the place under the central dome of the masjid as the birthplace of Ram, that “place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity”. “It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birthplace of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for anyone to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.” The other two judges, too, agreed that Ram was a juristic person and possession entitled him to hold the title. Thus, in principle, there was unanimity on Ram holding joint possession and, hence, the title.
Justice Agarwal, who wrote the lengthiest judgment, running into 21 volumes and more than 5,000 pages, quoted from the Rig Veda: “During the Dissolution, there was neither existence nor non-existence, and at that time neither Lok (world) was there nor was anything beyond the space. What encompassed all at that time? Where was the abode and of whom? What was the unfathomable and deep water?.... None knows and none can tell as to from where and how the Creation took place, because even the scholars or those having foresight, were born after the Creation. Hence, none knows the source of this Creation.”
After firmly affixing legality to faith and belief, the majority verdict also held that the disputed structure was constructed by Babar. Justice Sharma went one step further and said it was built against the tenets of Islam and could not have the character of a mosque.
The verdict also referred to a controversial report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) stating that a massive Hindu religious structure existed earlier at the spot of the masjid. The verdict, however, accepted that the idols were placed under the middle dome of the disputed structure on the night of December 22-23, 1949.
The immediate political impact of the verdict imparting legality to faith and belief and anointing the place where the central dome of the Babri Masjid stood is all too evident. It has come as a shot in the arm for the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS)-led Sangh Parivar, of which the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the principal opposition party in the country, is a part. Though the constituents of the Sangh Parivar have been, by and large, moderate in their reactions, the Hindutva combine clearly perceives it as landmark event that has considerably dulled, if not negated, the stigma of the demolition of the Babri Masjid it undertook in December 1992.
The Congress, which leads the ruling coalition at the Centre, while welcoming the judgment, asserted that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was a criminal act. Home Minister P. Chidambaram was given the responsibility of doing this even as his Ministry successfully ensured the maintenance of law and order across the country.
The mood of elation within the Sangh Parivar was initially muted but got increasingly strident as the days passed. A reflection of this is available in the statements of Sangh Parivar leaders. “In any case the Ram Janmabhoomi movement has been vindicated through the judgment. The need for building a Ram temple has been accepted at the higher levels of the judiciary and through it in the nation as a whole,” said Acharya Giriraj Kishore, international vice-president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which was the sword arm of the Sangh Parivar during the Ayodhya agitation.
Despite such political dimensions, the verdict evoked appreciation from several quarters for presenting what was seen as the best possible formula to solve the long-standing dispute. Former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee described the verdict as one marked by “judicial statesmanship”. The votaries of the “best possible formula in the given circumstances” also made a case for immediate intervention of the Central government to initiate negotiations among the three parties to arrive at an out-of-court settlement.
Talking to Frontline, Indra Bhushan Singh, advocate of the Lucknow High Court and long-term observer of the politics over Ayodhya, seconded the idea of the Central government intervening for a negotiated settlement. “What the High Court has done is to suggest building of a wall of harmony in Ayodhya, with inscriptions of Lord Ram on the one side and of Allah on the other. It is possible in present-day India to do it if the powers that be take the right initiatives,” he said.
The BJP, too, in keeping with the moderate role it has chosen to play within the Sangh Parivar, responded on similar lines. The party welcomed the verdict and stated: “Insofar as the judgment upholds the right of Hindus to construct a temple at the Garbh-Grih (sanctum sanctorum), it is a significant step forward towards the construction of a grand temple at the birthplace of Lord Rama.”

The opinion of the ASI and other expert agencies engaged by it was that there were remains of a Hindu religious structure where the disputed structure stood. The BJP believes that this verdict opens “a new chapter for national integration and a new era for inter-community relations”. Party leaders such as Ravi Shankar Prasad added that this new chapter could be made possible through the intervention of the Central government.
However, the reactions from parties involved in the dispute as well as some of their associate organisations did not raise much hope about such intervention. All the three parties in the dispute decided to appeal in the Supreme Court against the verdict. The Sunni Central Waqf Board and its associate, the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC), which have had the biggest reversal on account of the verdict's acceptance of “the birthplace of Lord Ram”, have already initiated moves to go in appeal.
The Nirmohi Akhara is planning the same. Talking to Frontline from Ayodhya, Raja Ramachandra Acharya pointed out that the court verdict did not accord enough land for the construction of a proper temple for Ram. “They have suggested three-way divisions of a mere 1,500 square yards of land. How can we build a bhavya mandir (majestic temple) in that much land?” he asked. The VHP, too, made a similar statement. Its international general secretary Pravin Togadia reiterated the Hindutva organisation's long-standing position that there could be no mosque in the area that extended up to the chaudhakosi parikrama. This means no mosque can be built in an approximately 10-kilometre radius of the disputed site.
Nritya Gopal Das, president of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas Samiti, told Frontline that while his organisation welcomed the verdict, it would go to the Supreme Court to get the one-third part of the land given to the Sunni Central Waqf Board.
Ground-level reactions from the twin cities of Ayodhya and Faizabad are overwhelmingly sceptical about the three-way division of the site. Many residents belonging to Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities were unanimous that the division and the subsequent building of a temple and a mosque in close proximity to each other was a sure-fire recipe for conflict.
“The effort of the judges to go beyond law and bring about something close to a negotiated settlement has little chance of working. In fact, it will complicate matters,” said Khaliq Ahmed Khan, a resident of Faizabad. In Ayodhya, Ram Prakash Gupta, a shopkeeper, aired the same view: “They could have decided one way or the other. This tightrope walk is bound to create permanent tension once the construction actually begins.”
It is evident that implementing the judgment or even using it as an instrument for negotiations is easier said than done. The use of faith and belief as legal categories is bound to be debated in great detail in the coming days and to face intensive critical assessment. The criticism of the same in the days immediately following the judgment was by and large confined to jurists and legal observers.
Among political parties, the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led Samajwadi Party (S.P.) questioned the logic of the High Court and said legal verdicts should be adopted on the basis of the Constitution and not on the basis of faith and belief. He went on to say that the judgment was tantamount to cheating Muslims of their rights. The S.P. president could well have his eyes set on reclaiming the Muslim vote bank that he seems to be losing to the Congress, but the fact remains that he has made a point that has wide credence among large sections of the judiciary.
The social and political ramifications of the verdict are bound to result in trying times for the Congress at the Centre. For it is only a matter of time before the more aggressive sections of the Sangh Parivar relaunch their agitation for the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. The verdict has given these organisations a new weapon and a new energy. On the other hand, there is also the possibility of some sections of Muslims getting more and more involved in militant activities in response to a verdict that many feel denied the community its just rights.
The saving grace has been the sober and peaceful reaction from large sections of the community. But informed sources in intelligence agencies in Uttar Pradesh said that they were already worried that sleeping terrorist modules of jehadist groups in the State would use the climate created by the judgment to make a few strikes.
Clearly, the verdict has not done much to mitigate the Ayodhya imbroglio. On the contrary, the bizarre use of faith and belief as legal categories and the consequences thereof may actually add to the muddle.

Hard line is back

PURNIMA S. TRIPATHI
in New Delhi
But this time the BJP will be shooting from the shoulders of the sants and sadhus of the VHP.

DESPITE claiming that they will abide by the September 30 court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi title suit, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) seem in no mood to accede one-third of the disputed land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board as directed by the three-judge Bench.
The stridency of the past may be missing, but the mood remains defiant, perhaps more so since their stand has been ratified by the court, too. They maintain that Muslims have no claim over the place that Hindus believe is the birthplace of Ram and that Muslims should willingly let go of their legal claim and hand over the entire place to Hindus to pave the way for the construction of a grand Ram temple. All this is in the name of national unity, integrity and communal harmony.
If the mood in the Sangh Parivar is any indication, it only seems to have hardened its position.
But this time, perhaps realising that the issue has lost its potential to reap political dividends, it has directed the BJP to remain in the background and let the VHP take the lead. This became evident on the evening of September 30 as details of the verdict started trickling in. The BJP leaders at the party headquarters in the capital were “unavailable”. It was Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat who first faced the media. In a calibrated statement, and without hinting at the fact that the court had directed Hindus to give one-third of the land to Muslims, he said, “The judgment has paved the way for the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. The judgment is not a win or loss for anyone. We invite everybody, including Muslims, to help build the temple.” He said happiness over the verdict should find expression in a controlled and peaceful manner within the limits of the law and the Constitution. “Uncalled for provocation must be avoided,” he reiterated, adding that the Ram temple movement was not a reactionary one, nor was it directed against any particular community. Perhaps at the back of his mind was the thought that any wild expression of joy could damage his side's prospects in the Supreme Court, where the parties can appeal in the next three months.
Questioned on the Muslims' claim over the land, he refused to say anything clearly, and instead appealed to Muslims to forget the ill will and bitterness borne out of the conflict and welcome the spirit of the verdict and help build a grand Ram temple.
Mohan Bhagwat's appearance was followed immediately by the VHP's general secretary, Pravin Togadia, accompanied by the ailing VHP patriarch Acharya Giriraj Kishore. They made it known in no uncertain terms that Hindus would not accede any land, either within the disputed area or outside it, to Muslims. “We have made it known to the world in our past resolutions that Ayodhya, and the area in question, is the birthplace of Ram Lalla and will not hand it over to anyone,” Togadia said. Asked whether they would not give one-third of the land to Muslims as per the court order, he said that since the court had decided unanimously that the place where the temple stood at present was the birthplace of Ram, and the title suit of the Sunni Central Waqf Board had been dismissed, Muslims' claim stood nullified.
“Our stand has been vindicated. The 110 feet (33.5 metres)/90 feet (27.4 m) land where Ram Lalla resides has been ruled to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. This has paved the way for a grand Ram temple and for a grand temple we will need the entire 67 acres (26.8 hectares) around the disputed area. Where is the question of giving any portion of this land to anyone else?” he said (Interview on page 16).
In fact, a statement issued by the VHP, on behalf of the Sant Uchhadhikar Samiti, the umbrella organisation of sants spearheading the temple movement, has made it absolutely clear that Hindus will not rest with the ownership of only 110\90 feet of land but will want the entire 67 acres to be handed over to them. The statement said “a grand Ram temple”, as has been decreed by the court, could be built only when the Centre handed over the entire acquired area to Hindus. “It is the wish of crores of Hindus that the Central government should take the initiative in this direction,” the statement said. The statement, which has been signed by Jagadguru Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati on behalf of 49 sants, hailed the verdict as one that paved the way for Hindu-Muslim amity and appealed to the religious and social leaderships of Muslims to accept the verdict “with grace and come forward to help (in building a grand temple) so that it earns the love and respect of the courts and Hindus”.
The BJP leaders, who were the last from the Sangh Parivar to face the media, however, did not spell things out so categorically. Senior BJP leader L.K. Advani issued a carefully worded statement after an hour-and-a-half-long meeting with senior party leaders at his residence. In it he described the verdict as a “significant step forward towards the construction of a grand temple at the birthplace of Lord Ram”.
He said the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had conclusively proved that a grand Hindu structure stood beneath the disputed structure and there was no doubt it was a Hindu temple. He also expected Muslims to show magnanimity and give up any claim over the land.
“The BJP believes this verdict opens a new chapter for national integration and a new era of inter-community relations. The BJP is gratified that the nation has received the verdict with maturity,” he said in the statement, which was issued on behalf of the BJP, with party president Nitin Gadkari sitting by his side.
Former BJP president Rajnath Singh, all set to address the United Nations General Assembly in Hindi a la Atal Bihari Vajpayee, said the fact that the three-judge Bench had ruled unanimously that the place where the temple stood now was the birthplace of Ram should be reason enough for Muslims to give up any claims over the remaining land.
“The issue should now be sorted out through negotiations, which should begin before the case reaches the Supreme Court. Once the issue reaches the Supreme Court, it will leave no scope for any reconciliation. Muslims should understand that after the court verdict any Muslim claim over the land would be akin to Hindus staking a claim for a temple at Makkah. Now is the time for both communities to realise that since the title suit has been decided, there should be no further acrimony over the issue. Forget December 6, forget the past acrimony, let the past be a closed chapter and let us resolve the issue through reconciliation,” he said.
Asked whether the BJP would agree to hand over one-third of the land to Muslims in case the Supreme Court upholds the High Court verdict, he said this was a hypothetical question which he would not answer. Besides, he said, it was for the sadhus and sants, and not for the BJP, to decide on this.
“We never raised the issue with a motive to gain politically. We only articulated our viewpoint and the nation appreciated it. We never intended to create any hatred over the issue and now also we think the only way out is for reconciliation, which the government should initiate, and the BJP will support it,” he said.
Another senior BJP leader, who did not want to be named, said that since the Sunni Central Waqf Board's title suit claim had been dismissed by the court, Muslims should voluntarily give up any claim over the land and agree to cooperate in the construction of a temple in Ayodhya to set an example for national unity and integration.
The Sangh strategy this time is not to let the BJP get involved directly in the issue since it has realised it does not go down well with the more urbane and aware voters of the new India. Said the BJP leader: “A political party should not get involved in the construction of a mandir or a masjid. We lent our support to the cause as it was an issue of our national identity for crores of Hindus, not to gain political mileage. If there was any such mileage, it was by default. This time we will keep away. The sadhus and sants will decide. You will not see the BJP taking off on rath yatras or kar sevas this time.”
The message is clear, though the method may be different this time.

‘Against settled principles'

VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN
Interview with Zafaryab Jilani, counsel for the Sunni Central Waqf Board.

Zafaryab Jilani: "The honourable judges have arrived at a finding... on the basis of faith and belief."
ZAFARYAB JILANI, counsel for the Sunni Central Waqf Board in the Ayodhya title suit and convener of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC), is known for the poise and equanimity he displays in trying circumstances. His demeanour was no different when Frontline met him at his residence a day after the verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the Ayodhya title suit. He was constantly on the phone discussing the modalities of filing an appeal in the Supreme Court even as he interacted with visitors. “We want to go about it as systematically as we have done in the six-decade-old judicial process in the High Court. The process should gather momentum in the next few weeks,” he said before responding to questions on the verdict and the future plans of the Waqf Board and the BMAC. Excerpts from the interview:
Your initial reaction to the verdict was that it was partly disappointing. What exactly did you mean by that?
Let me start by placing on record the sense of gratification at having completed the legal process in the High Court after six decades. It was a long process marked by arguments over arguments. That this completion has happened is the satisfying part of the verdict. The disappointing part rests squarely on the fact that it has gone against the settled principles of law and evidence. The honourable judges have arrived at a finding not on the basis of facts or evidence but on the basis of faith and belief. In other words, a new category has been introduced into the judicial process. I have not seen any verdict from any court of the country, whether it is the High Courts or the Supreme Court, which is based on a category that has no connection to any of our time-tested laws and rules, including the Evidence Act or the Criminal Procedure Code.
But there is the argument that the court was grappling with extraordinary circumstances that needed extraordinary judicial interpretations.
Even if that contention is accepted for the sake of argument, there can be no doubt that such interpretations cannot go beyond the parameters of law as established in the country and as practised in the courts. But here you are deciding upon something as legendary as the birthplace of a god.
None of the Hindu texts, including Ramcharitamanas, considered to be one of the most authentic accounts of the life of Lord Ram, pinpoints the birthplace of Ram. I am of the firm view that the personality of Lord Ram is not at all in dispute. He has been described as ‘Imam-e-Hind' by the great poet of the East, Allama Iqbal, who had composed the Tarana-i-Hind ( Saare Jahan Se Achcha Hindustan Hamara). But as far as my understanding goes, Hindu mythology has it that Lord Ram was born 12 lakh or 14 lakh years ago. Is it not a bit too much to pinpoint the location of the birth, as part of a modern judicial process, and that on the basis of faith and belief these many centuries later?
There is also the question as to when the belief on the janmasthan started. It does not seem that the belief was there before 1885 because Mahant Raghubar Dass of the Nirmohi Akhara is himself on record citing the structure as a mosque.
Another extraordinary step in the judgment relates to the theory of three-way division. Here, too, it is not clear what the rationale is or what principles have been cited to suggest partition of the land and premises. None of the parties had made a plea for a division of the land. And, moreover, it has been accepted that the idols were placed by extraneous forces inside the premises in 1949. Once that is accepted, the plea of the Waqf Board for the possession of the land after the removal of the idols becomes naturally strong. This has been presented to the courts forcefully since 1961, and even in 1995. But that plea seems to have not been considered at all. I am yet to see the full judgment but cannot think of any rationale for overlooking this plea.
Again, some of the campaigners for the Ram mandir in Ayodhya have made it clear that they will not allow a mosque even within the chaudhakosi parikrama, which will mean many kilometres away from the site. Already, there are suggestions that Muslims should be large-hearted and give away even the one-third they may get. For us, this is nothing short of calling for surrendering the mosque. We will not accept that.
You are, of course, planning to go in appeal to the Supreme Court. What if the apex court affirms this....
That is a hypothetical question, which is best left unaddressed at this point of time. Coming back to the merits of the High Court judgment, I would say it is a bad precedent to follow. What it would lead to is innumerable cases on the faith and belief principle. If this is taken as precedent, claims can be made on any piece of property or structure or land saying that it is the faith and belief of one party or the other that it was the birthplace or the abode of one deity or the other. It would practically be an unending process. Some of the important buildings that house our constitutional institutions could face such claims on the basis of faith and belief.
Before the High Court verdict, you said this would not be about Hindus or Muslims but would reflect the victory of the rule of law and independence of the judiciary. You also said the cases relating to the title and possession of the Babri Masjid were apparently between two communities but actually related to the secular fabric of the country. Looking back, what would you say now?
I do not find any reason to alter this statement. The verdict is indeed about the secular fabric of our country and the rule of law. And we are approaching the Supreme Court. We have firm faith in the independence of the judiciary. That is also the reason for the repeated appeals by leaders of the community that they will not condone any violence or wrongdoing as a reaction. As I had said, our judicial process provides the opportunity and remedy to any party to the dispute who may feel dissatisfied with the judgment as a whole or with any portion thereof to approach the Supreme Court. That is the recourse we are taking in the near future.

‘Muslims should take the hint'

PURNIMA S. TRIPATHI
Interview with Ravi Shankar Prasad, counsel for the Hindu Mahasabha and a BJP general secretary.

Ravi Shankar Prasad:"A deity is a uniquely Hindu concept, which means a representative of God, which is one, omnipresent, permanent and inevitable."
Ravi Shankar Prasad, the BJP's national general secretary and chief spokesman, represented the Hindu Mahasabha, which fought the case on behalf of Ram Lalla Viraajman, the deity of Ram Lalla. The deity has been awarded one-third of the disputed land. Ravi Shankar Prasad explains how the concept of the deity being a party to a title suit is legally valid and why the way forward now is the route of reconciliation. “Otherwise, how are you going to ensure that exactly one-third of the land is given to each party? Are you going to sit with an inch tape to measure, and even if you do that, can it ever be done to each party's satisfaction?” he asked in this interview with Frontline. Excerpts:
The verdict seems to be based more on faith and belief and less on historical facts and evidence. Is this a good precedent?
The answer to this question lies in the specific points on which the court was to adjudicate. One of the points the court was supposed to look into was whether the disputed place was believed by Hindus to be the birthplace of Lord Ram and whether this was the place where they have been worshipping since time immemorial. Muslims never questioned the fact that Ayodhya is sacred to Hindus, they never questioned the fact that Ram was born in Ayodhya, and they never questioned the fact that Ram is divine to Hindus. Their only objection was to the exact place where Hindus believed Ram was born, and in this light the judges did well to look into faith and belief.
Let me add, the verdict about Ram having been born where the idols are placed and worshipped right now was given by all the three judges unanimously.
But making Ram Lalla a party to the title suit and even the court accepting this concept and ordering that one-third of the disputed land be given to the deity, how far is this legally justified?
The concept of deity as defined in Hindu religion is a legally accepted concept in law. I can quote at least 50 judgments to the effect that courts have accepted the existence of deity. A deity is a uniquely Hindu concept, which means a representative of God, which is one, omnipresent, permanent and inevitable. As per this concept the Ganga becomes a deity, the sangam of the Ganga and the Yamuna rivers is a deity, the entire Mount Kailas becomes a deity because Lord Siva is believed to be residing there. And this concept of deity is accepted by the law as well. It is legally valid and hence can be made a party to a law suit. It is also significant that all three judges have granted the plea of the deity, Justice Agarwal and Justice Sharma directly and Justice Khan indirectly.
But when the court has accepted that the idol was put inside the masjid on the night of December 22-23, 1949, how can this idol be described as a deity?
By virtue of Hindu faith, the Ramjanmasthan [the birthplace of Lord Ram] itself has become a deity, whether there was an idol or not. It is this concept of the janmasthan having acquired the status of a deity that the court has accepted.
What next? How do you think the place is going to be divided in three parts? Is it feasible?
The only road forward is the road of reconciliation. Either you sit and talk things out or go to the Supreme Court and spend another 60 years debating the issue and then sit with an inch tape [in case the verdict is upheld] and measure one-third part for each. Even if you do it, it can never be done to everybody's satisfaction and a point of dispute will continue to exist.
Since Muslims have never claimed that this mosque was an integral part of their faith, which Ram Lalla is for Hindus, the best option would be to sit down and talk and reconcile in the larger interest of all. This spirit of amity and reconciliation will be good for the larger canvas concerning all parties.
Do you think such reconciliation is possible because the other party might see it more as arm-twisting?
That, unfortunately, will be an extremely skewed way of interpreting things, which is being done by pseudo secularists. Muslims should be wary of any such agenda and make good of this larger horizon that has been made available to them through the court for reconciliation. I am hopeful saner and sober voices from amongst Muslims will emerge in due course and things will be sorted out sitting across the table. I believe a large chunk of the Muslim population will come forward and help in building the Ram temple in Ayodhya.
I appeal to Muslims to take forward the spirit of reconciliation that this court verdict has provided. I am hopeful a larger consensus for amity and reconciliation will emerge. We should allow the process to go on without letting vested interests derail it. Muslims should take the hint in the judgment and move forward.

‘History has taken a back seat'

T.K. RAJALAKSHMI
Interview with Professor D.N. Jha.

D.N. Jha, formerly Professor of History, Delhi University.
PROFESSOR D.N. Jha, who is one of the four professional and independent historians who submitted “A Historians' Report to the Nation”, is perplexed at the order of the three-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Jha feels it is a “compromise judgment”, probably arrived at to maintain peace between communities, and not one based on historical facts. Excerpts from an interview he gave Frontline:
Should not a distinction have been made by the honourable judges between faith and historical fact?
Faith should never be allowed to supersede historical evidence. What seems to have happened is that faith has won over reason, which, I think, is unfortunate. Faith negates history.
Do you think that certain aspects of the order may have the potential to be used to question the veracity of several existing historical monuments? Also, would that not lead to a rewriting of history?
Yes, this is what is likely to happen. It is disrespect to fact, to historical evidence and to the tradition of history writing. I am not suggesting that historians are always objective, but serious historians are.
As a historian how would you interpret the judgment?
I do not think the contesting parties made a prayer for partition of land. They asked for a decision on the title. If the communities want to live together in peace, well, that is good for the country, but there is something called justice. My only apprehension is that as far as compromise is concerned, the political parties, who are backing some of the litigants, are not going to allow it to happen.
You were part of the team of independent historians that submitted a report to the nation on the Babri Masjid. Do you feel history or historical fact has had little role in the present context? What has been the verdict of history?
(a) I cannot understand how the courts have gone into the issues of faith. They have asserted that the site where the idols were placed was actually the birthplace of Ram. The judgment, therefore, is based on faith and theology, and certainly not on history. Historical evidence does not support the assertion that Ram was born where the idols were kept. I don't know what kind of evidence the court has relied on. Someone should have pointed out in court that the belief that the place was the birthplace of Ram was first clearly mentioned by a French Jesuit priest, Tiffenthaler, in 1788. Subsequently, many people propagated the opinion that Ram was born where the mosque stood and the mosque itself was built after destroying the temple.
But a Scottish physician, Francis Buchanan, who served in the Bengal Medical Service, visited Ayodhya in 1810, and wrote clearly that the temple destruction theory was ill-founded. The first conflict that took place between Hindus and Muslims over this was in 1855, and Wajid Ali Shah set up a three-member committee to defuse the situation. After the 1857 uprising [war of independence], in 1889, a Hindu priest went to the local court, staking his claim to the place and his plea was dismissed. After that, from 1889 to 1949, both Hindus and Muslims continued to offer worship at the Ram Chabutra peacefully except in 1934 when there was a conflict between them.
The saga of the conflict over Ayodhya began in 1949, when the idols of Ram were surreptitiously placed in the central dome of the Babri mosque with the connivance of the Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad, K.K.K. Nayar, who is said to have been a member of the RSS.
(b) I did not participate in the excavation. I was part of the group of historians who scrutinised evidence, before the demolition of the mosque. The then Prime Minister, Chandra Shekhar, wanted the disputing parties to negotiate and come to an agreement. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad had two or three historians and archaeologists with it, while the Babri Masjid Action Committee did not have any. We felt that it was an issue that concerned the nation, and four of us, Suraj Bhan, Athar Ali, R.S. Sharma and I, decided to attend their meetings as independent historians.
It was in that capacity that we wrote our report and submitted it to the Government of India, and later published it as “Ramjanmabhumi-Baburi Masjid: A Historians' Report to the Nation”. During the entire period of the abortive negotiations, the Archaeological Survey of India [ASI] played fast and loose with us and withheld important material, including the site notebook connected with the Ayodhya excavations of the Ramayana project of 1975-80. We wrote several letters to the government asking for the evidence, which were never acknowledged. The ASI's attitude on the Ayodhya issue has always been ambivalent. The ASI has remained a government department, having no autonomy. Also, it has been remained packed with Hindu fundamentalists.
(c) As far as the verdict of history is concerned, if you go back in time, before 1528, there is evidence of several religious groups who had a claim on Ayodhya. The Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang wrote that there were 3,000 Buddhist monks and hundred monasteries and only 10 devas or temples belonging to the brahmanical religion. Buddhism was dominant in Ayodhya in the seventh century. The first and fourth Jain Tirthankaras were born in Ayodhya. Even now Ayodhya remains a holy place for Jainas. There is strong evidence of Muslim presence since the 12th century onwards. Sufi saints visited Ayodhya from the 12th century – one of them was Qazi Qidwatuddin Awadhi, who came from Central Asia and is said to have been a disciple of Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti of Ajmer. There are many Sufi shrines in Ayodhya. Thus, there is evidence of Buddhist presence, Jain presence and a Muslim past dating to the 12th century. I don't understand how can all this evidence be dismissed and the assertion made that this place was the birthplace of Ram.
Ayodhya was not even a pilgrimage centre before the 17th and 18th centuries. There is a reference to Ayodhya in Skanda Puranas called ‘Ayodhya Mahatmya'. The composition of this text stretches over 300-400 years with lots of interpolations and contradictions. There are at least a hundred verses devoted to the place where Ram ascended to heaven, the swargadwaar, located on the banks of the river Sarayu and only 10 verses referring to his birthplace, but not the site of his birth.
The three historically attested Ram temples are in Madhya Pradesh, belonging to the 12th century. Tulsidas' Ramcharitamanas does not specify the locale of Ram's birth; neither does he refer to the destruction of a temple to build a mosque. If we travel further back in time, in the 11th century, there was a minister of the Garhwal king [who ruled over the Awadh region] called Bhatt Lakshmidhara. He wrote a book called Krityakalpataru, which has one section on the Tirthas, called Tirthavivechankanda. This does not mention Ayodhya as a centre of pilgrimage.
If the Garhwal kings did not mention it in the 11th century, how can it be said to be a pilgrimage centre or the birthplace of Ram? In fact, Prayag was a more important centre of pilgrimage. There was no Ram temple in the whole of Uttar Pradesh before the 17th century, to which period belongs Kanakabhavan, or Kanakamandapa, but if one goes to north Bihar and the Nepal Terai, in Janakpur, there is a temple dedicated to Sita, constructed in 1898.
Do you feel that the Bench did not go into the details of the historical and archaeological evidence?
I wish they had taken historical evidence into consideration. Several archaeologists and historians like the late Suraj Bhan, Shireen Ratnagar, R.C. Thakran and Suvira Jaiswal were called to depose before the court. What happened to all the evidence presented by them? History should have played a role. When something is decided on the basis of faith, then history takes a back seat.
The VHP maintains that Muslims destroyed 30,000 temples to build mosques. Richard Eaton, an American historian who has written on the desecration of temples, says that the total number does not exceed 80. History is full of examples to show that religious structures were constantly destroyed by the ruling classes of various hues and religions.
The findings of the ASI, which were perhaps relied on by the court, are not conclusive. In the excavation report (2003), it was claimed that a massive structure was found under the mosque and this was held up by pillars. It further said that brickbats were found at the pillar bases. Several archaeologists who were watching the digging complained to the court that the scattered brickbats were assembled together to look like pillar bases. It is also interesting that the chapters of the main text of the report (2003) have the names of the authors, but no one is mentioned as the author of the conclusion called “Summary of Results”.
Moreover, in the main text of the report, there is no mention of any temple, but it suddenly pops up in the “Summary of Results”. The report was obviously a doctored document.
How is this issue linked to the communalisation of society? One of the reasons why you and a few others offered to give evidence was that you were concerned about the implications of the dispute.
The first conflict around this was in the late 19th century. Both communities continued offering prayers. It was in the 1970s that the VHP communalised the issue in order to drive a wedge between the two communities. This finally led to the destruction of the mosque. Naturally, Muslims felt hurt and so were many Hindus. But the fundamentalists went on with their divisive agenda, and the Bharatiya Janata Party used the Ayodhya issue to catapult itself into power.
Can courts adjudicate on issues of historicity or faith?
There is a spurt in the number of Hanuman temples in the capital. In the coming years, the government and the courts will not only be required to solve the problem of one Ram, but of numerous Hanumans, whose temples have been mostly constructed on unauthorised land.

‘Faith has no meaning in a court'

AJOY ASHIRWAD MAHAPRASHASTA
Interview with Justice Rajindar Sachar.

Justice Rajindar Sachar.“It is time the secular political parties took a stand.”

JUSTICE Rajindar Sachar, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, has emerged as one of the most critical voices against the Ayodhya verdict. The author of the Sachar Committee report, which documented the poor conditions of Indian Muslims, says the judgment delivered by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on September 30 follows no legal precedents and has done injustice to the Muslim community by rewarding the Sangh Parivar, whose constituents demolished the Babri Masjid. Excerpts from the interview he gave Frontline:

The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute is not just a religious dispute but has occupied political imagination in India for the past two decades. How do you perceive the verdict?

The judgment can be summed up in two words: Crime piece. In 1992, a crime was committed. The Babri Masjid was demolished. But assume that the crime was not been committed and the matter had gone to court. Do you think the court could possibly, under any circumstances, order that the land be divided? Frankly, the grounds on which the organised Hindutva plaintiffs went and asked for land, they should have been thrown out on the grounds of remediation. You see, the masjid was there since the 16th century. They filed the suit only recently [in historical periods]. The Limitation Act dictates that a suit could be filed within a period of 12 years from the date of dispute. Legally speaking, the Sangh Parivar does not have a right even if a temple had been demolished to build the Babri Masjid, as the masjid existed before the period of limitation.

I have been writing since 2003 that a precedent to this case exists. [Quotes from one of his research papers] ‘There was a masjid called Shahid Ganj in Lahore decided by the Privy Council in 1940. In the case, there was admittedly a mosque existing since 1722. But by 1762, the building came under Sikh rule of Maharana Ranjit Singh and was used as a gurudwara. It was only in 1935 that a suit was filed claiming that the building was a mosque and should be returned to Muslims. The Privy Council, while observing that ‘their Lordship have every sympathy with a religious sentiment, which would ascribe sanctity and inviolability to a place of worship, they cannot under the Limitation Act accept the contentions that such a building cannot be possessed adversely', went on to hold that ‘the property now in question having been possessed by Sikhs adversely to the waqf and to all interests thereunder for more than 12 years, the right of mutawali [caretaker] to possession for the purposes of the waqf came to an end under the Limitation Act.'

At that time, the court noted that the site was undoubtedly a gurudwara. It was not a question of demolition. The Babri Masjid is a much more political and sensitive site, as it was made out to be.

By parity of reasoning, even if a temple existed before the building of the masjid 400 years ago, the legal suit by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and others must fail. On the contrary, the court dismissed the plea of the Sunni Waqf Board, which was valid under the Limitation Act.

Then, there is a second aspect. There is no clear finding that a temple existed beneath the masjid. Most people noted that there may have been ruins of some temple. The country's polity spans a period of around 5,000 years. Many Buddhist temples were destroyed to build Hindu temples and masjids. Some mosques were also demolished by some Hindu kings. Not because of any religious considerations but because of political compulsions of that time. Does this mean that you will secure the sanctity of all this through demolition and reclaiming? In the Babri Masjid case, there are contradictory opinions of many historians that there was no temple there at any time. How can a court decide on a dispute based on the Hindu faith that it is believed to be the birthplace of Ram? In a court, faith has no meaning.

Then, there is a third aspect. Whether Muslims build a mosque or not is a different question. That is a Muslim choice. But since a mosque was demolished, the land should have been returned to Muslims. Many young people are disappointed. Many Muslims said they could have built a school or a hospital for all communities on the land but the land should not have been divided. The argument that the land should not go back to Muslims is not understandable. Even the Quran, it is said, says Ram and Krishna were prophets and Muhammad was the last prophet. Many Muslim scholars have come to this conclusion.

The judgment is ridiculous. Let us accept the controversial Archaeological Survey of India [ASI] report that there was a temple there. The Muslims could have also accepted. They could have chosen not to build a mosque there but the land should have been given to them. They could have built anything on it. It is their human and communitarian right. Even if the temple was destroyed, does displacing Muslims from a 500-year-old shrine make sense? The court is not competent to judge historical events.

The judges have quoted faith extensively. Your comments.

That is what I was saying. This is their finding that Hindus believe that the disputed site was the birthplace of Ram. In the process, they legitimised right-wing history, so controversial in historical polemics.

How far can you go back to correct history even if you take religious faith into consideration? In a secular country like ours, it is totally impermissible. I don't want to use a strong word but it is a political dishonesty. Our political parties refused to take a stand. The demolition wouldn't have taken place at all had the government taken a stand. Now each of these parties is saying that let the court decide. It is a political issue. In all the important areas of governance, the political parties say that the court should not interfere. But now, it is very convenient for every party to say that the court can decide. Political parties should take a stand. This is secular India after all. Judiciary has to hear a suit, give a finding. But in this case, neither legal precedents nor common laws were taken into account. The judges acted as guardians instead of ensuring justice.

The Sangh Parivar has indicated that it will revive the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement. This could lead to polarisation among religious communities. Has the judgment made a dent in the principle of judicial neutrality and objective rationality?

It is undoubtedly a pro-Ram Janmabhoomi judgment, inclined towards the majoritarian view. The Sangh Parivar is sensing a victory in it. But it would not be correct to castigate the entire judiciary as such. It definitely creates a dent in its reputation. The fact of the matter is that the images of Ram Lalla were placed there in 1949. It was an act of piracy. Muslims had been praying there for a long time. It was a mosque. When a Hindu idol was installed, it was natural for Muslims not to pray there as worshipping an idol is against their religious ethics. That is why they stopped going to the Babri Masjid. That does not mean that their rights had gone. In 1949, the court had prohibited any kind of worship there. But now the court has ruled that in 1528 a temple was destroyed, thereby legitimising a controversial ASI report. Even if a temple was destroyed, you cannot come to the conclusion that the Babri Masjid was illegal.

This was a civil case of title dispute. But the matter is so politically sensitive that it indirectly legitimises the Babri Masjid demolition, which was a criminal act. What do you have to say about this?

Yes, this judgment has damaged a lot of things and made a dent in the secular ethics of India. It is like saying: destroy the mosque and give it to the Hindus. Two-thirds of the land is effectively going to the Hindus. Faith can be no grounds to reach a decision in a court of law.

The media have been asking the people to move on. Where should we move on? And move to what? You can't forget a crime. A court of law has to ensure that you cannot get away after committing a crime. The Muslims' right to their property is being taken away. The common law says that if a son kills his father, he is not entitled to inherit his father's property. But here the goons who demolished the mosque got what they wanted.

As the author of the Sachar Committee report, you have documented the poor conditions of Muslims. What kind of message has the minority communities got from such a judgment?

It will be a very dangerous message, of course. It is time the secular political parties took a stand. In 1946, Bihar was in flames. It was hit by Hindu-Muslim riots. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru publicly wrote a letter that if the riots did not stop he would bomb the rioters from Delhi. Bihar was a Muslim League constituency, and the League was fuelling the riots. But the larger vision of political parties prevented a lot of mess. The state had to take a stand and reaffirm its secular ethics as granted by the Constitution. However, it is good to see that the organised Muslim opinion is adopting a healthy approach. But you can't tell them, as the media have been doing, to forget everything. It is a question of the community's belief in the system and India's polity. The good thing is that their reactions have been very restrained.

Why should the Muslims be asked to move on? The same question can be posed to the Sangh Parivar. Why don't they move on? Even with this judgment, they are feeling victorious but not satisfied. They want to build a Ram temple on the entire land there. If it is a question of Hindu sanctity, is it not a question of Muslim sanctity, too? To me, this judgment is a surrender to the rabid communal sentiment. It is only the weakness of political will that is responsible for the Ayodhya imbroglio.

‘Seriously flawed'

V. VENKATESAN
Interview with Rajeev Dhavan, constitutional expert.
SHIV KUMAR PUSHPAKAR

Rajeev Dhavan: “This was a title suit. The court has turned this into a partition suit.”
DR RAJEEV DHAVAN is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court and the author of several books on Indian judiciary. His recent books include Reserved: How Parliament Debated Reservations 1995-2007 (Rupa) and Publish and Be Damned: Censorship and Intolerance in India (Tulika Books). He also runs the Public Interest Legal Support and Research Centre (PILSARC), a forum to create awareness about legal and constitutional matters among the youth. He has a keen interest in the Babri Masjid case and has represented the Babri Masjid Action Committee before the Supreme Court.
In this interview to Frontline, he shares his concern about the judgment delivered by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on September 30.
You have described the High Court verdict as panchayat justice. Can you explain?
This was a title suit. The court has turned this into a partition suit. The question of title squarely lies with the Sunnis. They had taken over the mosque for over centuries. They have never lost titles. There was a continuity of ownership even if not prayer. On December 22, 1949, some idols were placed there. It was absurd to suggest they came in as a consequence of divination. Fortunately, the court has not gone that far. Therefore, the simple question was whether the Sunni Waqf Board filed its case within the limitation of 12 years. It was filed on December 18, 1961, within the limitation without adversely affecting the title of the Sunnis.
The judgment appears to have unsuited the Sunnis on the basis that the title was never there and that, in fact, they have actual rights only over part of the property. This was argued by none, requested or asserted by none, and came from the sweet will of judicial imagination.
Does the judgment also vindicate the destruction of the mosque in 1992 and the illegal installation of idols at the site in 1949? Does it hint that the very legal foundation of the existence of the masjid was infirm?
There is a social significance to this particular finding. A mosque was destroyed on December 6, 1992. It was on Sunni land. On the basis of this judgment, it would appear that the entire status of the destroyed mosque was a legal chimera. In other words, the mosque was legally not supported to be there at all, and no act of sacrilege was committed. This is a convenient legal way of absolving the worst incident of mosque destruction in the world in our times.
Therefore, it is not just a narrow legal question, but one that goes to the heart of Muslim entitlement.
Does the one-third division of the property prove the court's inability to decide the title conclusively? Does the one-third arrangement give both Hindus and Muslims room to appeal for absolute ownership of the disputed land?
If there was even an instance of panchayat justice without the benefit of panchayat consensus, it was this. One dissenting judge [Justice Dharam Veer Sharma] was in favour of Hindus on moral and historical sentiments. The other judge, Justice Sudhir Agarwal, seems to adopt the Hindus' sentimental entitlement. Justice S.U. Khan has some difficulty with the facts and ground realities. Yet the majority judges seem to have worked out a so-called workable solution for the future. Workable for whom? The core area goes to the Hindus. One-third goes to the Muslims, yet to be identified, and one-third goes to the Nirmohi Akhara, who but for its suit has no entitlement at all. It is not even half a division of the property. Two-thirds to Hindus and one-third to Muslims on the site that belongs to Muslims. This panchayati solution has no legal foundation, no moral justification, and it is not without insult to the claim of one community.
Is the judgment based more on faith than on legal evidence? Can the Hindus' moral right to prayer be turned into a legal right over property?
Let me explain why it is not a good foundation for the future. What emerges from this highly intuitive panchayati decision is not just a matter of legal technicality. No legal suit for title is a technical matter. But is this a secure foundation for the future? Can there ever be truth and reconciliation on the basis of this verdict, which evaporates the rights of Muslims altogether? When Nelson Mandela saved South Africa, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission gave an opportunity to those who were guilty (in this case those guilty of destroying the mosque) to confess, to be contrite, to recognise the truth of the sacrilege, and then negotiate. On what basis will Muslims negotiate? They have been left empty-handed, and the correct approach would have been to recognise Muslims' right to ownership. Hindu sentiment has a right to pray, and then with civility, request Muslims to make accommodation.
Does archaeological evidence point to the fact that Babar destroyed a temple to build a mosque? Was the court correct in concluding, on the basis of archaeological evidence, that the mosque was built on the ruins of a temple?
There is a great historical mischief underlying the judgment. One of the issues was whether Babar destroyed a live temple to build the mosque. One view is if that was so, the land becomes haram, weakening the case for Muslims' prayer. This mischief was started by B.B. Lal on behalf of the Sangh Parivar. The court seems to have come to the conclusion that there was a live temple there because pillars were found. This would require a lot of imagination, to make it the basis of such a historical conclusion. Justice S.U. Khan is uncomfortable with archaeological evidence. Other judges seem to accept it. In fact, archaeological excavations were badly done, not following the appropriate trench method. The correct conclusion has been demonstrated by B.P. Mandal and Shireen Ratnagar. These temples belong to a much earlier era. With this doubt, the moral denudation of the Muslim case proceeds on an even shakier foundation.
Is the three-way split a workable solution for maintaining peace and dignity? Will Muslims accept denuding of their right? Can a minority community be forced into a legal solution in which its full rights have not been recognised?
This is not a proper judgment. It records what happened in court by way of argument and proceeds not only to confirm a Hindu case on issues that no legal court was competent to answer but to destroy the moral and legal foundations of the right of Muslims. The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, prescribes a cut-off date, August 15, 1947, making it mandatory to respect rights that existed on that date for religious sites other than the Babri Masjid. We should not hear Sangh Parivar fundamentalists saying Ayodhya today, Mathura tomorrow, and Varanasi the day after.
The judgment is so seriously flawed that history will be ill-served if these errors are not set right. People outside India compare the destruction of the Babri Masjid with the destruction of the Bamian statues by the Taliban. Secular governance is incapable of remedying the travesty of destroying the mosque and denying even a shred to the people who owned the masjid and the site. India's democracy requires that minorities must be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.