The Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (Sahmat) on Saturday said the verdict on the Ayodhya dispute was a blow to secularism and the reputation of the judiciary.
In a statement, the Sahmat said: “The judgment delivered by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Dispute on 30 September 2010 has raised serious concerns because of the way history, reason and secular values have been treated in it.
“First of all, the view that the Babri Masjid was built at the site of a Hindu temple, which has been maintained by two of the three judges, takes no account of all the evidence contrary to this fact turned up by the Archaeological Survey of India's own excavations: the presence of animal bones throughout as well as of the use of ‘surkhi' and lime mortar (all characteristic of Muslim presence) rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque.
“The ASI's controversial Report which claimed otherwise on the basis of ‘pillar bases' was manifestly fraudulent in its assertions since no pillars were found, and the alleged existence of ‘pillar bases' has been debated by archaeologists. It is now imperative that the site notebooks, artefacts and other material evidence relating to the ASI's excavation be made available for scrutiny by scholars, historians and archaeologists.
“No proof has been offered even of the fact that a Hindu belief in Lord Rama's birth-site being the same as the site of the mosque had at all existed before very recent times, let alone since ‘time immemorial.' Not only is the judgment wrong in accepting the antiquity of this belief, but it is gravely disturbing that such acceptance should then be converted into an argument for deciding property entitlement. This seems to be against all principles of law and equity.
“The most objectionable part of the judgment is the legitimation it provides to violence and muscle-power. While it recognises the forcible break-in of 1949 which led to placing the idols under the mosque-dome, it now recognises, without any rational basis, that the transfer put the idols in their rightful place. Even more astonishingly, it accepts the destruction of the mosque in 1992 (in defiance, let it be remembered, of the Supreme Court's own orders) as an act whose consequences are to be accepted, by transferring the main parts of the mosque to those clamouring for a temple to be built.
“For all these reasons we cannot but see the judgment as yet another blow to the secular fabric of our country and the repute of our judiciary. Whatever happens next in the case cannot, unfortunately, make good what the country has lost.”
The statement has been signed by Romila Thapar, K.M. Shrimali, K.N. Panikkar, Irfan Habib, Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Suvira Jaiswal, M.K. Raina, Vivan Sundaram, Utsa Patnaik, Zoya Hasan, Prabhat Patnaik, C.P. Chandrasekhar, Jayati Ghosh, Geeta Kapur and 47 others.
Keywords: Sahmat, Ayodhya verdict
I tend to agree with what Sahmat says. However, where were they during the Shah Bano judgement?
Why see yourself as minority? Why cannot you see yourself as an Indian citizen?
I have not read the complete 8,300 pages of the verdict pronounced by the Allahabad High Court, but whatever the TV News channels have described that a "massive Hindu structure" had existed before the mosque was constructed only shows that how misleading the judgement is.
Babri Masjid was existing as a Waqf Board property. The Hindutva vandals wanted this place and demolished the masjid. Even after that also, it must have remained with the waqf board property only. However, Muslims were confident enough that the mosque will be regained through judicial process. So, the waqf board went up to the judiciary to fight the case and finish the case once for all.
However, the recent judgement pronounced only shows the influence of Hindutva on the judicial process too, in this Hindu majority country. Safety of minorities (including non-muslim minorities of India) is at stake for sure.
all the places of disputes should be used for the benefit of mankind like public houses schools . No god would want weather hindu or muslim that living beings remain roof less and die due to heat and cold. M while
WHY PEOPLE FIGHT FOR LAND AND RELIGION, FIRST OF ALL WE ALL ARE MAN
MAN CREATED RELIGION OR RELIGION CREATED MAN?????????
WE ALL ARE UNIVERSALLY EQUAL.
SO I AM PROUD THIS JUDGEMENT.
When will the sub continent learn ? We blame the illiterate fanatics for all the mischievous acts but if we think a bit carefully, these people are mare puddles of the powerful ! We value the courts orders but when the orders are contrary to the rationality what should we do ? Its always our leaders in politics, in commerce, in military, in judiciary who are straying us on the roads of mischief. They divide the countries for their own sake and yet we worship them as if they have liberated us. Can´t we see letting the devils liberate us was a mistake as now we are paying the price! Only the poor suffer and fight while the powerful enjoy!
This verdict is being opposed by SahMat, must be good for country :)
Kindly read the full judgement, which is available on Allahabad High Court site. I am sure, if we set aside our biases and have a plain reading of the judgement, our belief in the judiciary will be strengthened. I request organisations like Sahmat (or is it Asahmat, it wants to dissent on everything that happens in the country) to first read the judgement and all the signatories who have blindly lend their names to read and understand judgement first hand than coming to decisions based on what is reported.
So the only possible verdict in this case according to 'Sahmat' which would have upholded secular principles would have been the rebuidling of Babri masjid on the exact same spot?
Few questions for Sahmat
(1) Ayodhya has many more mosques apart from Babri masjid - so why is that Hindu groups are asking for only this particular site to be returned to them? If they were really rabid communalists as they are painted, wouldnt they be demanding all mosques in such a city so holy for them are removed?
(2)If the argument is that it is around 500 years since the mosque was built and it hard to verify facts - my point is that Hindus have been persistently arguing their case since they were allowed a forum to do so after the Delhi sultanate ended. In an 1886 judgement, The British district judge of Faizabad agreed that the land was held sacred by Hindus.
(3) There is overwhelming evidence recovered by ASI from the debris of the 1992 demolition which shows that material from an older Hindu temple was used in the mosque construction. Again, this is a historical fact that Muslim invaders used to destroy structures of other religions and construct mosques as a mark of victory and to propogate Islam. So common sense would suggest that something similar was done in the case of Babri masjid too - even if the ASI report on the deeper excavation is 'controversial'.
(3) No Hindu is saying that sites considered holy by Muslims such as Haji Ali, Ajmer dargah, Jama Masjid should be handed over. All they are saying is that the strucures which were destroyed at Ayodhya, Kashi & Mathura at sites considered holy by Hindus (and the significance of these sites is not a recent development as some would try to suggest) be returned to Hindus as a matter of natural justice.
(4) Why does Sahmat find it so difficult to digest a verdict which has gone against their version of what secularism represents? Why is secularism interpreted as a complete denial of Hindu religious beliefs? And if they have believed over the centuries that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya at that site, why is the belief being mocked. Some have even asked for proof of Rama's existence...does that matter?
(5) Don't Western governments (the fountainhead of secularism, I am sure Sahmat would agree) accord a special position to the Vatican and treat the Pope as a head of state almost? Which Hindu organization is asking for that kind of recognition from the Indian government? Why can't a nation have modern laws and institutions and still respect the majority religion - after all our civilizational ethos is directly linked to that very same dharma...starting from our very names! It is that very same tolerant majority that has kept India secular to this day, and allows people to practise other faiths or be atheists if they wish without discrimination.
The Indian judiciary is under influence of the inefficient and corrupt rulers . Hence it lost its judicious credibility .
salute to SAMHAT...............
A very illuminating statement. Most of the facts given out in the statement have already appeared in the media earlier, especially some of the ASI investigators not parting with the site records and other data based on which some of them have made conclusions regarding the earlier existence of a temple at the site of the masjid. The fact that the statement is signed by many eminent historians and intelligentsia of repute and integrity should make even the courts to rethink on the issue.
I think the statement "the view that the Babri Masjid was built at the site of a Hindu temple, which has been maintained by two of the three judges" is incorrect. All judges agreed unanimously that the a temple existed at the site of the mosque. They only deferred in the assessment that the temple was demolished to build a mosque.
I agree that the author has every right to protest the judgement. But it appears that the author is criticizing the judges for the assessment of the ASI. The author should criticize ASI if he thinks they have made a mistake in their assessment of the existance of a temple.
The fact of the matter is that all three judge accepted the fact that there was a Hindu temple below the masjid. Two clearly acknowledge that temple was demolished to build the Mosque where 3rd Judge said that the Mosque was built on the ruins of Hindu Temple.
Please Email the Editor