Ayodhya verdict: All you need to know

Ayodhya verdict | Unimpeded right in outer courtyard wins whole site for Hindus

The makeshift temple that was erected in Ayodhya after the December 6,1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid. File

The makeshift temple that was erected in Ayodhya after the December 6,1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid. File   | Photo Credit: The Hindu

more-in

Non-interference by Muslims in Hindu worship at the Ramchabutra and Sita Rasoi worked against their cause in the final judgment.

The Supreme Court’s final judgment in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhumi dispute has cleared the way for the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya.

This was made possible by the direction that a scheme be evolved by the Centre and a trust be formed to build the temple. As compensation of sorts for the destruction of the mosque in 1992, the Muslim parties are set to get a five-acre plot elsewhere. This amounts to the eviction of the Muslim side from the 2.77-acre premises under dispute for over a century and a half.

How did the court decide that the land, comprising an inner and an outer courtyard, be earmarked for the temple? Being a set of title suits, it may appear that the deity, Ram Lalla, has won the title, and that the proponents of the mosque lost.

A close reading of the 1,045-page judgment reveals that an exclusive right to the entire property has not been declared in favour of the Hindus, even though they have been awarded exclusive possession.

 

A question then arises as to the basis of the court awarding the whole land to one side, and offering the other only an alternative location elsewhere.

The basis seems to be that the deity had an exclusive right over the outer courtyard, given the long history of worship and Hindu festivals held there, and a contested right in the inner courtyard.

BJP leaders and party workers leaving to Ayodhya for Kar Seva from Delhi on November 30, 1992.

BJP leaders and party workers leaving to Ayodhya for Kar Seva from Delhi on November 30, 1992.  

 

On the other hand, the court held that the Muslims had failed to prove an exclusive right even in the inner courtyard, where the mosque was located, and that there were frequent complaints of interference by Hindus, and instances of contestation and disputes. At the same time, the judgement holds that there is no evidence to establish that Muslims abandoned the mosque or ceased to perform namaaz in spite of the “contestation” over their possession of the inner courtyard after 1858.

In other words, nowhere in the verdict is there a finding that Hindus had exclusive right of worship or possession on the entire premises.

 

What tipped the scales in favour of the Hindu parties seems to be the prevalence of worship by Hindu pilgrims from a much earlier era, whereas, the offering of namaaz has been established only from around 1856-57.

Watch | Ayodhya verdict: Land allotted for the construction of a Ram temple

Constant attempts

Instances given by the court indicate that there were attempts by Hindus to set up idols and perform pooja within the inner courtyard. With Hindus constantly trying to worship inside the precincts of the mosque, the British administration set up a railing in 1857 to bring about peace. “The existence of an Islamic structure at a place considered sacrosanct by the Hindus did not stop them from continuing their worship at the disputed site and within the precincts of the structure prior to the incidents of 1856-7,” the court observes.

A platform, Ramchabutra, was set up within 100 feet of the inner dome, the court notes, and goes on to say: “[It] must be seen as an expression or assertion of the Hindu right to worship at the birthplace of Lord Ram”. Even after the railing was put up, they stood on the divide between the inner and outer courtyards to pay obeisance to the garb-grih (sanctum sanctorum).

This could only mean that the spot was recognised as belonging to Muslims, and that the administration tried to keep away Hindus. But the court considers it evidence for the assertion by Hindus of their right of worship.

 

In 1934, the domes of the mosque were damaged in a riot, and the British administration renovated them at its own expense. There were complaints that the azaan (call to prayer) from mosques were sought to be drowned by the blowing of conch shells by Hindu residents in the vicinity.

In the ultimate analysis, the non-interference by Muslims in Hindu patterns of worship in Hindu shrines such as the Ramchabutra and Sita Rasoi worked against their cause, with the Supreme Court now holding that it proved that the Muslim claim was “non-exclusionary”.

On the other hand, by repeatedly challenging the Muslim mode of worship, Hindus managed to come across as those with unimpeded possession in the outer courtyard, and with a partial stake in the inner courtyard too.

Why you should pay for quality journalism - Click to know more

Related Topics National
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Dec 7, 2019 2:44:15 AM | https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/unimpeded-right-in-outer-courtyard-wins-whole-site-for-hindus/article29932633.ece

In This Package
Ayodhya verdict: Muslim Personal Law Board to file review petition
Krishna temple (left) and Shahi Idgah (right) exist side by side. Security camps were added following the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992.
What does the Places of Worship Act protect?
Ayodhya land exempted in Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act: Supreme Court
File photo of stone carving on pillars, slabs and bricks at Shri Ram Janam Bhumi Trust workshop in Ayodhya
Ayodhya verdict | Can court ask a secular State to construct a temple?
People react after Supreme Court's historic verdict on the Ayodhya land case, in Jaipur, on November 9, 2019.
Ayodhya verdict | Ruins don’t always indicate demolition, observes Supreme Court
Ayodhya verdict | Supreme Court not to entertain claims against actions of Mughals
Ayodhya verdict | Temple at disputed site, alternative land for mosque, rules Supreme Court
Supreme Court's judgment in Ayodhya case: reactions
Ayodhya: How a religious issue became a political hot potato
Ayodhya verdict | Supreme Court agrees Muslims were wronged but allows Ram temple
Ayodhya verdict quashes claim of ‘land as a legal entity’
Ayodhya verdict | Addendum quotes Tulsidas, Ain-i-Akbari for birthplace proof
People react after Supreme Court's historic verdict on the Ayodhya land case, in Jaipur, on November 9, 2019.
Ayodhya verdict | Sunni Waqf Board not to seek review of judgment
Time to celebrate: Residents lit firecrackers in Ayodhya on Saturday after the Supreme Coourt delivered the verdict.
Ayodhya split on predictable lines
Ayodhya verdict | Vindicated by unanimous verdict, says L. K. Advani
You are reading
Ayodhya verdict | Unimpeded right in outer courtyard wins whole site for Hindus
Ayodhya verdict | Constitution can resolve knotty issues, says Modi
When did the dispute over Ram Janmabhoomi start, and why did it take so long for a resolution?
Highlights of the Ayodhya verdict
Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute: The story so far
Ayodhya title dispute: A quick recap of the final hearings
Ayodhya verdict: decoding Allahabad HC's nine-year-old majority judgment under challenge in SC
Ayodhya verdict: as it happened | Temple at disputed site, alternative land for mosque, says Supreme Court
File photo of stone carving on pillars, slabs and bricks at Shri Ram Janam Bhumi Trust workshop in Ayodhya, for a possible temple at the disputed site.
A chronology of the Ayodhya dispute
What are the Ayodhya appeals all about?
Chronology of Ayodhya case
Timeline: Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute
Next Story