Ayodhya Verdict: Babri Mosque Built at Ram Birthplace
Lucknow, Sep 30 (IANS): In a judgement much awaited by India, the Allahabad High Court Thursday ruled that the spot in Ayodhya where a makeshift temple was built hastily after razing the Babri mosque in 1992 was indeed where Hindu god Ram was born, lawyers said.
By a majority decision, the Lucknow bench of the high court also declared that the land around the disputed site would be divided into three parts -- one going to Hindus, another to Muslims and the third to Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect and a litigant in the case.
Lawyers K.N. Bhat and Ravi Shankar Prasad, representing two of the Hindu litigants, said the bench had decided that Lord Ram was born where the Babri mosque was built in the 16th century.
"All the three judges, including S.U. Khan, are unanimous in accepting that the idol of Ram cannot be removed from the place where it is installed right now," Ravi Shankar Prasad said.
Dismissing the 60-year-old title suit filed by the Sunni Waqf Board, the judges said that none of the litigants would take any action on the land for the next three months.
"We are party disappointed. We will approach the Supreme Court," Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Zafaryab Jillani told reporters.
Minutes after the ruling, Ravi Shankar Prasad, who is also a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), urged Muslims to help in the construction of a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya, an Uttar Pradesh town about 700 km from New Delhi.
"After this ruling, I make a humble appeal to the Muslims of this country, please accept this verdict, please help in the construction of a temple... It will lead to a new brotherhood in the country," he said.
The lawyer added that he was making the appeal not as a BJP leader but as a citizen of India.
"It is definitely in favour of the Hindus," said H.S. Jain, counsel for the Hindu Mahasabha. He said he too would approach the Supreme Court to campaign against the land given to the Sunni Waqf Board.
Leading theatre personality Aamir Reza Hussain said it was time for Muslims to give up the land for a Ram temple.
"It absolutely the time to heal the wounds, and to let it go," he said.
The ruling followed years of litigation that at one staged threatened to rip apart the country's communal fabric.
Agencies:
Allahabad High Court rules by majority that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts - site of the Ramlala idol to Lord Ram, Nirmohi Akhara gets Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutara, Sunni Wakf Board gets the rest.
Status quo will be maintained at the disputed site in Ayodhya for three months. However, the time for the final decree has not been decided.
The suit filed by the Sunni Wakf Board has been dismissed. However, Muslims are entitled to offer prayers and consider their share of the land as a mosque.
The three separate synopsis of the three judges, Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma was made available to the media.
The portion below the central dome has been declared as the birth place of lord Ram and will go to the Hindus. S U Khan also said that the property was jointly held by the three parties among whom it has been divided.
As per the information posted on the Allahabad High Court website, the following were the issues for briefing:
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram?
The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child.
Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom?
The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple?
The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949?
The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.
6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyard?
It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.
After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.