Eventually, the Supreme Court resolved the much and years talked Ayodhya dispute. November 9 of 2019 has become a historic day for this historic verdict. Many political loops were fabricated on this issue over the years.
|| Karamvir Kamal(Editor-In-Chief)
The Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) has always been in favor of the Ram temple and also has been instrumenting it as its prime political agenda in every election.
With this decision of the Honorable Apex Court of India, the prime issue of BJP has wiped out. Apart from the ruling party, many other parties also called this decision as an excellent verdict. The opposition has also welcomed the verdict.
But, is everything correct in the judgment?
Does the decision satisfy all classes?
Many questions have arisen in the minds of many intellectuals after this decision.
From former judges of the Supreme Court to officials of the investigating agencies, found it clear that some things have been neglected in the judgment.According to them, there are many points of judgment that leave some basic questions. Such questions should not become an unsolved riddle.
Apart from some Muslim sides of this decision, former Supreme Court Judge Ashok Kumar Ganguly and Liberhan Commission counsel questioned the decision.
The main question of Justice Ganguly is that the basis on which the Supreme Court has decided to give the disputed land to the Hindu side is beyond their comprehension.In an interview with BBC, where Justice Ganguly said, the way this decision was given, it bothers him.
He said, “Babri Masjid was there for 450-500 years. This mosque was demolished on 6 December 1992. Everyone has seen the demolition of the mosque. A criminal case is also going on with this. This bench of the Supreme has also called the demolition of the mosque illegal and criticized it. With this, the court decided that the land of the mosque belongs to Ramlala i.e. Hindu side. There is also no perfect evidence it was built by breaking the Ram temple. It was said that there was a structure under the mosque but there is no evidence that it was a temple. ”
Justice Ganguly says this is his first objection. While stating the second objection, he said, “Archaeological evidence has been made, but it has also been said that the archaeological evidence cannot decide the ownership of the land. In such a situation, the question arises, on what basis was the land given? ”
Justice Ganguly in his interview argued, “In that place, the mosque was for the last 500 years and since the Constitution of India came into existence there was a mosque there. Since the coming of the constitution, all Indians have got the right to have their respective religious freedom. Minorities have also got their religious freedom. Minorities have the right to follow their religion. They have the right to defend their religious structures. What about the demolition of the Babri Masjid which the Apex court itself informed that this was illegal and was not as per the law of this land? ”
Justice Ganguly said, “In 2017 in a case of State v. Kalyan Singh, in para 22, the Supreme Court has alleged that the Babri demolition was a crime that has hurt the values of secularism as per the Indian Constitution.”
Mr. Ganguly further urged,” this case is still going on and all those individuals who have committed this crime are yet to be convicted. There is no doubt that crime has taken place and this has seriously and unprecedently violated the values of secularism as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has said this. It is also yet to be decided who committed the crime. ”
In an interview given to The Telegraph, Justice Ganguly said, “What will a Muslim think after this decision? There was a mosque there for years, which was demolished. Now the Supreme Court has permitted to build a temple there. This permission was given on the basis that the land was attached to Ramlila. Who was the owner of the land centuries ago, will the Supreme Court decide it? Will the Supreme Court forget that when the Constitution came into force in independent India, there was a mosque? There are provisions in the Constitution and it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to protect it.”
Liberhan Commission’s lawyer raised questions
Apart from Justice Ganguly, the counsel for the Librahan Commission has also questioned this decision. A senior member of this commission, Anupam Gupta who had interrogated the leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party associated with the movement and was the lawyer of the Justice MS Liberhan Commission raised many legal questions in this matter. In an interview with the BBC, Anupam Gupta had expressed his disagreement over the decision of the Supreme Court.
Criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision on these things:
1) The decision to give the entire disputed land to one side (Hindu side).
2) Questions regarding the proof of Muslim prayers inside the mosque from 1528 to 1857,
3) Violation of the law by placing idols in the mosque in December 1949 and demolishing the entire structure in December 1992.
Expressing his disagreement, Mr. Gupta had said that he is agree with the conclusion of ownership. The court repeated this several times and believed that the ownership of the area under the domes in the inner courtyard and the place of worship is disputed Assuming this, the final relief should have been that the outer enclosure would have been given to the Hindus. But the question is, how can the inner enclosure also be given to Hindus?
The court’s decision to give both inner and outer enclosures to Hindus is a fundamental contradiction with the findings of the court that Hindus have only authority on the outer enclosure.
Apart from these, the decision on the Ayodhya dispute was described by historian DN Jha as disappointing. He said that the faith of Hindus has been given importance in this and the basis of the decision has been made on faulty archaeological science. Professor DN Jha called it very disappointing.
There is no doubt that the mosque was there. And that mosque was built by Mughal rulers only. The whole world along with India knew that mosque was there by the name of Babri Masjid. When the mosque was demolished, it was not only the national but it was the international point of media attention. Apart from photographs, video footage also shows the demolition of the mosque. Which is enough to prove to today’s generation that once there was a mosque.
The honorable High Court may have given place in its decision that between 1528 and 1857, the Namaz was not recited in the mosque. But it is also true that there was a mosque in 1528 which was demolished in 1992. Hindustan has been attacked by outsiders for hundreds of years. The kings of India also used to fight among themselves.
Taking advantage of this, the British established their kingdom here. In such a situation, it is not easy to guess when and how many buildings were built and demolished. Some ancient construction at the time of the Kings and Maharajas in Delhi are still buried beneath the soil. Even some of those ancient constructions and their locations have been occupied by the locals.
How many temples and mosques were built, demolished and buried inside the earth during hundreds of years is really out of imagination. But where religious freedom has been given in the constitution, this is our duty to maintain and safeguard our national heritage.
So it would not be wrong to say that once upon a time there was a mosque.