Battle for Rama Janmabhumi: Is a solution near?
by Sandhya Jain on 05 Nov 2010 18 Comments
The Hindu struggle to recover the Sri Rama Janmabhumi is still some battles and skirmishes away, as all parties plan to approach the Supreme Court to rectify - to the satisfaction of each contending litigant - the fractured verdict delivered by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Sept. 30, 2010. Hence it is dicey to engage in political forecast over whether we are near a solution to this vexed issue. Nor is it advisable to stir the waters at a time when the nation is besieged with complex and volatile problems and nothing will be gained by provoking ill will and unrest.

 

What is gratifying, however, is that for the first time in the decades since the murti of Ram Lalla appeared beneath the central dome of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, and particularly since the climactic moment of Dec. 6, 1992, voices have risen within the Muslim community in favour of closure of the dispute. Some of the parties have held meetings to attempt a settlement, and important Muslim religious leaders, notably Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and Maulana Mahmood Madani, MP (Rajya Sabha) have urged Muslims to accept the High Court verdict.

 

Regardless of the milestones ahead, we may now be able to present some of the issues involved in the Ayodhya dispute dispassionately. Previous attempts by Prime Ministers V.P. Singh, Chandra Shekhar, and P.V. Narasimha Rao, to resolve the issue by across-the-table sharing of evidence by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Babri Masjid Action Committee ended in abrupt Muslim withdrawal; now the community seems prepared to face the issue in totality.

 

Hindu tradition lists the Ramayana and the Mahabharata epics as Itihasa (History); thus, Sri Rama and Sri Krishna are divine historical personages, and not the subject of legend or faith (read imagination) – the argument being used by opponents of the verdict to undermine its legality.

 

Coming to the material evidence, archaeological investigations in the 1970s showed evidence of a temple; this was validated by a Ground Penetration Radar Survey which showed several pillars below the spot where the Masjid once stood. In 2003, the Supreme Court ordered archaeological excavation of the site, which yielded convincing evidence of two temples – one a grand structure build by the Gahadvala dynasty, and an earlier smaller structure that probably made way for the grander temple. The Babri Masjid was built atop the Gahadvala temple and incorporated the pillars of the old temple into its structure – a feature typical of early Muslim architecture in India.  

 

The historical experience of northern India is that since 1000 AD, every Hindu temple has been desecrated, razed, or appropriated; not one stands intact, save those built after the Mughal Empire went into terminal decline and could not be accessed. Hindus then became pro-active about regaining the lost sacred spaces; Akharas were formed and armed sadhus waged pitched battles at several temple sites to reclaim the sacred heritage. Hence the samadhis (graves) of thousands of sadhus at temple sites in northern India.

 

Ayodhya was one such contested site, contrary to the fatuous claims of Leftist intellectuals that no one had heard of it until the Sangh Parivar made a political movement of it in the last decades of the twentieth century. Sadhu-devotees clawed their way back into the sacred precincts, established and maintained control of spaces known as Sita ki Rasoi and Ram Chabutara, even as Muslim political power held sway in Awadh-Faizabad.

 

Ayodhya entered the annals of modern India when, on Dec. 22-23, 1949, the murti of Ram Lalla appeared under the central dome of the disputed mosque. Local intelligence believes this to be the handiwork of Seth Bishan Chand and Mahant Digvijay Nath ji Maharaj of Gorakhnath Mandir (both Hindu Mahasabha MPs); Shri Ramchandra Paramhans; and Gopal Singh Visharad, Faizabad district president, Hindu Mahasabha.

 

Visharad took the matter to court on Jan. 16, 1950, and won the right to worship the deity. Thereafter the ‘Ram durbar’ (murtis of Sita, Lakshman, Hanuman were incorporated into the makeshift temple). This victory set the foundation for establishing the Hindu title to the site as it validated Hindu law that ‘once a temple, always a temple,’ which was upheld by the British Privy Council in the case of the Natraj statue stolen from the premises of a derelict temple. This must be the starting point for overturning any Muslim claim to the site. The High Court judges unanimously gave the central dome where Ram Lalla Virajman is housed to the Hindu Mahasabha.

 

The Nirmohi Akhara became party to the court case in 1959, claiming it alone had the right to perform puja, and that it had won cases to this effect under the Raj, notably in 1853 and again in 1885. In 2010, the Akhara won the Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutra.

 

The Sunni Central Waqf Board impleaded itself as a party only in 1961; one judge declared it time-barred. But the more pertinent question about the Board is its legality and locus standi. There is an All India Waqf Board established by the Government of India, which is a registered body. The Sunni Waqf Board is neither registered nor a recognised body, nor is it known when it was established.

 

In contrast, the Nirmohi Akhara has been present in Ayodhya since the 18th century. The Hindu Mahasabha was set up in 1882 by Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nandi of Bengal, and Kurtikoti Adi Guru Shankaracharya of Sringeri (which is why Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao brought the current Sringeri Shankaracharya to set up a parallel Ramalaya Trust, though the Matham had ceased to have contact with the Mahasabha). The Hindu Mahasabha was registered as a society in 1915 in Lucknow.

 

A more ticklish issue is the Islamic denomination of the Babri mosque-structure. Babur and the Mughal dynasty were Sunni; his general, Mir Baqi, reputed to have built the mosque by demolishing an extent temple or over the ruins of a temple, was a Shia. So was the mosque a Shia or Sunni mosque? Or was it just a structure covering a Hindu sacred site?

 

The question is pertinent because the Shia Nawabs of Awadh did not perform namaaz at Ayodhya, and most likely prayed at the Imambara. There are doubts if the Babri structure was ever a functional mosque as there is no wazu for washing before prayers, which is mandatory in Islam. Hence there was never a regular namaaz there, and hence the obscurity over its denominational status.  

 

Interestingly, the Shia community was never excited over the mosque and is now even more disinterested in fighting for it. It is the Sunni-dominated All India Muslim Personal Law Board that is pushing for confrontation. And as in 1992 when some leading Muslims toyed with the idea of giving the site to the Hindus, the Secular Stalinists and Leftists in the media and academia are egging them on, opposing all voices of reasonableness and sanity.

 

All told, Justices Dharam Veer Sharma, Sudhir Aggarwal, and SU Khan performed yeoman’s service in giving some form and coherence to this centuries-old dispute. It is for the apex court to remove the anomalies in their judgment and give the land to Ram Lalla Virajman.

 

The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com The article was written for the Diwali Special Issue of Organiser weekly

User Comments Post a Comment
It is not what the Muslims want, the Congress does not want a temple to be made at Ayodhya. If a temple is made the BJP gets the Hindu votes and the Congress neither the Hindu nor Muslim votes. That is why the congress shrill on RSS being involved in terror has gone act post judgement. Congress wants to keep the RSS busy with defending itself against terror allegations. The Sangh needs to not only defend itself but remain focussed on getting legal permission to build a temple. Sandhya thks for bringing out the Shia Sunni angle. Differences in different sects of the Muslims need to be brought out in the open so that others can educated abt the Muslim community.
sanjeev nayyar
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
Now this is a very convenient way of grabbing stuff that does not belongs to you.........""when, on Dec. 22-23, 1949, the murti of Ram Lalla appeared under the central dome of the disputed mosque. Local intelligence believes this to be the handiwork of Seth Bishan Chand and Mahant Digvijay Nath ji Maharaj of Gorakhnath Mandir (both Hindu Mahasabha MPs); Shri Ramchandra Paramhans; and Gopal Singh Visharad, Faizabad district president, Hindu Mahasabha.""........................
My question to the writer would be how come nothing happened/appeared during all those centuries that passed away while the Masjid was still standing,and all of a sudden out of the blue the murti mysteriously appeared under the central dome and bam a "dipute" was created........come on give us a break!This seems like a page from the wizards of Oz where the monkeys are flying the tin man,the lion and girl with ruby slippers are running around.Now any one can burry some murti in the middle of the night in your back yard and next morning claim it be a long lost mandir!
According to recorded history, Babri Masjid was built in 1528 by Mir Bank who was Babur’s viceroy in that region. There is no historical record stating that the site had a temple that was destroyed to build a mosque. The mosque was known by several names, including Masjid-i Janmasthan, Jami Masjid, Sita Rasoi Masjid and so on. The District Gazetteer of Faizabad documents that the mosque was a place of worship for both religions. Incidents of communal violence over the ownership of the site started from 1853 and the British government tried to resolve it in 1859 by erecting a fence that divided the mosque into an inner and outer court. Hindus were allowed to construct a raised platform (chabutra) in the outer court, while the inner court was to be used only by Muslims.
In December 1949, the controversy reached new heights when mahants decided to recite the Ramayana in front of the mosque. It was later reported by the devotees who had gathered for that recitation that the image of Lord Ram appeared inside the mosque. But the administration and the Muslim community were not impressed as it was alleged that idols were placed inside by Hindus who entered the mosque by breaking its locks. Because of the controversy, the place was locked up.
It is surprising that the VHP has not been able to provide even a single ancient Sanskrit document in support of its claim that there had been an ancient belief in Ram-janmasthan at Ayodhya. On the contrary evidence suggests that reverence of Ayodhya as the birthplace of Ram began not before the l8th century. The only document in support of its claim is the Skanda Purana, which abounds in interpolations. At best, the core of it was compiled not earlier than 16th century. This Purana has a chapter extolling the greatness of Ayodhya (Ayodhya Mahatmya) which appears towards the end of the work and which clearly is a later addition. Even if we accept the location of the birthplace of Rama as given in the Ayodhya Mahatmya, it does not coincide with that of the Babri Masjid. According to the Skanda Purana, the birthplace of Rama is 500 dhanus (910 meters) westward of Laumash and 1009 dhanus (1835 meters) eastward of Vighneshvara. Laumash is identical with the present Rinamochana Ghat. Thus, if we follow the Skanda Purana directions, the birthplace of Rama should be located somewhere west, in the vicinity of the Brahmakunda, close to the bed of the Saryu. So even accounting to the Skanda Purana the birthplace of Rama cannot be located on the site where the Babri Masjid stands.
A Piece of authentic recorded history regarding the Masjid is the Persian inscription put on the Masjid immediately upon its construction in AD 1528-29. In that inscription nowhere has it been mentioned that the Masjid was built after destroying a temple or upon the site of a temple. If Mir Baqi who constructed the Masjid had destroyed the temple, he would have considered it a meritorious act and would have mentioned it in the inscriptions.
With in fifty years of the construction of the Babri Masjid, the celebrated poet Tulsidas composed the Ram Charit Manas (1575-76), written in Avadhi. Is it possible to believe that Tulsidas would not have given vent to his grief had the very birth-site of Lord Rama had been ravaged, its temple razed to the ground and a mosque built in its place? If Ayodhya was sacred to the Hindus, he should have included it among the places of pilgrimage. Tulsidas suggests Prayag as one of the principal places of pilgrimage and not Ayodhya. In other words, even in the latter half of the 16th century Ayodhya was not considered as one of the holy places.
The earliest mention of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage is in the A’in-i-Akbari by Abul Fazl who completed it in AD 1598. Abul Fazl includes Ayodhya among the important places of pilgrimage in India. In the chapter on Ayodhya, he gives a detailed account of an extensive area called Ayodhya where Ramnavmi festival is celebrated and which is esteemed to be one of the holiest places of antiquity. He even mentions small details such as two Jewish priests lying buried in Ayodhya. Yet there is not the remotest reference to Ram’s birthsite, let alone to any mosque built on it.
There are many more historical facts that proves that there was no suggestion anywhere in recorded history that this was a precise site of Ram’s birth, where the holy structure had been destroyed and a Masjid built upon it.With best regards.
observer
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
A leading editor of an English newspaper, well known for his support for anti-India elements, even commented that the HC judgment is not a good one as the ASI report is questionable, as if he himself has done some separate investigation! This man is lately very much in the news.
Ramesh
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
I think we are dealing with a congenital idiot here incapable of thinking in words of one syllable. So let me make it simple for you dearie - your ancestor destroyed my temple; my ancestor rescued the murti from you barabarians. My grandfather placed the murti inside the temple again. Now I am going to make sure you dont look even cross-eyed at my temples. So dont go looking for intellectual explanations. there arent any. You people havent evolved in centuries. We have. Now we know how to deal with you and your ilk. I hope this is simple enough for you.
S Bhavatharini
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
Bhavatharini's comment above is obviously aimed at Observer and people of his anti-Hindu mindset.
In four straight, direct, logical sentences he/she
has demolished his hate-filled essay in disinformation!
sambadami
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
From published scholarly treatises , it can be discerned that between1975- 1980, the ASI under the directorship of Prof. (Dr) B.B. Lal , a former Director General of the ASI, undertook an extensive programme of excavations at Ayodhya, including the very mound of the Ramjanmabhumi on which the so-called ‘ Janmasthan Masjid’ or Babri Masjid once stood till 06 Dec 1992 . At Ayodhya, Prof. Lal excavated 14 trenches at different locations in order to ascertain the antiquity of the site. According to Prof. Lal, based his findings following the excavations, the history of the township was at least three thousand years old, if not more, and that at the Ramjhanmabhumi there stood a HUGE STRUCTURE on a parallel series of square pillar bases built of several courses of bricks and stones. When seen in the light of 20 black stone pillars, 16 of which were found REUSED AND STANDING IN POSITION AS CORNER STONES OF THE BABRI MASJID DOME STRUCTURE, Prof Lal CONCLUDED THAT THE PILLAR BASES WOULD HAVE BELNGED TO A HINDU TEMPLE THAT PREDATED THE BABRI MASJID.
Authenticating Prof Lal is this statement of Shri K.K. Muhammad , Deputy SuperintendentArcha eologist ( Madras Circle ) as appeared in the English daily, Indian Express on 15 Dec 1990 : “ I can reiterate this (ie. The existence of the Hindu Temple before it was displaced by the Babri Masjid) with greater authority – for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-’77 under Prof. Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted ONLY ONE PART OF OUR FINDINGS WHILE SUPPRESSING THE OTHER.” Muhammad went to add: “ Ayodhya is as holy to the Hindus as Mecca is to the Muslims; Muslims should respect the sentiments of their Hindu brethren and voluntarily hand over the structure for constructing theRama Temple.”

In his treatise “ The Baburi Masjid ”, R.Nath wrote: “ The foregoing study of the architectureand site of the Baburi Masjid has shown, unequivocally and without any doubt, that it stands on the site of a Hindu Temple which originally existed in the Ramkot on the bank of the river Sarayu, and Hindu temple material has also been used in its construction. ”
As the Belgian scholar, Dr. Koenraad Elst has succinctly summed up this needless controversy:“ Science has made considerable progress, to the point of being able to decide many historical riddles such as whether a given site has a history as a place of worship. With the modern techniques available, it is rather absurd that there should be a controversy over such a simple and easily verifiable yes/no game over the existence of temple remains at the disputed site, when the matter could be scientifically decided in no time. Worse, even when science was called in to decide, the procedure was opposed by, of all people, the most EMINENT ACADEMICS. And when the scientific findings were made public, they were furiously denounced by more academics. - - - -. I for one want to be counted among those who defend the freedom of research and the scientific method, rather than among those who shriek and howl about some evil spirit in whose name EVERY LIE becomes justified, and whom THEY CALL SECULARISM. ”

If the 'Eminent Historians' - nay - the 'Eminent Frauds' - do not intervene in the matter, and, if the 'secular' media plays straight, we can hope for a final solution for the Ayodhya controversy.

Happy Deepavali
H.Balakrishnan
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
Sandhyaji, with her solid historical scholarship and nationalist credentials, has lucidly analyzed the Ram Janmabhoomi issue. Observer, with no
comparable credentials, has indulged in a contrived personal narrative-his own private version of history- containing falsehoods and
fallacious reasoning. It does not affect the validity of Sandhyajis analysis. He is like a fly in the flybottle-unable to break out of his indoctrination.
rambhakt9
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
Even if the solution of Ram Janmabhoomi is near and likely to be solved, Sonia Gandhi and her sycophants would not allow the Ram Janmabhoomi to be restored to Hindu-s!! She has already spoken her mind out in AICC meeting " The Judgement has not exonerated the demolition of Babri Masjid and the accused might have to face the consequences and punishment"
Kumar
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
Excellent summary of facts in a proper perspective. Congrats.
Virendra
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
Bhavatharini is the name of Kolkata's Kali and make no mistake she is a she and so am I.
S Bhavatharini
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
Very very well argued. Have a grand Dipavali
S Mukherjee
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
Mrs Sonia Gandhi is indeed guilty of stating the obvious.and for the ears of her vote bank. There is indeed a case judgement pending. What it holds in store is any body's guess.
Devinder
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
Even in his own report submitted to the Archaeological Survey of India in 1976-77 and in 1979-80, Professor Lal had stated “several later medieval brick-and-kankar lime floors have been sighted, but the entire late period was devoid of any special interest.” The later medieval period indicated 17th-l8th centuries. If remains of a structure of 17th-l8th centuries, are found outside the masjid area, how do they prove the presence of a temple that was supposedly built in the 11th century and destroyed in the early 16th century? the experts asked. They also point out that the excavations did not reveal any pillars, or roof material of the supposed temple at the site where the brick pillar base stood. The mere presence of pillar bases does not make out a case for the existence of a temple.

Interestingly, pieces of glazed ware pottery were unearthed from the trenches above the floors associated with the brick-pillar base structure and immediately below the general floor of the Babri Masjid. It is an accepted fact that Islamic glazed-ware pottery has never been used in Hindu temple. The presence of the glazed pottery shows that as in other parts of Ayodhya, this site also was inhabited by Muslims around the thirteenth century, and the pillar structure could have been anything but a temple, had already fallen down and gone out of use before the Muslim habitation.

Now about the black basalt stone-pillars used in the four arches of the Masjid. VHP argues that they formed part of the temple which was destroyed. Similar pillars are also found in the graveyard nearby. All these differ in their style and diameter and their total lack of stratigraphic association rules out the possibility of their being an integral part of any single structure. Such pillars are also found in other parts of Ayodhya in completely unrelated contexts. Besides, the pillar bases existing at a distance of about 60 feet to the south of the Babri Masjid structure are in alignment with the pillars used in the Babri Masjid. They could have been part of a veranda or a dwelling place or an animal shed and are of no importance as such structures could be found in the area even now. Thus, archeological evidence so far suggests the existence of Muslim habitation proximal to the Masjid from the 13th century onwards.
observer
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
More basic history for Observer:The barbarian jihadi invasions of Bharat were illegal. Their genocide of 80 million natives was illegal and constitutes the biggest crime in the history of the human species. Their tyrannical rule over parts of Bharat and construction of masjids was illegal; so were the forced conversions, loot and plunder. This mountain of illegalities and atrocities cannot confer any rights
to anything on the self-declared remote successors of the original barbarian jihadi invaders. They blasphemed our deities and destroyed thousands of temples and their advocates/followers are now splitting legal
airs to challenge our revered Ram! This is sacrilege beyond imagination. Govt. must restore
to the Hindus all their temples which were converted to Mosques. Observer's long pseudo-historical essay is therefore simply irrelevant.
rambhakt
November 05, 2010
Report Abuse
Is it not possible for the author of the article to block the observer's Islamic observations? That's what any Muslim writer would do. Give the scoundrel tit-for-tat.
Indira
India Oorath
November 06, 2010
Report Abuse
Hindus and the Indian Muslims might have solved their problems amicably had these dirty politicians not interfered. It is these politicians who rather than solving the problems
Vasant
November 06, 2010
Report Abuse
AS SONIA WANTS TO PUNISH THE KAR SEVAKS WHO BROUGHT DOWN THIS EDIFICE ARTIFICIALLY KNOWN TO BE A "MOSQUE" I WOULD LIKE TO ARGUE THAT WHAT ABOUT PUNISHING THOSE FOREIGN INVADERS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS WHO DESECRATED AND DESTROYED SO MANY OF OUR TEMPLES ALL OVER INDIA AND SUPERIMPOSED OVER THOSE SITES WITH SO MANY MOSQUES. THIS IS WELL KNOWN FACTS. I WOULD LIKE TO QUOTE SOME PASSAGES FROM THEIR HOLY BOOK WHICH ENCOURAGES THESE SUB HUMAN BEINGS TO DESICRATE AND DESTROY ALL THE PLACES OF WORSHIP OTHER THAN THEIR ALLAH'S MOSQUES1 ?Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (Original: ??????? -- The Qur'an (??????), Sura 9:5 ?Those that the Muslims killed were not really killed by them. It was Allah who did the killing. (Original: ?????? -- The Qur'an (??????), Sura 8:17 ?Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, and tooth for tooth. Non-muslims are wrong doers. (Original: ????? -- The Qur'an (??????), Sura 5:45 ?Muslims that make friends with disbelievers will face a doom prepared for them by Allah. (Original: ????? --The Qur'an (??????), Sura 5:80 ?Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed, and are bound to do so by the Torah, Gospel, and Quran. But Allah will reward them for it. (Original: ????? ?????? -- The Qur'an (??????), Sura 9:111
Rakhal Saha
November 09, 2010
Report Abuse
Who let RAKHAIL SAHA out of the straitjacket and from the mental hospital ?
observer
November 09, 2010
Report Abuse
Comments are free. However, comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. Readers may report abuse at  editorvijayvaani@gmail.com
Post a Comment
Name
E-Mail
Comments