As the Supreme Court verdict favoured the temple’s construction at the site where the historic 16th century Babri Masjid stood before being demolished by Hindutva zealots in December 1992, it was believed that longstanding disputes between Hindus and Muslims would finally come to an end.
Abdul Bari Masoud | Clarion India
THE inauguration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya on Monday (January 22) was an extravagant affair, loaded with political and electoral calculations. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was at the helm of the elaborate ceremony.
The event, brimming with fanfare and symbolism, was overtly orchestrated to lay the groundwork and set the stage for the impending April–May 2024 general elections.
As the Supreme Court’s verdict favoured the temple’s construction at the site where the historic 16th century Babri Masjid stood before being demolished by Hindutva zealots in December 1992, it was believed that longstanding disputes between Hindus and Muslims would finally come to an end.
But this dream has remained elusive. Every other day, litigation processes targeting mosques are reported to only serve to deepen the communal divisions.
The path to the inauguration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, though celebrated by a majority, has left a significant portion of the Muslim community disheartened by the handling of the issue, both politically and legally. For them, the memories of the mosque’s demolition in the presence of security forces, the ensuing bloodshed, and the subsequent court verdict are painful reminders of the injustices endured.
The Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi movement, at its core, was more political than religious, leaving an indelible mark on the political landscape of the nation while exacerbating societal rifts. The highly anticipated inaugural ceremony itself bears the unmistakable stamp of politics.
The root of the discontent among the Muslim community lies in the Supreme Court’s decision, which many viewed as politically charged from the outset. The attempt to place idols beneath the Babri Masjid’s central dome, followed by the mosque’s classification as disputed property by the Faizabad district court, further intensified the polarisation. The mosque’s locks were opened, brick worshipping rituals commenced, and the mosque was ultimately demolished in 1992. It wasn’t until 2019 that the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the construction of the Ram Temple at the contentious location despite the fact that the court clearly stated in its judgment that the mosque was not erected after demolition of any temple.
On the contrary, the Hindu parties asserted that the 2.77 acres of disputed land, once the site of the Mughal-era mosque, marked the birthplace of Lord Ram, alleging that it had been constructed by Muslim rulers after the destruction of a temple. Archaeological findings were cited as evidence in support of this claim. The Bharatiya Janata Party’s Rath Yatra culminated in the mosque’s destruction, a moment of infamy witnessed by the public.
The dispute spanned decades, with both Hindus and Muslims staking their claims. Ultimately, in November 2019, the apex court’s five judges unanimously ruled in favour of Ram Lalla Virajman, the infant deity (Lord Ram), who had become a litigant in 1989, paving the way for the temple’s construction. Simultaneously, the court allotted five acres of land at an alternative site to the Muslim litigants.
The Muslim side, represented by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), voiced dissatisfaction, arguing that the Supreme Court had failed to deliver justice. It would be very pertinent to mention here that in Islam, it is a firmly established principle that constructing a mosque by demolishing any religious structure or encroaching on land is strictly prohibited. This principle is so strong that even utilising anything, no matter how small, that is illegally occupied is not allowed at all as prayers therein will not be accepted.
While the court considered the evidence presented by the Muslim party, it ultimately reversed its stance and awarded the land to Hindus using “exceptional discretionary powers.” This shift in the court’s position was deemed “painful” by Zafaryab Jilani, who represented the Muslim body. Legal experts and retired judges have also criticised the verdict, characterising it as a reflection of a majoritarian belief.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice A.K. Ganguly questioned whether the court would have ordered the demolition of the Babri Masjid, a historic mosque from the Mughal era, if Hindus had claimed Lord Rama’s birthplace there. He asserted that the mosque’s demolition was a gross violation of the rule of law and an act of vandalism, ultimately wronging the minority community.
Upon revisiting the Ayodhya decision, which was handed down on November 9, 2019, by the Supreme Court’s five-judge panel, distinguished attorney and constitutional expert Rajeev Dhavan told this writer that he found two major flaws in the ruling. He claimed he didn’t know what pressure was being placed on the bench judges in question, which delivered the case to the government and the RSS as a “gift.”
Dhavan, who represented Muslim parties in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title dispute case, underlined two points as important.
“Firstly, the Hindu case was filed after 12 years, which means that due to limitations, the Hindu parties’ main petition should have been dismissed. Secondly, this is because the land on which so much fighting took place was 1500 square yards; now no Ram temple is to be built on 1500 square yards, so they had the land; it was not necessary to fight. See, when Gogoi Saheb was the Chief Justice, he assembled everyone (the judges) and put them on the same line. A year ago, Abdul Nazeer Saheb dissented on one issue, but later he did not. Now that he has become the governor, these were the things. What was the pressure on the judges that they were giving this case to the Sangh Parivar and the government? This ‘gift” was not understood because we won the case on the main points, but the issue of limitation, on which the whole case was to be based on the rejection of the main Hindu petition, I don’t know how it got fudged”.
Beyond legal interpretations, allegations of “judicious bribery” have emerged, citing the appointments of the judges who constituted the five-judge Constitution Bench responsible for the Ayodhya verdict. The nomination of former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who headed the Ayodhya bench, to the Rajya Sabha by the Narendra Modi government and the appointment of Justice Abdul Nazeer as the governor of Andhra Pradesh soon after his retirement has raised questions about the judiciary’s independence.
To comprehend the Ayodhya verdict fully, it is essential to view it through a political lens rather than relying solely on legal interpretations. The BJP’s rise to prominence on the national stage in the 1980s, fuelled by the temple movement, reshaped the political discourse. With Modi’s emergence, the saffron party and various Hindu right-wing organisations have solidified their presence. Even ostensibly secular parties, including the Congress, have embraced the construction of the Ram Temple, emphasising their alignment with Hindu values. These parties, in practice, steer clear of overtly endorsing secularism and instead aim to establish themselves as devout Hindus.
The inauguration of the Ram Temple symbolises a triumph for some and a source of discontent for others. While the legal battles may be over, the social divisions and communal tensions spawned by the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi movement endure, casting a long shadow over the nation’s political landscape. Whether this temple becomes a symbol of unity or perpetuates discord remains a question that only time can answer.
_________
The views expressed here are author’s personal and do not necessarily represent the stand of Clarion India
