Texts don’t mention exact birthplace of Ram, SC told
Muslim party opposes the deity was born under central dome of disputed site
The Sunni Waqf Board, one of the parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, said on Tuesday it had accepted the Hindu belief that Hindu god Ram was born in the “chabutara” ( platform) in the outer courtyard of the 2.77-acre disputed site in Ayodhya.
But the board told the Supreme Court that it continued to oppose the claim of Hindu parties that Ram was born under the central dome of the now-demolished mosque.
Senior advocate Zafaryab Jilani, appearing for the board, told a five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, said that two Hindu texts, the Ramcharitmanas and the Valmiki Ramayana, did not point to any precise birthplace of Ram.
But justice DY Chandrachud, a member of the bench, found the argument problematic
“Only because Valmiki Ramayana and ‘Ramcharitmanas do not mention the precise site in Ayodhya where Ram was born, can’t Hindus believe that Ram was born at a particular place in Ayodhya,” said the bench.
During Tuesday’s hearing, justice SA Bobde, one of the members of the bench, asked Jilani if the board had ever disputed the chabutara as Ram’s birthplace.
Jilani said the board had disputed the chabutara claim earlier but changed its stand later.
“The district judge, Faizabad, held that Hindus worshipped the chabutara as the place of birth and the board decided to accept the same,” he told the bench.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad high court judgment that the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and representatives of Ram Lalla Virajman, which represents the infant deity Ram.
The bench also wondered why the Ain-I-Akbari, a 16th century document recording the administration under Mughal emperor Akbar, did not mention the mosque.
Jilani said it “was not important” enough to find a place in the book. Jilani had earlier quoted from the book to establish the board’s claim that no temple was demolished in Ayodhya to construct the mosque.
Jilani quoted the late historian, Jadunath Sarkar, to say that Ain-I-Akbari had included the minutest details and would have recorded the demolition too if it had happened.
Jilani will continue with his arguments on Wednesday. The bench has decided to sit until 5pm until Thursday, an hour after its scheduled time, to hear the case.
On December 6, 1992, the 16th century Babri Masjid was demolished by activists campaigning for the construction of a Ram temple on the site that Hindus believe marks the birthplace of the warrior-god Ram.