In Ayodhya, ruling brings celebrations

AYODHYA: Sections of the temple town erupted in joy after the Supreme Court declined to refer to a larger bench the 1994 Ismail Faruqui ruling on Thursday. The decision rekindled hope among Hindu saints of a Ram temple in Ayodhya soon.

Since the morning, saints in ashrams across town, at Kar Sevak Puram, which is the local headquarters of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and at the historic Hanuman Garhi temple were glued to TV screens for any update on the verdict from the apex court.

At the Ram Ki Paidi ghat on the banks of the Saryu river, a large number of saints had gathered for a discussion on the Ram Mandir issue.

As news broke of the apex court judgment, seers and commoners started celebrating. Temple bells started ringing and sweets were distributed at ashrams. Many of the thousands of temples dotting Ayodhya were opened in the afternoon itself, contrary to usual practice that assumes the reigning deity rests during that time.

At the Kar Sevak Puram and the Mani Ram Das Chawni Peeth, from where activities of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas are run, the apex court’s decision was construed as a victory and a final push for the Ram temple in Ayodhya.

“Now, it seems that Ram Mandir will be constructed at the lord’s birth place in Ayodhya,” said Ayodhya Prasad, 75, with his hands folded.

Special payers were offered at Hanuman Garhi temple.

Some Muslims, too, welcomed the judgment. Iqbal Ansari, son of late litigant in the Ayodhya case, Hasim Ansari, said, “The Supreme Court’s ruling in the (1994) Ismail Faruqui case will have no bearing on the pending title suit in the Ayodhya dispute.”

“We want the court to expedite hearing in the case and give an early decision so that all politics in the name of Ram Mandir comes to an end. Early decision in the case will also ensure peace in the country,” added Ansari.

In 1994, in the case of Dr Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India, the Supreme Court made two serious observations. One, that a mosque is not an essential part of Islam; and two, that the protection of law to religious places can be tested on the basis of “particular significance”.

Of the three judges of the Allahabad high court hearing the title suit at the time, two judges considered these observations relevant for adjudication. In its 2010 judgment, the high court quoted that portion of the SC verdict where the issue of “particular significance” and “integral part of religion” with respect to the mosque was mentioned in the Ismail Faruqui decision.

Ultimately, the high court decided Muslims shall be entitled to only one third portion of the land, and that,too, not where the mosque existed. The reason