India’s delicate task of healing Ayodhya begins
WAQF BOARD NOT TO APPEAL; MODI SAYS DISPUTE IS AMICABLY SOLVED
India’s Supreme Court yesterday awarded the contested religious site in Ayodhya to Hindus. The court ruling in the dispute between Hindu and Muslim groups paves the way for the construction of a Hindu temple on the site in Uttar Pradesh.
The 16th century Babri mosque was destroyed by Hindu hard-liners in December 1992, sparking massive Hindu Muslim violence that left some 2,000 people dead.
The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board said it will not go for a review of the case.
The five Supreme Court justices who heard the case said in a unanimous judgement that 5 acres of land will be allotted to the Muslim community to build a mosque, though it did not specify where.
The disputed land, meanwhile, will be given to a board of trustees for the construction of a temple to the Hindu deity Ram.
“The halls of justice have amicably concluded a matter going on for decades,” Modi tweeted. “This verdict shouldn’t be seen as a win or loss for anybody.”
Now that the Supreme Court has settled the Ayodhya issue, the real challenge is the execution of the verdict by the governments in New Delhi and in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
The first delicate task before the federal government is to bring warring Hindu factions together and set up a board of trustees for the construction of a Ram temple.
The Supreme Court has directed that Hindu sect Nirmohi Akhara, a main petitioner, be included in the trust along with other parties. While setting up the board, the government will have to decide; Who will be included in the board? Who will build and manage the day to day affairs of the temple? What will happen to the acquired land?
There are no simple answers to these questions given the history of Ram temple movement.
A134-year-old religious dispute, which dominated national discourse and public consciousness in post-independent India, was settled in little more than 30 minutes by the Supreme Court of India on Saturday morning.
Leading a bench of five judges, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi read the unanimous Ayodhya verdict, settling a complex dispute that was first heard by a court in British India in 1885. The bench, which included Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, ruled that the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya must be handed over to the Hindus for the construction of Ram temple. The court also ruled that an alternative plot of five acres be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque at a prominent site in Ayodhya.
How long did it take to arrive at a decision?
The ruling was delivered after the Supreme Court heard appeals challenging a 2010 order delivered by a lower court which divided the disputed land into three parts — two to Hindus and one to Sunni Waqf Board. Striking down the 2010 order, the Supreme Court said: “The disputed site measures all of 1500 square yards. Dividing the land will not subserve the interest of either of the parties or secure a lasting sense of peace and tranquillity. Bifurcation by the High Court was legally unsustainable. Even as a matter of maintaining public peace and tranquillity, the solution which commended itself to the High Court is not feasible.”
What did the mediation panel do?
Before the hearings began, the Supreme Court had appointed a mediation panel headed by a retired judge who interacted with Hindu and Muslim parties. The media panel, however, told the court in August that not all parties were ready for a settlement.
Gulf News reported in July that Sunni Waqf Board, a key Muslim party, had decided to give up its claim on the land.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was essentially over a piece of 2.77 acres of land in the heart of Ayodhya where the Mughal-era Babri mosque stood until it was demolished by Hindu zealots in December 1992. “On 6 December 1992, the structure of the mosque was brought down and the mosque was destroyed. The destruction of the mosque took place in breach of the order of status quo and an assurance given to this court. The destruction of the mosque and the obliteration of the Islamic structure was an egregious violation of
the rule of law. Justice would not prevail if the court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims who have been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means that should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law.
The Constitution postulates the equality of all faiths. Tolerance and mutual co-existence nourish the secular commitment of our nation and its people,” the court order said.
What did the ASI say?
The Hindus believed that deity Ram was born at that spot where the mosque was built, a claim contested by Muslims. Drawing from a report prepared by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), however, the Supreme Court accepted that the mosque was not built on a vacant land and a structure below the mosque was not Islamic. It noted that the ASI filed to prove that a temple existed on that site. The court also observed that mere existence of structure beneath the mosque cannot lead to a title for Hindus now.
It further added Sunni Waqf Board has not been able to prove adverse possession of land and there is evidence to show that Hindus had been visiting the premises prior to 1857.