It affirmed the disputed spot was the birthplace of Lord Ram, that the Babri Masjid was built after the demolition of a Hindu temple and that it was not built in accordance with the tenets of Islam.
The Supreme Court suspended this ruling in after both Hindu and Muslim groups appealed against it. The 9 November verdict cited a report by the Archaeological Survey of India ASI as evidence that the remains of a building "that was not Islamic" were beneath the structure of the demolished Babri mosque. The unanimous verdict said the disputed land should be given to Hindus for a temple to Lord Ram, while Muslims would be given land elsewhere to construct a mosque.
It then directed the federal government to set up a trust to manage and oversee the construction of the temple. However, the court added that the demolition of the Babri mosque was against the rule of law. The main group of Muslim litigants has said that it will not appeal against the verdict.
In the Supreme Court, which was ruling on a related case, remarked that the concept of a mosque was "not integral to Islam". This may have bolstered the case made by Hindus to secure control of the entire site. In April , senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan filed a plea before the top court, asking judges to reconsider this observation. But a few months later the Supreme Court declined to do so. As context, an earlier court case brought before the regional High Court in Allahabad in , eventually ruled that the site, comprising 2.
At less than an acre each, challenges were mounted and sustained. Taken up by the Supreme Court, hearing the claims played out over months, it found on 9 November , in favour of Ram Lalla as a proxy for the right-wing Hindus, handing over the full site, but decreed that the Modi Government must allocate five acres in Ayodhya for a new mosque to be built. The decisions have been accepted. While the Muslim claim was overturned, it was compensated, but any analysis must consider the encouragement for the Hindu right wing in any further claims of this nature.
That is, all citizens are subject to the law, and all religions are equal. Smaller steps to topple lesser Muslim monuments may proceed in the current electoral term, adding, pro tem , to a Hindu India. Since then, she has co-edited and contributed to two further books. Print Email. The ownership of the site of a mosque at Ayodhya has been disputed periodically since it was built in the sixteenth century. Honouring Exemplary Boards. Deep Dive Into Cryptocurrency. ET Markets Conclave — Cryptocurrency.
Reshape Tomorrow Tomorrow is different. Let's reshape it today. Corning Gorilla Glass TougherTogether. ET India Inc. ET Engage. ET Secure IT.
Web Stories. Morning Brief Podcast. Economy Agriculture. Foreign Trade. Company Corporate Trends. Defence National International Industry. Riots broke out across the country in the aftermath of the demolition.
To be sure, the Ayodhya issue has intensified, or been buried, depending on the political exigencies of the moment. There have been times when the BJP has found it useful to raise it as a key issue.
But there have been other times when the BJP has decided not to raise it during elections as a key theme, for many within its own fold had begun questioning its commitment to the cause. It is in this historical and contemporary backdrop that the Supreme Court will deliver its final verdict on Ayodhya. The BJP and its supporters are relatively confident that the verdict will give the disputed property to the Hindu parties, thus paving the way for the construction of the temple.
It will be a moment that will require extraordinary statesmanship by PM Modi, for he must then reach out to the minorities and allay their insecurities. There has been a growing view within the Muslim community that if the temple is so important for the Hindu faithful, they should accommodate this concern. The community, too, should see such a verdict in that spirit. The preparations by the UP government in deploying its field officers, and even imposing Section in Ayodhya, is important, because violence must be avoided at all costs.
And for this, it is important that a favourable verdict is not accompanied by triumphalism and bitterness. This verdict should also not come in the way of the other case which is pending at the trial stage — of the alleged conspiracy behind the demolition of the mosque. If the verdict favours the Muslim parties, or is not entirely in favour of the Hindu parties, once again, the issue must be seen having gone through due process.
The verdict should be respected.
0コメント