Introduction

Remember, Remember, the 6th of December, the axes, the hammers, that would dismember a mosque and a nation that has since then — only walked on embers.

– Akhil Katyal

In 1992, LK Advani led a rath yatra (literally, a “chariot journey”) to Ayodhya — the site claimed to be the birthplace of the famous mythical character, Lord Ram. As a brief history of the site, here’s all one may need to know; various sources have claimed that a temple dedicated to Ram stood at the site until the 16th century, at which point the Mughal emperor Babur apparently destroyed the temple, constructing the Babri Masjid at the site instead. However, both Hindus and Muslims continued to carry out religious ceremonies at the site — Muslims inside the mosque, and Hindus just outside of it.

The site truly only became a matter of contention as communal tensions became rife in a post-partition India. Indian Muslims had very few symbols they could claim as their own, and when they felt deserted by the country’s institutions despite the claim towards secularity, the Babri Masjid was a site that they staked their pride upon. Thus, when the new era of right-wing Hindutva politics slowly grew during the 1980s, the demand for a Ram temple at the sight of the Babri Masjid was looked upon with fear by Indian Muslims. The complacency of the country’s institutions didn’t help in the least, as LK Advani set out on his journey. Advani made it evident that he was not carrying a message of peace. Pictures of him carrying various weapons emerged as the yatra left a trail of blazing violence across Uttar Pradesh, as the BJP-majority government at the state level turned away. Kalyan Singh, the Chief Minister of UP at the time, aided Advani in his mission for the destruction of the masjid, acquiring the 2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya under the pretext of developing it for tourism purposes.

Thus, when the domes of the Babri Masjid came down on 6th December, the Muslims of the country could do very little to express their protest. Any sort of dissent was quelled violently by kar sevaks and other proponents of the Ram temple cause. The Prime Minister at the time, PV Narasimha Rao, witnessed some of the most violent communal incidents that had occurred in years unfold before his eyes and did next to nothing.

It comes as no surprise, thus, that the dispute over Ayodhya has been representational of the first steps the country took towards submitting to Hindutva-based populist cries of war.

The Judgement

Over a millennia’s worth of history does not lend itself to a simple explanation. The Supreme Court’s thousand-page long verdict was extensive and covered a lot of ground that will not be touched upon in this article. This section of the article is nothing more than a simplified report relaying the bare essentials of the judgement. The contentions that I personally have with it will be covered later. That being said, let’s dive in.

To begin with, the verdict touches upon the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India revealing that a structure of Hindu religious origin dating back to the twelfth century has been uncovered beneath the site of the destroyed Babri Masjid. The site itself, for the sake of legal proceedings, can be divided into the 2.77-acre inner courtyard where the masjid formerly stood, and a larger 68-acre outer courtyard historically known to be used by the Hindus for worship.

The verdict goes on to acknowledge a long history of Hindu worship in the outer courtyard, while on the other hand, holding that the Muslim plaintiffs had not put forth sufficient evidence to show that namaz was offered in the inner courtyard from the time of its construction in 1528 until 1857. Thus, the offering of namaaz has been established only from around 1857. Moreover, the SC holds that Ram idols being planted in the mosque in 1947 was illegal, and that the mosque’s demolition in 1992 was “an egregious violation of the rule of law”.

Finally, the verdict concludes with the decision to hand over the entirety of the disputed land over to a trust, instructing the construction of a temple dedicated to Ram. As an aside, 5 acres are to be allotted for the construction of a mosque at a suitable place in Ayodhya.

It is also interesting to note that the deity, Ram, was considered to be a plaintiff in the case. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad filed a petition on the deity’s behalf, presenting itself as the deity’s “sakha” or friend.

Essentially, the ruling is in favour of the Hindu plaintiff, setting in motion the steps for the construction of a Ram Temple.

The Problem

There is clearly a lot to unpack here, which is why it is essential to lay down the principles upon which the verdict rests in order to move forward. The primary justification that the Supreme Court provided for ruling in favour of the Hindu plaintiff was that the Muslim side had apparently not been able to provide sufficient evidence of uninterrupted and exclusive worship at the mosque from the time of its construction until the 19th century. Quoting from the judgement,

the Muslims have not adduced evidence to establish the exercise of possessory control over the disputed site. Nor is there any account in the evidence of the offering of namaz in the mosque, over this period

Later, the judgement goes on to state,

The Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago

What, then, was the purpose the mosque served between 1528, when it was built, and 1857? Acknowledged to be a mosque constructed over 450 years ago, it stands to reason that the mosque would have been utilised by Ayodhya’s Muslim residents, whether or not the land was also used by its Hindu residents. However, simply because the Muslim plaintiff was not able to provide sufficient evidence of exclusive use over the mosque, the Supreme Court handed the sight over to the Hindus. Incidentally, none of the Hindu plaintiffs (apart from the Nirmohi Akhara) have been asked to demonstrate exclusive possession over the site. This, however, is just scratching the surface of everything that’s wrong with this judgement.

Let’s address the involvement of Ram Lalla, the deity at Ayodhya, in the case. This particular case was taken up by the Supreme Court as a title case — nothing more than simply a legal land dispute. This begs the question; how does the matter of faith become a part of a title case? In the Supreme Court, which began the final hearings in the case on August 5, lawyers representing Ram Janamsthan have repeatedly claimed that the birthplace of Ram is a matter of faith for millions of Hindus. This has allowed them to make arguments based on faith alone, instead of needing to marshall material evidence to prove that the site was indeed the birthplace of Ram.

This becomes a matter of concern for one reason — the pretense that this entire case was nothing more than just the adjudication of a civil dispute. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the RSS, amongst various Hindutva organisations, stand before the court with the blood of thousands of Muslims on their hands killed in the name of the Ram mandir. What has become the rallying cry of thousands of blood-thirsty extremists is represented as nothing more than a title dispute in the Supreme Court, while the Vishwa Hindu Parishad argues their case on the basis of nothing more than Hindu belief that Ram’s birthplace was at Ayodhya, knowing that there was very little material evidence to prove their case. The Supreme Court accepts this entry of Hindu faith into the dispute and continues the pretense of the matter being an entirely civil case.

In his interview with India Today, Justice Bobde denied the court was attempting to legislate on matters of faith. He agreed with the suggestion that it is a “title dispute” but added: “The only thing is, what is the character of that structure, that is one of the issues. But even that structure doesn’t exist any more.”

Moreover, one must consider just how blatantly the court seems to have overlooked the destruction of the mosque in 1992 in the first place. The main stakeholders endorsing a Ram temple at the site in question are inherently linked to not only the violence that took place on 6th December, when the domes of the Babri masjid were brought down, but by the ensuing violence against Muslims across India as they protested the injustice they had faced in the process.

Take a second to acknowledge the multiple contradictions put forward in this judgement, and then consider how the judgement has set a precedent demands can be met simply on the basis of faith.

As PV Narasimha Rao shut his eyes, as the BJP shut their eyes in Uttar Pradesh in 1992, so has the judgement seemed to have been blinded. The cycle of complacency continues, and the Hindutva Sangh marches on.

Works Cited

Guha, Ramachandra. INDIA AFTER GANDHI: the History of the World’s Largest Democracy. ECCO, 2019.

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. 9 Nov. 2019, “M Siddiq Versus Mahant Suresh Das & Ors”, www.thehindu.com/news/national/article29929717.ece/Binary/JUD_2.pdf.

“Supreme Court’s Ayodhya Verdict Rests on a Glaring Contradiction.” The Wire, 9 Nov. 2019, thewire.in/law/supreme-court-ayodhya-verdict-possession.

Varadarajan, Siddharth. “What the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya Judgment Means for the Future of the Republic.” The Wire, 9 Nov. 2019, thewire.in/communalism/supreme-court-ayodhya-babri-masjid-ram-janambhoomi.

Venkataramanan, K. “Ayodhya Verdict: Unimpeded Right in Outer Courtyard Wins Whole Site for Hindus.” The Hindu, The Hindu, 10 Nov. 2019, www.thehindu.com/news/national/unimpeded-right-in-outer-courtyard-wins-whole-site-for-hindus/article29932633.ece.

Yamunan, Sruthisagar. How Inclusion of Ram Janmasthan as a Party to Babri Masjid Dispute Gave Hindu Side the Upper Hand, 20 Aug. 2019, scroll.in/article/934202/how-inclusion-of-ram-janmasthan-as-a-party-to-babri-masjid-dispute-gave-hindu-side-the-upper-hand.