I have gone through the detailed verdicts on Ayodhya case. I choose the word “gone through” and not “read” with a lot of care. I did not read the verdict but went through it and read all those parts, which are of significance. Here is what I skipped so you understand what exactly I have done:a. All pleadings / arguments etc. about technical matters such as, if the suit is bad because some notice was not given, is it bad because of time bar etc. I skipped all such portions and assumed that no technicality debilitates any side's case.
b. All references to earlier cases, which the judges list out before pronouncing on any issue, to support their judgment. I did not read through them.
c. All repetitions / translations
However, I tried to read all evidence / arguments / pleadings etc. on substantive issues. These were mainly – which side has a clear title, which side had possession throughout, what does historical evidence say, what does archaeological evidence says. I think I have read all substantive matter related to these issues. If, after going through my articles on Ayodhya judgment, anyone who has read it in more detail thinks I missed something, I would welcome being informed about it and will gladly update myself.
Now to what I learned from the detailed verdict.
I must say I am amazed at what I saw. It is indeed fascinating how India's legal system works. First thing which struck me was the depth to which the counsels and judges went. They go to the bottom of any issue and make all kinds of references to laws and previous judgments, consider all the finer aspects of an issue before a judgment is pronounced.
The other thing, which impressed me, was how much our legal system tries to remove subjectivities from the issues. All the actors – the contesting sides and the judges bring in their own “beliefs” but continual referrals to laws and previous judgments removes these biases to a good extent. The system really goes to great lengths to ensure that justice is done based on law and evidence and not on anyone's personal feeling about any matter.
I expect to write many articles on these judgments. I would like to take our readers through the journey that I undertook, in a way that puts less strain on a person. If I miss something and anyone has better information about some issue, I again welcome the feedback.
To say that the judgment in exhaustive is an understatement. The judgment not only involves every aspect of life – law, religion, history, archaeology, theology, politics and just about anything else you can think of, but it also goes really deep into EVERY matter. There are detailed quotes from Puranas, Koran, Hadith, Historical records .. one can go on listing what all the judges went into before delivering the verdict. It reminded me of what Hindus always said about Mahabharata – all that is in life, is in it. And all that is in it, is found in life. The judgments contain all that has concerned India for the last one or maybe two millenia.
Indeed, if it were to happen that some cataclysmic event destroys all historical memory about India, and the future generations have only Judge Sudheer Agrawal's verdict in their hands, they will be able to reconstruct much about India's history, politics and society from this one judgment alone!!
I will now get into specifics of what the verdict says. I start with listing down key pieces of evidence that came out in the course of these lawsuits. I would like to emphasize that I have tried to distil the essence of all the evidences. I venture to suggest that one would be hard put to find an important piece of evidence from the verdict that I have missed. I also like to think that I have captured in this gist, all the critical aspects of the evidence produced during the course of the lawsuit.
The purpose of this list is to present the readers with what the judges had in hand to decide with. I felt that Hindu side answered the evidence given by Muslim side very rigorously. The answers to Muslim side's evidence / arguments are in brackets. The Muslims never countered the evidence that favored Hindu side satisfactorily. This is the reason why the judgment largely favors Hindus.
I have already indicated, in an earlier article, why exactly the judges split the site – because Hindus and Muslims always shared the site. The “garbha griha” was given to Hindus because overwhelming evidence suggested that the Hindus always believed it to be “janmasthan” and always worshipped there. The archaeological evidence, though favoring Hindus overwhelmingly, actually did not affect the actual judgment so much because judgment was based on title and possession and on demonstrated Hindu belief. However, I like to think that the archaeological evidence added weight to the judgment and probably the judges hoped that it would make the verdict more acceptable to the Muslim side.
Now you can read the evidence yourself, put yourself in the place of judges and form your own judgment. Just like you see in the statue (with blindfolds and a balance in hand), weigh the evidence and decide yourself!
Evidence from Hindu side:
1. There was admitted to be temple / idol / Hindu worship within the mosque complex, indicating that Hindus never fully moved out of the complex in spite of the presence of a mosque. In fact, the mosque is “landlocked” by temples. No Muslim could enter the mosque except through the temples / chabutaras being worshipped by Hindus. This indicates Hindu insistence on worshiping at the very same place and also establishes Hindu possession of the property.
2. Even the wall separating the many small temples / sites around the structure and the main structure did not exist before the British took control of India in 1857. The British erected the wall. Before that, Hindus had free access to the structure while the Muslims did not.
3. 1905 Faizabad Gazetteer (and many others) records that in 1855, Muslims tries to take the Janmasthan Masjid and occupied it by force (which shows that they did NOT have it's possession before 1855, Hindus had the possession). Then they made an advance to take Hanuman Garhi (about a mile away) but were driven back with considerable loss. 75 Muslims lost their lives and are buried there, the place being called “Ganj Shahidan”.
4. Travelers to Ayodhya (except William Finch in 1611) recorded the local belief that Ram Janambhoomi temple was demolished to build a mosque. They also recorded that Hindus believed Lord Rama was born at the spot and described worship methods (parikrama / chabutara etc.), which exist till today. William Finch recorded his observations on worship when visited Ayodhya in 1611. Tiffenthaler recorded in 1760 the same method of worship, the belief that Hindus had about Ram's birth there and that Aurangzeb destroyed the temple to build the mosque. Though he also noted there are indications that Babur and not Aurangzeb destroyed the temple. The records of puja, places, temples etc are consistent over at least 2 ½ centuries from the travelers as well as British Gazetteers. Thereafter, the British were ruling and all records are available as to what was actually happening at the site.
5. The name of the structure from time immemorial, and recorded in British times is “Masjid Janmasthan”. Some Muslims also used Babri Masjid but Masjid Janmasthan was more common usage.
6. Hindus have never demolished other people's places of religious worship. Hindus allowed all religions to flourish and there were no wars amongst religions wherever Hindus ruled. Muslims, on the other hand, demolished thousands of temples and recorded the deeds meticulously and in a way that glorified the acts as establishment of Islamic power and humiliation of non – Muslims. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that this too could be a case of Muslims doing the same and Hindus have always resisted it, the proof being the existence of small temples / worship sites all around the disputed structure.
7. Archaeological evidence is overwhelming. Not only did ASI find pillar bases and walls showing existence of a huge temple beneath the mosque, but also many other poofs such as pottery, figurines, animal bones etc associated only with a Hindu temple and never with a mosque. The Muslim side brought many “secularist” historians as their witnesses. All of them cut a sorry figure during cross examination, one of them saying her “expertise” was sourced from newspaper reports and nothing else !
8. The structural material in the structure also supported the premise that the mosque was built on top of a Hindu temple, even using the temple material. Kasauti pillars, sandalwood beams and some of the carvings in the structure are Hindu in character. There were actually Hindu carvings on the pillars. It made the judges consider if the presence of Hindu figures, forbidden in Islam, disqualified the structure from being a mosque at all. One judge said that yes, it is disqualified to be a mosque. The remaining two went by Muslim people's belief and accepted it as a mosque.
Evidence for Muslim side:
1. In the case filed by Mahant Raghubar Das in 1885, in which he sought permission to construct on a Chabutara, he submitted a map showing the mosque and he did not seek any relief with respect to mosque or mosque site, thereby admitting that Hindus accept the existence of a bona fide mosque. (The entire case was about some other religious right of the Mahant and not the disputed structure)
2. Under the waqf act of 1936, the chief commissioner of waqfs inspected the site and held that a sunni mosque is present at the site. The same was included in the official gazette of 1944. It was not disputed by anyone, thus establishing that the property is a mosque. (This was not borne out by the inspection of the document which showed no mosque at the location, a mosque of Babur being shown to be located elsewhere. There was no description of property as is required by the procedure)
3. Muslims were in possession of the mosque and site for more than 400 years and perfected their title through adverse possession. (A lot of evidence showed that Hindus were in possession of the structure, at least jointly, at least till 1855)
4. Namaz offered from 1528 till December, 1949 (this is under dispute by Hindu side that says last namaz was in 1934. Also, there is strong evidence Hindus continued to worship in the structure till at least 1855)
5. Tulsidas lived and composed Ramcharitmanas at a place (Datun Kund) 1 km from the site under dispute. Yet he mentioned no Ram Janmabhoomi or destruction of a temple in Ramcharitmanas or anywhere else. If such an important site for Hindus existed at the site or such an important event as it's destruction at the hands of Muslims had taken place, he would surely have mentioned it somewhere. (It turned out during the examination of evidence and arguments that most probably Aurangzeb and not Babur destroyed the temple and built the mosque. In such case, there is no question of Tulsidas mentioning it. After Aurangzeb's rule, all travelers / gazetteers mentioned the temple demolition. Before him, neither the traveler William Finch, nor Tulsidas made any mention of it)
9. Civil judge, Faizabad held in 1946 that Babri mosque is Sunni waqf.
10. The stones used in the temple are of less than 500 years of age according to carbon dating. Therefore, these are not part of an ancient temple purportedly demolished by Babur to build a mosque.
The image is from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11449970
No comments:
Post a Comment