A century back, in March, 1921, Gandhi ji was taken to Ayodhya. His words on this visit were: “When I arrived in Ayodhya, I was taken to a small temple that stands at a place where Shri Ramchandra is believed to have been born.”(Navjivan, March 20, 1921, CWMG, Vol 19, P 455). Thus according to the account given to him in 1921, there was a temple believed to be the birth place of Ramchandra. The site referred to by him was definitely not identical to the site where the idols of Ram Lalla were placed illegally on the night of December 1949. Whatever scriptures that have been cited in the case to relate with the birth place mention only Ayodhya, not a particular spot. In fact the Supreme Court Judgement in November 9, 2019 said that there have been more than one site referred to as the Birth place of Ramchandra.
Amidst the making up of the majoritarian onslaught, in the judgment on November 9, 2019, there was a complete breach from the century old convention and in the end on page 929, it says, “One of us, while being in agreement with the above reasons and directions, has recorded separate reasons on ‘whether the disputed structure is the birthplace of Ram Lalla according to faith and belief of Hindu devotees’.” The central theme of the case was dispute over the title to an immovable property, the mosque. It was to be treated like any other, but Allahabad high court gave primacy to faith over law. The Supreme Court also walked on the same path, but with a difference, though basically same as the other. Getting into Hinduism and its sacred cities, with immense religious fervour, the conclusion comes from the court is thus “concluded from the conclusions based on Hindu belief and faith” prior and subsequent to the construction of the mosque, is proved by documentary and oral evidence. Here the documents are religious texts and oral evidence is usually full of uncertainties.”(AG Noorani, ”Ayodhya Vedict 2019: Justice Denied”)
L K Advani had said on September 30, 1990: “No one can prove that it was the birthplace of Lord Rama.”It was a matter of belief. (The Independent, October 11, 1990). Is it possible to get judicial sanction where it goes against moral and legal rights of others? “What kind of evidence Hindus are expected to produce?”asked Balaji Deoras. So, there was no evidence, and yet the archaeological justifications were given. Its loss of sanctity was explicit. The most painful violation of judicial ethics was committed when RSS supremo Mohan Bhagwat in his address to a meeting told the audience to accept “whole heartedly” (Asian Age, October 31) that Ram JanamAsthan was there.
Even the local court records of British era state that the Babri Masjid was never considered the birthplace of Ram. For example, a court order of 1903 talked about ‘JanamAsthan’ (the birth place of Lord Ram) existing away from Babri Masjid and inside the outer wall of the mosque compound. This order of the district magistrate of Faizabad was given in response to a petition seeking injunction on attempts to put a sign board at ‘JanamAsthan’.
The magistrate, rejecting the petition, said there was nothing wrong in the move since such ‘place did exist inside the “outer wall” of Babri Masjid and not inside the mosque itself. “It happens that the JanamAsthan is inside the outer wall of this particular mosque, so that the name slab is only being put in its right place and it is not a ground for objection to its being put there … For such place does in fact exist and the name board is merely for a guide to strangers,” the order said.
The place at which the name slab was being put was an elevated platform outside the inner courtyard of the Babri Masjid but inside its outer wall. Also named ‘Ram Chabutara’, the place existed about 100 paces away from the mosque and was worshipped until the idol was planted inside the Babri Masjid in 1949 as the birth place of Ram. Iron railings separated the elevated platform from the inner courtyard.
On November 30, 1858, the caretaker of Babri Masjid had filed a petition complaining that a group of sadhus had built a chabutara close to the mosque. This was the first legal document recognizing the origin of the place which was later elevated to the position of Ram’s place of birth – a position it held for almost a century. Similar complaints were made by local Muslims in 1860, 1877, 1883 and 1884, but Ram Chabutara survived and continued to be worshipped as the JanamAsthan.
Only after the idol was placed inside the mosque in 1949 that Ram Chabutara lost its position, giving way to a new belief – that Lord Ram was born inside the Babri Masjid, the site on which the Ram temple is being constructed now.
These historical facts cannot be changed by either forcible occupation of the Babri Masjid in 1949 or the demolition of the mosque by the Hindu communalists in 1992 or even by the construction of the Supreme Court mandated temple at the site in Ayodhya. (IPA Service)
HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT BABRI MASJID CAN NOT BE CHANGED THROUGH RAM MANDIR INAUGURATION
JANUARY 22 EVENT IS THE OUTCOME OF LONG RUNNING MAJORITARIAN ONSLAUGHT BASED ON BELIEF
Krishna Jha - 2024-01-11 12:19
The mega event that is made out of the construction of Ram temple by replacing Babri Masjid in Ayodhya should not lead us to forget the basic fact. And that is despite the Supreme Court’s mandate, the upcoming temple at the site of the mosque has no historical foundation, nor was it a part of Hindu consciousness till 1949. As early as in 1855, there was a feud between Bairagis living in Hanumangarhi and the Muslims. The important dimension of Hanumangarhi episode (1855) is that it indicated the absence even at that time of any linkages between Babari Masjid and Janmasthan in Hindu psyche. Although the Bairagis captured the Masjid in which Muslims had taken shelter, they did not occupy it or advance any claim to it. Instead they retreated to Hanumangarhi instantaneously. It is also important that during the course of the enquiry by the court of Awadh, no Hindu had mentioned the earlier existence of a temple at the site of the Masjid.