FEW events in the history of modern India have been as polarising as the destruction of the Babri Masjid in the Hindu holy city of Ayodhya. In an episode of unabashed ugliness, a frenzied mob of thousands of Hindu extremists — including some of the leading lights of the BJP, which now rules India — stormed the 16th-century mosque and reduced it to rubble, guided by the belief that the spot where the masjid was built was Ram Janmabhoomi, the place where Hindus believe the deity was born. Communal riots followed the desecration of the mosque in many parts of India, while the demolition was condemned by major Muslim states. This event has poisoned Hindu-Muslim relations in India since, and has served as a battle cry for the Hindu hard right, that has now captured state power in New Delhi.
|Published (Last):||5 May 2013|
|PDF File Size:||5.82 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.95 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The final judgement in the Ayodhya dispute was declared by the Supreme Court of India on 9 November The court also ordered the government to give an alternate 5 acres of land in another place to the Sunni Waqf Board for the purpose of building a mosque.
The Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindu radicals during a political rally which turned into a riot on 6 December A subsequent land title case was lodged in the Allahabad High Court , the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September In the judgment, the three judges of the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2. The judgment affirmed that the disputed land was the birthplace of Rama as per the faith and belief of Hindus, and that the Babri Masjid was built after the demolition of a Hindu temple, noting that it was not built in accordance with the tenets of Islam.
In , Gopal Singh Visharad filed a title suit with the Allahabad High Court seeking injunction to offer puja worship at the disputed site. A similar suit was filed shortly after but later withdrawn by Paramhans Das of Ayodhya. A fourth suit was filed by the Sunni Waqf Board for declaration and possession of the site. The Allahabad High Court bench began hearing the case in , which was completed in Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D. Sharma, ruled that the disputed land be split into three parts. The court also ruled that the status quo should be maintained for three months.
The Supreme Court held final hearing on the case from 6 August  to 16 October It also ordered the government to give 5 acres of land to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque. For 15 days preceding the verdict, restrictions were imposed in Ayodhya to prevent violence. Security arrangements were increased across India. Thousands of paramilitary forces and police troops were deployed in Ayodhya and surveillance of the region was carried out using CCTV cameras and drones. Internet services were closed in several places in Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan ,   while it was announced that a total of 31 districts and individuals were being closely monitored.
A public holiday was declared for schools and colleges across the states of Jammu and Kashmir , Karnataka , Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh , as well as Delhi , on the day of the verdict. The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously pronounced its verdict on 9 November On 12 December the Supreme Court dismissed all the 18 petitions seeking review of the verdict. The Sunni Central Waqf Board accepted the verdict and declared that it will not submit a review petition for the same.
Prominent leaders from the Hindu and the Muslim communities extended their support to the Indian government in maintaining peace, after meeting with National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. Many political parties in India supported the judgement. Stalin supported the judgement. National Herald published two articles criticizing the verdict. All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen president Asaduddin Owaisi said that he was not satisfied with the judgement, calling it a victory of "faith over facts".
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs briefed foreign envoys and diplomats about the verdict on 9 November The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan , Shah Mehmood Qureshi , criticised the verdict and questioned its timing as it coincided with the inauguration of the Kartarpur Corridor.
He called the court verdict an indication of the "bigoted ideology of Modi government". From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Indian land dispute ruling. Archived PDF from the original on 9 November Retrieved 9 November The Economic Times.
Retrieved 15 November The Times of India. Archived from the original on 10 November BBC News. Archived from the original on 17 October Retrieved 16 October International Business Times. Archived from the original on 1 October Archived from the original on 30 September DNA India.
Archived from the original on 2 October Venkatesan, J. The Hindu. Chennai, India. Khan; S. Agarwal; D. Archived from the original on 27 August Archived from the original on 3 October Supreme Court Observer. Archived from the original on 6 January India Today.
Press Trust of India. Archived from the original on 25 August Retrieved 25 August The Hindu Business Line. Archived from the original on 23 October Retrieved 18 October Archived from the original on 9 November Asian News International. Archived from the original on 15 November Retrieved 18 November Retrieved 10 November Archived from the original on 5 November Hindustan Times. Telangana Today.
The New Indian Express. The South Asian Express. Retrieved 14 November Archived from the original on 11 November British Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 12 November Retrieved 12 November Retrieved 12 December The Indian Express.
Mint newspaper. Retrieved 9 November — via India Today. The New York Times. Special Correspondent. Retrieved 17 November Retrieved 17 November — via News The Print. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 November — via The Times of India.
The Free Press Journal. Hidden categories: CS1 maint: archived copy as title Webarchive template wayback links CS1 maint: others Wikipedia semi-protected pages Articles with short description Use dmy dates from November Namespaces Article Talk.
Reflections on the Babri Masjid verdict by Op-Ed. The landmark verdict by India's supreme court regarding the former site of the famous Babri Masjid, which was demolished by a large mob of Hindu nationalists in , has raised concerns both in the country and beyond. The court's having awarded Hindus with control over the disputed site to make way for the construction of a temple while awarding Muslims with five acres of separate land for a new mosque is certainly a controversial decision favoring one religion over another. The decision goes against not just residents of Ayodhya, but people across the region, who are proud of the heritage of its Mughal past — a pride that found symbolism in a mosque built by the empire's own founder, Babur. The decision flies in the face of those who find in the Mughals a source of pride and hurts both Muslims and secular-minded individuals across the world. While many Hindus believe that the Babri Masjid was actually constructed on the site of a Hindu temple the Muslim invaders demolished at the birthplace of Rama, Muslims claim that they worshipped at the mosque until December , when some Hindus placed an idol of Rama in the mosque.
Reflections on the Babri Masjid verdict
Jump to navigation. The case reached its conclusion today with the Supreme Court upholding the title right of Ram Lalla, the presiding deity, over the disputed 2. The Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on October 16 after a day-to-day hearing for 40 days. The Allahabad High Court had heard four civil suits and ordered the division of the 2. This verdict satisfied none of the parties and the matter reached the Supreme Court in