EXEGESIS OF THE AYODHYA VERDICT OVERVIEW: The report throws light on the Supreme Court verdict released on November 9th 2019 with regards to the Ayodhya case and the intricate history revolving the case. The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute or more commonly known as the Ayodhya case has been the most controversial court case of Independent India. It has been an emotive issue and has been mired in a slew of legal suites for over 70 years. The entire dispute is about 2.77 acres of land, which is approximately the size of two football fields. And yet, this land dispute has continued from the Mughal-era to a British rule to 2019, until, the legal conclusion on the case was announced by the Supreme Court on 9th November 2019, marking an end to decades of uncertainty on the issue. What value do this 2.77 acres hold for the people of India that turned this case into one of the most sensitive and controversial cases in India? What could be the influence of the verdict on this case and to what extent could it affect the common man? To be able to answer such questions, we need to understand the labyrinthine events that triggered this dispute. HISTORY: A. TEMPLE DEMOLISHMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF MOSQUE • The Hindu epic Ramayana states that the Hindu deity Lord Ram was born almost 900,000 years ago during the Treta Yuga in Ayodhya on the banks of the river Sarayu. This is identified with present-day Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. According to the beliefs of the Hindus, the ancient temple which stood in place of the demolished Babri mosque marked the exact birthplace of Lord Ram. • The Babri mosque is said to be constructed during 1528-29 by Mir Baqi, possibly known as Baqi Tashqandi, the commander of the Mughal emperor Babur. (The picture depicts the map of the disputed site in Ayodhya.) • Joseph Tiefenthaler, a Jesuit missionary who had visited the site between 1766-71 has written in his travelogues that either Babur or Aurangzeb has destroyed the Ramkot Fortress and has constructed a mosque in its place, although the place is deemed holy to Hindus and has a significant religious attachment as it’s considered as the birthplace of Lord Ram. • He has also mentioned that the Hindus still, however, continue to offer prayers to the mud platform within. There are multiple historical and archaeological sources which provide evidence to the construction of the mosque on the demolished ruins of a Hindu temple. B. OPPOSITION CLAIMS However, the opposition to these claims is that the idea of the place being the birthplace of Ram came into existence only after the 18th century. • Historians like R.S Sharma say that the ideology of Ayodhya as a site of Hindu pilgrimage did not come into being until the medieval times, as there is scant evidence in the historical texts with reference to the place as a pilgrimage site, even in the Ramcharitmanas written by Tulsidas there is no such reference. • Historian Romila Thapar claims that the first mention of the city in the historic texts is during the 7th century by Xuanzang, a Chinese pilgrim who recorded it as a Buddhist site. C. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE • The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conducted a survey in the disputed Babri-mosque site of Ayodhya at the direction of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court and submitted an exhaustive 574-page report to the bench in 2003. • This is the fifth report on the historical topography of Ayodhya. The first report was formulated after a survey by A.E.Cunningham during 1862-63. • Cunningham’s intention for conducting the survey was to relocate and establish the Buddhist antecedents of Ayodhya, however, he accepted the involvement of the traditions of Ram Rajya and professed that the present-day Ayodhya was the Ayodhya mentioned in the Ramayana. • The second survey was conducted by A. Fuhrer in 1889-91, followed by Professor A.K. Narain in 1969-70 and in 1975-76 by Professor B.B. Lal who conducted a very comprehensive analysis of the area. • The team of 131 comprised of 52 Muslims and reported the evidence of a large structure in pre- existence to the Babri masjid. The pre-existent structure, upon further exhaustive studies, revealed to be of Non-Islamic origin, thereby concluding that the Babri mosque was not built on vacant land. • The ASI further stated that the pillars and stone columns have elements from Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina cultures which support Havell’s statements that Muslims used to re-use the materials of the demolished temples to construct and provide immediate shelter for prayers of the devotees. The ASI has reported that there are multiple stones with Hindu ornamentations carved in them and a protruding stone slab with inscriptions from the Hindu scriptures of Devanagri. • The carvings and decorations in the columns holding the wall and stone pillars, as per the report, is a tribute to the skills of the Indian artisans who had employed their indigenous techniques rather than to the Muslim’s iconoclasm. • There are various things which have been found during the excavations near the site and all of them are assertive of the existence of a religious structure of North Indian architecture style. D. ROLE OF POLITICS AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS • The legal dispute started in 1885 with Mahant Raghubir Das, who filed a plea to construct a temple at the Ram chabutra, a part of the disputed site. The plea was rejected by British India’s Faizabad district court. • 64 years later, in the year 1949, Idols of Ram, Laxman and Sita were found placed inside the central dome of Babri masjid. This was carried out by a priest known as Abhiram Das who was accompanied by a group of local sadhus. This caused both the Hindu’s and the Muslim’s to file cases of dispute which resulted in the site being declared as a disputed site and was locked up. • The Nirmohi Akhara, a sect established by Ramananda owns multiple temples and mathas in India, filed a complaint in 1959 staking a claim to the site as they had been offering prayers to the deity. • 1961, the Sunni Central Waqf Board also staked a claim to the site claiming it as a Waqf property granted to them from the Mughals. • The entire case took a different turn during 1986 when the locks of the disputed site were broken on the orders of the Faizabad district judge as asked to by the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi which led to a group of Muslim lawyers petitioning in the Allahabad High court against the opening of the locks. The judge ordered STATUS QUO be maintained on the issue, however, the opening of the locks turned the case into a national issue. • 1989, the third party filed a claim to the land- Ram Lalla Virajmaan (the idol of Lord Ram)as the place was the resting place for the idol, the supporters of this litigant argued that the entire area belonged to the Ram Lalla Virajmaan. • 1992, saw the demolition of the Babri masjid as a result of the gaining strength of the issue. This demolition was carried out by 1.5 lakh Kar sevaks which triggered communal clashes. • The demolition marked a turning point in India's history after independence and raised a myriad of questions over the country's future as a secular nation. • 1993, the Central government acquired 67 acres of land around the disputed site which included the 42 acres acquired by the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas. E. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HEARING AND JUDGEMENT • After 17 years of hearing, the Allahabad High Court in September 2010 gave its judgement on the case. The judgement divided the disputed 2.77 acres of land among the three main litigants. • According to the judgement the three central domes were allotted to Ram Lalla Virajmaan. the court said that the Ram janmabhoomi and Ram Lalla had rights to the land due to the common belief that this was the birthplace of Lord Ram. Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutra and Bhandar were allotted to the Nirmohi Akhara. The Sunni Waqf Board was to be allotted the remaining 1/3rd of the remaining land. The court assured them that the portion of the land acquired by the government could be used to ensure that they got their equal share. • The case therein had three main litigants The Sunni Waqf Board, Ram Lalla Virajmaan and the Nirmohi Akhara. There are other claimants such as the other Muslim parties who joined later on such as Hashim Ansar , Farood Ahmad, Shia Waqf Board in 2017 and Jamiat Ulema-E-Hind. • There were also other Hindu claimants, and a few other people whose claims a were rejected such as by Medha Patekar, and Subramanian Swamy who filed a petition enforcing his fundamental right to worship at the disputed site. But the court had ruled to reject all other claims and focus on the main three. • The problem with this judgement was that none of the parties wanted a partition of the land and thus weren’t happy with the high court judgement. Appeals were made to the Supreme Court. SUPREME COURT FINAL VERDICT • This case presented violations on three different grounds and is the country’s most politically discordant row: o Civil as it involved a LAND DISPUTE o Communal as it involved the obstruction to religious practice o Fundamental as it included a violation of the Fundamental Rights of Ram Lalla and the citizens for freedom to worship.