Ram's Ayodhya

1. Introduction

1.1. The Ayodhya dispute is one of the most contentious and long-standing issues in India, involving the claims of Hindus and Muslims over a 2.77-acre plot of land in the city of Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. The dispute revolves around the belief of Hindus that the land is the birthplace of Lord Ram, one of their most revered deities, and the existence of a 16th-century mosque, known as the Babri Masjid, that was built by the Mughal emperor Babur on the same site. The mosque was demolished by a mob of Hindu activists in 1992, triggering communal riots across the country that killed nearly 2,000 people. Since then, the legal battle over the ownership and possession of the land has been going on in various courts, until the Supreme Court of India delivered its final verdict on 9 November 2019.[i]

2. Historical Background and Legal History of the Ayodhya Dispute

2.1. The Ayodhya dispute has a long and complex history, dating back to the medieval period, when the Mughal empire ruled over most of India. According to the Hindu belief, Ayodhya is the ancient city where Lord Ram was born and ruled as a king. The Ramayana, an epic poem that narrates the life and deeds of Lord Ram, mentions Ayodhya as his birthplace and capital. The Ramayana also describes the construction of a grand temple at the site of his birth by his successor, King Dasharatha. The temple, known as the Ram Janmabhoomi temple, was revered by Hindus as a sacred place of pilgrimage and worship.

2.2. However, according to the Muslim account, the Mughal emperor Babur, who invaded India in 1526 and established the Mughal dynasty, built a mosque at the same site in 1528, after demolishing the existing temple. The mosque, known as the Babri Masjid, was named after Babur and was used by Muslims for offering prayers. The mosque also had inscriptions in Persian that stated that it was built by Babur's general, Mir Baqi, on the orders of Babur. The mosque was one of the many mosques and monuments that were built by the Mughal rulers in different parts of India, as a symbol of their power and faith.

2.3. The first recorded conflict between Hindus and Muslims over the site occurred in 1853, during the British colonial rule, when a group of Hindu ascetics, known as the Nirmohi Akhara, attacked the mosque and claimed that it was built on the ruins of a Hindu temple. The British authorities intervened and erected a fence around the site, dividing it into two parts: the inner courtyard, where the mosque stood, and the outer courtyard, where a platform, known as the Ram Chabutra, and a shrine, known as the Sita Rasoi, were located. The Muslims were allowed to use the inner courtyard, while the Hindus were allowed to use the outer courtyard. The British also tried to settle the dispute by conducting a survey of the site and recording the claims and the grievances of both the communities. However, the dispute remained unresolved and continued to simmer for the next century.

2.4. The dispute took a legal turn in 1949, when some Hindu activists surreptitiously placed idols of Ram and other deities inside the mosque, and declared that Ram had appeared miraculously at his birthplace. The Muslims protested and filed a complaint, alleging that the idols were illegally installed and that the mosque was desecrated. The local administration locked the gates of the mosque and prohibited entry to both the communities. The administration also appointed a receiver to take charge of the site and maintain status quo. In 1950, two suits were filed by Hindu devotees, seeking permission to worship the idols inside the mosque and to declare the site as a public temple. In 1959, another suit was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara, claiming to be the custodian and the manager of the site and seeking possession and control of the entire site. In 1961, the Sunni Waqf Board, a statutory body that manages Muslim properties, filed a suit, claiming that the mosque was a waqf property and seeking its restoration and removal of the idols. In 1989, another suit was filed by a Hindu organisation, known as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), on behalf of Ram Lalla, the infant form of Lord Ram, through a next friend, seeking the declaration of the entire site as the birthplace of Lord Ram and the vesting of the title and the possession of the site in Ram Lalla.

2.5. All these suits were consolidated and transferred to the Allahabad High Court in 1989, where they were heard by a three-judge bench. Meanwhile, the political and the social dimensions of the dispute also intensified, as various Hindu nationalist groups, led by the VHP and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), launched a mass movement, known as the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, to demand the construction of a Ram temple at the site and the removal of the mosque. The movement mobilised millions of Hindus across the country, who participated in rallies, marches, processions and campaigns, invoking the religious and the cultural sentiments of the Hindus. The movement also provoked resistance and opposition from various Muslim groups, who asserted their right to the mosque and denounced the Hindu claims as baseless and communal. The movement also sparked several incidents of violence and communal clashes between Hindus and Muslims in different parts of the country, resulting in loss of lives and property.

2.6. The climax of the movement came on 6 December 1992, when a large crowd of Hindu activists, known as kar sevaks, who had gathered at Ayodhya for a symbolic religious ceremony, stormed the site and demolished the mosque, using axes, hammers and other tools. The demolition of the mosque was widely condemned as an act of vandalism and a violation of the law and the court orders. The demolition also triggered widespread riots and violence across the country, especially in Mumbai, Delhi, Ahmedabad and other cities, where thousands of people, mostly Muslims, were killed and injured. The central government, led by the Congress party, dismissed the state government of Uttar Pradesh, led by the BJP, and imposed President's rule. The government also acquired 67.7 acres of land around the disputed site, including the 2.77 acres of the disputed land, under a special law, known as the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993. The Act also provided for the abatement of all pending suits and proceedings relating to the disputed site, and the reference of the matter to the Supreme Court for determining the constitutional validity of the Act.

2.7. The Act was challenged by various parties before the Supreme Court, which upheld its validity in 1994, except for the provision relating to the abatement of the suits, which was struck down as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also directed the Allahabad High Court to expedite the hearing of the suits and to decide the matter within two years. The Allahabad High Court resumed the hearing of the suits in 1996, and concluded the hearing in 2010, after examining a large volume of documentary and oral evidence, including the report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which conducted an excavation at the site in 2003. The ASI report stated that there was evidence of a massive structure, which was not Islamic, beneath the mosque, and that it could be the remains of a Hindu temple.

2.8. On 30 September 2010, the Allahabad High Court delivered its judgment, which was a split verdict by the three judges. The majority judgment, delivered by two judges, held that the disputed land should be divided into three equal parts, among the three main parties: Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board. The judgment also held that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram, and that the idols of Ram were placed inside the mosque in 1949 were legal and valid. The third judge gave a dissenting opinion, stating that the suit filed by the Sunni Waqf Board should be dismissed in its entirety.

2.9. The parties involved, dissatisfied with the Allahabad High Court's decision, appealed to the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court decided to hear the appeals and took up the case for further examination. The legal battle reached its pinnacle in 2019 when the Supreme Court finally delivered its verdict, bringing an end to the protracted dispute.[ii]

3. Main Issues and Arguments Before the Supreme Court

3.1. Before the Supreme Court, the main issues revolved around the conflicting claims of Hindus and Muslims regarding the ownership of the disputed land. The Hindu parties, represented by various organizations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Nirmohi Akhara, argued that the land was the birthplace of Lord Ram and that a Hindu temple stood at the site before the construction of the Babri Masjid. They further contended that the mosque was built by demolishing the pre-existing temple.

3.2. On the other hand, the Muslim parties, primarily the Sunni Waqf Board, argued that the mosque was constructed by the Mughal emperor Babur on vacant land and that it had been used for prayers by the Muslim community for centuries. They claimed that the mosque was rightfully their property and that the Hindu parties had failed to establish the existence of a temple before the mosque's construction.

4. Key Findings and Observations of the Supreme Court

4.1. The Supreme Court, after a meticulous examination of historical, archaeological, religious, and legal evidence, delivered a unanimous verdict. The court acknowledged the religious significance of the site for Hindus and recognized the faith and belief of millions that Lord Ram was born at the disputed place. The court also acknowledged the historical existence of the mosque, built by Babur in 1528.[iii]

5. Rationale and Reasoning Behind the Supreme Court's Decision

5.1. The Supreme Court's decision to award the disputed land to a trust for the construction of a Ram temple and the allocation of an alternative 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for the mosque was based on a delicate balance between the competing religious claims. The court aimed to address the historical wrong committed during the mosque's demolition in 1992 while respecting the sentiments and beliefs of both communities.

5.2. The court emphasized the principle of equity and ordered the formation of a trust to oversee the temple's construction to ensure the proper management of the religious site. The allocation of an alternative plot to the Sunni Waqf Board was seen as a measure to redress the historical injustice while fostering communal harmony.[iv]

6. Conclusion

6.1. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's verdict on the Ayodhya dispute attempted to strike a balance between the religious sentiments of Hindus and Muslims while addressing historical wrongs. The decision, grounded in a comprehensive examination of evidence and legal principles, aimed at fostering communal harmony and national integration. However, the implementation of the verdict presented its own set of challenges, requiring careful navigation through the delicate socio-religious landscape. As the nation moved forward, the Ayodhya verdict remained a significant milestone in India's legal history, shaping the narrative of religious coexistence and constitutional governance.