Open main menu

Talk:Ayodhya dispute

Just an observation... not a suggestionEdit

It seems that the political scene and progress in India has come to a very unstable point. In such a situation its better to leave the strings of a case as sensitive as the Ayodhya one undisturbed. Or else it may lead to a great disturbance in many other areas which can be even more uncontrollable. Drop the decision of the case at wherever it is now. In future if there is any progress or adress to the issue it can be dealt later on with a better experience and composure.

Just an OBSERVATION... not a suggestionEdit

The political scene in India seems to be in a very unstable state and the progress beyond saturation point. In such a situation it would be wise to leave the strings of a case as sensitive as the Ayodhya one undisturbed, or else it can lead to an uncontrollable disturbance in many other areas. Better drop the case wherever it stands. In future if there is any progress or issues to be adressed, it can be dealt with much more experience and compusure.

Updating the articles related to Ayodhya disputeEdit

The Allahabad high court order is in the link. The order discusses all the issues/question related to the site. The supreme court hearing is ongoing. Is there any need to update articles? When the SC order is passed, large number people would be reading the article. So we better keep it updated, neutral and well cited. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for remind us Nizil. I will give it a read and see where we need to improve. The modern history (colonial period) isn't great. The legal history is pretty much non-existent.
If somebody can get a licensable version of Jai Singh's map, that would enhance the article by miles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps The Tribune has shown us a more authentic image of the map. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been meaning to work on this page for a while; I did some work on some of the sub-pages; but I simply haven't had the time. I will get around to it. It might be better to wait until the Indian Supreme Court actually rules on this, and we have some substantive sources about the ruling; but it's also quite possible they'll just kick the can down the road. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, You mean the CJI will retire without a judgement? I must say the whole thing has been very anti-climactic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Well one way or another, they've avoided a conclusive ruling about this for a long time...Vanamonde (Talk) 22:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, Kautilya3: Whether judgement is delivered or not, the article will be read by thousands. So I think it is right time to update the articles. I think it will be in the top articles if the judgement is delivered or possibly in ITN. So keeping them ready is essential.-Nizil (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Improvement suggestionsEdit

The sections are not in chronological order. Post-independence section and Beginning of the dispute/Babji Masjid sections are not in chronology.-Nizil (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Gist of findingsEdit

The High Court's Gist of findings in relation to title dispute is noteworthy. It can be added in various sections. (page 280-282 of pdf) -Nizil (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
  2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.
  3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
  4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque.
  5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
  6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
  7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.
  8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
  9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
  10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
  11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.
  12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.
  13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.
  • Other interesting read from page 242: Accordingly, it is abundantly clear that firstly no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque and secondly until the mosque was constructed during the period of Babar, the premises in dispute was neither treated nor believed to be the birth-place nothing but birth-place and the whole birth-place of Lord Ram. It is inconceivable that Babar (or Aurangzeb) should have first made or got made thorough research to ascertain the exact birth-place of Lord Ram, which was not known to anyone for centuries and then got constructed the mosque on the said site. The only thing which can be guessed, and it will be quite an informed guess taking the place of finding in a matter, which is centuries old, is that a very large area was considered to be birth-place of Lord Ram by general Hindus in the sense that they treated that somewhere in that large area Lord Ram was born however, they were unable to identify and ascertain the exact place of birth, and that in that large area there were ruins of several temples and at a random small spot in that large area Babar got constructed the mosque in question. Since after construction of the mosque Hindus started treating/believing the site thereof as the exact birth place of Lord Ram. It has come in the oral evidence of several Hindus and some Muslims that Hindus believed that the most precise place of birth of Lord Ram was the place beneath the Central dome of the Mosque. Accordingly, it is held that for some time before 1949 Hindus started to believe as such.
Nizil Shah, what document are you quoting from? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3,Allahabad high court pdf.-Nizil (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
That is Justice SU Khan's judgement. Do we know if it was the consensus judgement? How many judgements were there? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is an Outlook article from that time that summarises the three judges' viewpoints, from their 'Gists' alone:
God help any one that tries to summarise the thousands of pages of the judgements that have been written. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The judgments of three judges differ in details. How the judgement is consolidated in one judgement deciding on the matter?-Nizil (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
EPW is good criticism of the verdict. (EPW is believed as left leaning publication IMO.)-Nizil (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I know where to find them. But I don't have a way of covering them or summarising them. What we need is honest-to-goodness reporting. Where can we find it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Judgement(s)Edit

It turns out that the things are more messy than I imagined them to be. There were either 2 judgements or 3 judgements depending on how you count them.

  • 2 judgements - The majority judgement written by Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal, deciding what we know fairly well: that the site is to be divided three-way. But the two judges disagreed on the historical matters, according to Irfan Habib.[1]
The minority judgement was written Justice Sharma. He wanted to exclude Muslims altogether.[1] We couldn't spot it easily because he gave separate judgements for individual cases, instead of a "consolidated judgement".
  • 3 judgements - Unfortunately Irfan Habib doesn't explain what the differences were between Khan and Agarwal. (There is no mention of Khan after the first paragraph.) But we can see that Khan's point 1 says that the mosque was constructed under the orders of Babur. Agarwal's point 2 says that it was not proved that it was built during Babur's reign. That seems to be a disagreement. However, Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited (2016, pp. 641-642) quotes from Khan's judgement

"However, the authenticity of these three inscriptions/copies highly doubtful.... The manner in which Epigraphia Indica 1964 and 1965 and the book claim to have obtained the copies of the originals is such that not much reliance can be placed thereupon.

So, Kunal says that both the judges agreed on this point. (Khan is however appealing to faith, borrowing the Hindus' trick. At least from the 18th century, people started believing that it was built by Babur and "nobody has argued otherwise".) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
To pinpoint the difference further: Khan said that Hindus started believing it to be the birthplace after the mosque was constructed. Agarwal said that it was believed so before it was constructed. That is as far as the "majority" goes. Sharma said that it had always been the birthplace (not appealing to any "beliefs"). "Three way divide" is exactly what it was. I have no idea how BBC News is able to figure out what "The judgement" supposedly said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It is very hard to write. Now 5 SC judges will deliver judgements. Will they deliver in the same way? Some legal expertise would be helpful. Nizil (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Normally, one expects one majority judgement and perhaps one minority judgement. But there is apparently a whole zoo of judgements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

SC JudgementEdit

@Kautilya3: Have a look. -Nizil (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Nizil Shah. I don't see any major faux pas, and things seem to be calm. We can write about at leisure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Nirmohi AkharaEdit

The court has said in its verdict in the politically-sensitive case of Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya that the Nirmohi Akhara is not a shebait or devotee of the deity Ram Lalla. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the Akhara's suit was barred by limitation. 8nonym0us999 (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Ayodhya dispute" page.