On 30 September 2010, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court gave its verdict on the six-decade-old title suit on the land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid, a Muslim temple stood until its demolition by Hindu activists on 6 December 1992.

According to the verdict, the disputed land in Ayodhya was to be divided into three equal parts among the parties, namely, Ram Lalla (Infant Ram), the Hindu petitioner represented by his Sakha (or close friend) Triloki Nath Pandey; the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu organization which has staked its claim to the property since 1885 and ran a place of worship on the premises; and the Sunni Central Waqf Board, which claimed to have had possession of the disputed structure and the surrounding land since the 16th century.

The verdict has come as a shot in the arm for the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS)-led Sangh Parivar, of which the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the principal opposition party in the country, is a part.

Justice Rajindar Sachar, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and author of the Sachar Committee report which documented the poor conditions of Indian Muslims, commented that the judgment has done injustice to the Muslim community by rewarding the Sangh Parivar, whose constituents demolished the Babri Masjid.

Fr. Anand Muttungal, a Catholic priest has suggested that the Union Government should enact a law to maintain status quo of all religious places built before independence of this country.

A communal carnage was unleashed soon after the Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindu activists in 1992. The issue of land ownership of the area has been pending with a risk of violence whenever construction of places of worship was announced at the disputed land, especially near election time. To urge to government to handle the issue in respect of both the religious communities, ACPP issued UA020207(3) in February 2002 before the state election.

Sources: Local Source and AsiaNews, Frontline, International Herald Tribune and South China Morning Post.

Since the demolition of the Babri Masjid (Babri Mosque, a Muslim temple) on 6 December 1992, which resulted in great violence and killings, the long-running dispute between Hindus and Muslims over the claim of the owning right of the piece of land has yet to be resolved.

Led by the retired Indian Supreme Court Judge M.S. Liberhan, a Commission was formed on 16 December 1992 by an order of the Indian Home Union Ministry to investigate the destruction of the disputed structure. The Commission was originally mandated to submit its report within three months. After a delay of 17 years, the commission submitted the report to Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, on 30 June 2009. In 24 November 2009, a day after the allegedly leaked contents of the report was published by a newspaper, the report was tabled in the Indian parliament by the Home Minister. While the court report is expected to resolve the dispute between Hindus and Muslims, it is also likely to spark a fresh round of violence.

In the 1,029-page report, a number of BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) leaders were labeled as “pseudo-moderates” and were accused of complicity with Hindu extremists. They include top leaders like Lalchand Kishen Advani, the current opposition leader of the Parliament; Murli Manohar Joshi, a former Development minister; and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the prime minister between 1998 and 2004. The Liberhan report has caused a political storm because it blames BJP leaders.

Asgar Ali, a Muslim intellectual and the president of the Center for Study of Society and Secularism, commented that the parliamentary debate on the destruction of the mosque, as well as those responsible for massacres, might be manipulated for the benefit of ambitious party leaders and would not lead to common peace between the Hindu and Muslim community. For reconciliation between the communities, it is important to understand the real problems between Hindu and Muslim communities and safeguard the secular nature of the country.

Asgar recalled, "rather than fighting for Babri Masjid, [the Muslims are now focusing more] on problems of education, economic progress and development.” He added that, as long as they were not held accountable, perpetrators would continue to make use of the issue for electoral purposes, even at the cost of violent propaganda.

On 6 December 1992, 150,000 members of the Hindu organization, Sangh Parivar, tore down the mosque causing disorder, resulting in death of more than 2,000 people, mostly Muslims. To raise concern on the issue, which has not been resolved for more than 10 years, ACPP issued UA020207(3) on February 2002. For background of the issue, please refer to UA020207(3).

Sources:
AsiaNews, Times of India

More than 10 years after the Babri Mosque at Ayodhya was destroyed, there are still fears of more religious bloodshed. The archaeologist's report was presented to the court in August 2003 and a summary of the report was released by the Archeological survey of India. According to the report, a "huge structure" had been found beneath the mosque, but it did not declare it to be a temple. Fifty pillars, a water chute and other artifacts found were reportedly "indicative" of temples built in north India 500 years before the Mosque was constructed. The study appeared to confirm the long made claim by Hindu hardliners and they will use the report to put more pressure on the central government to build a temple at the site.

Analysts have warned that while the court report may be one key to the final solution in Ayodhya, it could also be the spark for a fresh round of violence over a piece of land that has already claimed so many lives. The circle of clashes is predicted to continue at least until a legal decision over the site's rightful owners is made.

The razing of the mosque in December 1992 ignited nationwide Hindu-Muslim riots that left over 2,000 dead. In March 1993 a series of blasts in Mumbai killed more than 200 and injured over 1,000. Tensions over the site simmered until February 2002 when a Muslim mob firebombed a train in Gujarat carrying Hindu activists returning from Ayodhya where they had been attending a campaign to build a temple at the site. More than 50 Hindus were killed in the attack itself, then sparking weeks of bloody sectarian violence. More than 3000 Muslims are feared to be killed in the riot.

For background of the issue, please refer to UA020207(3).

Source: South China Morning Post, International Herald Tribune, CNN.com

31 March 2003

Almost one year after the Supreme Court ruled against any religious activities at the controversial site at Ayodhya, the Hindu fundamentalist group, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) continues to campaign for the construction of the Ram Temple on the site. They have planned nationwide rallies to gather support for building the temple, including a march to the Parliament and setting a deadline at the end of March to hand over the site to them to start construction.

Lucknow High Court has ordered the Archaeological Survey of India, to carry out archaeological excavations on the disputed site to determine whether a Hindu Temple stood at the site of a 16th century Mughal (Muslim) mosque that was torn down by Hindu zealots in 1992. A report is expected within 4 weeks. This is expected to accelerate a long-running legal battle between Hindus and Muslims in what has become India's bloodiest property dispute.

The razing of the mosque in 1992 led to nationwide riots in which 2,000 people died. Even after the promise of the Indian Prime Minister of a "solution" by March 2002, the issue of who has title to the land has remained pending in the courts. The Ayodhya issue is believed to have been raised on and off for several decades. Last year, the issue was raised again allegedly to garner votes in the Uttar Pradesh election, causing apprehension and increasing the danger of violence around the site. Hotline issued UA 020207(3) to urge the central government to settle the issue in peaceful and legal means, to avoid further violence.

Please refer to our updates or web site, in case further action is needed.

Source:
South China Morning Post,
International Herald Tribune