Of his three major electoral planks, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has delivered on two promises the BJP had been campaigning on since 1989. These are revocation of Article 370 from the Indian constitution, which conferred special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and building a temple at the site of Babri Masjid. Its other promise - imposition of a uniform civil code - has not yet found much traction.
The BJP owes its growth to the Ram Temple movement. Among other issues, this was the easiest to settle. And yet it devoured thousands of lives over past one century. It is ironic, then, to recall that it was the Hindu right wing which was resisting any solution.
Leading journalist Shateela Singh writes in his book that some three decades ago, Hindu and Muslim parties under Mahant Param Hans Ram Chander had devised a solution. The outer courtyard was given to Hindus, while the inner circle was handed over to Muslims to continue their prayers. A design was also formed to have separate entrances. Muslim leaders like Syed Sahabuddin and Salahuddin Owaisi had also supported this out of court settlement
It was decided that Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) General Secretary Ashok Singhal, who was part of the negotiations, would take approval from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Balasahib Deoras. According to Singh, Singhal got a verbal lashing from Deoras when he briefed him about the solution. “There are many Ram temples in the country. This movement is not for building a Ram temple. It is means to launch and create awareness among Hindu youth and further a larger agenda,” Deoras told Singhal. Soon the VHP backed out and solution fell flat.
The larger agenda was to create a wave of Hindutva and occupy power in India. They were prophetic words of Deoras. The Hindu right gained immensely by keeping the issue alive. The question now is: what will the Hindu right do in the absence of issues? Will it then invent new ones or settle for accommodation and nation building?
On August 4, 2005, when Indian Supreme Court was upholding the death sentence for the Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, I was ensconced on a bench reserved for press at the far end of the crowded court room. When Justice P V Reddy started reading the operative part of the 271-page judgement, it appeared that Guru would be absolved of the charges and set free. The judge was demolishing prosecution theories one after another. He was mentioning that the prosecution failed to prove that Guru was member of terror group Jaish e Muhammad (JeM) or his direct link in the Parliament attack. There was no proof for his terrorist activities in the past. When the judge was reading the last sentence, it was inaudible due to some commotion in the front benches which were taken over by lawyers. We later figured out that the judge had upheld the death sentence. “The collective conscience of society will be satisfied only if death penalty is awarded to Afzal Guru,” the judge said.
After reading the 1000-page judgement that handed over the disputed site of the demolished Babri Masjid to Hindus, there was an identical experience. The five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice Justice Ranjan Gogoi has accepted most arguments submitted by Muslim parties. The bench rejected the Hindu argument that Mir Baqi, a Shia military officer in the Mughal army, had built the mosque by demolishing any temple in 1528.
The court agreed that the Babri mosque adhered to the tenets of Islam. Prayers were offered regularly there. In fact, the court said the last prayer was offered on December 16, 1949 — a few days before the mosque was desecrated on December 22-23 by the placing of idols inside. The court rejected the Hindus’ claim that Muslims had long abandoned the mosque.
The court held that the damage suffered by the mosque in 1934, its desecration in 1949 and the eventual destruction on December 6, 1992 by kar sevaks were a “serious violation of law.”
The judgment said the ouster of Muslims through the act of desecration of their mosque was “an act calculated to deprive them of their place of worship.” It highlighted how the mosque was “brought down” during the pendency of the suits.
At one point, the bench said, “Justice would not prevail if the court were to overlook the entitlement of Muslims who have been deprived of the mosque through means which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law.”
It noted that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) failed to prove that a temple existed on that site. The court also observed that mere existence of a structure beneath the mosque cannot lead to a title for Hindus now, even if that structure was found to be of Hindu origin.
But at the end, the court pronounced that Hindus have a “better” possessory claim over the disputed site, but left it without any explanation. Interestingly, the court, while ruling in favour of Hindus, did not give the land to Hindu litigant Nirmohi Akhara. It gave land directly to Lord Ram or Ram Lala. The court further went on to say, since Ram Lala was an infant, a trust will look after the possession. The central government shall, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment, set up a board of trustees for the construction of Ram temple. Possession of the inner and outer courtyards of the disputed site shall be handed over to the board of trustees.
It also described Ram Lala a juristic person – a non-human legal entity recognised by the law and entitled to rights and duties in the same way as a human being. The leader Triloki Nath Pandey had argued on behalf of Lord Ram. “Hindu litigants had a weak case as far as title suit was concerned. So, a decision to file a case on behalf of Ram Lala was taken,” he said. In February 2008, the court had declared him next friend — a person who acts on behalf of another individual who does not have the legal capacity to act on his or her own behalf.
The writer is a journalist based in Turkey.
The BJP owes its growth to the Ram Temple movement. Among other issues, this was the easiest to settle. And yet it devoured thousands of lives over past one century. It is ironic, then, to recall that it was the Hindu right wing which was resisting any solution.
Leading journalist Shateela Singh writes in his book that some three decades ago, Hindu and Muslim parties under Mahant Param Hans Ram Chander had devised a solution. The outer courtyard was given to Hindus, while the inner circle was handed over to Muslims to continue their prayers. A design was also formed to have separate entrances. Muslim leaders like Syed Sahabuddin and Salahuddin Owaisi had also supported this out of court settlement
It was decided that Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) General Secretary Ashok Singhal, who was part of the negotiations, would take approval from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Balasahib Deoras. According to Singh, Singhal got a verbal lashing from Deoras when he briefed him about the solution. “There are many Ram temples in the country. This movement is not for building a Ram temple. It is means to launch and create awareness among Hindu youth and further a larger agenda,” Deoras told Singhal. Soon the VHP backed out and solution fell flat.
It also described Ram Lala a juristic person – a non-human legal entity recognised by the law and entitled to rights and duties in the same way as a human being
The larger agenda was to create a wave of Hindutva and occupy power in India. They were prophetic words of Deoras. The Hindu right gained immensely by keeping the issue alive. The question now is: what will the Hindu right do in the absence of issues? Will it then invent new ones or settle for accommodation and nation building?
On August 4, 2005, when Indian Supreme Court was upholding the death sentence for the Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, I was ensconced on a bench reserved for press at the far end of the crowded court room. When Justice P V Reddy started reading the operative part of the 271-page judgement, it appeared that Guru would be absolved of the charges and set free. The judge was demolishing prosecution theories one after another. He was mentioning that the prosecution failed to prove that Guru was member of terror group Jaish e Muhammad (JeM) or his direct link in the Parliament attack. There was no proof for his terrorist activities in the past. When the judge was reading the last sentence, it was inaudible due to some commotion in the front benches which were taken over by lawyers. We later figured out that the judge had upheld the death sentence. “The collective conscience of society will be satisfied only if death penalty is awarded to Afzal Guru,” the judge said.
After reading the 1000-page judgement that handed over the disputed site of the demolished Babri Masjid to Hindus, there was an identical experience. The five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice Justice Ranjan Gogoi has accepted most arguments submitted by Muslim parties. The bench rejected the Hindu argument that Mir Baqi, a Shia military officer in the Mughal army, had built the mosque by demolishing any temple in 1528.
The court agreed that the Babri mosque adhered to the tenets of Islam. Prayers were offered regularly there. In fact, the court said the last prayer was offered on December 16, 1949 — a few days before the mosque was desecrated on December 22-23 by the placing of idols inside. The court rejected the Hindus’ claim that Muslims had long abandoned the mosque.
The court held that the damage suffered by the mosque in 1934, its desecration in 1949 and the eventual destruction on December 6, 1992 by kar sevaks were a “serious violation of law.”
The judgment said the ouster of Muslims through the act of desecration of their mosque was “an act calculated to deprive them of their place of worship.” It highlighted how the mosque was “brought down” during the pendency of the suits.
At one point, the bench said, “Justice would not prevail if the court were to overlook the entitlement of Muslims who have been deprived of the mosque through means which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law.”
It noted that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) failed to prove that a temple existed on that site. The court also observed that mere existence of a structure beneath the mosque cannot lead to a title for Hindus now, even if that structure was found to be of Hindu origin.
But at the end, the court pronounced that Hindus have a “better” possessory claim over the disputed site, but left it without any explanation. Interestingly, the court, while ruling in favour of Hindus, did not give the land to Hindu litigant Nirmohi Akhara. It gave land directly to Lord Ram or Ram Lala. The court further went on to say, since Ram Lala was an infant, a trust will look after the possession. The central government shall, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment, set up a board of trustees for the construction of Ram temple. Possession of the inner and outer courtyards of the disputed site shall be handed over to the board of trustees.
It also described Ram Lala a juristic person – a non-human legal entity recognised by the law and entitled to rights and duties in the same way as a human being. The leader Triloki Nath Pandey had argued on behalf of Lord Ram. “Hindu litigants had a weak case as far as title suit was concerned. So, a decision to file a case on behalf of Ram Lala was taken,” he said. In February 2008, the court had declared him next friend — a person who acts on behalf of another individual who does not have the legal capacity to act on his or her own behalf.
The writer is a journalist based in Turkey.