Ayodhya verdict: Gadkari appeals for peace, harmony India News Press Trust of India Thursday September 30, BJP chief Nitin Gadkari on Thursday appealed for peace and harmony and asked party workers to ensure law and order is maintained after the Allahabad High Court pronounces its verdict on the Ayodhya dispute. I appeal all to maintain peace, restraint and harmony," he told reporters at the city BJ The litigants have reached Court No. This, after the Supreme Court today rejected a petition seeking that the verdict be deferred and said the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court could go ahead and deliver judgment on the property dispute.
|Published (Last):||17 August 2016|
|PDF File Size:||1.88 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.75 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
These have a distinctive style which bears influences of "later Tughlaq " architecture. Mosques all over India were built in different styles; the most elegant styles developed in areas where indigenous art traditions were strong and local artisans were highly skilled. Thus regional or provincial styles of mosques grew out of local temple or domestic styles, which were conditioned in their turn by climate, terrain, materials, hence the enormous difference between the mosques of Bengal , Kashmir and Gujarat.
The Babri Mosque followed the architectural school of Jaunpur Sultanate. When viewed from the west side, it resembled the Atala Masjid in Jaunpur. Babri was an important mosque of a distinct style, preserved mainly in architecture, developed after the Delhi Sultanate was established , seen also in the Babari Mosque in the southern suburb of the walled city of Gaur, and the Jamali Kamili Mosque built by Sher Shah Suri. This was the forerunner of the Mughal architecture style adopted by Akbar.
The sandstone used in building the Babri Mosque also had resonant qualities which contributed to the unique acoustics. In the Babri Masjid a passive environmental control system comprised the high ceiling, domes, and six large grille windows. The system helped keep the interior cool by allowing natural ventilation as well as daylight.
However, these inscriptions appear to be of a more recent vintage. The Baburnama Chronicles of Babur does not mention either the mosque or the destruction of a temple. He also recorded the fact of Brahmins recording the names of pilgrims. The courtyard is labelled janmasthan and shows a Ram chabutra. The central bay of the built structure is labelled chhathi, which also denotes birthplace. According to this account, Aurangzeb r. A mosque with three domes was constructed in its place.
The Hindus continued to offer prayers at a mud platform that marked the birthplace of Rama. His report was never published but partly reused by Montgomery Martin later. Kishore Kunal examined the original report in the British Library archives. It states that the Hindus generally attributed destruction "to the furious zeal of Aurangzabe".
However it said that the mosque at Ayodhya was ascertained to have been built by Babur by "an inscription on its walls". The said inscription in Persian was said to have been copied by a scribe and translated by a Maulvi friend of Buchanan.
The translation however contained five pieces of text, including two inscriptions. The translator doubted that the fable was part of the inscription but recorded that the scribe "positively says that the inscription was executed at the erection of this building". The translator also had a difficulty with the anagram for the date, because one of the words was missing, which would have resulted in a date of AH rather than AH.
These incongruities and mismatches made no impression on Buchanan, who maintained that the mosque was built by Babur. A section of historians, such as R.
Sharma , deny this, and state that such claims of temple demolition sprang up only after the 18th century. In the petition, he stated that Babur had inscribed one word "Allah" above the door. The District Judge and the Sub-Judge visited the mosque in the presence of all parties and their lawyers and confirmed this fact. No other inscriptions were recorded. One was a Quranic verse. They were affixed almost years after the supposed construction of the mosque in , and repeatedly replaced.
In mid-nineteenth century, the Muslim activist Mirza Jan quoted from a book Sahifa-I-Chihil Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, which was said to have been written by a daughter of the emperor Bahadur Shah I and granddaughter of Aurangzeb in the early 18th century. The text mentions mosques having been constructed after demolishing the "temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura , Banaras and Awadh etc.
Here he met the Sufi saints Shah Jalal and Sayyid Musa Ashiqan and took a pledge in return for their blessings for conquering Hindustan. Nath has stated that, judging from the architecture of the mosque, it should be taken to have been built in the pre-Mughal period.
According to Jain Samata Vahini, the mosque was built over a 6th-century Jain temple. In , after a Hindu-Muslim clash, a boundary wall was constructed to avoid further disputes.
It divided the mosque premises into two courtyards; the Muslims offered prayers in the inner courtyard. The Hindus offered their prayers on a raised platform, known as "Ram Chabutara", in the outer courtyard. After Muslim protests, the Deputy Commissioner prohibited any temple construction on 19 January In response, the mutawalli Muslim trustee of the mosque argued that the entire land belonged to the mosque.
On 18 March , the District Judge F. Chamier also dismissed an appeal against the lower court judgment. He agreed that the mosque was built on the land considered sacred by the Hindus, but ordered maintenance of status quo , since it was "too late now to remedy the grievance". A subsequent appeal before the Judicial Commissioner W. Young was also dismissed on 1 November The walls around the Masjid and one of the domes of the Masjid were damaged during the riots.
These were reconstructed by the British Indian government. Muslim Waqf Act for the better administration of waqf properties in the state. In accordance with this act, the Babri Masjid and its adjacent graveyard Ganj-e-Saheedan Qabristan were registered as Waqf no. The Shias disputed the Sunni ownership of the mosque, claiming that the site belonged to them because Mir Baqi was a Shia.
The inquiry concluded that the mosque belonged to the Sunnis, since it was commissioned by Babur, who was a Sunni. The concluding report was published in an official gazette dated 26 February In , the Shia Central Board moved to court against this decision. On 23 March , Judge S. Ahsan ruled in favour of the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs. At the end of this event, on the night of 22—23 December , a group of 50—60 people entered the mosque and placed idols of Rama and Sita there. On the morning of 23 December, the event organisers asked Hindu devotees to come to the mosque for a darshan.
As thousands of Hindus started visiting the place, the Government declared the mosque a disputed area and locked its gates. Nayar feared that the Hindus would retaliate and pleaded inability to carry out the orders.
In , the Nirmohi Akhara filed another lawsuit demanding possession of the mosque. On 18 December , the Sunni Central Waqf Board also filed a lawsuit, demanding possession of the site and removal of idols from the mosque premises. To raise public awareness, VHP planned nationwide rath yatras chariot processions  , the first of which took place in September—October , from Sitamarhi to Ayodhya. The campaign was temporarily suspended after assassination of Indira Gandhi , but revived in from 25 places on 23 October On 25 January , a year-old local lawyer Umesh Chandra Pandey, appealed to a court to remove the restrictions on Hindu worship in the Babri Masjid premises.
Earlier, the only Hindu ceremony permitted at the site was a Hindu priest performing an annual puja. After the ruling, all Hindus were given access to the site, and the mosque gained some function as a Hindu temple. At noon, a teenage Kar Sevak volunteer was "vaulted" on to the dome and that signalled the breaking of the outer cordon. Soon after, a large number of kar sevaks demolished the mosque. Aftermath Communal riots between Hindus and Muslims occurred across India immediately following demolition of the mosque.
Rioting in the immediate aftermath resulted in the deaths of an estimated 2, people. He also suggested that the Indian National Congress leaders, including prime minister P V Narasimha Rao and home minister S B Chavan , had ignored warnings about the demolition for deriving political benefits. The ASI submitted its report to the Allahabad high court.
During the early medieval period 11—12th century , a but short-lived huge structure of nearly 50 metres north-south orientation was constructed. On the remains of this structure, another massive structure was constructed: this structure had at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction that the disputed structure was constructed during the early 16th century.
In their verdict, the three judges of The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site. It also ordered the government to give an alternate 5 acre land to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.
2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute
In an episode of unabashed ugliness, a frenzied mob of thousands of Hindu extremists — including some of the leading lights of the BJP, which now rules India — stormed the 16th-century mosque and reduced it to rubble, guided by the belief that the spot where the masjid was built was Ram Janmabhoomi, the place where Hindus believe the deity was born. Communal riots followed the desecration of the mosque in many parts of India, while the demolition was condemned by major Muslim states. This event has poisoned Hindu-Muslim relations in India since, and has served as a battle cry for the Hindu hard right, that has now captured state power in New Delhi. On Saturday, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that a temple would be built on the site of the razed mosque. While the apex court did say that the demolition was illegal, by allowing the building of the temple, it has, through this verdict, indirectly supported the vandalism by the mobs. Perhaps it would have been better had the court given the site to neither side, considering the sensitivity of the matter and its impact on communal relations in India.
Babri Masjid Verdict
Background Allahabad High Court verdict The Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindu radicals during a political rally which turned into a riot on 6 December A subsequent land title case was lodged in the Allahabad High Court , the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September In the judgment, the three judges of the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2. The judgment affirmed that the disputed land was the birthplace of Rama as per the faith and belief of Hindus, and that the Babri Masjid was built after the demolition of a Hindu temple, noting that it was not built in accordance with the tenets of Islam. A similar suit was filed shortly after but later withdrawn by Paramhans Das of Ayodhya.
Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid case verdict, as it happened: Highlights
These have a distinctive style which bears influences of "later Tughlaq " architecture. Mosques all over India were built in different styles; the most elegant styles developed in areas where indigenous art traditions were strong and local artisans were highly skilled. Thus regional or provincial styles of mosques grew out of local temple or domestic styles, which were conditioned in their turn by climate, terrain, materials, hence the enormous difference between the mosques of Bengal , Kashmir and Gujarat. The Babri Mosque followed the architectural school of Jaunpur Sultanate. When viewed from the west side, it resembled the Atala Masjid in Jaunpur.
Ayodhya verdict has lot of contradictions, and we will seek a review. Whatever legal recourse is possible, we will take, he added. In the scheme by Board of trustees, appropriate representation be given to Nirmohi Akhara, says Supreme Court. SC says Centre will formulate a scheme in 3 months to set up a board of trustees for construction of temple at the disputed structure.