IN a landmark judgement announced on September 30 this year after 60 years of fact-finding and research by the authentic investigative agency, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) comprising both the Hindus and the Muslims in large number, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court which also consisted of both Hindu and Muslim judges unanimously declared that the makeshift temple stands on the birthplace of Bhagwan Sri Ram. The simple and indisputable historical fact is that Mir Baqi, an Iranian and commander of invader Babur’s hordes had pulled down Sri Ram’s magnificent temple which was adorned with 84 pillars of Kasauti and constructed a mosque like structure on its debris in 1528 AD. This barbarous and irreligious act of Babur had been vehemently opposed and condemned by the entire Hindu community. The temple constructed at the said site has been the most important Hindu place of worship at Ayodhya since time immemorial.
Thus it is irrefutably proved that the holy temple at Ayodhya which stood at the birthplace of Sri Ram had been built much before the so-called mosque which was raised on its ruins to which the High Court has unequivocally testified in its recent judgment.
Justice SU Khan who hails from Muslim community has written in his separate judgment-
“(The) mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of (the) mosque and some material thereof was used in the construction of the mosque.”
It has been authentically reported that Muslims have abstained from offering namaz at the birth place of Sri Ram since 1934 till today. Thus there is no ground left for the Waqf Board and others for setting up a claim of adverse possession over the said birthplace.
In Pramatha Nath Mallik vs Pradumna Kumar Mallik (1925) the Privy Council had recognised idols as legal persons having rights and duties like human beings. In its recent verdict the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has also held that the birth place of Sri Ram is a juristic person.
It may be mentioned here that under Roman Law an inanimate object hereditas Jacens had been considered as a legal person endowed with rights and duties. But in the eyes of law the mosque does not have the attributes of a juristic person. In Masjid Shahidganja case it was ruled by the Privy Council that a mosque is not an artificial person and cases cannot be filed by or against mosques.
In the Ayodhya case Shri Dharamveer Sharma, Judge, has held that the birthplace of Sri Ram is a juristic person and the title vested in it is absolute and cannot be disturbed.
Shri SU Khan has further said: “It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three – domed structure i.e. the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ramjanmasthan and the place of birth of Lord Ram as per faith and belief of the Hindus belongs to the plaintiff and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants.”
True religion can never command anyone to grab another’s land and build his own house there. The word “Religion” has its root in the Latin world “Religio” which means to tie or unite. But if anyone divides mankind and promotes violence and vandalism instead of love and tolerance how can we call him a religious person?
Despite some differences all the three judges in the Ayodhya case have unanimously held that the disputed site is the birth place of Sri Ram. Let the meaningless controversy; therefore, come to an end for good.
