New Delhi: On December 6, 1992, Kar Sevaks demolished the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, which they said was built on the birth place of Lord Ram. Twenty-four years later, cases related to the demolition continue in court while its political repercussion is still being felt in the country.
News18’s Debayan Roy spoke to Ranjana Agnihotri, the counsel for Akhil Bharatiya Ramjanma Punrodhhar Samiti fighting the case in the Supreme Court. Excerpts
What is the status of the case right now in the Supreme Court?
The judgement, which declared the disputed land to be equally divided into 3 parts between us, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Wakf Board, has been challenged in the Supreme Court. The hearing needs to begin. We are not ready for partition at all, and the partition suit needs to be dismissed. There was no prayer made for the partition, then why was such a judgment delivered? It’s against Order 7 Rule VII of CPC. This was not the relief that was asked for. The court needs to declare the land in favour of any one single party.
Do you think this land belongs to someone or it’s a fight to secure the ownership through the court?
After the ASI Report, this has been proved that a 12th century Hindu temple existed there. Several animal figurines and other materials dating back to the 12th century highlighting the existence of a temple prove that the claim of Babri Masjid in that place is incorrect.
Originally four suits were filed. The fifth suit was filed on behalf of Ram Lalla Virajman. Come what may, the birthplace of Lord Rama cannot be trespassed. Even the 1940 Privy Council stated that sympathy for religious sentiment cannot be there, but if the law of limitation hampers the suit, like it did in the case for the Sunni Wakf Board, then it will be dismissed.
With another December 6, do you think it will act as a catalyst to expedite the hearing of the matter by a constitutional bench?
First of all it is not an issue of Babri Masjid demolition; it is actually an issue of Ram temple demolition. It’s the court’s call. I think the Prime Minister is busy in securing the borders and the country is battling with terrorism. So a date is difficult to be listed before the UP elections.
But let us stop calling it a case of Babri Masjid demolition. This place was attempted to be turned into a mosque later on. One of the major points here is that there are no prayers offered inside this mosque. When there are no prayers offered, then how can it be called a mosque? There are no wazu khana (ablution centers) within the premises too. There are no minars too when there are idols too, then in no way can prayers be performed inside the venue.
News18: Can you elaborate a little more on the ASI’s excavation?
When the ASI excavations took place, human skeletons were found in the area along with the remains of a 12th century temple. This shows that there was a battle between the two communities. But all efforts failed and this place could not be converted into a mosque. This mosque or Ayodhya has no mention in the Baburnama (Memoir of Babur) or the Humanyunama (Memoir of Humayun) written by Gulbadan Begum.
But the Sunni Wakf Board has contended that this place is important for the people of the Islamic faith. What is your view?
The contention of the Sunni Wakf Board was ludicrous when they said that they put curtains on the idols and then pray. According to Islamic customs, such a prayer is null and void. We have even proved that Mir Bakshi, who the Sunni Wakf Board highlighted as a General of Akbar who commissioned the construction of the mosque, was purely a fictitious character.
Islam itself says that if a land is donated by someone or is a wakf land then the person donating the land must be the owner of the land. Suppose I create a wakf for Taj Mahal, but I am not the owner of the land, then that wakf is null and void. So who is the owner of this land that they are claiming to be a wakf property?
As per Islam again, re-used materials cannot be used while building a mosque. The facet of the pillars and walls of this mosque has idols built in the opposite direction on which they claim to put curtains and then pray. ASI findings have even proven that the land is not built on a plain land, which is a must, according to Islam, for a mosque to be built.
Do you have any other evidence except the ASI report to prove your points?
The judgement is not only based on ASI findings, but relies on close to 200 texts, which includes ancient scriptures, books, rarest of rare documents, Valmiki Ramayana, maps, figurines, etc. All the documents which were in Sanskrit and other languages have been transliterated and converted into soft copies for the ease of the judges.
What kind of ‘rarest of rare’ documents are you talking about?
If you travel down the lanes of history you will see that in 629 AD, Hyun Tsang, a Chinese traveller wrote ‘Yatra Vristav’ and in that he mentions the four prominent temples of Ayodhya, and there he talks about the Janmasthan temple. In 1627 AD, William Finch travelled here during the reign of the Mughal emperor Jehangir, noted that he saw brahmins at the disputed site writing down the names of the visitors, which is a customary tradition at a Hindu site. Even the traveller Niccolao Manucci, in written documents, have mentioned places like Ayodhya, Kashi, Mathura and Haridwar. It’s here that he specifically mentions about the Ayodhya temple. In 1770 AD, Joseph Tiffin Theller has also written that he saw a hall at the disputed site along with saints performing customary rights around a raised platform. Even then there was no mention of Muslims.
In the 18th century, in the 1828 gazetteer, Tiffin Theller mentioned that a birthday of a child was celebrated here on a cradle on the specific disputed site. He further mentioned that it was the 9th day of Chaitra Navami. So precisely if you check all records of history, even if you see a short period of 1828 to 1950, there was no mosque at the site. In 1858, when Sardan Nihang Singh claimed the area, Syed Mohammad, lodged an FIR to remove Nihang Singh and built a mosque.
Weren’t there certain references made in documents to the site as a ‘mosque-temple’ as well?
In 1817, P Carnegie drew a historical sketch of Ayodhya and in this place of this disputed land, he showed Awadh Hindu Worshippers praying at the ‘mosque-temple’. Even in 1880, it was reported that Hindus used to pray at the ‘mosque-temple’. So, this term originated post the 18th century. But we are preparing a rebuttal to this on how this term actually originated. The research is going on and the answer would be ready in a month.
When you say that a temple was destroyed to build a mosque, how do you corroborate such a statement?
It’s all on record. In 1934, after the riot of Gokashi, there was another Hindu-Muslim riot in which the shikhar (top of the temple) was destroyed by the Muslims. The British government called a contractor from Benares to repair it. His name was Tahoor Khan. He, instead of repairing the shikhars, went on to lay a tablet of inscription there stating that it is being re-built by Tahoor Khan and it was a place where angels descended.
But the Sunni Wakf Board has contended with statement of witnesses that idols were suspiciously put inside the mosque. Don’t you think this casts doubt on your version?
Firstly, the witnesses they have used are not reliable stating that he saw someone in the middle of the night at the mosque with lights and how he fainted after seeing this. Secondly, even if it be so, it is not the case that whether idols were placed there or not. That is not the contention at all. It is the birthplace of Rama, and why only idols even a temple can be erected there. It is said in the religion that even a glance of Rama’s birthplace can help a Hindu attain salvation, then why deprive him of that right?