From the BBC and Alliance Defense Fund:
15 November 2010 Last updated at 10:48 ET Share this pageFacebookTwitter ShareEmail Print Muslim appeal over Ayodhya rulingBy Chris Morris
BBC News, Delhi
The case has dragged on for decades, from well before the destruction of the mosque in 1992 Continue reading the main story
Ayodhya disputeQ&A: Ayodhya dispute
Happy compromise?
Judgement: Key excerpts
In pictures: Judgement day
One of India's leading Muslim groups has appealed against a ruling over the Ayodhya holy site, where a Hindu mob destroyed a mosque 18 years ago.
Two months ago, Lucknow High Court said the land should be divided, and that the razed 16th century mosque should not be rebuilt.
Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind says the judgement appears to be based not on evidence but on the professed belief of Hindus.
Hindus claim the Babri Masjid site is the birthplace of their deity, Ram.
A lawyer representing the group, Anis Suhrawardy, said this was not an appropriate basis for a ruling in an Indian court of law.
"The judgement of the high court is not legally sustainable. There is no scope for belief, myth or faith," he said.
"We have a written constitution; in written constitutions there are laws; if there are laws then they are to be applied."
The appeal, which extends to 11,000 pages, also argues that the high court went beyond its remit in ordering that the disputed land should be divided between three parties - two Hindu groups and one Muslim.
The case - based on who owns the land - has dragged on for decades, from well before the destruction of the Babri Masjid mosque in 1992.
The attack was followed by some of the worst religious riots in the country's history, causing thousands of deaths.
And this, related, also from the BBC:
30 September 2010 Last updated at 10:15 ET Share this pageFacebookTwitter ShareEmail Print Q&A: The Ayodhya dispute
The Babri Mosque was torn down by Hindu zealots in 1992 An Indian court has ruled in a majority verdict that land around a demolished mosque in the northern town of Ayodhya should be split three ways between Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara Hindu sect.
The BBC examines key questions surrounding the bitter dispute which, nearly two decades ago, prompted some of India's worst religious violence since partition.
What is the row about?
Hindus and Muslims have been at loggerheads for more than a century over the Babri mosque in Ayodhya, in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.
Hindus claim the mosque was the birthplace of one of their most revered deities, Lord Ram, and that it was built after the destruction of a Hindu temple by a Muslim invader in the 16th Century.
Muslims say they offered prayers at the mosque until December 1949, when some people placed the idols of Ram under the cover of darkness in the mosque. The worship of the idols began soon after.
Over the next four decades, Hindu and Muslim groups went to court over the control of the site and the right to offer prayers there.
The dispute flared in 1992 when a Hindu mob destroyed the mosque, and nearly 2,000 people died in subsequent religious riots across the country.
What does the court order mean?
Allahabad High Court's ruling on Thursday addressed three questions. It said that the disputed spot was Ram's birthplace, that the mosque was built after the demolition of a temple and that it was not built in accordance with the tenets of Islam.
Following the decision, Hindus hope to see a temple built on the site, while Muslims demanding the reconstruction of the mosque are likely to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The case has already languished in India's famously sluggish legal system for so long that most of the original petitioners have died.
What exactly did the judges say in their ruling?
The court ruled in an 8,500-page judgement that two-thirds of the disputed site should be allocated to Hindu groups, with the remainder to Muslims.
For the first time in a judicial ruling, it said that the disputed site was the birthplace of the Hindu god.
The court ordered that the current arrangement at Ayodhya - which is currently the site of a makeshift Hindu temple - should be "maintained as the status quo" for three months to allow time for any appeals against the judgement.
What exactly did the court say about the conflicting claims to Ayodhya?
The court ruled that the disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram, who is "both a juristic person and a deity".
The two Hindu judges on the three-judge panel said that the building constructed by the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India, Babur, was not a mosque because it was built "against the tenets of Islam" on the site of a demolished Hindu temple.
However the Muslim judge in the case dissented from this view, arguing that no temple was destroyed and that the mosque was built on ruins.
The two Hindu judges also agreed that the Ayodhya site was found by the Archaeological Survey of India originally to have been "a massive Hindu religious structure" and that Hindus had been worshipping there as a "sacred place of pilgrimage... since time immemorial".
It also ruled that Hindu idols were placed in the disputed structure in 1949 - a point which Muslims argue is important because that act, they say, triggered much of the tension over Ayodhya that remains today.
What are the political implications?
This politically radioactive case presents the ruling left-of-centre Congress party with a terrible dilemma.
Endorsing a pro-Hindu verdict would harm the secular party's links with the Muslim population; a pro-Muslim ruling could lead to ordering the eviction of Hindu groups from the site.
Any decision against Hindus, who make up an estimated 80% of the population, would award political capital to the opposition Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party.
When did Hindu-Muslim tensions last escalate?
More than 50 people died in February 2002 when a train carrying Hindu activists returning to Gujarat from Ayodhya was set alight, allegedly by a Muslim mob.
At least 1,000 people - mainly Muslims - died in the violence in the state that erupted afterwards.
Have religious tensions eased in India in recent years?
Definitely, yes. It is now not as easy to mobilise young people under the banner of religion as it was in the early 1990s.
India's economic boom has changed priorities, and development is now the key issue.
Even so, the government is taking no chances and thousands of police and paramilitary force members have been deployed in Ayodhya and at potential flashpoints across the country.
And lastly, this, also related, also from the BBC:
30 September 2010 Last updated at 12:35 ET Share this pageFacebookTwitter ShareEmail Print Ayodhya verdict: Indian holy site 'to be divided'
Some Hindu groups celebrated after the verdict A court in India has said that a disputed holy site in Ayodhya should be split between Hindus and Muslims, but both sides plan to appeal.
In a majority verdict, judges gave control of the main disputed section, where a mosque was torn down in 1992, to Hindus.
Other parts of the site will be controlled by Muslims and a Hindu sect.
Continue reading the main story
Ayodhya disputeQ&A: Ayodhya dispute
Happy compromise?
Judgement: Key excerpts
In pictures: Judgement day
The destruction of the mosque by Hindu extremists led to widespread rioting in which some 2,000 people died.
It was some of the worst religious violence since the partition of India in 1947.
Officials urged both sides to remain calm and respect the Allahabad High Court's verdict.
Hindus claim the site of the Babri Masjid is the birthplace of their deity, Ram, and want to build a temple there.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has appealed for calm. In a statement, he said: "My appeal to all sections of the people is to maintain peace and tranquility and to show respect for all religions and religious beliefs in the highest traditions of Indian culture."
The court ruled that the site should be split, with the Muslim community getting control of a third, Hindus another third and the remainder going to a minority Hindu sect, Nirmohi Akhara, which was one of the early litigants in the case.
Continue reading the main story
Long-running Ayodhya dispute
Centres on land 130ft (40m) x 90ft (27m) where mosque stood
Court cases over the issue date back to 1949 - so far 18 judges have heard the case
1992 report blamed Hindu nationalist politicians for role in the mosque demolition
Key issue is whether the temple was demolished on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur in 1528
Other questions are whether the mosque was built according to Islamic law and whether idols were put inside it by Hindus in 1949
Timeline: Ayodhya holy site crisis
Ayodhya verdict: Indian reaction
It said that the current status of the site should continue for the next three months to allow the land to be peacefully measured and divided.
The Hindus will keep the area where a small tent-shrine to Ram has been erected, lawyers said.
"The majority ruled that the location of the makeshift temple is the birthplace of Ram, and this spot cannot be shifted," said Ravi Shankar Prasad, a lawyer for one of the parties to the suit.
'No-one's victory'
Both Hindu and Muslim lawyers say they will appeal against the ruling in the 60-year-old case to the Supreme Court, which is likely to delay a final decision still further.
"We have to study the judgement in details," said Zafaryab Jilani, lawyer for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.
Continue reading the main story
Eyewitness
Sanjoy Majumder
BBC News, Ayodhya
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayodhya is calm after the verdict was delivered. There is still a heavy security presence. Police armed with automatic rifles and wearing riot gear can be seen everywhere. They are asking everyone to stay indoors, remain calm and not react to the verdict.
Many people are standing on their balconies or the roofs of their homes, taking in the scene. Some flash a victory sign but otherwise the mood is subdued.
The disputed site is heavily guarded, its entrance behind barricades. These restrictions will stay in place since the legal battle is still not over. But many people here say they want to move on and above all want peace.
"It's an 8,500-page order. The court has said a status quo will be maintained at the site for three months so we have time to appeal in the Supreme Court."
He told the BBC: "We hope peace and tranquility will be maintained."
The head of the right-wing Hindu group Rashtriya Samajsevak Sangh, Mohan Bhagwat, said: "It is no-one's victory, no-one's defeat.
"The temple for Lord Ram should be built; now everyone should work unitedly to ensure that the temple is built at the site."
Nearly 200,000 security personnel were deployed across northern India to quell any unrest in the wake of the verdict.
However, there have been no reports of violence so far.
Some Muslims have given a cautious welcome to the judgement, suggesting it could begin a process of reconciliation, says the BBC's Mike Wooldridge in Delhi.
Correspondents say the Ayodhya ruling could not have come at a worse time for the authorities - they already have their hands full dealing with security preparations for the Delhi Commonwealth Games which begin on Sunday.
However, the BBC's Soutik Biswas in Delhi says the verdict is a test of India's secular identity and much has changed in the country since the mosque was destroyed in 1992.
No comments:
Post a Comment