The 9th of November 2019 will always be remembered for the landmark verdict of the five-member Constituent Bench. The unanimous, balanced and unbiased judgment has cleared the way for the construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya on the Babari Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi title dispute that was pending for the past seven decades. This was made possible by the direction that a scheme will be evolved by the Centre and a trust formed to build the temple. As compensation of sorts for the demoition of the masjid on 6 December 1992, the Muslim parties will receive a five-acre plot elsewhere.

A close reading of the 1,045-page judgment reveals that an exclusive right to the entire property has not been declared in favour of the Hindus, even though they have been awarded exclusive possession. A question then arises as to the basis of the court awarding the whole land to one side, and offering the other only an alternative location elsewhere. The basis seems to be that the deity had an exclusive right over the outer courtyard, given the long history of worship and Hindu festivals held there, and a contested right to the inner courtyard. On the other hand, the court held that the Muslims had failed to prove an exclusive right even in the inner courtyard, where the mosque was located, and that there were frequent complaints of interference by Hindus, and instances of contestation and disputes.

At the same time, the judgment holds that there is no evidence to establish that Muslims abandoned the mosque or ceased to perform namaaz in spite of the “contestation” over their possession of the inner courtyard after 1858. Nowhere has the verdict observed that Hindus had exclusive right of worship or possession on the entire premises. What tipped the scales in favour of the Hindu parties seems to be the prevalence of worship by Hindu pilgrims from a much earlier era, whereas, the offering of namaaz has been established only from around 1856-57. Instances given by the court indicate that there were attempts by Hindus to set up idols and perform puja within the inner courtyard. With Hindus constantly trying to worship inside the precincts of the mosque, the British administration set up a railing in 1857 to bring about peace.

“The existence of an Islamic structure at a place considered sacrosanct by the Hindus did not stop them from continuing their worship at the disputed site and within the precincts of the structure prior to the incidents of 1856-7,” the court has observed. A platform, Ramchabutra, was set up within 100 feet of the inner dome, the court notes, and goes on to say: “[It] must be seen as an expression or assertion of the Hindu right to worship at the birthplace of Lord Ram”. Even after the railing was installed, they stood on the divide between the inner and outer courtyards to pay obeisance to the garb-grih (sanctum sanctorum). In the ultimate analysis, the non-interference by Muslims in Hindu patterns of worship in Hindu shrines such as the Ramchabutra and Sita Rasoi worked against their cause, with the Supreme Court now holding that it proved that the Muslim claim was “non-exclusionary”.

On the face of it, the judgment of 9 November appears to have incorporated the report of the mediation panel it had appointed earlier this year to explore the possibility of an outof- the-court settlement of a legal case that has been an emotive and political issue over the past several decades. In the final judgment, the Supreme Court held the rights of Ram Lalla Virajman, the presiding deity of the disputed site. The apex judiciarya ordered that the entire land of the Babri Masjid- Ram Janambhoomi compound, that is, the disputed land of 2.77 acres belongs to Ram Lalla Virajman. The Supreme Court also held that the plea of the Sunni Waqf Board was maintainable.

The court ordered the government to allocate a separate piece of land measuring 5 acres outside the disputed site to the Sunni Waqf Board. The land allocation has to be done by the Centre within three months. Once the land is allocated to the Sunni Waqf Board, it would be free to begin construction of a mosque there. The Supreme Court held that it is beyond its jurisdiction to decide whether or not the faith of the Hindus was valid, but their belief that Lord Ram was born under the central dome has been proven genuine. It has been proven, the Supreme Court held, that Mughal military commander Mir Baqi on the orders of Emperor Babar built the Babari Masjid. It also held that the Babari Masjid was not built on a vacant land. There was a non- Islamic structure upon which the Babari Masjid was constructed.

The visit of the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak Dev, in 1510-11 AD supports the faith and belief of Hindus that the site was the birthplace of the deity, the Supreme Court observed. The apex court said Jama Sakhies, which have been brought on record, contain a description of the visit of Guru Nanak Dev ji to Ayodhya, where he had darshan of the birthplace of Lord Ram. Without mentioning the name, the five-judge Constitution, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, said that one of the judges while being in agreement with the reasons and directions has recorded separate reasons on: ‘Whether the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Ram according to the faith and belief of Hindu devotees’?

The judge concerned in the reasons recorded separately, said there is no material to identify the exact place of Ram Janambhoomi but the visit of Guru Nanak Dev ji to Ayodhya for, darshan at the Janambhoomi of Ram is an event which depicted that the pilgrims were visiting the place even before 1528. It was stated in the apex court that Emperor Babur constructed Babari Masjid in 1528. The judge said that it could therefore be held that the faith and belief of Hindus regarding the birthplace of Lord Ram is from scriptures and sacred religious books including Valmiki Ramayana and Skand Purana, which faith and belief cannot be held groundless. The landmark judgement kept the larger public interest into consideration. Substantial justice has been delivered. It is a verdict, which should bring about peace and harmony among various interested parties in the matter. This is the more important message. Let peace prevail.

(The writer is former senior professor International Trade and member Vivekananda International Foundation, New Delhi)