I think almost all of us know that the judgement was not the final one and there are more appeals to follow resulting in dragging the case for a few more years. One question that I have is what happens if the second ruling is in favor of Muslims or lets say Hindus for that matter? Would either side be able to accept the decision of the court? Isn't that why the conflict started at the first place.
@dezi
The controversy is at least 125 years old legally. First official case was filed in the year 1885.
Even after Supreme court rules the verdict, any party can ask for reconsideration. But this is not beginning of whole story. Supreme Court can neglect it without hearing it. Other thing is creation of law which is not possibility because of secularism.
Court did took the belief in account but verdict of dividing the land was within constitution.
No party was able to prove the ownership of the land although all were able to prove possession of the same at the time of 1947.
Yesterday seetaram yechury reading a gazzette published in 1853 stating that Hindus used to worship at mosque believing it as birthplace of Ram from time immemorial till they were barred from worshiping after 1857 mutiny. Given that there is no exclusivity for muslims till 1857, Hindus are entitled to have half of the place where original mosque stood and the court verdict reflects that.
What concrete evidence that court has, is that Magistrate of British himself visited the site and rejected the appeal of Saint Maharaja to place a idols in the Center Dome where they regularly do the puja.
Magistrate in his final wordings did said that this is scared place of hindus and it is unfortunate, at the same place masjid was constructed.
The court Justice followed all the laws.
Nirmohi Akhara was in possession of land even before 18th century as noted by Foreign travelers. Hindus were doing puja in the masjid at least in 18th century. Now, Sunni Waqf wanted to possession of whole disputed land but they himself admitted that Nirmohi Akhara owned the 1/3rd part. But their argument was that Hindus forcefully were doing puja at the disputed site.
I could not find whether the Mosque was used as a place of worship before it was demolished. Did people still visit that mosque for prayers? Or was the practice stopped long before it was demolished? I remember reading somewhere that it was no longer used for prayers (cant get the source though). True?
Actually Mosque site was used for prayers not only Muslims but also Hindus. Actual construction of Temple could not begin as British didn't gave permission because of fear of riots.
According to the District Gazetteer Faizabad 1905, "up to this time (1855), both the Hindus and Muslims used to worship in the same building. But since the Mutiny (1857), an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the Masjid and the Hindus forbidden access to the inner yard, make the offerings on a platform (chabootra), which they have raised in the outer one." So actually till 1855, mosque itself was used for worshiping by both groups Hindus and Muslims but British divided the land in two parts. There was platform (now called Chabootra) from where Hindus were allowed to worship and they were barred in Mosque because of Riots that broke in 1857. Earlier, because Mosque was small, only few people could enter it and there fore large people use to stand outside yard, i.e. Chabootra.
For those here with Indophobic,Anti-Hinduism vision the above para is invisible.
For them 2 things are stuck in their heads.
1)1992 the Mosque was demolished by fanatics who claimed it to be the birth spot of their Lord.
2)2010 verdict was made as a compromise
None will pay attention to the fact that this is the verdict for the pre- partition case.
This dispute predates the British rule.
@Bombensturm
Verdict is of four cases at different stages. First being 1949 case filed by Hindus and last being filed by Nirmohi Akhara in 1988. Other two cases were filled by Sunni Waqf board and Mr. Ansari.
Although legally case if of 1949, but its roots goes to case of 1885 where Magistrate himself agreed on certain points.
1992 Demolition case if different and verdict will come later when finished. I am sure all will be punished.
2010 verdict is not compromise. It is based on the fact that both Hindus and Muslim were in possession of structure at least before 1857 Mutiny before fencing was created by british.
Yes, Legally Dispute does predates to British rule but in real dispute pre dates to before British rule or predates to Moghul rule of Aurangzeb. The proof is the recorded riots predating 18 century.
but this is a indian muslim matter if their own gov does not protects them it will just radicalise more muslims in India
