BABARI MASJID
Eminent Journalist S. Sahay on Ayodhya Dispute
The presidential reference to the Supreme Court would not have met the fate it did had the Government assured the court that, in the event of the court holding that no temple existed at the Babari Masjid site, the Government would construct a Masjid at the spot it stood. The Government counsel gave vague, round-about, answers. In his dissenting judgement Mr. Justice Bharucha made pointed reference to it. To quote Mr. Justice Bharucha: "Asked to obtained instructions and tell the court that the mosque would be rebuilt if the question posed by the reference was answered in the negative, the learned Solicitor-General made the statement quoted above. It leaves us in no doubt that even in the circumstances this court opines that no Hindu temple or no Hindu religious structure existed on the disputed land site before the disputed structure was built thereon, there is no certainty that the mosque will be built.".
What then is the way out? The vast majority of the Muslims are now reconciled to the fact that the Masjid exists no more. Likewise, the saner Hindus did not approve the destruction of the Masjid.
As we know, there is no serious move for a negotiated settlement of the dispute, and, the apex court's observations in the presidential reference case indicate the temper of the court, should the problem be hurled buck to it by the use of Article 138(2). Therefore, the only viable alternative is legislative initiative. The land on which the Masjid existed and surrounding areas can once again be taken over through legislation. The majority ruling upheld the acquisitioning of the property but declared as unconstitutional that part of the statute that abated all pending suits without providing for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. This was held to be an extinction of the judicial remedy for resolution of the dispute amounting to negation of rule of law.
The new piece of legislation should merely take over the property without extinguishing any legal remedy Later a consensus can be reached by the two communities that the right of worship of both the communities has elapsed with the takeover of the property and appropriate applications field before the High Court.
(Source: The Hindustan Times, 24 July, 1996)
Shahabuddin's Letter to The Hindustan Times, 29 July, 1996
A fresh legislation for the takeover of the disputed site and the land attached thereto is not called for as the Supreme Court has ruled that the State under the existing Act of 1993 is no more than a custodian till the title is decided and revived the Special Bench. What is important is to note that the takeover or custody by the State pro team does not extinguish any right including the right to worship. If the title is decided in favor of the Muslim community the rule of law demands that the site be restored to them for reconstruction of the Masjid if they so wish. Similarly, if the title to the Babari Masjid site is finally decided in favor of the Hindu community. the Muslim community will accept the judgement. The State committed to the rule of law as it is should not exert undue pressure on either party to abdicate it! legal right. Even if it cannot rebuild the Babari Masjid today, as it should, it should guarantee that it shall execute the final judicial verdict whatever the political cost. What has hurt the Muslim psyche even more than the demolition of the Masjid is the deliberate and unlawful construction of a makeshift temple with the State support on the debris of the demolished Masjid. Mr. Sahay is silent on it.
Editorial, Marathi Daily Maharashtra Times, 5 December, 1994 (Extracts)
Recently a new book has been published and it is written by Prof. Shekhar Sonalkar, Jalgaon. He has gone through the writings of native as well as foreign writers, researchers and officers. He has not written anything of his own. Prof. Sonalkar has referred to the Dharmashastra of Mahamahopadhyaay Kane. It contains information about religious pilgrim places in India. But Ayodhya has not found place therein. Though there is a mention of the capital of Rutuparna in Atharva Veda, there is nothing like the Rajdhani of Ram. Kane has expressed astonishment over this. In Ayodhya, the most important place is related to Vishnu, not Ram. It requires discussion why, up to the seventeenth century, Ayodhya was not an important place of pilgrimage. Nothing of the kind has been done. Sonalkar has relied upon archaeology and the excavations. He has shown that British officers and some historians changed their stand after the rebellion of 1857. It cannot be criticized that Sonalkar has become partisan just because he has inquired into the excessive claims made by some Muslim writers and propagandists also. There are no conclusive evidence and hence many contradictory claims. The known history of Ayodhya begins from the sixth century before Christ. Contrary to this it is believed that the period of Ramayan is over five thousand years old. There is not a single Ram Mandir in India which was built before the tenth century.
It has been claimed that the Hindus had undertaken 67-armed campaigns for Ram Mandir. But there is no proof of it in any scripture. Nobody explains this.
Sonalkar says it is difficult to prove that the pillars of the Babari Masjid are those of a temple. They might have been brought from anywhere. This appears to be more logical. In such circumstances how will this problem be solved. There will remain no reason for fighting about history if both the parties show understanding. Sonalkar's research should be taken note of with an unprejudiced mind.
