CHURUMURI POLL: End of the Ayodhya dispute?

Using the  “faith and belief of Hindus” as a key barometer, two of the judges of the three-judge Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court have ruled that the “area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure” in Ayodhya, is the birth place of Lord Ram.

# “The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a diety,” writes Justice D.V. Sharma. “It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for any one to invoked at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.”

# “The area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus,” writes Justice Sudhir Agarwal.

# “For a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that somewhere in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated,” writes Justice S.U. Khan. “However, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute. After some time of construction of the mosque, Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a pleace wherein exact birth place was situated.”

Has the Ayodhya issue reached closure with the title being divided between three parties or will the use of “faith and belief of Hindus” to legally adjudicate that Lord Ram was indeed born in Ayodhya open up an entirely new flank, if and when the case goes up in appeal before the Supreme Court?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

41 Responses to “CHURUMURI POLL: End of the Ayodhya dispute?”

  1. PIATS Says:

    Court has stated, Babur was not Bob the Builder. He demolished a grand Hindu temple. Sad day for Nehruvian fundos.

    Ram Lala is virajaman. No power on earth can remove him.

    Grand Hindu temple is matter of time-67% on its way already.

  2. bvkulkarni Says:

    Hope problem is resolved, some I have a feeling that 1992 was a different era and Ayodhya was an emotional issue for BJP to come to power. Now after two decades, there is thrill in this emotional issue. At the end of 60 years of title dispute, in a few acres plot a monument for Hindus, Muslims and a pilgrim centre is a sort of consensus of citizens is delivered by High Court.

  3. Furious_Telangana Says:

    Court says hindu muslims should “share the land”. What a confusing verdict. Doesn’t solve anything. Idiot journalists on tv saying this is a land mark event. How do these people become journalists? They do not even read the case papers? Even if they read it, i do not think they will understand it. Just paperweight population.

    Waste tv news channels. They make a joke out of everything.

  4. Pulikesh the Last Says:

    1. Is this the best our eminent jurists can do when it comes to legal prose?

    2. This is not really a judgement, but an admirable way of keeping religious unrest at bay.

  5. gagan Says:

    i feel this is what best could be done. i dont think this is totally a legal judgment… but i feel this judgment gives complete scope for harmonious living of both religions. the court has done its duty in the best way possible. now its for all 3 parties to lead a peaceful life there.

    if the parties still need a legal solution, they may get from SC. anyhow i feel that the judgment based on “faith of hindus” is quite bad from legal angle.

    anyways… most media upset. cos the judgment dint go either way. they wanted the judgment to go to one side …

    i just scanned thro the judgment copy… will try to come out with my complete analysis by next week if possible… dont know if any newspaper can come out with a really good analysis of the judgment by any eminent jurist…

  6. vindy Says:

    time for mathura ….

  7. karihaida Says:

    Ravi Shankar Prasad is making the right noise.. hopefully the rest of BJP amplifies that. This is a good opportunity to make a comeback in UP … madam’s poodles are understandably silent.
    Behenji made her move very quickly, putting the onus on centre and waiting to collect the goodies.
    If the supreme court goes against this verdict then … Hopefully they will realize the magnitude and dismiss the appeal.

    PS: Loved the way Ravi shankar prasad blasted Barkha Dutt.. hopefully the rest of BJP behaves like this in front of psec media. Barkha Dutt seems as if she has lost her beloved dog ..


    Loving the way Ravi shankar prasad is kicking gas bag ass … :)

  8. Narayana Says:

    Given all the intricacies here this probably is the best possible judgment.
    Though not rational but more on building the democratic ethos for a society.

    Now the negotiations can really happen because both sides have their BATNAs (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement) defined thanks to court.

    Let us seize this and close the case soon and move on.

  9. shankar Says:

    A court is supposed to give a ruling based on facts. Where are the facts ? Is there proof for the existence of any God ? It is a collective delusion of the masses that a God Ram existed & he was born at that place in Ayodhya.

    India is no longer a ‘Secular’ Republic with a rational / logical outlook.

  10. Ketan Says:

    Though, you’ve highlighted ‘faith’ in your analysis, it actually is a proxy for ‘pattern of usage’ that is in my understanding used as an important index when ruling over property disputes. This ‘pattern of usage’ includes factors like continuity of usage, attempts at maintenance of property, staking a claim & origin of its claim (e.g., through violent conflict or litigation), attempts at preventing others from using that property (implying an assertion of claim over it), etc. It is for these reasons Hindus got a greater part of the share (67%) by virtue of having used the site (‘worshipping’ = ‘using’ in context of religious disputes) for much longer & much more continuously, whereas precisely because Muslims also used to worship, they also got a share.

    So though, it might appear that faith had been used as a barometer, as you put it, it was pattern of usage that was perhaps considered.

    PS: I am no expert at law.

  11. sree Says:

    I agree with P T L
    Tru this verdict the judges has tried to solve the dispute in a amicable way than really giving the judgment on the issue.

    other wise the para meters of faith and belief sans proofs , even if proofs do exist that belongs to a bygone era, and the present day political agendas and pressures- the judges has gone for the best choice they could make.

  12. No Gravitas Says:

    The verdict tries to please all, but the judges may actually have created a new dispute. Courts have to decide cases on the merit of evidence before it, not on the basis of faith and perception. The ASI didn’t say Rama was born at the place. All it said was that the mosque could have been built on the ruins of a temple.
    Two of the judges say Rama was born at the disputed structure. If that is the conclusion, then it should follow that Hindus should be declared holders of the title to the piece of real estate. But the judges don’t give the title to the Hindus and go for a three-way division of the land which no parties to the dispute ever prayed for. As someone said on a TV channel, the verdict is akin to justice delivered by a political panchayat.
    The BJP is obviously jubilant, and talks of building a grand Rama temple there and expects, although it is not saying so, the Muslims to part with the one-third of the land they have been allotted for the temple. Reconciliation for them means capitulation of Muslims.
    The Supreme Court show throw this judgement out of the window, and hand over the land to the government where a hospital, educational institution, or as someone had said some years ago a toilet could be built. A clean public toilet is much more useful than a place of worship.

  13. prasad Says:

    Super! Congratulations to the Judiciary. Super judgement, this the best, one would have wished for. All should accept this , including the pseudo secular Congress party. But as long as the Congress party continues to be in power this will not happen.

  14. sunitha betkerur Says:

    I feel our judiciary has given a chance to create aunique place inthe pages of world history, by fighting non violently for the country’s freedom we taught a lesson to the world and now we shall teach alesson of harmony to the world by building a unique place of worship for every indian regardless of caste & religion.let create history by getting , staying united

  15. Anonymous Guy Says:


    So what is really a judgement?

  16. Rowdy-Ranga Says:

    Hindu Muslim Bhai Bhai…. Lol

  17. Mysore Peshva Says:

    What an inept judgment, what a travesty of justice! Besides, the judges’ prose is as uninspiring as their opinions.

    The Bench has ensured that the dispute will go on and on and on… just like my favorite Celine Dion song. :)

    I read the gist of the judges’ opinions at this link:

    From that little reading, I thought Judge Dharam Veer Sharma’s opinion, on most of the legal questions of the dispute, was the most interesting of the three judges.

    Splitting the land between Hindus and Muslims is neither a courageous nor a righteous solution. It seems a bit simple-minded. Did we need a learned bench to rule that property in dispute should be divided? The court’s job was to ascertain, using credible evidence, to whom the land rightfully belonged, and related questions.

    I fear that the current judgment may keep the dispute festering for years, akin to what has happened in Mathura or Kashi.

    Meanwhile, here is the text of an email I received from the Global Hindu Heritage Foundation six hours after the judgment was pronounced. It’s very interesting — and makes sense to me.

    /quotation begins

    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”  Edmund Burke
             Three Judge bench of Allahabad court of Lucknow Bench in a majority decision ruled on Thursday that Ram was born at the spot and that his idol should remain there. The verdict states unequivocally that the disputed site is the birthplace of Ram. The court’s observation that the “disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Muslims.”  In its judgment court says that it was built over a destroyed temple.
             Justice S U Khan said let the land be divided in three parts, one each for the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party representing Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha – the party for Lord Ram. Khan said the area where Ram’s idol is should be given to Hindus. Muslims to be given a separate portion of the courtyard, and third litigant Nirmohi Akhara another section of the courtyard.
             The Courts itself contracted itself in making the judgment. It agreed that the “disputed site” was the birthplace of Lord Rama. If that is the case, how can the Court say that they divide the land into three parts and distribute it to three groups?
    It is a sketchy, patchy, fearful, instigated, illegal, arbitrary, political, and appeasement judgment. It has crossed it’s legal boundaries of jurisdiction.
             First of all the judgment is surprising and astonishing because of the fact that none the plaintiffs has asked for the division of the land into three parts. Court clearly went beyond it’s jurisdiction. The decision is more of political nature to appease the Muslims than a legal, rational, logical decision. This unprecedented ruling is going to pave the way for others to ask for legitimacy of occupying all the Hindu Temples that were converted into masjids. This decision has more implications for the usurpation of Hindu Lands and Hindu Temples. It should be challenged on the ground that no plaintiff has asked for the division and also that the court went beyond it’s legal nature of the case. It should not take a political decision on the issues.
    What the Allahabad High Court said is that “you grab Hindu lands and demolish Hindu Temple, we will legitimize it.” The court said we will follow the government policy of “you grab it, we regularize it.”  Can any body find the difference between the Court’s judgment and political appeasement?

    \quotation ends

  18. Khan Says:

    I wished that High Court Judges were learned persons and delivered a verdict, which should have freed Indians of this tangle.

    Alas, Judges were no more than petty lowly persons, am not sure even if moved to Supreme court r we will hear something on similar line …”asss per faith and belief of Hindus”.

    British transferred power to a brahmin and bania, now one more set of brahmin and bania sentenced to “land mark ” judgement.

    Can’t the Govt just acquire this land and hand over to some industries or anything. After all every govt. in India revel in acquiring poor peoples property, why not this. The current ” jis ki lathi wus ki bhains” judgement will not go down well, as this will open more “disputed” , “asss per faith and belief of Hindus” will come up, as they have succeeded in one.

  19. C Says:

    What an absolutely terrible judgement – Essentially, as far as I can make out, the (Hindu) judges declared something like this: “The site is the birth place of Ram (I have no clue as to how they determined this scientifically), the birth place of Ram is a juridical character (huh?), the mosque was built against the character of Islam and therefore cannot be a mosque (again, huh?), the structure beneath was a huge hindu temple over 443 years ago (this bears on things now how and why? Before my house there was another house 400 years ago – should I vacate my house?), and therefore Hindus owns the title of the land.”

    Really this is more of a religious judgement than a legal judgement and this is adequate condemnation of our judicial system. What a bunch of retards.

  20. div Says:

    whatever the judgment is, there is scope for a judicial process and a legal framework to look up to in this secular country called India. Compare this with the fate of Bania Budha statues in Afghanistan!!!

  21. Murali Says:

    well said, Pulikesh and Furious_Telangana..

    Judgement seems be based on political pressure and emotions rather than based on facts and proofs. I dont know why it took 60 years to say this. forget about our media.. ‘Waste tv news channels. They make a joke out of everything.’ i totally agree..

  22. VJai Says:

    Wonder how did they arrive at “The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama.”!!

  23. Doddi Buddi Says:

    Tigers Whiskers The Ultimate

    Yes to both observations. Namma ‘Vedanta Viveka Choodamani’ Mysore Peshva yenu heltharey antha wait madona!

  24. Sudhir Says:

    PIATSji, the temple will have to built according to the size of the land available for it after the 3 way split which is a long way off (3 months can become 3 years or 30).
    Unless of course, your pet mosque demolition mob decide to grab the land in the style that befits them.

  25. Doddi Buddi Says:

    Ree Flute!,

    Sumne koothkolri kandeedheeni….ASI proof idheyalla swamy!

    Is ASI proof not good enough?!!

  26. karihaida Says:

    Wow.. so many “rationalists” here. Rama not being born there is as good as saying he didn’t exist. So you folks wanted the court to adjudicate that Rama did not exist and so the other party gets the land to “pray” to their “god”. So one guy exists and other doesn’t?

    I feel the 3 judges have been brilliant. They have strategically given their judgment, which even the SC can’t really change unless it wants blood bath. And apparently since this judgment cant be used as precedent in future, I would say they have done an exceptional job. Hats off to the judiciary. This how you keep a diverse country as ours in one piece.

  27. DailyBread Says:


    >Let us seize this and close the case soon and move on.

    Mukul Kesavan and his buddies will not allow this to happen.

  28. Pulikeshi the Last Says:

    Thanks, Doddi.


    Treating a puranic character as a historical one is no part of a respectable legal verdict on a land dispute. Goes to show M. Gandhi is still alive in our legal minds, not just hearts. Raama, Raama.

    I can imagine the jurist triumvirate shaking hands and saying, “Jo karna tha, wo hum kar chuke hain. Jai jai Ram. Khuda sab ko salamath rakhe.” A nice gift to the departing member of the tribunal.

    One or two other observations: We should all celebrate the fact that no violence followed the publication of the judgement. The BJP now knows that Ayodhya is no longer a Ramabaana in its quiver. Hence it urges the Muslims to accept the verdict. “Kolu muriyalilla, haavu sayalilla” anno haage. The Muslim side, however, seems to be rushing headlong into trouble by proclaiming its plans to take the matter up to the Supreme Court. Does anybody honestly believe that the Federal Government and the Supreme Court did not know what the verdict of the UP high court was before a stay was granted? I can well imagine an unseen hand crafting the verdict.

    We should put the Mulla-Shaastri conflict in the matter of Bababudangiri/Chandradrona Pavatha in our own backyard to sleep in a similar manner. One chappali of Datta to the HIndu faction and the other chappal to the Muslim counterpart.

    Long live King Solomon.


    Coda: It tickles me immensely to imagine the justices conversing with one another about legal matters of great import in their UP English. No wonder we Southekaayis , admirers of Ravana, feel smug about the way we handle that difficult gift called the English language. Incidentally, would the Nambisan-Mandanna hullabaloo have assumed the current proportions had the novels in question been written in Kodava, Kannada, or Tulu?

  29. Anonymous Guy Says:


    Totally agreed.

    Also a thing to be happy about is the way the people and political parties have reacted (or not reacted).


    No doubt this judgement is full of contradictions.Having said that,if its going to end the hatred ,violence etc lets accept it.

  31. Doddi Buddi Says:

    Ree Khan,

    Nimdu swalpa ‘Cycle Shop School of MBA and Reasoning’ gey bitbitti larger National Interest-gey barkebu. Yenu nimduki side yella bari hunter-log gey idharre? Namduki bari Bania/Baraminnu irodhu?!!

  32. babuds Says:

    Instead of heaping criticism on the judges, let us ponder ‘what ifs’ – what if the judgment was otherwise than what is delivered, which has kept the country from not going out of its rockers.

    1. What if the judgement said Rama is a mythical character and was never born in Ayodhya or any place for that matter, hence he or his followers has no claim on the disputed site – and the site be handed over for re-construction of Babri Masjid, with the expenditure to be borne by the instigators of destruction of the Masjid.

    –I may not be writing this post on this day sitting in peace.

    2. What if it said the ASI has proved that there was a Hindu dharmic structure (read temple) beneath the Babri Masjid, which could have been the demolished Ram Janmasthan Temple as it is situated in Ayodhya- and as also Hindus and their mythology says Rama was born in Ayodhya- the disputed site be handed over to Hindus or their representing organizations for building a Ram Temple.

    — Your guess is as good as mine

    3. What if it said ASI said there was a Hindu temple beneath the disputed site- the temple either would have fallen by itself or one Babur might have built a Masjid there by felling a Hindu Temple- The Babri Masjid was felled down in 1992 by some Hindu extremists- In future if a Temple or Masjid is rebuilt on the same site, there is no guarantee that it will not be razed down again causing violent riots- So let the disputed site be handed over to the Union Government to build a hospital, college, police station, etc, anything else other than a religious structure.

    — No Government would have dared to take the disputed land fearing loss of votes from both communities.

    So I think the judgement as it is a sane one and it would have been better by the addition of a caveat that all future buildings (temple/masjid) on the site be structurally connected so that the destruction of one will cause the automatic destruction of the other.

  33. ponnaps Says:

    the judgement is correct and on expected lines but the award lacks rationale and is please-all…why not 1/2 , 1/4 ,1/4 or 2/7,3/7,2/7 or whatever…what is the rational behind 1/3?

    this is more of a tactical award and an invitation to RJB to appeal in SC and get the remaining 1/3.. the HC surely knows that an appeal is bound to happen eitherways and rather than risk delivering all 100% to the rightful litigant which is the inevitable result of the case, theyd rather have the SC do it…afterall after 10 more years of legal battle the result of losing 1/3 will not be as bad as losing everything…the SC could further assuage by ordering the government to grant 10times more acreage to the waqf…
    rather than judges showing courage,as Soli S would like us to believe, they showed judicial wisdom and chanakyatana..

    BM waalas would do good not to challenge the judgement nor the award… RJB waalas should surely appeal against the award(thats what the HC wants)….

  34. ponnaps Says:

    the SC could further assuage by ordering the government to grant 10times more acreage to the waqf…

    should read as…

    the SC could further assuage by ordering the government to grant x times more acreage to the waqf at some other place…

  35. Ram Lalla Says:

    The “bhaiyyas” have set a record of sorts in the way English has been used in the judgment. The verdict needs to be trashed not just for its substance but its language as well. Grammatical errors are aplenty, and so are spelling mistakes. The litigants, and the public at large, will first have to translate the verdict into English and then make sense of what the judges have said.

    Here are a few worthy passages reproduced verbatim from the judgment:

    — It is held that Hindus were worshipping at the place in dispute before
    construction of the disputed structure but that would not make any difference to the status of the building in dispute which came to be constructed at the command of the sole monarch having supreme power which cannot be adjudicated by a Court of Law, came to be constituted
    or formed much after, and according to the law which was not applicable at that time.

    — It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance
    with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.

    — It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping.

    — It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented
    situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.

    — The Muslim community is in continuous possession over Babri Mosque since 1528 and therefore if plaintiff or any other Hindus succeed in proving that at any point of time there was a temple over the land in suit, in that event also having been in possession for more than 400 years over the land in suit as public mosque no right or title remained with the plaintiff and the same has been extinguished by the lapse of time and plaintiff had no right of possession over the property in suit.

    — The Janam Sthan now commonly known as Janam Bhumi, the birth place of Lord Ram Chandra, situate in Ayodhya belongs and has always belonged to the plaintiff no.1 who through its reigning Mahant and Sarbrahkar has ever since been managing it and receiving offerings made there at in form of money, sweets, flowers and fruits and other article and things.

  36. Anonymous Guy Says:


    Good points. Justice is served. I doubt if the constitution writers gave much thought to a situation like this. Creativity of judges is to be appreciated.

  37. Tanveer Says:

    It seems this was the most practical judgement, the judges could offer. Yet I beleive this kind of judgement, based on faith rather than evidence will open up a pandera’s box, keeping in view the huge number of title suits pending in courts. This judgement will be referred to in future cases.

    India has become a laughing stock in the international community. I fervently hope this will not be the same in the Apex court.

  38. verybleedingheart Says:

    Khan says: “British transferred power to a brahmin and bania”. British transferred power also to Khans and Mullas in an adjacent “Stan”.

  39. Mysore Peshva Says:

    Good one, Ram Lalla. Hehehe…

    The honorable judges should be prosecuted for contempt of English. :)

    The great unanalyzed question raised by their rulings: “Why do those who cannot write simple prose in English insist on writing in English?”

  40. Raj Says:

    Definitely alive and kicking!

    How will BJP win elections with Ayodhya dispute? lol….

  41. Mysore Peshva Says:

    An e-mail fwd I received today:

    It’s good that Ram gets some part of the land, because now,
    Sita is running a travel agency,
    Maruti is making cars,
    Laxman might retire after the series against Australia,
    Shatrughan has joined BJP,
    Raavan is already a commercial flop, and
    there is peace in Lanka!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: