See More on Facebook

Culture and society, Current affairs, Opinion

Ayodhya verdict is silent on why Muslims must prove exclusive possession of site

The Indian court has deprived Muslims of the disputed plot because they couldn’t show exclusive possession before 1857.


Written by

Updated: November 12, 2019

On page 215 of the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid verdict, delivered by a five-judge bench on Saturday, the Supreme Court makes a crucial statement of logic: “It is true that in matters of faith and belief, the absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence.”

But in its final findings, the court contradicted this same logic.

The crux of the judgment that India has awaited since 1949 is that Muslims failed to show unimpeded possession of the disputed site in Ayodhya between 1528, when the mosque was supposedly built by Mughal emperor Babur, and 1857, when, after a clash between Muslims and Hindus, a railing was erected between the inner and outer courtyards at the disputed site. The inner courtyard is where the mosque demolished by Hindutva mobs in 1992 stood. The outer courtyard has several Hindu shrines.

While the judgment strains to point out that the matter was not decided on faith, it places the onus on Muslims alone to prove exclusive possession of the site. There is no similar expectation from the Hindu side. This leaves the impression that the Hindu belief in the site being the birthplace of Ram somehow took precedence over the Muslim claim.

Possession of the site

The judgement spends considerable space analysing two crucial aspects of the legal dispute that began in 1885, when the mahant of the Nirmohi Akhara, an organisation of Hindu ascetics, moved the courts to establish his right to worship at the assumed Ram Janmasthan. First is the report of the Archaeological Survey of India produced on the directions of the Allahabad High Court in 2003. The second is a set of literary and official documents, including the accounts of European travelers and British gazetteers, relating to the disputed site since the 18th century.

Also read: Did the top court legalise India’s quest for a theocratic state?

From the ASI report, the court concedes that a structure existed beneath the mosque. It said that a reasonable inference could be drawn on the basis of the standard of proof that governs civil trials that the underlying structure that provided the foundations of the mosque together with its architectural features and recoveries “are suggestive of a Hindu religious origin comparable to temple excavations in the region and pertaining to the era”.

It, however, chose to contexualise this report and state that the ASI did not conclude that a temple had been demolished to build the 16th century mosque. It also pointed to the date of the temple as 12th century, citing the long gap between the date of the temple and the construction of the mosque in 1528.

Having done so, the court said the ASI findings could not be the basis of awarding title in a land dispute, disregarding a crucial point that there was no concrete link between the destruction of the ancient temple and the construction of the mosque.

The court said:

“A finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI. Between the twelfth century to which the underlying structure is dated and the construction of the mosque in the sixteenth century, there is an intervening period of four centuries. No evidence has been placed on the record in relation to the course of human history between the twelfth and sixteen centuries. No evidence is available in a case of this antiquity on (i) the cause of destruction of the underlying structure; and (ii) whether the pre-existing structure was demolished for the construction of the mosque. Title to the land must be decided on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial.”

Second, it refers to copious records of literary and official nature to show that Hindus have always worshiped at the disputed site on which the mosque stood. This, the court says, was unimpeded in nature, though it qualifies that these records should be handled with circumspection.

Explore: In India, a poem composed after Babri Masjid tells tales of the country’s path

Since neither the Hindu nor the Muslim side were able to show direct and concrete evidence to establish title, the court moves to the question of possession, which is decided on the basis of patterns of worship.

The contradiction in the court’s findings on this subject is stark. It chose to decide the entire dispute on one factor: that the Muslims were unable to show evidence of exclusive possession of the site between 1528 and 1857, because there is evidence for Hindu worship in outer courtyard. It said:

“Hindu worship at Ramchabutra, Sita Rasoi and at other religious places including the setting up of a Bhandar clearly indicated their open, exclusive and unimpeded possession of the outer courtyard. The Muslims have not been in possession of the outer courtyard. Despite the construction of the wall in 1858 by the British and the setting up of the Ramchabutra in close-proximity of the inner dome, Hindus continued to assert their right to pray inside the three-domed structure.”

To break this down into simpler language, the scenario that emerged is this: Hindus had total control of the outer courtyard from which Muslims were excluded. But there was continuing dispute over the inner courtyard where the three-domed mosque stood. Hindus through centuries tried to access this land and offer worship. This means they were trying to wrest it from the Muslims.

While the court concedes that since 1857, Muslims had been offering prayers at the mosque and did not abandon it until 1949 when idols of Ram Lalla were placed illegally under the dome of the mosque, this made no difference to their claim. In fact, for some years after the railing was built in 1857, they might have actually had exclusive possession, borne out by the fact that the Hindus worshiped the sanctum from the outer yard. However, the Muslims’ failure was that they were not able to show exclusive possession of the inner courtyard before 1857, a burden that is not placed on the Hindu side as the court itself concedes that the Hindus’ exclusive possession was confined only to the outer courtyard.

More on this | Editorial: Babri Masjid verdict

This is a illogical leap. A Mughal emperor built a mosque in 1528. His descendants ruled the region in which the mosque stood for more than three centuries. The mosque structure existed all through this rule. But the court concluded that the Muslims could not show exclusive possession as the record of their worship produced begins from 1857.

All this when the court says on page 770 that the acts of the parties subsequent to the annexation of Oudh in 1856 form the basis of the legal rights of the parties in the present suits – not events that occurred before that.

The larger question is why the Muslims alone should face the burden of showing exclusive possession of the site prior to 1857 and not the Hindus. The court does not answer this.



Enjoyed this story? Share it.


Dawn
About the Author: Dawn is Pakistan's oldest and most widely read English-language newspaper.

Eastern Briefings

All you need to know about Asia


Our Eastern Briefings Newsletter presents curated stories from 22 Asian newspapers from South, Southeast and Northeast Asia.

Sign up and stay updated with the latest news.



By providing us with your email address, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

View Today's Newsletter Here

Culture and society, Current affairs, Opinion

Modi defends citizenship decision

PM Modi says it has nothing to do with Indian Muslims. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, that unity in diversity is integral to India while addressing ‘Aabhar Rally’ at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan today to kick start Bharatiya Janata Party’s Delhi Assembly Elections campaign slated for early next year, amid protests in Delhi and all over the country against the contentious Citizenship Act and the National Register of Citizenship(NRC). Modi raised slogan of ‘vividhta me ekta, Bharat ki visheshta’ (Unity in diversity is India’s speciality). PM Modi while giving his party and government’s view on CAA and NRC said, “Muslims being misled, I have always ensured that documents will never come in way of development schemes and their beneficiaries.” Citizenship law and NRC have nothing to do with Indian Muslims or with Indian citizens, he clarified. “We have never asked


By The Statesman
December 23, 2019

Culture and society, Current affairs, Opinion

The Chinese version

Muhammad Amir Rana asks what is the Chinese version of Islam.  TENSIONS between China and the US have escalated after the House of Representative’s Uighur Human Rights Policy Act, 2019. The move is of a piece with the allegations of many international media and human rights organisations that China is persecuting the Uighur community and violating their rights — allegations that Beijing has denied. Calling the US action a political move aimed at damaging its international image, China says it is running a deradicalisation programme to mainstream its communities. Read: Amid global outcry, China defends internment camps of minorities in Xinjiang The Chinese claim has not been verified by independent sources and mystery shrouds its deradicalisation or re-education programme. China needs to demonstra


By Dawn
December 16, 2019

Culture and society, Current affairs, Opinion

India under Modi is moving systematically with a supremacist agenda, says PM Imran

Imran Khan made the comments after India passed a controversial citizenship requirement. Prime Minister Imran Khan said on Thursday that India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been moving systematically with a Hindu supremacist agenda. The prime minister was referencing the controversial Citizenship Amendment Bill passed by India’s upper house amid protests on Wednesday. The bill will let the Indian government grant citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants who entered India from three neighbouring countries before 2015 — but not if they are Muslim. Modi’s government — re-elected in May and under pressure over a slowing economy — says Muslims from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan are excluded from the legislation because they do not face discrimination in those countries. Taking to Twitter, Prime Minister I


By Dawn
December 13, 2019

Culture and society, Current affairs, Opinion

Nepal moves up in Human Development Index but still lags behind in South Asia

Nepal’s human development index of 0,579 indicates that people are living longer, are more educated and have greater incomes, according to the Human Development Report. Despite global progress in tackling poverty, hunger and disease, a ‘new generation of inequalities’ indicates that many societies are not working as they should and Nepal is not an exception, according to a new human development report released on Tuesday. The old inequalities were based on access to health services and education whereas the new generation of inequalities is based on technology, education and the climate, according to the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report. “Previously, we talked about wealth as a major driver for inequality. Now, countries like Nepal are in another inequality trap and that concerns


By The Kathmandu Post
December 12, 2019

Culture and society, Current affairs, Opinion

Taiwan among top 10 study destinations for U.S. students

Thailand and Singapore among other Asian destinations. China welcomed the highest number of U.S. students last year, followed by Japan and India in second and third places, respectively, according to a recent survey about exchange students in Asia. South Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Singapore, Taiwan, and Indonesia rounded up the top 10 list of the most popular Asian countries among U.S. students. According to AsiaExchange, “The high level of education, low exposure to crime, economic freedom and good healthcare system are a few examples of why Taiwan is ranked 2nd on the annual Global Peace Index.” It’s also very safe to live in Taiwan, as crime rates are low, the Website stressed, noting that Taiwan’s focus on human rights, gender equality and freedom of speech has made it a top destination for education. Taiwan, whose institutions are strong and reliable, has remained la


By Cod Satrusayang
December 12, 2019

Culture and society, Current affairs, Opinion

SAARC turns 35 but has very little to show for its age

The regional bloc of seven South Asian countries and Afghanistan has largely been held hostage to the rivalry between India and Pakistan, say analysts. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation might have turned 35 but its three-and-a-half decades of existence has largely failed to advance its own central tenet—regional cooperation. As SAARC marked its 35th anniversary with a flurry of congratulatory messages from heads of government, expressing their commitment to regional cooperation, many analysts and diplomats wonder if these promises will ever translate into action. The regional association has failed to hold its 19th summit, ever since 2016 when India sud


By The Kathmandu Post
December 9, 2019