The legal team defending the Babri Masjid has done a wonderful fete in the Supreme Court yet failed to alter its destiny at least for the time being. The team led by Rajiv Dhawan has succeeded in absolving Babar to have demolished any temple for building the mosque. It also made the court to remark that surreptitious installation of idols in the mosque in 1949 and its demolition in 1992 were serious wrongs. However, the disputed land has been allotted by the court to Ramlala, who was not a party before 1989.
The question arises how it happened?
The turning point of the case was a question of Justice Bobde to the counsel of Sunni Waqf Board, Zafaryab Gilani, and the latter’s inept response to it.
Justice Bobde asked the counsel whether he disputed the Hindu faith that it was the same Ayodhya as described by the Ramayana and that Rama had ever took birth there. Jilani rejoined that he did not dispute the said belief but he did not concede that he would have taken birth at the site of the central dome of the mosque. It was his only day of argumentation in the apex court during the 40 day long hearing and that changed the fate of Babri Masjid case.
Jilani had earlier accepted the same thing in his written statement to the Allahabad High Court in 2009. His statement has been noted in the recent verdict of the apex court, thus, “For the purpose of this case there is no dispute about the faith of Hindu devotees of Lord Rama regarding the birth of Lord Rama at Ayodhya as described in Balmiki Ramayana or as existing today. It is, however, disputed and denied that the site of Babri Masjid was the place of birth of Lord Rama. It is also denied that there was any Ram Janam Bhoomi Temple at the site of Babri Masjid at any time whatsoever.” He accepted the birthplace to be at Ramchabotara rather than inside the demolished mosque, which was hardly a few meters away.
Just after this unbecoming acceptance in the Supreme Court, one of the counsels on the opposite side was heard saying that they had won the case in consequence.
Why was it a vital endorsement for the saviours of Ramlala? Because it had stamped a myth to be an uncontested fact. The hype of Ayodhya theory has swayed many minds and the counsels defending the Babri Masjid couldn’t be exceptional without having strong belief that Ayodhya in Faizabad District is not the Epic Ayodhya at all.
In his recent book, Clinching Evidence on Ayodhya, Abdul Rashid Agwan, has provided vital proofs that the real Ayodhya was not probable at its claimed place. Major part of its findings were already made available well in advance to the counsels contesting for the mosque. However, it was missed to be recalled at the critical moment in rejecting the unauthentic Ayodhya theory.
The most trusted document for the judges in writing the verdict seems to be the 2003 report of Archeological Survey of India. In this report, the earliest cultural evidence of the disputed place does not go before the Kushan period. This is a clinching evidence in itself that the present Ayodhya cannot be taken as the prehistoric holy city as described in Puranas and epics and as widely believed in India. The report also failed to link the site with any earlier belief in Rama. These bright facts as well did not strike to the minds of the defenders of the mosque to contest the claim that Rama took birth in Awadh.
Unless the facts disproving Awadh to be the Ayodhya of Ramayana are properly understood and pleaded inside and outside the court, the partial success of the counsels on the Babri Masjid side cannot be turned into a victory for them. Perhaps, the review petition may give this immediate and last opportunity to undo the inadvertent mistake.
[The contributor is an author of several books, including Clinching Evidence on Ayodhya]
The post Babri case : The turning point appeared first on Muslim Mirror.
http://bit.ly/2OeTS61
๐ขMBK Team | ๐ฐMuslimMirror
Post A Comment: