���It was in 1528 that Babur conquered India. He got a mosque constructed at the Ram’s birth place in Ayodhya. That’s why it was called Babri Mosque or Janmasthan Mosque”.
This is how Sunni Waqf Board began its petition in Allahabad High Court in 1961, which in 2010 divided the disputed land in Ayodhya in three parts - one third land to Ram Lalla (infant Rama) for his temple, second to Nirmohi Akhada and third one to Sunni Waqf Board for construction of a mosque. But Supreme Court used this very ground to allot entire 2.77 acre land for construction of Ram Janmabhoomi temple. It implied that Babur was an invader who got a mosque constructed at Ram’s birthplace to morally subjugate the Hindu natives. Muslims have been compensated by getting five acre land in Ayodhya for their mosque. Nirmohi Akhara got a representation in the trust meant to oversee temple construction and management.
So Ram triumphed once again. This time in Supreme Court, in probably more protracted battle than his fight with the demon king Ravana. The Supreme Court has declared that he, in his incarnate form, has sovereign rights to 2.77 acres of disputed land. Any other claimants to the land, especially the waqf board, cannot claim adverse possession to the land.

Nuanced Verdict
The Supreme Court had a difficult job on its hands. It is hard to imagine what Indian politics would have been, had the Court asked for the restoration of the Babri Masjid. So, the only two other options were a victory for the Hindu side, or some imaginative solution that did equal justice to all kinds of claims involved in this dispute. The Allahabad High Court judgment, flawed as it was, was a balancing act: divide the land, respect all faiths, and put the past behind us.
In some ways, the Supreme Court judgment has gone for a similar solution. The Supreme Court has tried to please everyone in its much awaited judgment on the property dispute in Ayodhya. The worshippers of Lord Ram have been given land for the construction of a temple at the very site where the Babri Masjid stood between 1528 and December 6, 1992.
The Nirmohi Akhara has welcomed the judgment as it will be given some representation in the trust that would construct the temple. The Sunni Waqf Board too must have the satisfaction that the highest court has accepted their central argument that the Babri Masjid was a Sunni, and not Shia, waqf property, and the same was not constructed after demolishing the Ram temple.
Similarly, Muslim grievances about the trespass in 1949 and the tragic demolition of the mosque in 1992 have been accepted by the court. In fact, the court has accepted that there was a violation of their legal rights. Accordingly, the court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction of doing complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, has given them almost 20 times more land in Ayodhya - 5 acre in place if 0.30 acres plot in which Babri Masjid stood.

The History
The Ayodhya dispute began in 1886 with litigation in the British courts over a chabutra that was constructed outside the Babri Masjid by one Mahant Raghubar Das in the late 1850s. When the British prevented the construction of a canopy over the chabutra, Das unsuccessfully litigated his cause in three judicial forums. Each time, the courts emphasised status quo — that is, the Muslims would pray inside the Babri Masjid while the Hindus had limited rights to pray at the chabutra. Surprisingly, the apex court has rejected title of Muslims for want of proof of title document. The court rejected the revenue record and gazetteers as sufficient proof. Even the British grant papers were said to be sufficient only for proving the upkeep of the mosque.
The Babri litigation is a story of changing “status quo”. On the night of December 22-23, 1949, trespassers placed Lord Ram’s idol under the central dome of the Babri Masjid. District Collector KK Nair ordered a ‘status quo’ - by not permitting Muslims to pray inside the mosque and not removing the idol. He also allowed Hindus a “limited” right to pray and pujaris would ensure daily bhog. On February 1, 1986, District Judge K M Pandey ordered unlocking of gates that acted as a “barrier” between the idols inside the masjid and the devotees who had come for the darshan. This decision had the blessing of then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who in order to mollify the self-anointed regressive Muslim leadership would subsequently introduce the bill to reverse the Shah Bano judgment on February 25, 1986. The demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992 was also the destruction of the rule of law. Within a few hours of the mosque’s demolition, a makeshift temple was constructed at the site. Within a month of the demolition, the Allahabad High Court allowed for darshan at the makeshift temple.
The Supreme Court took up the case as property dispute but decided it on the basis of faith. The Supreme Court despite conceding that faith cannot confer title, it still went ahead to give property to worshippers on the basis of faith.

How Court Decided
Reliance on records of European travellers, lack of evidence from the Muslim side to prove continuous, uninterrupted and exclusive possession prior to 1856, treating the outer and inner courtyard of the disputed structure as one unit in a significant departure from the Allahabad High Court verdict — a combination of these factors tilted the Constitution Bench verdict in the Ayodhya title dispute against the Muslim side.
In criminal cases, the established standard of proof is for the prosecution to prove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. In absence of witnesses and forensic evidence, the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence. “Preponderance of probability” is a lesser standard of proof required in civil cases — and is generally accepted as probability to lean towards one side being greater than leaning to the other side.
In property disputes, the court looks into ownership records - both in possession of earring parties as well as in government records. In Ayodhya case, none of the parties had land records in their favour. And government records did not precede 1528, when the mosque was built. The Supreme Court therefore, relied on historical evidence to examine who had possession of the land before mosque was constructed. And it found the place was known as Ram Janmasthan and puja being performed here since ages. Archaeological evidence lent credence to the theory. Reliance on scriptures was apparently to invoke faith while travellers accounts were treated as historical evidence.
The court looks at three timelines to determine possession of the disputed area to award the title — prior to 1856; between 1856 and 1934; and after 1934.The possession of Muslims is accepted readily from 1856 — when Awadh was annexed by the British — relying on land revenue records, court documents and police reports during riots. However, the court notes that the mosque was constructed in 1528 “by or at the behest of Babur, there is no account by them of possession, use or offer of namaz in the mosque between the date of construction and 1856-57.”
Thus, for a period of over 325 years, the Muslims have no evidence to establish the exercise of possession of the disputed site. Nor is there any account in the evidence of the offering of namaz in the mosque, over this period, the court said.

No More Temple Politics
The judgment is likely to de-politicise the issue. It is the culmination of four decades of hard labour of BJP-VHP workers, many of whom laid their lives for it. The issue was the pivot of many electoral campaigns and helped the BJP in being catapulted from mere two Lok Sabha seats till 1989 to 182 in 1998 - with a gap of just nine years. A phenomenal growth, mostly due to Ayodhya movement spearheaded by Lal Krishna Advani.
So, will the verdict result in the loss of one of the most potent weapons from BJP’s arsenal? Or as Rahul Gandhi claimed - the judgement has taken the air out of BJP’s Ayodhya sail for ever. His contention however, seems too far fetched and more hope than reality. For Hindu nationalists, this is a moment in a long historical struggle. They identify Hindus as subjugated. The demolition of the Babri Masjid was a cathartic moment, and the building of a temple will be the denouement for a long-repressed civilisation.

In Govt’s Court now
The court has put the ball in Modi Government’s court. It has to constitute a trust that will get the temple constructed. It along with Yogi Adityanath government in UP, has to identify the plot of five acre land to be given to Sunni Waqf Board for a mosque. But these things are not easy. Board apparently, is in no mood to accept the ‘charity’.
While Muslim Personal Law Board has been mulling filing a review petition, main plaintiffs Sunni Waqf Board and Iqbal Ansari have denied going for an appeal. “We respect the verdict. Because more than anything, it is expected to promote social harmony, said UP Sunni Waqf Board Chairman Zafar Farooqi.

Sangh Strived for Calm
BJP and RSS affiliates too had undertaken a massive exercise to ensure that the verdict did not elicit extreme communal reactions. They trained media teams to promote messages of social harmony. The government too came down hard on trouble mongers. UP government’s cyber security team not only flagged down inciting social media posts and arrested the propagators but also publicised the arrests. This acted as a major deterrent and even passed off peacefully. Sangh Parivar has also abandoned plans to reclaim similar disputed structures in Kashi and Mathura. While Gyanvapi Mosque oversees the Kashi Vishwanath temple in PM Modi’s constituency Varaṇasi, an Idgaah stands contiguous to Krishṇa birthplace in Mathura. On being reminded of their warcry, “ye to sirf jhaṅki hai, Kashi, Mathura baaki hai”, VHP working president, Alok Kumar sheepishly says, “Our focus right now is on building Ram Temple in Ayodhya. We don’t want to be distracted by anything else. We will mull over such things once the Ram Temple in completed”.

The Temple Trust
Even the constitution the proposed trust isn’t likely to be smooth. PM Narendra Modi wants it to be a grand, all religion body to augment his stature. Vishwa Hindu Parishad however, wants it to be an exclusive body of its cadres and saints. “We won’t allow non-believers and infidels to be part of the body which would build Ram Temple,’’ said a senior VHP leader. They don’t want prominent Hindu seers like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on board of the trust as he is a nirgun upasak (believer of non-formative God). VHP wants only Vaishṇav (Vidhnu followers) and Shaivites) seers to be part of the proposed trust. In fact, a three-hour long all-religion meeting convened by National Security Advisor Ajit Doval to discuss trust formation, remained inconclusive since VHP leaders objected to inclusion of Muslims in it.
VHP also wants the temple to be built as per the map and model prepared by it decades ago. It already has fully carved stones to build the plinth of the three-story temple. They claim that the design had been approved by the grand old man of VHP, Ashok Singhal, who passed away a few years ago. According to Chandrakant Sompura, the architect of the proposed temple, it would require about hard labour of 22000 workers non-stop for the next three years, to get the temple completed in time.
But, there is much more to it than meets the eye. The land around the present site is not only uneven but full of ravines. It would require several months to level it for even first stone to be laid there. VHP vice president Champat Rai however, exclaims, “we have the wherewithal to do it fast and we are ready to hand over the easy construction material to the government-trust”.
Modi was a charioteer of Lal Krishna Advani during his October 1990 rathyatra that invigorated the entire country into demanding Ram Temple in unison. Having received the task of construction of the Temple, must be fulfilling his long cherished desire. Getting it done peacefully is the cherry on the cake, the world would be approvingly looking at.

���It was in 1528 that Babur conquered India. He got a mosque constructed at the Ram’s birth place in Ayodhya. That’s why it was called Babri Mosque or Janmasthan Mosque”.
This is how Sunni Waqf Board began its petition in Allahabad High Court in 1961, which in 2010 divided the disputed land in Ayodhya in three parts - one third land to Ram Lalla (infant Rama) for his temple, second to Nirmohi Akhada and third one to Sunni Waqf Board for construction of a mosque. But Supreme Court used this very ground to allot entire 2.77 acre land for construction of Ram Janmabhoomi temple. It implied that Babur was an invader who got a mosque constructed at Ram’s birthplace to morally subjugate the Hindu natives. Muslims have been compensated by getting five acre land in Ayodhya for their mosque. Nirmohi Akhara got a representation in the trust meant to oversee temple construction and management.
So Ram triumphed once again. This time in Supreme Court, in probably more protracted battle than his fight with the demon king Ravana. The Supreme Court has declared that he, in his incarnate form, has sovereign rights to 2.77 acres of disputed land. Any other claimants to the land, especially the waqf board, cannot claim adverse possession to the land.

Nuanced Verdict
The Supreme Court had a difficult job on its hands. It is hard to imagine what Indian politics would have been, had the Court asked for the restoration of the Babri Masjid. So, the only two other options were a victory for the Hindu side, or some imaginative solution that did equal justice to all kinds of claims involved in this dispute. The Allahabad High Court judgment, flawed as it was, was a balancing act: divide the land, respect all faiths, and put the past behind us.
In some ways, the Supreme Court judgment has gone for a similar solution. The Supreme Court has tried to please everyone in its much awaited judgment on the property dispute in Ayodhya. The worshippers of Lord Ram have been given land for the construction of a temple at the very site where the Babri Masjid stood between 1528 and December 6, 1992.
The Nirmohi Akhara has welcomed the judgment as it will be given some representation in the trust that would construct the temple. The Sunni Waqf Board too must have the satisfaction that the highest court has accepted their central argument that the Babri Masjid was a Sunni, and not Shia, waqf property, and the same was not constructed after demolishing the Ram temple.
Similarly, Muslim grievances about the trespass in 1949 and the tragic demolition of the mosque in 1992 have been accepted by the court. In fact, the court has accepted that there was a violation of their legal rights. Accordingly, the court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction of doing complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, has given them almost 20 times more land in Ayodhya - 5 acre in place if 0.30 acres plot in which Babri Masjid stood.

The History
The Ayodhya dispute began in 1886 with litigation in the British courts over a chabutra that was constructed outside the Babri Masjid by one Mahant Raghubar Das in the late 1850s. When the British prevented the construction of a canopy over the chabutra, Das unsuccessfully litigated his cause in three judicial forums. Each time, the courts emphasised status quo — that is, the Muslims would pray inside the Babri Masjid while the Hindus had limited rights to pray at the chabutra. Surprisingly, the apex court has rejected title of Muslims for want of proof of title document. The court rejected the revenue record and gazetteers as sufficient proof. Even the British grant papers were said to be sufficient only for proving the upkeep of the mosque.
The Babri litigation is a story of changing “status quo”. On the night of December 22-23, 1949, trespassers placed Lord Ram’s idol under the central dome of the Babri Masjid. District Collector KK Nair ordered a ‘status quo’ - by not permitting Muslims to pray inside the mosque and not removing the idol. He also allowed Hindus a “limited” right to pray and pujaris would ensure daily bhog. On February 1, 1986, District Judge K M Pandey ordered unlocking of gates that acted as a “barrier” between the idols inside the masjid and the devotees who had come for the darshan. This decision had the blessing of then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who in order to mollify the self-anointed regressive Muslim leadership would subsequently introduce the bill to reverse the Shah Bano judgment on February 25, 1986. The demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992 was also the destruction of the rule of law. Within a few hours of the mosque’s demolition, a makeshift temple was constructed at the site. Within a month of the demolition, the Allahabad High Court allowed for darshan at the makeshift temple.
The Supreme Court took up the case as property dispute but decided it on the basis of faith. The Supreme Court despite conceding that faith cannot confer title, it still went ahead to give property to worshippers on the basis of faith.

How Court Decided
Reliance on records of European travellers, lack of evidence from the Muslim side to prove continuous, uninterrupted and exclusive possession prior to 1856, treating the outer and inner courtyard of the disputed structure as one unit in a significant departure from the Allahabad High Court verdict — a combination of these factors tilted the Constitution Bench verdict in the Ayodhya title dispute against the Muslim side.
In criminal cases, the established standard of proof is for the prosecution to prove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. In absence of witnesses and forensic evidence, the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence. “Preponderance of probability” is a lesser standard of proof required in civil cases — and is generally accepted as probability to lean towards one side being greater than leaning to the other side.
In property disputes, the court looks into ownership records - both in possession of earring parties as well as in government records. In Ayodhya case, none of the parties had land records in their favour. And government records did not precede 1528, when the mosque was built. The Supreme Court therefore, relied on historical evidence to examine who had possession of the land before mosque was constructed. And it found the place was known as Ram Janmasthan and puja being performed here since ages. Archaeological evidence lent credence to the theory. Reliance on scriptures was apparently to invoke faith while travellers accounts were treated as historical evidence.
The court looks at three timelines to determine possession of the disputed area to award the title — prior to 1856; between 1856 and 1934; and after 1934.The possession of Muslims is accepted readily from 1856 — when Awadh was annexed by the British — relying on land revenue records, court documents and police reports during riots. However, the court notes that the mosque was constructed in 1528 “by or at the behest of Babur, there is no account by them of possession, use or offer of namaz in the mosque between the date of construction and 1856-57.”
Thus, for a period of over 325 years, the Muslims have no evidence to establish the exercise of possession of the disputed site. Nor is there any account in the evidence of the offering of namaz in the mosque, over this period, the court said.

No More Temple Politics
The judgment is likely to de-politicise the issue. It is the culmination of four decades of hard labour of BJP-VHP workers, many of whom laid their lives for it. The issue was the pivot of many electoral campaigns and helped the BJP in being catapulted from mere two Lok Sabha seats till 1989 to 182 in 1998 - with a gap of just nine years. A phenomenal growth, mostly due to Ayodhya movement spearheaded by Lal Krishna Advani.
So, will the verdict result in the loss of one of the most potent weapons from BJP’s arsenal? Or as Rahul Gandhi claimed - the judgement has taken the air out of BJP’s Ayodhya sail for ever. His contention however, seems too far fetched and more hope than reality. For Hindu nationalists, this is a moment in a long historical struggle. They identify Hindus as subjugated. The demolition of the Babri Masjid was a cathartic moment, and the building of a temple will be the denouement for a long-repressed civilisation.

In Govt’s Court now
The court has put the ball in Modi Government’s court. It has to constitute a trust that will get the temple constructed. It along with Yogi Adityanath government in UP, has to identify the plot of five acre land to be given to Sunni Waqf Board for a mosque. But these things are not easy. Board apparently, is in no mood to accept the ‘charity’.
While Muslim Personal Law Board has been mulling filing a review petition, main plaintiffs Sunni Waqf Board and Iqbal Ansari have denied going for an appeal. “We respect the verdict. Because more than anything, it is expected to promote social harmony, said UP Sunni Waqf Board Chairman Zafar Farooqi.

Sangh Strived for Calm
BJP and RSS affiliates too had undertaken a massive exercise to ensure that the verdict did not elicit extreme communal reactions. They trained media teams to promote messages of social harmony. The government too came down hard on trouble mongers. UP government’s cyber security team not only flagged down inciting social media posts and arrested the propagators but also publicised the arrests. This acted as a major deterrent and even passed off peacefully. Sangh Parivar has also abandoned plans to reclaim similar disputed structures in Kashi and Mathura. While Gyanvapi Mosque oversees the Kashi Vishwanath temple in PM Modi’s constituency Varaṇasi, an Idgaah stands contiguous to Krishṇa birthplace in Mathura. On being reminded of their warcry, “ye to sirf jhaṅki hai, Kashi, Mathura baaki hai”, VHP working president, Alok Kumar sheepishly says, “Our focus right now is on building Ram Temple in Ayodhya. We don’t want to be distracted by anything else. We will mull over such things once the Ram Temple in completed”.

The Temple Trust
Even the constitution the proposed trust isn’t likely to be smooth. PM Narendra Modi wants it to be a grand, all religion body to augment his stature. Vishwa Hindu Parishad however, wants it to be an exclusive body of its cadres and saints. “We won’t allow non-believers and infidels to be part of the body which would build Ram Temple,’’ said a senior VHP leader. They don’t want prominent Hindu seers like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on board of the trust as he is a nirgun upasak (believer of non-formative God). VHP wants only Vaishṇav (Vidhnu followers) and Shaivites) seers to be part of the proposed trust. In fact, a three-hour long all-religion meeting convened by National Security Advisor Ajit Doval to discuss trust formation, remained inconclusive since VHP leaders objected to inclusion of Muslims in it.
VHP also wants the temple to be built as per the map and model prepared by it decades ago. It already has fully carved stones to build the plinth of the three-story temple. They claim that the design had been approved by the grand old man of VHP, Ashok Singhal, who passed away a few years ago. According to Chandrakant Sompura, the architect of the proposed temple, it would require about hard labour of 22000 workers non-stop for the next three years, to get the temple completed in time.
But, there is much more to it than meets the eye. The land around the present site is not only uneven but full of ravines. It would require several months to level it for even first stone to be laid there. VHP vice president Champat Rai however, exclaims, “we have the wherewithal to do it fast and we are ready to hand over the easy construction material to the government-trust”.
Modi was a charioteer of Lal Krishna Advani during his October 1990 rathyatra that invigorated the entire country into demanding Ram Temple in unison. Having received the task of construction of the Temple, must be fulfilling his long cherished desire. Getting it done peacefully is the cherry on the cake, the world would be approvingly looking at.