Babri Masjid Issue

Sunni Waqf Board appeals against Ayodhya Verdict

New Delhi: the Sunni Central Board of Waqf UP has challenged the verdict of Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Supreme Court on 14 December. The Board has submitted that the high court verdict is based on belief of one faction of the Hindus and is not according to the law of the nation and ignores oral as well as documentary evidence. At the same it has turned a blind-eye towards official records. Based on forged documents it has rendered them into historical facts. The appeal has been jointly drafted by senior advocate Dr Rajeev Dhawan, and advocates Shakeel, Syed VMR Shamshad assisted by the former counsel at Lucknow Zafaryab Jeelani.

Taking a critical appraisal of verdicts by the three judges it points out that the decision is governed by myths and is totally illegal and against the Constitutional provisions. The high court has not considered the fact that the belief of Ramlala having born under the central dome of the mosque is not an ancient one whereas even one hundred year ago there was no such evidence. The Nirmohi Akhada in 1885 as well as in 1941 had filed suit and the courts had considered the site as Babri Masjid and had not accepted the place as Ram janmabhoomi. The high court has also overlooked the fact that both Hindus as well as Muslims had always regarded it as Babri Masjid. The learned judges Sudhir Agrawal and DV Sharma have not considered the fact that Tulsidas, the author of Ramcharit Manas (Tulsi Ramayan) had composed it just 50 years after the construction of the mosque and would have mentioned the fact of demolition in his classic work had it been so.

The Muslim side has admitted that the Hindus believe Ayodhya to be Ram’s birthplace but till 1949 nobody had ever claimed that he was born under the central dome of the mosque. The judges have also ignored the fact that quite close to the mosque a temple claims itself to be Ramjanmabhoomi temple.

Similarly, close to the mosque there is a platform – Ram Chabutra which is also regarded the place of his birth. At the time of 1885 case the mahant of the chabutra (who was representing all other mahants of the place) had recognised the existence of the mosque. Hence the argument that the mosque was built after demolition of temple or was built on an ancient structure is not sound. Such verdict is based on the report of the ASI and not on the evidence found during excavation.

In a statement Zafaryab Jeelani informed that funds would not pose a problem while defending the case at the Supreme Court. He apprised that a committee comprising Abdul Rahim Quraishi, General Secretary of Personal Law Board, Maulana Wali Rahmani has been formed.

This article appeared in The Milli Gazette print issue of 1-15 January 2011 on page no. 3

We hope you liked this report/article. The Milli Gazette is a free and independent readers-supported media organisation. To support it, please contribute generously. Click here or email us at sales@milligazette.com

blog comments powered by Disqus