By Syed Shahabuddin,
Babri masjid was attached in 1949 and Hindus and Muslims were legally barred from offering prayers there. In 1986 doors to the gates were opened by a court order and regular puja started taking place. It was done on the demands of VHP that Babri Masjid was built on the birth place of Rama and it should be handed over to the Hindus.
In February 1986, on the petition of a local advocate, sessions judge at Faizabad without consulting or hearing the Muslims who were party to this case, passed an order opening the locks of the Babri Masjid.
The Muslim Women (Protection of rights on divorce) Act, 1986 was passed in May of 1986 so it is wrong to say that Babri Masjid doors were opened by Rajiv Gandhi to placate Hindus who were angry because of reversal of a Supreme Court judgement. In fact, a case can be made that this bill was introduced because Muslims were angry at the illegal occupation of Babri Masjid by Hindus.
Babri Masjid Movement Coordination Committee was formed in 1986 to fight the case of Babri Masjid at the national level. The major demand was that this dispute between Hindus and Muslims can only be resolved by the judiciary. At no point, Muslim leadership said that we should use force to liberate the mosque. Muslims always believed that the law will uphold the truth and wrong done to the community will be corrected by the courts.
With the death of Rajiv Gandhi, BJP saw an opportunity to grow politically. LK Advani, leader of the BJP adopted the VHP demand as BJP’s goal to build the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya in place of Babri Masjid. Advani whipped up the communal passions by leading a modern day rath yatra which was eventually stopped in Bihar by Lalu Prasad Yadav.
In 1992, karsevaks were called to descend to Ayodhya. Congress government at the center did nothing to stop the karsevaks from reaching Ayodhya. I pleaded with the Supreme Court and the Prime Minister to put a curb to this gathering because Sangh Parivar’s promise of not touching the masjid structure cannot be believed.
Listen to the interview:
Kalyan Singh, the BJP Chief Minister of UP at that time instructed officers of UP Police that no harm should be done to the karsevaks. Central para-military forces were stationed just outside Ayodhya and none of them moved on that fateful day. At mid-day on December 6, I told the PM that I don’t want people to be killed but the least you can do is to fly your forces at low altitude over Ayodhya and that will scatter the karsevaks away.
I recall the immortal statement by VP Singh that it is not the three domes of Babri Masjid that are being demolished but three organs of the state – the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature.
I believe that PV Narsimha Rao had an understanding with the BJP leaders and knew that Babri Masjid will be demolished. He probably thought that once the masjid is demolished the problem will go away.
The masjid has been demolished but in my mind the Babri Masjid still exists because the ground where the masjid structure once stood is still there. We will not allow any construction to go on at the site. And the court case continues as the question remains as to who legally owns the site.
Meanwhile, Narsimha Rao passed a law and took over the entire site and 70 acres around it. We challenged the constitutionality of that bill. The Supreme Court made a very important decision saying to the government that you can take away the rights of the Muslims to litigate on the title. It ordered the Allahabad High Court to constitute a special bench to hear the cases related to the ownership of the site. The ruling added that if it is proved that the site belongs to the Muslims then the masjid will be rebuilt and if it is proved that it belongs to the Hindus then the temple will be built. In either case, the other community should be able to build a prayer house for itself at some distance from the original site.
Regular hearings have taken place by this special bench in cases that until the SC decision were lying dormant. Special bench hearings helped advance the status of the cases. I have followed these proceedings from the beginning and in my view the Hindu case is very weak from the legal point of view. Hearings are almost complete and final arguments are being given by both sides. We expect that the decision be made in our favour.
When we win the case, I fear that many “sympathizers” will come and expect us to give up the site trying to convince us that since the masjid structure is not there and also in the interest of long term Hindu-Muslim relations we should hand over the site to the Hindus. But my question to them is this – where will it end? You will claim another masjid tomorrow by taking it over or demolishing it and expect us to give up our rights in the name of friendship and fraternity but you don’t care for these ideals when it comes to claiming masjids as your own and writing false history.
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb after the capture of Golconda fort destroyed the Jama Masjid there. But same “fanatic” Aurangzeb who lived close to 20 years in Deccan, close to Ajanta and Ellora, never touched those. There was a reason to destroy the Jama Masjid in Golconda and if a temple was destroyed there has to be a political or military reason for its destruction. On the other hand there are many firmaans of Aurangzeb making grants for the upkeep and maintenance of many temples. Texts of some of these firmaans have been published in the journal Muslim India.
Babar probably never visited Ayodhya. An inscription on the Babri Masjid said that it was built by Babar’s command by his officer called Meer Baqi. Babar did not conquer India by defeating any Hindu ruler. He defeated Ibrahim Lodhi in the Battle of Panipat. Even Ayodhya was won by battling local Muslim rulers so the question of destroying Ram temple as a consequence of a bitter battle with Hindus does not arise. There is no record of Babar destroying any temple in his autobiographical work Tuzk-e-Babri.
Muslims first came to Ayodhya in the beginning of the eleventh century. So the Ram temple continued under Muslim rule for four hundred years waiting for a Babar to come and destroy it. This argument makes no sense. Excavations in and around the site point to Muslim settlements in the area with evidence of glazed poetry and animal bones. So even prior to the temple building Muslims have been living in that area.
There have been many attempts at negotiations including the Shankracharya but my personal feeling is that all of them have been too close to the Sangh Parviar so no honest negotiation was possible. All their offers were absurd and impossible to accept. Having won over Rajiv Gandhi, who allowed the foundation laying of the gate of the proposed temple and then Narsimha Rao who let them destroy the masjid structure the Sangh Parivar wanted Muslims to simply surrender the site.
Muslims will not surrender and not take up arms. In a democracy your weapon is law, and we shall explore every possible legal means for our rights. We do our best and utilize all legal and democratic means to seek justice, but if the court decides against us, we will accept it as I am not prepared to exhaust all the resources of my community for just one particular masjid.
(As told to Mumtaz Alam Falahi of TwoCircles.net)