The Supreme Court on 9th November delivered a historic verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi case. Giving the entire 67 acres to Hindis, the Supreme Court held that an alternate 5-acre land will be given to the Muslims to build their Mosque. While the Hindus have celebrated this verdict, the Muslim parties, especially the Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind, AIMPLB and Owaisi led AIMIM has been indulging in constant rabblerousing. Now, the Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind has said that the Supreme Court should have given the alternate 5-acre land to Hindus to build a temple instead of the Muslims.
The Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind is a party to the Ayodhya case and has decided to file a review petition. While announcing the decision, Madani had said that though they are sure the review petition would be thrown out by the Supreme Court, one still should be filed.
Madani has reportedly said, “In the Supreme Court judgement, all evidence points to the left while the verdict goes towards the right. The judgement accepts that Muslims performed prayers there from 1857 to 1949, concedes that the mosque was damaged in 1934 and Hindus were fined for the same, admits installation of idols there in 1949 was a wrong act and calls the mosque’s demolition in 1992 an illegal act”.
Further, Madani said that the very people who demolished the Mosque have been given the land and that the Court has not said that the Mosque was built after the demolition of a temple.
There are several fallacies in what Syed Arshad Madani has said.
1. The Court did say that the structure below the Mosque was a ‘non-Islamic’ one. Nobody in their right mind can assume that it was a pub or a shopping mall.
2. The judgement does accept that Muslims too performed prayers from 1857 to 1949 but the court has also held that there is no evidence to prove that Namaz was held there from 1528 AD to 1857. This has been admitted by the Waqf Board Lawyer as well.
3. The SC verdict also says, ‘In 1856-57, due to the riots which broke out between Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya, the then British government set up a railing in the courtyard purely to maintain law and order which resulted in the bifurcation of the courtyard. Hindus immediately set up the Ramchabutra, Sita Rasoi and other religious structures in the outer courtyard which, SC stated, provided evidence of them having “settled possession” of the outer courtyard’. Further, the court said that the bifurcation did not mean that Hindus gave up their right on Ram Janmabhoomi.
4. The Court did say that the demolition was illegal, however, that is a separate case. This was a title dispute for the land and the demolition has nothing to do with it.
Madani, after making fallacious arguments essentially said that the Supreme Court has misused Article 142 of the Constitution and that in their review petition, they will be arguing that the alternate land should be given to Hindus.
Maulana Arshad Madani had earlier said that once a Mosque has been built it will always remain a mosque. He had also rejected the 5-acre land given to the Muslims by the Supreme Court. While earlier, the Muslim litigants want 5 acres within the 67 acres Ram Janmabhoomi, now their demands seem to have shifted to giving Hindus an alternate 5-acre land.