8/8/2019 Ayodhya Myths.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ayodhya-myths 1/2

I wish the media would be more responsible in reporting this event. they are trying to misrepresent facts in such a manner whichcan ignite public sentiments.

Before I say anything further, I would like to clarify that I’m a person who had argued in early 1990s that even if a temple stood below the foundation of the mosque, the mosque should not be destroyed. The destruction of the mosque was a shameful act andshould not have happened by any means.

I had not looked at the details of his case at that time. Now, post-verdict yesterday, the Allahabad High Court has made alldocuments of the case public and I have had a look at them.

Those who wish to see it, please go to http://rjbm.nic.in/

Of special note are the conclusions reached by the Justice SU Khan, who was part of the bench (see link above).

I find that the journalists have grossly distorted he facts of the case.

Following are some of the main features of this case -

- This case was not filed to decide about the temple or the mosque or their destruction. Rather, this case was filed to claim rightsover the ownership of the land on which these structures are built.

- This case was not the case to decide the rights of two communities, but it was a case filed to claim land ownership by threegroups of people - as far as the legal framing of the case goes. Thus, this was a case of property ownership by groups of

individuals and not of community rights.

- there was no evidence found that in last 500 years, any of the three groups claiming rights over the land had held ownership of the land.

- There were no evidences found of the building of the mosque by Babur, destruction of the temple by him, or granting of this piece of land to any of the three parties involved by any authorities in history of 500 years.

- None of the three judges have passed a verdict about this land being the place of birthplace of Rama - this is a false claim bythe journalists.

- In absence of any evidence of ownership of this land by any of these three groups of people, this land is rightfully described by

the court as the government land.

- Since no evidence is there that any of these 3 groups held ownership of this land for past 500 years, there are only popular beliefs involved in this case, respecting the popular beliefs, the court has asked these groups of people to divide this government property equally amongst themselves, which I feel is a grand gesture from the government.

The other verdict could have been that this land belongs to none of these 3 groups. It’s a government property they are trying toclaim for themselves, so they should leave control of this land. Such a view would not have been acceptable to anyone, hencethey have been asked to divide this piece of land amongst themselves.

Hence, it is wrong to say that two third of the land has been given to he Hindus and one third to the Muslims. there are three parties involved and that’s why the land has been divided equally between them, not between Hindus and Muslims.

- Please note that the 3 litigant groups in this case didn’t ask for retribution for destruction of the temple or the mosque, butownership of this piece of land for themselves.

This is a cese of land ownership by private individuals, not of religious structures in legal terms.

I think three parties have acted for their own self interest, not for any community. In such an event, it would be foolhardiness on part of the people of India to support any of these 3 parties and get emotionally charged over this.

It is also very wrong on part of the political parties to project this as a victory or loss for any community, since this never was acourt case meant for the community. It has been a litigation to claim government land for one’s own selfish gains by all threegroups involved.

8/8/2019 Ayodhya Myths.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ayodhya-myths 2/2