Ram Temple Dispute - Post-Independence Era: Chapter 2

Ram Temple Dispute: In our previous blog, we delved into the historical backdrop of the Ram Temple Dispute. In this Chapter, we’ll explore the post-independence era of India and delve deeper into the evaluation of the same issue.

^{(You can now subscribe to our}^{Ponder Page WhatsApp channel}⁾

Ram Mandir Dispute: Chapter I

Placement of Ram Lalla Idol: Ram Temple Dispute

In 1947, India gained independence, marking a significant milestone in its history. Two years later, in December 1949, the Akhil Bhartiya Ramayana Mahasabha organized a nine-day Ramcharitmanas recitation in the outer portion of what was considered the Hindu area. On the night of December 22nd, during the concluding ceremonies, an idol of Ram Lalla was placed inside the mosque. By the morning of December 23rd, 1949, a considerable number of Hindus had gathered to pay their respects. It was claimed that Ram Lalla had manifested, but this event stirred tension among the Muslim community.

On December 29th, 1949, the Sunni Central Waqf Board lodged a formal complaint, registering an FIR. Interestingly, rather than individual Muslims, it was the Sunni Central Waqf Board that took up the legal battle. Their complaint alleged that Hindus fabricated the emergence of Ram Lalla and instead accused them of surreptitiously installing the idol to assert control over the central dome of the mosque.

This development reignited communal tensions, and the situation threatened to escalate into violence once again. The idol of Ram Lalla became a pilgrimage site, drawing visitors from distant places. Despite attempts to enforce regulations, the government found it necessary to lock the inner portion of the mosque to prevent further unrest. From the outer portion, Hindus watched with concern, feeling distressed that Ram Lalla was effectively imprisoned within the mosque’s confines.

Political Response and Legal Battle

Subsequently, the Home Minister, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru instructed the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Govind Ballabh Pant, along with the state’s Home Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, to address the situation regarding the idol of Ram Lalla within the mosque. Acting upon this directive, the Chief Minister ordered the removal of the idol.

However, the Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad at the time, K.K. Nair, declined to carry out the order, citing the potential for widespread unrest. He astutely observed that such an action could be akin to playing with fire, given the charged atmosphere and the intense emotions surrounding the issue. Nair firmly believed that attempting to remove the idol could provoke violent reactions and deemed it an imprudent decision.

Government’s Decision and Subsequent Actions

In the face of mounting pressure, Nair ultimately resigned from his position, expressing his unwillingness to undertake the task. The discussions and deliberations on this matter primarily took place through correspondence. After careful consideration, the government acknowledged the volatile nature of the situation and opted not to remove the idol.

However, to prevent further discord and maintain a semblance of neutrality, on January 5th, 1950, the Magistrate was directed to issue an order for the closure of the area to the general public. Both the inner and outer portions of the site were to be locked, with access restricted. Only the appointed priests were permitted to conduct prayers and rituals for Ram Lalla at the Ram Chabutra in the outer portion, while ordinary citizens were allowed to visit from a distance.

Furthermore, it was decided that the ownership and jurisdiction over both the inner and outer portions of the site would be determined by the courts. Until a judicial decision was reached, the prescribed arrangements would remain in place to manage the delicate situation and prevent any further escalation of tensions.

Legal Proceedings and Mobilization

Following these events, on January 16th, 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad filed a case in the Faizabad court, asserting his right to offer prayers in the disputed area, which he claimed belonged to his community. Additionally, in 1959, the Nirmohi Akhara filed a separate case regarding the same matter. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the court took decisive action and ordered the preparation of an official map of the disputed area. This directive was issued on April 1st, 1950. Subsequently, on June 25th, 1950, the local commissioner submitted two site plans delineating the boundaries of the entire area in question.

As the legal proceedings progressed and the court assumed responsibility for resolving the dispute, successive cases were filed by both Hindu and Muslim parties. Hindus sought permission to conduct pujas to Ram Lalla within the disputed area, while Muslims advocated for the removal of the idol from the mosque. Representing the Muslim side, the Sunni Waqf Board argued that the mosque was constructed by Babar, a Sunni, thus asserting ownership over the land.

The accumulation of these cases led to their consolidation and transfer to the high court. However, the judicial process faced significant delays, exacerbating tensions and threatening communal harmony across the country. Dissatisfied with the sluggish pace of legal proceedings, Hindu organizations such as the VHP and RSS expressed their discontent. They believed that the current approach would not yield the desired outcome of securing the land for the construction of the Ram Temple. Consequently, they mobilized separate teams to advance their cause.

Ram Mandir Dispute: Chapter I

Rath Yatras and Political Maneuvering

In 1980, following the dissolution of the Janata Party, the BJP emerged as a new political entity. Subsequently, in April 1984, the VHP initiated a nationwide campaign aimed at garnering widespread support for the construction of the Ram Temple. This campaign included plans for Rath Yatras, or chariot processions, across different regions of India to rally public backing. The strategy involved delivering speeches in various locales to disseminate the issue of the temple construction throughout the country, thereby increasing pressure on the government.

Initially scheduled for September 1984, the Rath Yatra faced an abrupt halt due to the demise of Indira Gandhi and the ensuing turmoil in the nation.

Amidst these developments, elections were held, marking the first instance of the BJP’s participation. However, their electoral performance was lackluster, securing only two seats. Consequently, Atal Bihari Vajpayee was replaced by Lal Krishna Advani as the party president.

The Ram Temple Movement and Political Turmoil in 1980s India: Ram Temple Dispute

In October 1985, the VHP initiated Rath Yatras at 25 locations, garnering significant public support. This period saw Lal Krishna Advani linking the BJP with the Ram Temple issue, as RSS, BJP, and VHP began coalescing to champion the cause. Concurrently, the Congress faced challenges following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Shah Bano case, which stirred widespread discontent among Muslim communities. In response, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi introduced legislation overturning the court’s decision, sparking accusations of Muslim appeasement and fueling the rise of Hindu-centric movements like VHP and BJP.

On January 25th, 1986, lawyer Umesh Chandra Pandey petitioned for the removal of restrictions on Hindu worship at the site. This move heightened tensions, leading to pressure on the government. Amidst this turmoil, the high court judge ordered the opening of the gates for Hindu visitation to Ram Lalla. While seemingly routine, the swift execution of this decision, within 40 minutes of its announcement, raised suspicions about political motivations, particularly towards Rajiv Gandhi.

Legal Battles, Symbolic Gestures, and Political Assurance: Ram Temple Dispute

The televised unlocking of the gates fueled Hindu aspirations for the construction of the Ram Temple, exacerbating tensions further. In response, Muslims established the Babri Mosque Action Committee to address the issue politically, despite its absence in the courtroom. Notably, while the Sunni Waqf Board represented Muslims in court, the Nirmohi Akhada, the priests at the Ram Chabutra, and Ram Lalla himself emerged as opposing parties in the legal proceedings.

In India, there exists a provision where deities can legally fight for their rights, with their worshippers presenting all relevant documents. In 1989, Devki Nandan Agarwal, a former judge and VHP leader, represented Ram Lalla in court. Following his demise, Triloki Nath Pandey continued the legal battle. While numerous cases were filed, the primary parties involved were the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhada, and Ram Lalla, identified in court records as Ram Lalla Virajman.

Following the unlocking of the gates, the Kumbh Mela was organized in February 1989, where it was announced that the foundation stone would be laid on November 9th, 1989, at the disputed site. This symbolic gesture signaled the commencement of construction. VHP promoted this event vigorously, conducting Shila Puja in villages where people inscribed ‘Ram’ on bricks destined for Ayodhya. Over 3.5 lakh such bricks were gathered for the construction.

To ensure the smooth execution of the foundation-laying event, VHP leaders sought assurance from Home Minister Buta Singh on October 17th, 1989, who pledged non-interference from the central government. Despite concerns about potential riots due to the large gathering, the event proceeded peacefully in the presence of Home Minister Buta Singh and UP’s CM Narayan Datt Tiwari.

BJP’s Political Maneuvering and the Ram Temple Movement

As VHP and RSS continued their efforts towards temple construction, BJP also intensified its involvement, particularly with elections on the horizon. In November 1989, Lal Krishna Advani announced a separate Rath Yatra, distinct from VHP’s, which commenced from Gujarat’s Somnath Temple in September 1990. The entire Rath Yatra was organized by Narendra Modi, earning him acclaim for his organizational skills.

As the Rath Yatra embarked on its journey, traversing 10,000 kilometers through various regions with the aim of reaching Ayodhya, it sparked nationwide turmoil and brought the BJP into the spotlight. The issue of the Ram Temple gained prominence across India, leading to riots in several areas, particularly where the Hindu-Muslim population balance was fragile.

On October 22nd, 1990, the Rath Yatra reached Bihar, where at 3 o’clock in the morning, in Samastipur, Lalu Prasad Yadav, then Chief Minister of Bihar, had Lal Krishna Advani arrested. Lalu Prasad Yadav justified this action by citing concerns about the potential for riots and deteriorating law and order in the state, leading to the immediate halt of the Yatra.

The decision of Lal Krishna Advani to align with the Ram Temple issue proved effective for the BJP. In the 1989 elections, the party saw a significant surge, winning 85 seats directly. BJP governments were subsequently formed in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh. Lal Krishna Advani’s stature within the BJP and the nation grew significantly, and the construction of the Ram Temple was added to the party’s manifesto.

Although the Rath Yatra was halted in Bihar, it was scheduled to conclude on October 30th, 1990, at Ayodhya, where Ram Lalla resided.

Karsevaks, Political Shifts, and Legal Battles

As Lal Krishna Advani’s Rath Yatra was halted in Bihar, other Karsevaks, individuals dedicated to selfless service, proceeded to Ayodhya to carry out Kar Seva, or voluntary work, at the disputed site. Despite warnings from Mulayam Singh Yadav, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh at the time, that no one should set foot in the disputed area, the Karsevaks viewed it as a challenge.

On October 30th, they reached Ayodhya, where they were intercepted by the police. Amidst the chaos, a former driver-turned-saint commandeered a police bus, transporting the Karsevaks to the disputed area. There, they attempted to hoist a saffron flag on the Babri Mosque, but police intervention, ordered by Mulayam Singh Yadav, resulted in the tragic loss of more than 30 lives. A peculiar incident occurred when a monkey was seen holding a saffron flag and sitting atop a dome, leading the Karsevaks to interpret it as a manifestation of Lord Hanuman.

In 1991, BJP’s influence surged across India, with significant attention on the party. In Uttar Pradesh, BJP secured victory, leading to the formation of the BJP government on June 24th, 1991, with Kalyan Singh assuming the role of Chief Minister. At the national level, despite Congress’s victory, P.V. Narasimha Rao was elected as Prime Minister. BJP’s substantial seat tally, 221 seats, surprised many, underscoring the growing significance of the Ram Temple issue in politics.

Upon assuming office, Kalyan Singh visited Ayodhya, pledging to construct the temple. His slogan, “Ram Lalla Hum Aayenge, Mandir Yahi Banayenge” (We will come, and build the temple here), gained popularity. Shortly after, on October 7th, 1991, Kalyan Singh made a significant decision, utilizing the Land Acquisition Act to bring the area surrounding the disputed site under state government control.

The Battle for Control of Contested Territory

The state government then leased the area to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, a VHP trust dedicated to the construction of the Ram Temple, for a token amount of one rupee. The plan included the development of Shri Ram Katha Park for tourism and development purposes. However, Muslim groups contested this action in court, arguing it was unconstitutional. Consequently, the high court issued a stay order on the lease and prohibited any construction on the disputed land. This legal maneuvering was emblematic of the ongoing efforts from both sides to assert control over the contested territory, with various methods employed, including land purchases and fundraising campaigns.

Ram Temple Dispute - Post-Independence Era: Chapter II

Escalation and Demolition: Ram Temple Dispute

In January 1992, the first significant event occurred with the removal of barriers around the disputed land, facilitating easier access. Subsequently, in the month of February, RSS, BJP, VHP, and Bajrang Dal convened for a meeting. Rumors circulated regarding this gathering, with former Intelligence Bureau head Maloy Krishna Dhar alleging that during this meeting on December 6th, 1992, plans were made to demolish the disputed structure to strengthen the case in court. Despite his claims and the alleged recording of the meeting, no action was taken. Dhar further implicated Congress’s P.V. Narasimha Rao, accusing the party of turning a blind eye to the situation.

Additionally, a sting operation by Cobra Post suggested that planning for the demolition had begun ten months prior. Tensions escalated further when, on March 24th, 1992, UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh boldly declared that regardless of the government’s tenure, the Ram Temple should be constructed. This statement exacerbated the already precarious situation, as construction was not permitted by the court.

On July 7th, 1992, VHP publicly hinted that if construction could not proceed, the disputed structure could be demolished, with no intervention from the court. This heightened tensions both in Ayodhya and across India, as uncertainty prevailed. VHP later set a three-month deadline, stating that if construction was not allowed, they would proceed with their plans.

As negotiations faltered and the deadline passed, the Dharam Sansad convened a meeting in Delhi on October 30th, 1992. Various Hindu organizations strategized for the construction of the Ram Temple, culminating in a decision to conduct Kar Seva in Ayodhya on December 6th, 1992. The initial plan was to perform religious rituals near the Ram Chabutra, but apprehensions arose that the disputed structure might be demolished instead.

The Ayodhya Demolition and the Emergence of a Makeshift Temple

Amidst this atmosphere of tension, concerns mounted regarding the events scheduled for December 6th, 1992. Eventually, discussions emerged to halt the Kar Seva program. UP CM Kalyan Singh sought to assure the Supreme Court and the UP Legislative Assembly that only Kar Seva would take place, with no harm to the mosque. Security measures were reinforced, with assurances that no bullets would be fired at the Kar Sewaks.

From December 1st, 1992, Kar Sewaks began congregating in Ayodhya, with more than 1.5 lakh individuals arriving, transforming the area into a makeshift barracks. On December 5th, 1992, political speeches were delivered on a stage erected for the occasion. While leaders such as Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani emphasized that construction could not proceed on the disputed area, others who could potentially incite unrest were prevented from speaking, including Uma Bharti, who went to great lengths to avoid detection, ultimately managing to join the gathering.

On December 6th, 1992, amidst speeches and devotional songs, a significant turn of events unfolded. Around 11:30 AM, Kar Sewaks began congregating near the suspected area, and by 1:55 PM, a portion of the structure was demolished. Subsequently, at 3:30 PM, another section was brought down. At 4:49 PM, using a human chain and a wooden pole, the remaining portion was demolished, and idols of Lord Ram, Laxman, and Hanuman were placed inside the ‘garbh greh’ amidst a makeshift temple constructed using tents.

Political Fallout, International Repercussions

However, the aftermath of these actions was swift and severe. Around 6:00 PM, President’s rule was imposed in UP, followed by the resignation of CM Kalyan Singh at 6:15 PM, who had previously guaranteed that no such incident would occur. FIRs were filed against the leaders and participants involved in the criminal activity, exacerbating the situation.

The repercussions extended beyond Ayodhya, triggering riots across the nation, resulting in over 2000 deaths and extensive financial losses. Furthermore, acts of retaliatory violence were reported in Pakistan and Bangladesh, with the Gulf countries also expressing outrage. The international community began discussing the matter, raising concerns about escalating tensions.

In the wake of the incident, inquiries were launched, leading to the formation of the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission. The commission’s report highlighted the premeditated nature of the demolition, implicating several VHP and BJP leaders, as well as Kar Sewaks. However, by 2020, a special CBI court concluded that the demolition was not pre-planned, leading to the exoneration of many leaders.

Subsequently, RSS, VHP, and BJP were temporarily banned, and BJP-led state governments were dissolved. However, the ban was later lifted. On January 25th, 1993, the Ayodhya Act was enacted, granting the central government control over the disputed area and surrounding land. This was aimed at curbing political maneuvering by VHP and the Waqf Board, which were acquiring land for their respective interests.

Archaeological Investigations at the Ayodhya Ram Temple Disputed Site

However, the legal battle over the disputed site persisted, with the court initiating proceedings in 2003. Archaeological assessments were conducted to ascertain historical and scientific evidence, marking the beginning of a protracted legal process to determine the rightful ownership of the site.

The survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) commenced on March 12, 2003, with the use of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) to determine the presence of structures beneath the surface. Following the GPR survey, excavations were conducted for six months at specific locations indicated by the results, overseen by two judicial officers to ensure transparency. The ASI report revealed several key findings: the presence of a non-Islamic structure beneath the Babri Mosque, evidence suggesting an ancient temple at the site, and uncertainty regarding whether the mosque was built after demolishing a pre-existing temple.

From Terrorist Attacks to Legal Verdicts

Meanwhile, on July 5, 2005, the disputed site was targeted by terrorists from Lashkar-e-Taiba, resulting in casualties and subsequent retaliation by security forces. In 2010, after the presentation of evidence by both parties, the Allahabad High Court delivered its verdict. It recognized the birthplace of Lord Ram at the site and divided the disputed land into three parts, allocating the central area to Ram Lala, the platform and kitchen to the Nirmohi Akhara, and the remaining portion to the Sunni Waqf Board. Dissatisfied with the decision, all parties appealed to the Supreme Court in 2011.

Legal Resolutions and Construction: Ram Temple Dispute

The Supreme Court began hearing the case in August 2017 and eventually ruled in November 2019. It upheld the ASI’s findings, recognized the birthplace of Lord Ram at the site, and allocated the entire disputed land to Ram Lala. Additionally, a separate five-acre plot was allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque. The Nirmohi Akhara did not receive any part of the disputed land. The Supreme Court ordered the establishment of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra trust to oversee the construction of the temple, with representation from the Nirmohi Akhara.

Future Developments

Construction of the Ram temple commenced, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi laying the foundation stone on August 5, 2020. As of January 22, 2024, the ground floor of the temple has been completed, with the remaining floors under construction. It is anticipated that the entire temple will be finished by December 2024.

If you enjoyed this blog post on Ram Temple Dispute, be sure to subscribe for more engaging content in the future! Stay updated on the latest developments and discussions by clicking the subscribe button. Thank you for your support!

^{Source of Ram Temple Dispute Blog Post: Civil Appeal Nos 10866-10867 of 2010 & Nitish Rajput}

TRENDING NOW