Rajagopalan’s legal summary of Ram Janmabhoomi Case:
In 1949, idols were installed at the Ram Janmabhoomi site. Municipality allowed daily puja, but no further construction. No counter claim by the Waqf board. Limitation period for filing any counter claim was extended by the government so that Sunni Waqf board can file a case, which they did just before the extended limitation period was about to end.
A Waqf property shall be owned by someone and cannot be occupied. In this case, one temple was demolished and its ruins were used to construct a structure of different architecture. Babar, as an emperor can only collect taxes, but could not have owned entire land, and should have brought a property before donating it to Waqf. This was not the case.
In any case, it was a Shia commander who demolished the Ram Janmabhoomi temple and constructed the mosque like structure. It cannot be the property of ‘Sunni’ Waqf board, who was fighting the case.
The structure is not a mosque because it doesn’t fulfil two basic requirements. There is no minaret to give a call for Namaz. In those days, no speakers and so minarets were used to call masses. The other is the absence of water arrangement for washing hands before Namaz.
The structure beneath the broken one does have pillars and statues of Hindu temple including a Varaha carved on one of the pillars. Varaha is haram in Islam and using such a place for Namaz is haram.
And even in Sunni Waqf records, the site is mentioned as of Ram’s place.
Ram Janmabhoomi Case: Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s talk on way forward
After demolishing the Islamic structure, idols of Ram Lala were installed. So, there is already a temple in which daily puja is being performed.
The then Government of PV Narasimha Rao had already filed an affidavit, after cabinet approval saying that if it is proven that there is a Hindu temple (the Ram Janmabhoomi temple) under the broken mosque the entire land would be handed over to Hindus, for temple construction. Yet, the Allahabad high court, in all its wisdom gave one third land to Muslims.
As it is legally established that there was a temple that was broken, whose ruins were used to construct the structure by Muslims, legally the case would be won.
Dr. Swamy spoke to Owaisi, Geelani (lawyer) and other Muslim leader and requested for an out of court settlement, so that time can be saved. Muslim leaders prefer Court ruling for face saving. So, Swamy is asking for a day-to-day argument in the case and expects hearing from the month of July. If case is wound quickly, construction could start from year end. As it is a pre-fabricated design, assembling the pre-case pillars would take less time and the temple – Bhavya Mandir – can be constructed in three months. So, it may be possible that next Ram Navami can be celebrated in Bhavya Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir.
Had Rajiv Gandhi been alive, he would have constructed the Mandir, the way he allowed Shila Nyas.
Anyway, in Saudi Arabia, the custodians of Islam, even the mosque in which Muhammad offered prayers was demolished and the Government dismissed the concern of UNESCO saying “don’t teach us idolatry”. In all Islamic countries, mosques are regularly demolished to make way to the social or administrative needs. A mosque, in Islam is a place where people offer Namaz. Nothing more and nothing less. There is no religious attachment, as Islam prohibits any form of idolatry. Calling the fallen structure amounts to blasphemy, for only the structures at Mecca are sacred in Ilam. So, why the hue and cry on one structure that was constructed over a demolished ruins of a temple, while for Hindus, who are idol worshippers, the birth place of Ram is a highly significant religious issue.
One liners:
PV Narasimha Rao should have been given Bharat Ratna, but the Italian deprived even him even the honour of a commoner.
Jawaharlal Nehru failed at Cambridge. In fact, no one in Nehru family after him completed graduation. Yet, he had the audacity of conferring Bharat Ratna to himself, saying Sardar Patel doesn’t deserve to have one.
On the other hand, Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar, who has a PhD in economics and studied Law was not given Bharat Ratna by Nehru.Top of Form
