32 YEARS AFTER BABRI MOSQUE DEMOLITION, NUMEROUS NEW TARGETS SET

On December 6, 1992, exactly 32 years ago, Babri Mosque at Ayodhya was demolished. On November 9, 2019, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a verdict for building Ram Temple at the demolition site. Ram Temple was inaugurated by PM Narendra Modi on January 22, 2024. Now, many other Mosques and Dargahs (Muslim places of worship) have become new targets, creating great communal tensions and disharmony between Hindus and Muslims across the country, contrary to the expectations rose from the Ayodhya Verdict.

Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi – Babri Mosque, if we include1989BJP manifesto, has been a political issue for over 35 years. Their manifesto read, “By not allowing the rebuilding of the Ram Janma Mandir in Ayodhya, on the lines of Somnath Mandir built by the Government of India in 1948, it (the government) has allowed tensions to rise, and gravely strained social harmony.” However, the current situation in the country belies them. Politics on Ram Temple continued. BJP had made it political plank during 1991 elections, after overwhelming response to Lal Krishna Advani’s Rath Yatra of 1990. BJP’s manifesto of 2024 referred to the temple’s construction as “people’s five-centuries-old dream” that had become a reality.

Creation and flaring up of communal tensions must have stopped, but the offshoots of BJP’s ideological parent RSS, and hydraheaded communalists, went unchecked, pushing up for constructions of temples targeting mosque and dargah at Kashi and Mathura, which was their old demand. Understanding reached
between the Hindu and Muslim communities at the time of construction of Somnath Temple for not targeting other mosques and dargah, and the Ayodhya Verdict which specifically upheld the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, and declared it to be a fulfilment of secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution of India.

Among many targets, much publicized are Teele Wali Masjid, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh; Quwwatul- Islam Mosque, Qutub Minar, Delhi; Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh; Kamal Maula Mosque, Bhojshala Complex, Madhya Pradesh; Shamsi Shahi Masjid, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh; Atala Masjid, Jaunpur, Uttar
Pradesh; Shahi Eidgah Masjid, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh; Jama Masjid, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh; Jama Masjid and Dargah of Shikh Salim Chisti at Fatehpur Sikri, Uttar Pradesh; and the Ajmer Sharif Dargah, Rajasthan.

The Five Judges of the Ayodhya Verdict were – Justices Ranjan Gogoi, SA Bobde, Dr D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S Abdul Nazeer. Justice Gogoi was nominated MP by the BJP in March 2022, only four months after his retirement from the post of Chief Justice. Many former judges have criticised the judgement, allowing the construction of the temple at the site where the mosque was demolished. A former Supreme Court judge Justice RF Nariman said that a “great travesty of justice” which happened in the case was that “secularism was not given its due”.

Nevertheless, the Ayodhya Verdict’s upholding the Places of Worship Act is one of the most important aspects of the judgement, as far as putting full stop to communal tension and disharmony is concerned. However, one of the judges of the bench Justice D Y Chandrachud committed a grave mistake in 2022of oversight to the very objective of the judgement, the Places of Worship Act, and the Constitution of India, none of which envisage communal tension and disharmony.

Kashi Gyanvapi Mosque case had come in the CJI Chandrachud led bench of the Supreme court in 2022, in which he observed that Places of Worship Act 1991 did not prohibit ascertaining the religious character of the structure, even if its use cannot be changed. It opened the floodgate of cases against the Mosques and Dargah, which are ultimately leading to communal disturbances. Justice Chandrachud went against the Ayodhya Verdict in which he himself was one of the judges.

Ayodhya Verdict had dealt with Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act1991 in detail which noted that the long title evinces the intent of Parliament in enacting the law, for it is: “An Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship
as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

“The law has been enacted to fulfill two purposes. First, it prohibits the conversion of any place of worship.
In doing so, it speaks to the future by mandating that the character of a place of public worship shall not be altered. Second, the law seeks to impose a positive obligation to maintain the religious character of every place of worship,” Ayodhya Verdict says.

The Ayodhya Verdict noted that the Places of Worship Act contained only one exemption from the application of its provisions “commonly known as Ram Janam Bhumi – Babri Masjid”. It noted the Section 6 of the Act which provides for a punishment for contravening the provisions of “bar on the conversion of a place of worship” and for an attempt or act of abetment.

The law imposes two unwavering and mandatory norms, the verdict notes – First bar on conversion of a place of worship, and Second, the preservation of the religious character of every place of worship. Towards achieving this purpose, it provides for the abatement of suits and legal proceedings. Coupled with this, the Places of Worship Act imposes a baron the institution of fresh suits or legal proceedings. The only
exception is in the case of suits, appeals or proceedings pending at the commencement of the law (1991) on the ground that conversion of a place of worship had taken place after 15 August 1947.

The intents of the Parliament of India are also noted by the Ayodhya Verdict. It quoted the Union Minister of Home Affairs explaining on the floor of the Lok Sabha: “We see this Bill as a measure to provide and develop our glorious traditions of love, peace and harmony. These traditions are part of a cultural heritage of which every Indian is justifiably proud. Tolerance for all faiths has characterized our great civilization
since time immemorial.

These traditions of amity, harmony and mutual respect came under severe strain during the pre-independence period when the colonial power sought to actively create and encourage communal divide in the country. After the independence we have set about healing the wounds of the past and tried to restore our traditions of communal amity and goodwill to their past glory. By and large we have succeeded,  although there have been, it must be admitted, some unfortunate setbacks. Rather than being discouraged by such setbacks, it is our duty and commitment to taken lesson from them for the future.”

The Ayodhya Verdict noted the objective of the Places of Worship Act as not “to create new disputes and to rake up old controversies which had long been forgotten by the people”. The verdict says that “The Places of Worship Act which was enacted in 1991 by Parliament protects and secures the fundamental values of the Constitution. The Preamble underlines the need to protect the liberty of thought, expression,
belief, faith and worship. It emphasises human dignity and fraternity. Tolerance, respect for and acceptance of the equality of all religious faiths is a fundamental precept of fraternity.”

“The law addresses itself to the State as much as to every citizen of the nation. Its norms bind those who
govern the affairs of the nation at every level. Those norms implement the Fundamental Duties under Article 51A and are hence positive mandates to every citizen as well,” the Ayodhya Verdict noted. “The State, has by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalized its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism which is a part of the basic features of the Constitution.

The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution. The law is hence a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Non-retrogression is a foundational feature of the fundamental constitutional principles of which secularism is a core component. The Places of Worship Act is thus a legislative intervention which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values.”

The Ayodhya Verdict upheld “secularism as a constitutional value” quoting and earlier 9 judges bench decision of the Supreme Court in SR Bommai v. Union of India case. It says that “The Places of Worship Act is intrinsically related to the obligations of a secular state. It reflects the commitment of India to the equality of all religions. Above all, the Places of Worship Act is an affirmation of the solemn duty which was cast upon the State to preserve and protect the equality of all faiths as an essential constitutional value, a norm which has the status of being a basic feature of the Constitution. There is a purpose underlying the
enactment of the Places of Worship Act.”

“The law speaks to our history and to the future of the nation. Cognizant as we are of our history and of the need for the nation to confront it, Independence was a watershed moment to heal the wounds of the past. Historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands. In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future,” the Ayodhya Verdict noted.