The Ayodhya dispute (Hindi: अयोध्या विवाद, Urdu: ایودھیا وِواد) is a political, historical and socio-religious debate in India, centred on a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya, located in Faizabad district, Uttar Pradesh. The main issues revolve around access to a site traditionally regarded as the birthplace of the Hindu god Rama, the history and location of the Babri Mosque at the site, and whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create the mosque.
The Babri Mosque was destroyed by hardline Hindu activists during a political rally which turned into a riot on December 6, 1992. A subsequent land title case was lodged in the Allahabad High Court, the verdict of which was pronounced on September 30, 2010. In the landmark hearing, the three judges of The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres (1.12 ha) of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with 1/3 going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Lord Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, 1/3 going to the Islamic Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining 1/3 going to a Hindu religious denomination Nirmohi Akhara. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site.[1] The excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India were heavily used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building. [2]
By the middle of the 20th century, Hindus in the area were claiming that the mosque had not been used by Muslims since 1936, and according to a court ruling an idol of Rama was placed inside the mosque in the intervening night of 22/23 December 1949.[9] A movement was launched in 1984 by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP party) to reclaim the site for Hindus who want to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ramlala) at this spot.
On 6 December 1992, the structure was demolished by karsevaks,[10] 150,000 strong, despite a commitment by the government to the Indian Supreme Court that the mosque would not be harmed.[11][12] More than 2000 people were killed in the riots following the demolition.[13][14] Riots broke out in many major Indian cities including Mumbai, Delhi andHyderabad[citation needed]
On 16 December 1992, the Liberhan Commission was set up by the Government of India to probe the circumstances that led to the demolition of the Babri Mosque.[15] It was the longest running commission in India's history with several extensions granted by various governments. Atal Behari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani, senior leaders of the of the BJP were held culpable by the report. Other senior BJP leaders Murli Manohar Joshi and then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh and top brass of VHP like Giriraj Kishore and Ashok Singhal were also held culpable. Other prominent political leaders indicted by the commission include Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray, former RSS leader K Govindacharya, late BJP leader Pramod Mahajan, former BJP leader Uma Bharti and BJP leader Vijayraje Scindia.[16]
Many Muslim organizations have continued to express outrage at the destruction of the disputed structure. In July 2005, Islamic terrorists attacked the makeshift temple at the site of the destroyed mosque. In 2007, M. N. Gopal Das, the then head of the Ram temple, received phone calls making threats against his life.[17] Many terror attacks by banned jehadi outfits like IM cited demolition of Babri Mosque as an excuse for terrorist attacks.[18][19] In Pakistan and Bangladesh, many Hindu women were raped, hundreds of Hindu homes and temples were destroyed.[13][20][21]
Several later mosques were built in Faizabad district, in which the pilgrim city of Ayodhya falls. Ayodhya itself has a small Muslim population, though there are substantial numbers of Muslims 7 km away at District Headquarters - Faizabad. Since 1948, by Indian Government order, Muslims were not permitted to be closer than 200 yards away to the site; the main gate remained locked, though Hindu pilgrims were allowed to enter through a side door. The 1989 Allahabad High Court ordered the opening of the main gate and restored the site in full to the Hindus. Hindu groups later requested modifications to the Babri Mosque, and drew up plans for a new grand Temple with Government permissions; riots between Hindu and Muslim groups took place as a result. Since, then the matter is sub-judice and this political, historical and socio-religious debate over the history and location of the Babri Mosque, is known as the Ayodhya dispute.
Before 2003, the standard view that an ancient Ram Janmabhoomi temple was demolished and replaced with the Babri Mosque, was not supported by any archaeological evidence. References such as the 1986 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica reported that "Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Mughal emperor Babur in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple".15th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, 1986, entry "Ayodhya," Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.
However, archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1970, 1992 and 2003 in and around the disputed site have clearly found the evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site.Ancient Temple Found Beneath Disputed Mosque About - August 25, 2003 In 2003, by the order of an Indian Court, The Archaeological Survey of India was asked to conduct a more indepth study and an excavation to ascertain the type of structure that was beneath the rubble.Ratnagar, Shereen (2004) "CA Forum on Anthropology in Public: Archaeology at the Heart of a Political Confrontation: The Case of Ayodhya" Current Anthropology 45(2): pp. 239–259, p. 239 The summary of the ASI reportPrasannan, R. (7 September 2003) "Ayodhya: Layers of truth" The Week (India), from Web Archive indicated definite proof of a temple under the mosque. However, it could not be ascertained if it was a Rama temple as remnant had more resemblance to a Shiva temple Prasannan, R. (7 September 2003) "Ayodhya: Layers of truth" The Week (India), from Web Archive. In the words of ASI researchers, they discovered "distinctive features associated with... temples of north India". The excavations yielded:
| “ | stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of a divine couple and carved architectural features, including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali, doorjamb with semi-circular shrine pilaster, broke octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranjala (watershute) in the north and 50 pillar bases in association with a huge structure Suryamurthy, The Tribune - August 26, 2003 | ” |
The excavation began on March 12, 2003 on the acquired land on the high court's order and by August 7, 2003 when it ended, the ASI team had made 1360 discoveries. A bench, comprising Justice S R Alam, Justice Bhanwar Singh and Justice Khemkaran, had asked the ASI to submit the report and as per the order, the Archaeological Survey of India submitted its final report in the Allahabad high courthttp://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/22ayo.htm. The 574-page ASI report consisting of written opinions, maps and drawings was opened before the full Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court. The report said there was archaeological evidence of "a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural activities from the 10th century onwards". The ASI report said there is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50x30 metres in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure. In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brickbat foundation below calcrete blocks topped by sandstone blocks were found. The area below the disputed site remained a place for public use for a long time till the Mughal period when the disputed structure was built which was confined to a limited area and the population settled around it as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including pottery. The report said the human activity at the site dates back to 13th century BC on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the site.
A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this level, according to the report. The report said the Sunga period (second-first century BC) comes next in order of the cultural occupation at the site followed by the Kushan period. During the early medieval period (11-12th century AD) a huge structure of nearly 50 metres north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived as only four of the 50 pillar bases exposed during the excavation belonged to this level with a brick crush floor. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The architectural members of the earlier short-lived massive structure with stencil-cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure which has a huge pillared hall different from residential structures providing sufficient evidence of construction of public usages which remained under existence for a long time during the period. The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction during the early 16th century that the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over.
The Ayodhya debate has grown along with a revival of Hindu Nationalism.
The issue of the disputed structure had remained inactive for four decades, until the mid-1980s. The Hindu Nationalist movement pressed for reclamation of three of its most holy sites which it claimed had suffered at the hands of Islam, at Ayodhya, Mathura and Varanasi. L K Advani, the leader of the BJP in his memoirs argued, "If Muslims are entitled to an Islamic atmosphere in Mecca, and if Christians are entitled to a Christian atmosphere in the Vatican, why is it wrong for the Hindus to expect a Hindu atmosphere in Ayodhya?"
The legal case continues regarding the title deed of the land tract which is a government controlled property. While the Muslim parties want the Babri Mosque to be reconstructed through a court order, the Hindu side wants a law in parliament to have a temple constructed, saying faith in the existence of Ram Janmabhoomi cannot be decided in a court of law.
The situation regarding the Ram Janmabhoomi has been compared to the Temple Mount controversies and claims in Israel by conservative blogger Daniel Pipes. In particular, Pipes writes:
Ayodhya prompts several thoughts relating to the Temple Mount. It shows that the Temple Mount dispute is far from unique. Muslims have habitually asserted the supremacy of Islam through architecture, building on top of the monuments of other faiths (as in Jerusalem and Ayodhya) or appropriating them (e.g. the Ka'ba in Mecca and the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople).
Nobel Laureate V. S. Naipaul has said that the destruction of Babri mosque was an act of historical balancing and the repatriation of the Ramjanmabhoomi was a "welcome sign that Hindu pride was re-asserting itself."
