Ram Janmbhumi – Babri Masjid Dispute -1 Verdict

Saturday, the 9th November 2019 will certainly be remembered as a historical event in India owing to the Supreme Court judgment on the “Title Suit” of Ram Janmbhumi* – Babri Masjid dispute (also referred as Ayodhya dispute) pending in various courts for the last seventy years. The judgment is unique too for two reasons: First, according to the judges, a subject which was purely a matter of faith and religious belief was decided on only facts and evidences; secondly, the bench comprised of five judges has delivered the verdict unanimously, a rare feat seldom observed in higher judiciary dealing with the contentious issues. Simultaneously, a narrative was built and floated by a section of media and intellectuals that feuding parties, more particularly the minority community, have accepted the verdict with broad-mindedness and magnanimity; and, of course, initially it indeed appeared so. The verdict has an added significance in the backdrop that umpteen attempts of government, civil society, mediators and courts remained futile to arrive at an out of court settlement in the past.

Most Hindus have an ingrained and unshakeable faith in Maryada Purushottam Ram, who besides being an icon of ethics and virtues is also considered an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, whose saga has inspired the psyche and conduct of millions in India and elsewhere culturally and spiritually for thousands of years. Most of them believe the disputed site as Lord Ram’s birth place; hence the utterly contentious and acrimonious dispute was agitating the mind of devout Hindus for centuries and was under bitter contested litigation for the last seven decades in various courts. The dispute was also one of the main reasons of deteriorating relations and communal conflicts between the two major communities in India i.e. Hindus with the majority community tag and Muslims with the minority tag despite representing nearly two hundred million population in the country. The Supreme Court indeed deserves full credit and laurel for showing grit and resolve to decide the issue through a long and continuous hearing of over fourty days in an unanimous verdict.

As anticipated, the much hyped euphoria of Supreme Court judgment dismantling of imagined wall between the two communities to usher in peace and unity has already started evaporating with sharp reaction and unreconciliatory remarks of a section of clergy, politicians, jurists and intellectuals. Some blogs and utterances of the self-styled intellectuals and liberals of this country have also appeared raising question marks on the jurisprudence of Supreme Court judges concerned. Deriving fashionable analogy with the significant historical event of the breaking of Berlin wall on 9 November 1989, which ideologically and physically separated East and West Germany following the World War II, some self-styled bloggers have even opined that the Ayodhya verdict has further fortified (ideological) wall between two communities instead of breaking it. As the dispute was long and complex, it would be unfair to limit it in a gag; hence the author proposes to discuss in detail the chronology of events, Supreme Court judgment, global reaction, efficacy of archeological and other evidences, analysis and conclusion thereto in three parts viz. verdict, evidence and analysis, to do justice with the entire saga.

The Judgment

While delivering the judgment, the unanimous opinion of the five Supreme Court judges was that Hindus produced better evidences than that of Muslims both in terms of number, variety and quality to prove that they had uninterruptedly worshipped inside the disputed structure with an unflinching belief that the inner sanctum was indeed the birth-place of Maryada Purushottam Lord Ram. In fact, while remaining anonymous apparently as agreed among the judges on bench, one of the judges wrote a separate 116 pages judgment annexed as Addendum to the main judgment recording the illustrated account of recorded and oral evidences from Hindu texts (Puranas and Epics), foreign travellers, government gazetteers and octogenarian/nonagenarian witnesses suggesting the site always recognized as “Janmsthan” (birth place) despite an existing mosque and also that Hindus had an uninterrupted access and right to worship the deity.

To illustrate the aforesaid averment: Officiating Commissioner and Settlement Officer of Ayodhya and Faizabad P. Carnegi wrote in his historical Sketch published in 1870 that Ayodhya is to Hindus what Macca (Mecca) is to the Mohamedans (Muslims) and Jerusalem to the Jews. The gazetteers of 1854, 1881, 1892, 1905, the Archeological Survey Report of 1891 etc. buttress the theory and claim of the mosque having been constructed after demolishing a Hindu shrine as also intermittent Hindu efforts to regain the spot back. In gazetteers published in British India, even the government officials referred the Mosque as “Janam Sthan Mosque”. A land revenue officer of Faizabad, Millet wrote in his report of 1880 that Hindus and Muslims had worshipped alike inside the structure. The writer-traveller Edward B Eastwick recorded in 1888 in his “Handbook of the Bengal Presidency” that before 1858, namaz and puja were both performed inside the shrine.

As for the faith and belief of Hindus regarding birth of Lord Ram at Ayodhya, it was not disputed even by the Muslim side at any stage; hence according to judges, the consideration of the Supreme Court bench was confined to only a limited submission as to whether the disputed site was the place of birth of Lord Ram or not. The pleaders of Muslim side had dismissed travelogues as hearsay arguing travellers as story tellers and gazetteers prepared under East India Company as unreliable having been documents of non-governmental authorities. Notwithstanding their contestation, the accounts of travelogues and gazetteers admissible under Section 57 of the Evidence Act and the verifiable citations of Hindu texts like Skanda Purana and Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya visit of Guru Nanak Devji in 1510-11 CE to have darshan of Janmbhumi of Lord Ram made strong claim of the Hindu parties over the disputed site.

The litigation before the Supreme Court essentially comprised of five principal suits. Of this, Suit 1 was instituted by a Hindu devotee, Gopal Singh Visharad on 16 January 1950 before the Civil Judge, Faizabad seeking right to enter the inner courtyard of the disputed site for worship. Another suit (Suit 2) was filed by Paramhans Ramchandra Das on 5 December 1950 in the same court seeking somewhat similar relief; however, this suit was later withdrawn in September 1990. Nirmohi Akhara instituted yet another suit (Suit 3) on 17 December 1959 before the Civil Judge at Faizabad claiming their absolute right (Shebait) of managing the affairs of the Janmasthan. Then on 18 December 1961, the Sunni Central Waqf Board (SCWB) along with nine Muslim residents of Ayodhya filed a suit (Suit 4) at Faizabad civil court seeking a declaration of the entire disputed site of the Babri Masjid as a public mosque and its possession upon removal of the idols. The last suit (Suit 5) was brought before the same court on behalf of the deity (Bhagwan Shri Ram Lalla Virajman) and the birth-place (Asthan Shri Ram Janam Bhumi, Ayodhya) on 1 July 1989 by a next friend for the declaration of title to the disputed premises and to restrain the defendants from interfering with or raising any objection to the construction of a temple.

While delivering the judgment, the judges made the following crucial and relevant observation:

“…Essentially, the setting up of Ramchabutra within a hundred feet or thereabouts of the inner dome must be seen in the historical context as an expression or assertion of the Hindu right to worship at the birth-place of Lord Ram. Even after the construction of the dividing wall by the British, the Hindus continued to assert their right to pray below the central dome…pilgrims used to pay obeisance and make offerings to what they believed to be the ‘Garbh Grih’ located inside the three domed structure while standing at the iron railing which divided the inner and outer courtyards. There is no evidence to the contrary by the Muslims to indicate that their possession of the disputed structure of the mosque was exclusive and that the offering of namaz was exclusionary of the Hindus.”

On 6 January 1964, the trial of Suits 1, 3 and 4 was consolidated and Suit 4 was made the leading case; Suit 5 was tried along with the leading case. The court has held the suit instituted by Nirmohi Akhara as barred by limitation and dismissed accordingly, the suit of the SCWB and other plaintiffs to be within limitation reversing the earlier High Court judgment to that extent and the suit of Shri Ram(lalla) Virajman as within the limitation. Accordingly, the following final reliefs and directions have been granted by the apex court five-judges bench vide their judgment dated 9 November 2019, exercising the powers vested in the Supreme Court under the Article 142 of Constitution:

Endorsing the maintainability of the suit (Suit 5) of Shri Ramlalla Virajman, the entire disputed land is decreed in its favour for the construction of Ram temple with following directions:

(i) The Central Government shall set up a trust with the Board of Trustees or any other appropriate body within a period of three months from the date of judgment along with necessary enabling provisions defining its power, management and construction of the temple, and related incidental and supplemental matters;

(ii) Possession of the inner and outer courtyards (disputed land) shall be handed over to the Board of Trustees of the Trust or to the body so constituted and an appropriate representation would be given to the Nirmohi Akhara in the aforesaid Trust or body. The Central Government will be at liberty to make suitable provisions in respect of the rest of the acquired land by handing it over to the Trust or Body for management and development;

(iii) Simultaneously, a suitable plot of land admeasuring 5 acres shall be handed over to the SCWB. This land shall be allotted either by the Central Government out of the land acquired under the Ayodhya Act 1993 or the State Government at a suitable prominent place in Ayodhya and the two governments shall act in consultation with each other to effectuate this allotment in the period stipulated.

(iv) The SCWB would be at liberty to take all necessary steps for the construction of a mosque on the land thus allotted together with other associated facilities;

(v) The right of the plaintiff in Suit 1 to worship at the disputed property is also affirmed subject to any restrictions imposed by the relevant authorities with respect to the maintenance of peace and order and the performance of orderly worship.

Chronology of Events

Although conflicting narratives exist whether this was the Mughal Emperor Babur or Aurangzeb behind the alleged desecration and demolition of Hindu shrine at the disputed site before erection of a mosque but an overwhelming view exists in favour of the former emperor. As per historical records, Babur invaded North India in 1525 CE and captured Delhi after defeating Ibrahim Lodi in the First Battle of Panipat in 1526. He founded the Mughal Empire by conquering a major portion of the Northern India. Reportedly, one of his army generals, Mir Baqi invaded Ayodhya, destroyed a pre-existing Hindu temple with Ram as principal deity and built a mosque on the ruins of the temple in 1828 under the order of Babur. In many old records, it existed as masjid-i-janmasthan (mosque at the birthplace) or Janmasthan masjid and later it was popularized as Babri Masjid (Babur’s mosque). The faith, belief and trust of devout Hindus in Lord Ram is so immutable that they continued to worship at the disputed site despite its desecration and changed status; this led to several recorded and unrecorded conflicts and riots between the two communities over centuries.

Although the two major communities in India traditionally have a troubled history of intermittent communal conflicts and violence so much so that this led to partition of the country at independence to secure a separate homeland for Muslims. The demolition of the disputed structure in 1992 by a frenzied mob (kar sewaks) became a major sore point and deep fissure in the relations of Hindus and Muslims in India. While common Hindus are traditionally docile and tolerant but majority of them were unable to accept the denial of their right to worship at a place which is a symbol of their eternal faith and belief in a country which has traditionally been their homeland since the inception of civilization in the sub-continent. On the other hand, Muslims felt that the demolition of Babri Masjid was a personal attack on their religion and any compromise on the issue will put them at disadvantage socially and religiously for all time to come.

Here is a chronological fact sheet of major events and conflicts from erection of masjid to Supreme Court judgment:

• Babri Masjid was built by Mir Baki in 1528 at Ayodhya, which was built after razing a large Ram temple as per Hindus claim.
    
• During the successive Mughal rulers, socio-religious sentiment and aspiration of the Hindu community was systematically ignored and suppressed, and Ayodhya events were not properly chronicled. However, English merchant William Finch recorded in 1611 about Hindu pilgrims’ faith and veneration in visiting Rama’s castle and houses.
   
• In colonial era, few incidents of communal violence occurred in 1850s at the disputed site; the first recorded communal clash occurred in 1853 over the possession of site. Consequently, the colonial administration fenced the place of worship in 1959 by erecting iron railings to segregate worship areas for the two communities. They allowed the Muslims to use the inner court and Hindus the outer court for the prayers.
    
• In 1877, the British administration opened another door towards north to facilitate entry of Hindu worshipers at Ram Chabutara and Sita Rasoi within the disputed site.
   
• Mahant Raghbar Das of Ayodhya moved Faizabad court in January 1885 seeking permission to construct a temple at Ram Chabutara but the plea was denied by the sub-judge on 24 December 1885 on the ground that this may lead to riot between the two communities.
   
• In an appeal against the aforesaid decision, the district judge FEA Chamier reportedly held on 18 March 1886 it unfortunate that a mosque was built on the land Hindus considered sacred. However, as the incident occurred more than 350 years ago, there was no option but to maintain status quo. Subsequently, the court of judicial commissioner, Oudh, Justice W. Young too upheld the decision of the district judge on 1 November 1886.
    
• Hindu-Muslim riot broke out in Ayodhya in 1934 in which the domes of mosque were damaged and later restored by the British administration.
    
• Idols of Lord Rama and his consort were placed on 22-23 December 1949 allegedly by a small crowd of bairagies (a sadhu sect) inside the disputed complex after a religious ceremony. Some devout Hindus described the appearance of the idols as a miracle. Following claim and counterclaim for the religious site, Faizabad city magistrate passed an order attaching the disputed site under the receivership of the chairman, municipal board on 29 December 1949.
    
• On 16 January 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad filed first suit (Suit 1) seeking protection of his right to worship Ram Lalla simultaneously seeking a restraining order on administration from removing the deity from the central dome.
    
• Paramhans Ranchandra Das of Ayodhya filed another suit (Suit 2) on 5 December 1950 seeking a relief similar to Visharad but he later withdrew it in 1990.
    
• Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious denomination established by Saint Ramananda belonging to Vaishnava Sect, filed a suit (Suit 3) on 17 December 1959 seeking exclusive Shebait (priestly) rights and management of the Ram Janmbhumi site.
    
• Two years later, the SCWB filed another suit (Suit 5) on 18 December 1961 seeking relief for declaration of the disputed structure as Babri Mosque being place of worship for Muslims since 1528. In a prolonged litigation, they later added another prayer (May 1995) of handing over the property by removing makeshift temple at the site.
    
• The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) formed in 1984 to liberate the birth place and built a temple at the site. The Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) extended its support to the campaign.
    
• Faizabad district judge ordered opening of locks of the disputed structure on 1 February 1986 on a plea filed by an advocate on 25 January seeking removal of locks to facilitate common people having darshan of deity. The event received national attention and the Babri Mosque Action Committee was formed by Muslims protesting the move to allow Hindus worship at the site.
    
• On 1 July 1989, Deoki Nandan Agarwala filed a suit (Suit 5) on behalf of deity Ram Lalla as next friend seeking possession of the entire disputed structure and associated land for building Ram temple. He claimed that Ram temple stood at Ayodhya since King Vikramaditya’s time and was destroyed by Mir Baqi, who built mosque at the site.
    
• Allahabad High Court transferred all relevant pending suits from Faizabad distric court to its own jurisdiction on 10 July 1989. Earlier, the Uttar Pradesh government had also requested High Court to this effect in 1987.
    
• During 1989, the momentum for building a Ram temple picked up; the Congress government led by Rajiv Gandhi allowed VHP to perform puja near the disputed site. In November, the VHP laid foundations of temple on land adjacent to the “disputed structure” in the presence of certain ministers of the Central and State governments. Consequently, there was sporadic violence in the country. Allahabad High Court took over the title dispute and decided status quo at the disputed site.
    
• The VHP accelerated the movement of the liberation of Ram Janmbhumi during 1990; the then Samajwadi Party government used force in September 1990 on a gathering of kar sewaks around the disputed site leading to several deaths and injuries. The then BJP President Lal Krishna Advani undertook a cross-country rath-yatra in October 1990 to muster support for building of Ram temple. On 30 October, thousands of kar sewaks and devotees gathered in Ayodhya and many of them were gunned down by the police reportedly under the direction of the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav; the dead bodies were summarily disposed in or near Saryu river.
    
• The state government led by Kalyan Singh acquired the disputed site and adjoining area (total 2.77 acres) in October 1991 with the stated reason of the development of tourism and providing amenities to pilgrims in Ayodhya. The government move was challenged in court by the litigant Mohammad Hashim Ansari of Ayodhya.
    
• The movement of liberation of Janmbhumi constantly gained momentum with the support of the VHP, Shiv Sena and BJP in 1992. In July 1992, thousands of kar sewaks assembled near the disputed site tasked with the maintenance of temple; however, any untoward situation was averted with the intervention of top political leadership. On 30 October, Dharam Sansad of VHP pronounced failure of talks in Delhi on temple construction and commencement of Karseva at the site on 6 December. Lakhs of kar sewaks and devotees from all over the country gathered in Ayodhya and the disputed structure (mosque) was demolished by a frenzied mob of kar sewaks on 6 December 1992; the state BJP government was dismissed by the Centre; and thousands of people of both communities died and dozens of Hindu temples and religious sites were desecrated and destroyed, including in neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh, in an outbreak of communal riots.
    
• The Central Government acquired about 68 acres of land in and around the disputed site initially through Ordnance in January 1993 and later regularizing it through legislation thereby assuming the role of receiver of the disputed site.
    
• With inordinate delay in resolving the issue both at government and judiciary ends, the VHP renewed its resolve to start construction of the temple at the disputed site on 15 March 2002; two bogies of the train carrying kar sewaks were set on fire at Godhara, Gujarat by miscreants of the minority community killing at least 58 Hindus including women and children; communal riots broke out in Gujarat as backlash to the incident in which over a thousand people of both communities died.
    
• In January 2003, a team of Archeologists was constituted under the orders of the Allahabad High Court to explore and investigate the site, the findings of which suggested the existence of the remains of Hindu shrine (temple) below the disputed site.
    
• Suspected Islamic militants attacked the disputed site in July 2005 targeting the makeshift temple of Ram Lalla using a jeep laden with explosives. However, the security forces foiled the attack killing the attackers.
    
• Allahabad High Court delivered its majority (2:1) verdict on 30 September 2010 to equally divide the disputed site in three parts; Deity Shri Ram Lalla Virajman getting the portion under the central dome, the outer courtyard area (Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandara area) to the Nirmohi Akhara and the remaining part to the SCWB of Uttar Pradesh. One dissenting judge decreed the entire disputed land in favour of the deity Ram Lalla.
    
• Unhappy with the verdict, the Muslim group decided to appeal in the apex court challenging three-way division of the disputed land. Consequently, both the Muslim and Hindu parties filed appeals in December 2010 in the Supreme Court, which stayed the operation of the High Court order on 9 May 2011.
    
• In February 2018, a three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by the then Chief Justice listed the case for hearing. The pleaders of the Muslim community argued for referring the case to a larger bench to first review its 1994 judgment which held that the mosques were not the integral part of the Islam, and postpone the hearing of case till after the General Elections scheduled in May 2019.
    
• On 27 September 2018, the three-judge Supreme Court bench decided against the review of the 1994 verdict delivered in a different context. They also rejected the plea of Muslim parties to refer the dispute to a five-judge bench.
    
• On 29 October 2018, the three-judge bench, headed by new Chief Justice of India (CJI), adjourned the hearing of the case to January, 2019. In response to the request of lawyers of the Hindu parties for early and expeditious hearing of the case, the court held it had other priorities.
    
• On 8 January 2019, CJI Ranjan Gogoi using his powers as master of roaster transferred the long pending dispute to a five-judge bench overruling the earlier judicial order of hearing before the three-judge bench.
    
• The newly constituted five-judge bench formed a three-member panel comprising of ex-judge FMI Kalifulla, mediator Sriram Panchu and spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravishankar on 8 March 2019 to explore the possibility of a negotiated settlement of the dispute. The panel informed the Supreme Court of failure of their efforts towards July end.
    
• The five-judge bench of the apex court started day-to-day hearing of the case on 6 August 2019. It permitted another chance to the three member mediation panel on receiving feelers from the SCWB for negotiated settlement but didn’t adjourn its day-to-day hearing.
    
• After continuous hearing for fourty days, the Supreme Court concluded its hearing on 16 October granting three more days to parties for filing written notes on ‘moulding of relief’. Finally, the five-judges bench unanimously delivered judgment on 9 November 2019 in favour of the deity.

Global Reaction

The verdict was generally welcomed nationwide by all sections of the society irrespective of caste, creed, region and religion. An overwhelming majority of politicians, media, intellectuals, jurists and common people hailed the decision stating that the Supreme Court has done justice to both communities and the verdict will pave way for a long lasting peace and brotherhood between two communities. While Hindus cautiously avoided any jubilation or celebration on the occasion, most Muslims too showed maturity and grace in accepting the verdict of the apex court. Of course, the government and administration remained extremely vigilant and alert to effectively deal with any attempted canard, mischief or inflammatory acts in public or on social media.

Most of the Muslims including key individual litigants in Ayodhya case welcomed the judgment and expressed satisfaction over the long pending dispute coming to an end. Zafaryab Jilani of AIMPLB expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome but simultaneously expressed Muslims’ commitment to honouring the Supreme Court verdict. A prominent Shia Cleric Maulana Kalbe Jawad expressed satisfaction over the judgment suggesting that the dispute has ended with Muslim community accepting the verdict peacefully. Maulana Arshad Madani, head of a prominent Muslim body Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, indicated the possibility of a review petition against the Supreme Court order. A self-proclaimed politician and leader of Indian Muslims, Asaduddin Owaisi was unhappy and bitter with the outcome of the Supreme Court verdict. Expressing his dissatisfaction with the verdict, he opined that the apex court is supreme but not infallible and that his party does not favour “the khairat” (doles or benefaction) of five acres of land proposed in the judgment for building a mosque.

On the other hand, the judgment was widely reported with lopsided interpretation and/or prejudice by a small fraction of national media, Pakistan and top international media houses world over. India’s oldest party Indian National Congress cautiously welcomed the verdict but its affiliated newspaper and mouthpiece “National Herald” published at least two controversial reports questioning judgment, its efficacy and implication. A regular columnist wrote in a report if God can reside in a temple built by force, violence and bloodshed besides suggesting that judges attempted to satisfy popular sentiments while at the same time not doing justice to those wronged and violated years ago. Both controversial pieces were, however, removed by the editors under an apology tendered by the Editor-in-Chief.

In yet another article in the same paper, an ex-judge who caused jitters to higher judiciary few years back as an accused of sexual harassment to a woman intern questioned the judgment vis-à-vis Supreme Court’s responsibility to upheld Constitution. Yet another English daily “Hindu” published an article suggesting the Supreme Court’s direction to the Central government to formulate a scheme and set up a trust to facilitate the construction of a temple on the disputed land would amount to a breach of the secular character of the State. A former judge of Madras High Court K. Chandru suggested that the state is neither pro-particular religion nor anti-particular religion and must maintain neutrality in matters of religion. Another eminent jurist Upendra Baxi, however, held that there was no breach of constitutional secularism in the Central Government being given the responsibility; his views were endorsed by another eminent constitutional expert R. Venkata Rao.

Several top international media houses covered the historic Ayodhya verdict by Supreme Court with their own understanding, interpretation or prejudice on the subject and country. Some such reporting is briefly mentioned as follows:

• The Washington Post highlighted the verdict as a major victory for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party. It suggested that India is now fundamentally a Hindu nation and not the secular republic promoted by the country’s founders. According to the media house, the verdict endorsed right-wingers’ cherished goal of building a temple to the Hindu god Ram in the town of Ayodhya, which the Hindus have rejoiced and Muslims deplored.
    
• According to New York Times, India’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hindus in a decades-old dispute over a holy site contested by Muslims, handing the prime minister and his followers a major victory in their quest to remake the country as Hindu and shift it further from its secular foundation.
    
• The Guardian also tried to portray the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute as a “huge victory” for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his BJP government in pursuance of their Hindu nationalist agenda.
    
• Giving religious portrayal to the event with specific mention of “Jai Shree Ram” chants outside court, the BBC expressed hope that the unanimous judgment by the five most senior judges of the court would hopefully lead to some reconciliation that the country badly needed.
    
• While attempting a brief history of dispute erroneous though, the CNN reported that Hindus have been allowed to build (temple) on the disputed holy site ending the country’s most politically charged land dispute.
    
• Al Jazeera reported that in a verdict that disappointed Muslims, the court awarded Hindus control of the (disputed) site, paving the way for the construction of a temple. It recalled that a 16th century mosque, Babri Masjid, stood at the site until 6 December 1992, when it was destroyed by Hindu mobs and the country witnessed some of the deadliest religious riots since independence, in which thousands of mostly Muslim Indians were killed.

From the above account, it is clear that the foreign media neither have true knowledge and understanding of the India’s complex social fabric, cultural and religious traditions nor they understand the maturity and professionalism with which India’s apex judiciary functions. Such faulty rather mischievous reporting only exposes and reflects on their lack of understanding and professionalism besides blatant prejudice in the matter. Needless to mention, as hitherto fore the Pakistani political establishment and media too criticized the verdict with usual neurotic zeal lamenting for Indian Muslims with allegation that the Indian Supreme Court has failed to uphold the demands of justice. On their part, India promptly rejected the ‘unwarranted and gratuitous’ comments of Pakistan on the verdict, citing it purely an internal matter of the country.

* Also spelled as “Janam Bhoomi”

Continued to Next Page

 20,790 total views,  19 views today