If Muslims cave-in on Babri Masjid dispute to communal Hindutva forces / BJP, then law abiding Indians will never forgive them.
The electronic media on Sunday has been showing that the Member of Parliament Subramaniyan Swamy from ruling party BJP has given a letter dated May 31, 2019 (https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/politics/declare-ram-setu-as-a-national-monument-and-commence-building-ram-temple-writes-dr-subramanian-swamy-in-a-letter-to-pmo-read-it-here ) to PM Modi asking PM (in addition to other issue of Ram Setu) to start constructing Ram Mandir at disputed site about which title suit is awaiting judgment in Supreme Court of India (SCI). In support of his said appeal to the PM, Swamy has given the following legally funny arguments hence Muslims should uphold the rule of law and need not be deterred by Swamy’s legally meaningless letter to PM about Ram Mandir :-
- Swamy in essence says that –“[There is no bar in the law which stands in the way of Government of India allocating this 67.72 acres of land in Ayodhya to anybody which has a ‘public character for building of the Ram Temple’. Hence without any lapse of time the Government in exercise of its power allocate the land, both disputed and undisputed, for the Ram Lala temple which was there before the demolition by the builders of Babri Masjid. Furthermore the Government can inform the Supreme Court that the compensation as decided by the Hon’ble Court will be given to winning appellate]”
- Swamy, himself an advocate of repute, has misunderstood rather deliberately mis-interpreted the judgment of SCI which adjudicated on the validity of the Ayodhya Act, 1993 related to the acquisition of this 67.72 acres of land. The SCI in this judgment (available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37494799/ ) said clearly, the relevant part as given below:-
98. As a result of the above discussion, our conclusions, to be read with the discussion, are as follows :-
(1) (a) Sub-section (3) of section 4 of the. Act abates all pending suits and legal proceedings without providing for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for resolution of the dispute between the parties thereto. This is an extinction of the judicial remedy for resolution of the dispute amounting to negation of rule of law. Sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act is, therefore, unconstitutional and invalid.
(1) (b) The remaining provisions of the Act do not suffer from any invalidity on the construction made thereof by us. Sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act is severable from the remaining Act. Accordingly, the challenge to the constitutional validity of the remaining Act, except for Sub-section (3) of section 4, is rejected.
(4) The vesting of the said disputed area in the Central Government by virtue of section 3 of the Act is limited, as a statutory receiver, with the duty for it management and administration according to section 7 requiring maintenance of status quo therein under Sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act. The duty of the Central Government as the statutory receiver is to hand over the disputed area in accordance with section 6 of the Act, in terms of the adjudication made in the suits for implementation of the final decision therein. This is the purpose for: which the disputed area has been so acquired.
(6) The vesting of the adjacent area, other than the disputed area, acquired by the Act in the Central Government by virtue of section 3 of the Act is absolute with the power of management and administration thereof in accordance with Sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Act, till its further vesting in any authority or other body or trustees of any trust in accordance with section 6 of the Act. The further vesting of the adjacent area, other than the disputed area, in accordance with section 6 of the Act has to be made at the time and in the manner indicated, in view of the purpose of its acquisition.
99. These matters are disposed of, accordingly, in the manner stated above]”.
- In a nutshell [except where undisputed area is to be dealt in above mentioned manner explained at 98 (6)] the GOI is merely a care taker (statutory receiver) of disputed and undisputed area and is supposed to hand-over the disputed area to the litigant which ever wins in title suit pending with SCI. Therefore when Swamy says that “[ Hence without any lapse of time the Government in exercise of its power allocate the land, both disputed and undisputed, for the Ram Lala temple]” is legally neither here nor there and untenable.
- Swamy does not understand that many temples of Hindus, Jains etc were destroyed by Muslim invaders and rulers during about 1,000 years from 8th to 18th century. Hence merely destruction of a temple in Ayodhya and building a mosque at its place is not a big deal. What is highlighted by Hindutva forces / BJP / / RSS / Swamy is that Lord Rama was born at the disputed site of Masjid. But Muslims have adduced a very powerful & effective argument before the Court that ‘Ram Charit Manas’ (through which majority of Hindus know about the life of Lord Rama) written by Goswami Tulsidas after construction of Babri-Masjid in 16th century, does not have any mention of Lord Rama’s birth place at disputed site. Therefore contrary to what Swamy says there is no “public character for building of the Ram Temple”. That is the reason Swamy also knows that Hindus have no chance of winning in title suit in a way they want where Muslims will get nothing from title suit.
- Precisely from here problem starts for Hindutva forces / BJP / RSS / Swamy, who have come in power at center and in many States by telling the people (especially to Hindu religious leaders / VHP) that Muslims will be removed from disputed site and Ram Mandir will be built without any Masjid at disputed site. Though this letter of Swamy to PM Modi will not bring any such relief to Hindutva forces / BJP / RSS / Swamy but they will not take it easy and will not remain in peace rather will try to make Ram Mandir at disputed site through legislation by making India a theocratic State, the Hindu Rashtra as I mentioned at http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/opinion-details/3333 and which has all the danger of throwing India into huge bloodshed.
- There is only one way out from this impending crisis that is (before any judgment in Ayodhya title suit pending with SCI), Muslims should file writ petition in SCI (otherwise it will be lowering the authority of court which is criminal contempt even on the part of SCI under section 16 of Contempt of Court Act) for legally expected restoration of Status-quo-ante of Babri Masjid which was demolished in 1992 in the presence of Observer of SCI. Also with a prayer in this writ petition that SCI should direct Government of India (GOI) to be ready to requisition UNPKF in case communal Hindutva forces create law & order problem all across the country (if security forces of India can go in other countries for maintaining peace though UNPKF then security forces of other countries can also come in India for maintaining peace through UNPKF).
- This Babri Masjid restoration petition is necessary because it will put burden on SCI to restore Babri Masjid (even with the help of UNPKF if necessary) which SCI will be able to discharge easily because nobody knows later-on in who’s favor title suit will be decided. But after judgment in title suit in favor of Muslims most of the burden for maintaining law & order will be on Union and States Governments (of course with ‘some’ help from SCI) and how much it will be effective is any body’s guess.
Therefore, in the interest of maintaining undisturbed peace in the country the Muslims should uphold the rule-of-law and for this should immediately file a petition in SCI for the restoration of status-quo-ante of Babri Masjid, otherwise the law abiding Indians will never forgive them for endangering the peace & harmony of India.