Pakistan’s Hindu minority lives in mounting fear

PAKISTAN: Hindu minority lives in mounting fear

January 2011 (IRIN) – In a private hospital in the port city of Karachi, a child has just been born. But rather than triggering joy among his family members, the birth has also led to bitter disputes.

The child’s parents wish to give the baby boy a name which will not instantly identify him as Hindu. His maternal grandfather, Suresh Kapoor, 75, disagrees. “We must keep our traditions, our identity or we will be lost,” he said. Other family elders support him but younger members argue safety is a key concern.

Hindus make up about 1.8 percent of Pakistan’s predominantly Muslim population of 165 million, according to official figures. The largest number, about 95 percent, is concentrated in the southern province of Sindh. The Hindu population has declined over the years with more and more, according to media reports, opting to leave the country or become Muslim to avoid discrimination.

Discrimination against all minority communities has expanded rapidly, say oberservers. Early in November, Aasia Bibi, a young Christian mother of five, was sentenced to death by a court under controversial blasphemy laws. She became the first woman to be condemned to hang under the law. The case against her seemed to have been triggered by a minor dispute with other female farm labourers on the land she worked on, after they said she, as a non-Muslim, was `impure’ and could not fetch water from a well.

Human rights groups, including international rights watchdog Human Rights Watch, expressed shock and in an unusual move for a politician, the governor of the Punjab Province, Salman Taseer, went to visit Aasia in jail, expressed sympathy over her plight and criticized the blasphemy law.

In doing so, he may have written his own death sentence. Taseer was gunned down on 3 January in Islamabad by a police bodyguard who then turned himself in and said he had killed the governor as he had described the blasphemy law as a “black law”.

“This is a terrible thing. Everyone should be free to practice their religion. The governor died for defending a poor Christian woman,” Saleem Masih, 30, a Christian factory worker, told IRIN.

Concern has been expressed by human rights groups over increased violence against minorities. The secretary-general of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, I.A. Rehman, said: “This is the result of increased incitement of hatred by extremists and militants.”

Hindus, regarded by many hardline Muslims as especially undesirable infidels since their belief does not include the idea of a single God, have faced especially tough times.

Kidnappings

“These days we Hindus live in fear and with a constant sense of insecurity,” Amarnath Motumal, a Hindu community leader and lawyer, told IRIN. He said one reason for this was the kidnapping of Hindu girls, who were then married to Muslim men and converted to Islam.

“We have no problem of course when a girl aged over 18 chooses to marry a Muslim of her own free will and converts [Islamic laws in force in the country make it mandatory for a Hindu to convert in order to marry a Muslim]. But these kidnappings involve girls who are much younger, and courts have upheld ‘marriages’ of this nature,” he said.

According to Motumal, 10-15 such abductions took place each month in the Lyari locality of Karachi alone. “Many more occur in rural areas of Sindh but not all families want to talk about them,” he said.

In other places kidnappings take place for other reasons. From the southwestern province of Balochistan there have been reports of Hindus being abducted in increasing numbers. Ransom has been sought in some cases, according to media reports.

Motumal believes, however, that in Balochistan, Hindus are being “picked up” by security forces, because they are perceived as backing nationalists in the province who are waging a struggle for autonomy.

“These persons are labelled as Indian agents backing nationalists, even though they have lived in Balochistan for generations and have no links with India,” Motumal said. (India is a Hindu majority country.)

Government ministers have accused neighbouring India, whose relations with Pakistan are tense, of fuelling unrest in Balochistan.

There has also been a spate of kidnappings of Hindu children, usually for ransom. According to a survey by the Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child (SPRC), a local NGO, 23 such abductions took place from between January 2008 and December 2010.

Salam Dharejo, SPRC’s national manager for child labour, believes the fact Hindu communities usually combine resources to pay the money demanded and rescue children makes them vulnerable to such crime.

Lack of trust in law enforcement

“The families of victims do not trust the police and are scared of the criminals as well,” Dharejo said. He told IRIN the kidnappings, and the torture of some of the abducted children, had terrorized the Hindu community. “The Hindus feel helpless. Children are being kept away from even the doors of their homes and in the Hindu locality of Kandhkot town all Hindu children are being kept away from school,” he said.

Ramesh Lala, a member of the National Assembly and a representative of Hindus, told IRIN: “This is the result of a worsening law and order situation in Sindh where kidnappings are becoming more and more frequent. It is not just Hindus who suffer.”

“Being a Hindu mother today is terrifying. I fear my 14-year-old daughter could be taken away, my husband victimized as he sometimes openly speaks out in favour of his religion, or my younger children kidnapped. The police ignore us when we complain, so criminals target us,” said Asha Lal, 40. She said the growth of extremism and laws such as those on blasphemy “led to Hindus and other non-Muslims suffering”.

In May 2008 a Hindu factory worker was killed on blasphemy charges while a year later, Hindus came under attack in the town of Umerkot following another charge of blasphemy.

Hindu temples have also come under attack, bringing angry protests from community leaders.

“All this violence against Hindus began in the 1980s, but lately it has been growing worse. We do not feel safe,” Amarnath Motumal said.

Islamic Fascists Attack Bajrangbali in West Bengal

Bajrangbali attacked in Bengal. Muslim perpetrators find chances to attack Hindu Temples and Saints in the “Change” scenario. Bengal Media indifferent.

Via Link

Seven Critical Lessons From Ayodhya: Varsha Bhosle

Commentary/Varsha Bhosle
Seven lessons from Ayodhya

There’s excitement in the secularist air: The court’s decision to frame charges against senior BJP and VHP leaders in the Babri Masjid demolition case is said to have put the saffron brigade on a defensive. Apparently, the lust for power, along with the influence of the minorities, had moved them to soft-pedal Hindutva, and this raking up of old wounds wrecked all their plans of gaining wider acceptability.

I agree. Last week, BJP spokesman K R Malkani alleged that unknown, unruly elements had infiltrated the kar sevaks and destroyed the mosque to defame the Sangh Parivar. He said that there was celebration in the Pakistan high commission when the destruction occurred — thereby also implying an ISI presence. What a cop-out.

But somehow, [grin] nothing seems to affect Balasaheb Thackeray. For instance, Gulzar Azmi, chief of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema (which had opposed the creation of Pakistan on the basis that it would limit “the glory and sway” of Islam to one area when the whole subcontinent was a sitting duck) exonerated him with, “Bal Thackeray only tried to take credit for the demolition of Babri Masjid. The real culprits are the Congress and the BJP. The Sena leaders only talked about it, while the Congress succeeded in razing the shrine by inciting the BJP”. Tiger with 900 lives…

Mr Azmi almost inspires me to run into the Congress’s arms. Which obviously suggests that I approve of the razing: Typical, knee-jerk divisive-communalist-fundie. But, this is how I felt about it in December 1994: “As I write this on the eve of the second anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition, I still do not comprehend the issue which gave the impetus to Hindus. As supposition, even if I take the VHP’s belief of the Ram Janmabhoomi as the gospel truth, how does it justify the destruction of a masjid? What has the common man gained, and what other ancient, historical monuments are to be brought down while invoking the names of gods? Is the Taj Mahal safe?”

Shocking, eh? What happened in the interim was that I made an effort to comprehend the core issue. Result: I sailed from knee-jerk Hindu defensiveness smack into an aggressive Hindutva awareness. I am not interested anymore if there was a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya or not — actually, I don’t care whether Ram existed or not. The question is not one of history or theology or archaeology or jurisprudence (but if you want me to expand on that, I can). To me, it’s a matter of psychology, period. This is a good time to revisit my mental processes and deliberate on the crime of Hindutvawadis: We will be awash in its ramification for years to come.

In an intellectual clash, it’s futile to be polite when the adversary is intractable; and if he also lacks ethics, it’s absurd to be virtuous. All defense and no attack never did win a war — and the Ram Janmabhoomi affair is nothing but a battle. In an ideological conflict, people must learn to wield the weapons the foe employs. Which, in context, are critiquing the systems of Islam and Marxism (just as they criticise caste, sati, etc), and using their tactics to expose the religious, political and social prejudices which motivate them. Lesson #1: Just as Muslims use the rod of feeling offended if Islam is challenged, it’s alright for Hindus to feel god-damn outraged when Hinduism is.

So, did Ram or the Mandir exist at all? Not if Muslims can verify the authenticity of Abraham’s having built the Qabah. Not if the Al Aqsa mosque of Jerusalem is built over a footprint in rock caused by the Prophet’s having landed rather hard on the ground — after having flown through the heavens on a winged horse. Not if it can be proved that the hair in Hazrat Bal belongs to Mohammed. Point is, the belief that the only true God is Allah is intrinsic to the Hindu-Muslim cleave. Just as Christianity (with its Shroud of Turin and Weeping Virgin icons) pickled the Greek pantheon into a mythology, Islam and Marxism would do the same to Hinduism — and hence their denial of Ram Janmabhoomi. Lesson #2: Take the fight to the opposite camp — let them first establish Islam’s credibility.

Now, did Hindus have the right to appropriate the Babri Masjid in 1949 if it was indeed in use? Once we accept the belief of pre-Parivar Hindus — eg, in an 1858 document, one Muhammad Asghar demands the removal of a platform outside the masjid, complaining that Hindus performed worship there — this is easy-peasy: Internationally (but excluding the pillage by colonial Britain), even stolen art is restored to its original owner, regardless of status quo; and if the buyer should be dead, his descendants are duty-bound to return it. If they don’t, the law forces a restoration — like the litigated ancestral property returned to Native Americans and Australian Aborigines. But if the State refuses to take cognisance, what then? If the original owner has spunk, he finds his own ways to repossess it — like Spain recovered its churches after driving out the Moors. Lesson #3: Reclaiming one’s heritage is normal, customary and desirable — claim the Krishna Janmasthan, too.

Next, couldn’t the dispute be settled amicably in a court of law? Easier said. In October 1990, Imam Bukhari of the Babri Masjid Action Committee declared that if a court ruling went against Muslim demands, an “agitation” against the verdict would be launched. Then, the Muslim Personal Law Board announced: “The Shariat does not allow the shifting or demolition of the Babri Masjid as it has not been built on a temple or illegal land” (Times Of India, 9 December 1990). Then, realising that they’d lose the debate, appended it with: “The law protects it even if built on a temple” (Syed Shahabuddin, Indian Express, 13 December 1990). Why V P Singh scuttled the agreement with the VHP, why the suit of possession was postponed, do Hindus have constitutional rights, is immaterial. Lesson #4: When secularism comes to mean different strokes for different folks, it’s time to cry, “Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain!”

The tricky question is, what justifies the destruction of a house of worship? In a word, nothing. But do not forget that masjids and mandirs are of the same genera — and the first stone was cast down by a Muslim. I once believed that two wrongs don’t make a right — but that was when I confused revenge with redressal and before I grasped the basis of the Mahabharat: Even after the Pandavs offered to cede the whole kingdom save 5 villages, the Kauravs refused to grant them “a speck of land the size of a pinhead”. Upon which, Krishna said that such self-righteousness and intolerance would brook no compromise, that war was inevitable… The VHP had been asking for just “three age-old sacred places” of the thousands converted to mosques — which were to be relocated, not destroyed. Lesson #5: Stop apologising for Hindutva — recognising, confronting and defeating Muslim fanaticism is practical and required.

So what has the common man gained from the demolition? Nothing that our pointy-headed intellectuals who can’t even park their bikes straight will understand. Nothing that our Leninists, for whom the solutions to ALL problems begin and end with roti-kapda-makaan, will grasp. After all, how can the ideologically servile be expected to know the psychological benefits from the effacement of the most offensive symbol of Hindu slavery? I attribute the Hindu society’s negative self-image and utter lack of self-respect to the moral damage wrought by Nehruvians and leftists who have distorted history by projecting marauding conquerors as protectors and Hindu nationalists as villains to, supposedly, “ensure communal harmony”. And look where it led us. Lesson #6: History is not the jahgeer of vested interests — no matter how inconvenient the Truth, it releases: Satyam muktye.

And so to the present predicament: Who demolished the Babri Masjid? In 1990, when Mr L K Advani undertook the Rathyatra to amass support for the bricklaying of the mandir, everywhere, the common devotee’s response was enthusiastic. Meanwhile, in UP, chief minister Mulayam Singh had suspended all public transport, blocked roads, imposed curfews, sealed the borders and arrested Parivaris and kar sevaks after hounding them out from houses. On October 22, Mr Advani was arrested. But on October 30, thousands of kar sevaks defied police cordons and planted flags on the masjid’s domes. Eventually, the police overcame the crowds, arrested thousands and killed between 10 to 50. Human and religious rights exist only for minorities.

And yet, on November 2, the kar sevaks came back in droves. But this time, Mulayam’s police, greatly out-numbered and probably under specific orders, skipped the usual procedures of warning, lathi-charge, tear-gas, firing in the air and shooting in the legs, and fired straight into the crowds. Most of the dead, of whom many were sadhus, had bullet wounds in the head and chest. As usual, the death toll is a matter of dispute; Koenraad Elst writes, “many of the bodies have been carried off in army vans and unceremoniously disposed of in an unknown place.” Press figures vary from 9 to 25, Mulayam says 16, the home ministry claims 30, the BJP cites 168, the VHP alleges 400, and eyewitnesses quote thousands.

Whatever the number — logically, it has to be in hundreds — there has been no badgering for a probe à la the Srikrishna Commission from our tender-hearted intellectuals, who, of course, also support a government with Mulayam as its defence minister: Islamic bricks, too, are more precious than Hindu lives.

So Mr Malkani… who demolished the masjid? Were the people who congregated for kar seva, who faced bullets in the name of Ram, who joined the Rathyatra from Karnataka, all agents of the ISI? Also, unruly or not, the thousands who brought down the structure couldn’t all have been card-holders of the saffron brigade, could they?

Truth is, most were people without political affiliations, bairagis and sadhus too, who had followed their trust in the Ram Janmabhoomi. They were of the stock that had rioted around the Babri Masjid in 1934 when a cow was slaughtered in its vicinity. If at the first shake of the chair, the BJP is Congress enough to turn its back on all that *those* kar sevaks died for, then I turn my back on the BJP. A party without principles is no Hindu party — shape up or ship out. Lesson #7: It was just another election plank, after all.

Pakistan: Hindu temples turned into picnic spots, hotels

Hindus in Pakistan are watching helplessly as ancient temples turn into ruins due to the apathy of authorities, reports Tahir Ali from Islamabad.

Via link

ASI report clinched presence of Temple in Ayodhya issue: Advani

“In its report, the ASI concluded that the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure ”are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of North India.”

ASI report clinched crucial aspect of Ayodhya issue: Advani
New Delhi | Sunday, Oct 10 2010

Terming as the ”crucial aspect of the Ayodhya issue” the question whether a Hindu temple existed at the site prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid, veteran BJP leader L K Advani today said the issue had been clinched by the Archaeological Survey Report which said the remains there indicated existence of a temple. Writing in his blog, Mr Advani said in 1993, the Central Government had sought an opinion from the Supreme Court, as part of the advisory role that Article 143 of the Indian Constitution has entrusted to the apex court. It was ”whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?” He said, ”This provision gives the Supreme Court the discretion, if it is so inclined, to decline giving an opinion. In this case, it actually did so decline. But in the process it became very clear what government regards as the most crucial aspect of this controversy.” Mr Advani said the Allahabad High Court took cognizance of the above mentioned Reference made by then President Shanker Dayal Sharma under Article 143 to the Supreme Court. The court felt it would be appropriate to ask the ASI to analyse the crucial question posed by the Centre first by a Ground Penetrating Radar survey and, thereafter by excavation.

After the radar survey showed up some anomalies, the High Court directed the ASI to undertake excavations.

In its report, the ASI concluded that the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure ”are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of North India.” Mr Advani said, ”At least in so far as the High Court judgment is concerned the clincher has been the Report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). This is a Report very painstakingly produced on the directions of the High Court itself.” His observations on the issue has come even as many parties like the Left and some sections of the minority community have alleged that the court verdict had given precedence to faith over evidence.

In his blog, Mr Advani said though the Supreme Court declined to answer the reference by the Central government in 1993, it recorded in its ruling that the Court had asked the Solicitor General ”to take instructions and put in writing the Central Government’s position in this behalf”.

”The Supreme Court has said: ”On 14th September, 1994, the learned Solicitor General made the following statement in response : Government will treat the finding of the Supreme Court on the question of fact referred under Article 143 of the Constitution as a verdict which is final and binding.

In the light of the Supreme Courts opinion and consistent with it, Government will make efforts to resolve the controversy by a process of negotiations. Government is confident that the opinion of the Supreme Court will have a salutary effect on the attitudes of the communities and they will no longer take conflicting positions on the factual issue settled by the Supreme Court.

If efforts at a negotiated settlement as aforesaid do not succeed, Government is committed to enforce a solution in the light of the Supreme Courts opinion and consistent with it, Governments action in this regard will be even-handed in respect of both the communities. If the question referred is answered in the affirmative, namely, that a Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished structure, Government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community. If, on the other hand, the question is answered in the negative, namely, that no such Hindu temple structure existed at the relevant time, then Government action will be in support of the wishes of the Muslim community.”

— (UNI) —

Ayodhya: Muslim Argument Examined

Ayodhya: Muslim Argument Examined Arun Shourie

via Link

Destruction Of Thousands Of Hindu Temples By Muslims – Literary and Epigraphic Evidence

The following section is taken from the chapter Hindustan ki Masjidein (The mosques of India) of the above mentioned book. Here we can see a brief description of few important mosques in India and how each one of them was built upon plundered Hindu temples.

Qawwat al-Islam Mosque at Delhi: “According to my findings the first mosque of Delhi is Qubbat al-Islam or Quwwat al_Islam which, Qutubud-Din Aibak constructed in H. 587 after demolishing the hindu temple built by Prithvi Raj and leaving certain parts of the temple outside the mosque proper; and when he returned from Ghazni in H. 592 he started building, under orders from Shihabud -Din Ghori, a huge mosque of inimitable red stones, and certain parts of the temple were included in the mosque…”

The Mosque at Jaunpur: “This was built by Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi with chiselled stones. Originally it was a Hindu temple after demolishing which he constructed the mosque. It is known as the Atala Masjid..”

The Mosque at Qanauj: “It is well known that this mosque was built on the foundations of some Hindu temple that stood here. The mosque was built by Ibrahim Sharqi in H. 809 as is recorded in Gharbat Nigar”

Read Link

Disputed site in Ayodhya is Ram’s birthplace, high court verdict

Historical Basis Of Ramayana – Lokvani

Ayodhya Verdict: Read the full judgment  Link

High Court of Allahabad: Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid Judgement   Link

Disputed land in Ayodhya Ram’s birthplace, but split it: High Court

Umesh Raghuvanshi & Ajaay Singh, Hindustan Times

Lucknow, September 30, 2010

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya where a makeshift temple was built after razing the Babri mosque in 1992 was Lord Ram’s birthplace. However, it ruled that the land be split among three contesting parties equally.

U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma delivered a split verdict in 60-year old Ayodhya title suit filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board. The majority of the bench ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya was a joint property, held by all the three claimants namely Hindu Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Waqf Board.

The majority also ruled that the central dome of the disputed structure, where idols of Lord Ram are presently kept in the makeshift temple, be allotted to Hindus. Justice Khan ruled that the mosque was built by Babar, not by demolishing a temple, but on the ruins of a temple.

Justice Sharma categorically rejected the claim of Sunni Central Waqf Board and has ruled that the ‘disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama’.

However, the entire bench was of the view that the central dome of the disputed structure goes to Hindu Mahasabha, where idols were installed in 1949 and again in 1992 after the demolition of the Babri Mosque. The sita rasoi and ram chabootara have been given to Nirmohi Akhara.

The judges said that none of the litigants would take any action on the land for the next three months.

“We are party disappointed. We will approach the Supreme Court,” Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Zafaryab Jillani told reporters.

Lawyers K N Bhat and Ravi Shankar Prasad, who represented two of the Hindu litigants, announced to reporters that the bench had decided that Lord Ram was born where the Babri mosque was built.

“All the three judges, including S U Khan, are unanimous in accepting that the idol of Ram cannot be removed from the place where it is installed right now,” said lawyer and BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad in Lucknow after the court verdict.

The bench invited suggestions from all the parties for demarcation of the land.

The bench delivered the verdict in court no 21, where entry of only 47 persons including the litigants and their counsels was allowed. The High Court had been totally fortified. Uttar Pradesh almost came to a virtual halt at 3.30 p.m., when the historical judgment was being delivered.

WHAT THE JUDGES SAID

Justice S U Khan

“Disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belong to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque, but it was constructed on the ruins of the temple or some of its material was used in the construction of the mosque.”

Justice Sudhir Agarwal

” It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janma Sthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiff- Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman. and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants, Rajendra Singh and others.”

Justice Dharam Veer Sharma

” The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama. Disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain, but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus it cannot have the character of a mosque. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The ASI has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23 December 1949.”

History of Ayodhya Temple-Babri Masjid Dispute

History of Ayodhya Temple-Masjid Dispute
Thursday, September 23, 2010

The decades long Ayodhya dispute revolves around the claim over the land in Ayodhya, which is considered scared by Hindus as it is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram while Muslims seek to defend the Babri Masjid at the site.

Hindus believe that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Lord Ram, one of the avatars of Lord Vishnu. The land is, therefore, considered sacred and befitting the profile of a holy pilgrimage spot.

The communal tension over the land took root in the construction of the Babri Masji, by Muslim emperor Babur, who in 1527 defeated the Hindu King of Chittorgarh, Rana Sangram Singh at Fatehpur Sikri.

The king left his general, Mir Banki as the Viceroy of the region. Mir Banki, who enforced Mughal rule over the population, came to Ayodhya in 1528 and built the Mosque.

There are claims that when the Mosque built, the Ram temple at Ayodhya was either demolished or modified largely.

Over the years, Hindus have sought to reclaim the ‘Ram Janmabhoomi’ while Muslims have sought to defend the Babri Masjid.

Growth of dispute over the years

According to literature dating back to 1987, before the 1940s the mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan (‘mosque on birthplace’) by Indian Muslims

1947 – A Government order prohibited Muslims from being around the site (at least 200 yards). The main gate was locked. However, Hindu pilgrims allowed to enter through a side door.

1984 – The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) started a campaign to reclaim the site for Hindus so that a temple dedicated to the infant Ram (Ramlala) could be erected.

1989 – Allahabad High Court passed an order that the main gates should be opened up and restored the site to Hindus for eternity.

But the communal discord re-erupted when the Hindus intented to make modifications of the Islamic style structure built by General Mir Banki.

When they inaugurated the proposed new grand Temple with Government permissions, unrest erupted across India as the Muslim community was against this.

This is when Government moved the court, turning the dispute sub-judice

1992 – The dispute took a rather ugly turn on Dec 6, 1992 when the Babri Masjid was demolished during a political rally. This led to riots in which over 2000 were killed.

Ten days after the Babri Masjid demolition, the Liberhan commission was set up to probe the circumstances that led to the demolition.

2003 – On the order of the High Court, the the Archaeological Survey of India carried out excavation at the disputed site of Rama Janmabhumi – Babri Masjid from 12 Mar, 2003 to 7 Aug, 2003. The study reportedly found evidences of an ancient temple.

A 574-page report with maps, drawings as well as opinions was presented before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court in Aug 2003.

Based on the archaeological evidence the the ASI report noted that the remains had distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India and said that there was sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50×30 metres in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure.

2005 – On July 5, 2005, five terrorists attacked the site of the makeshift Ramlalla temple, in Ayodhya.

All the five terrorists were killed in the ensuing gunfight with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), guarding the area. The attack claimed life of one civilian, who died in a grenade blast that the terrorists triggered to breach a cordon wall.

2009 – In Nov 2009, some of the findings of the Liberhan commission was leaked to the media. These leaked reports indicted Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders like LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi.

2010 – On Sep 24, 2010, the Allahabad High Court was slated to give its verdict on the Ayodhya title suit on ownership of the disputed land. On the eve of the judgement, the Supreme Court deferred the verdict by a week on a deferment plea and scheduled hearing of the postponement petition on Tuesday, Sep 28.

Some important observations/ chronicles prior to Indian independence:

As early as 1767, Joseph Tieffenthaler, a Jesuit priest, recorded in his French works that were Hindus worshipping and celebrating Ramanavami at the site of the mosque. In 1788, he recorded that Emperor Aurangzeb demolished the fortress called Ramkot to establish a Mahometan temple.

Even till 19th century, there have been chronicles of Hindus worshipping Ram at the Ramkot hill.

P Carnegy wrote in ‘A Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad’, 1870, “It is said that up to that time (referring to the the Hindu-Muslim clashes in the 1850), the Hindus and Mohamedans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple.

“Since the British rule a railing has been put up to prevent dispute, within which, in the mosque the Mohamedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.”

While passing an order over the issue in March 1886, the Faizabad District Judge, Col F E A Chamier, observed:

“I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the Masjid built by Emperor Babar stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west and south it is clear of habitations. It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to agree with the grievances.”

OneIndia News

Hyderabad Riots – Shocking Visuals of Shiv Mandir Cow Shelter Set On Fire By Islamic Terrorists

 

Link to video here