The Special CBI Court in Lucknow is currently holding proceedings in the Babri Mosque case and some prominent Hindu politicians have been charged with conspiracy to demolish the mosque in 1992.
First of all, this case demonstrates the limitations of the English language in which the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr PC) and other relevant laws are written. One popular version of English with which most stakeholders are familiar is called by linguist “Hinglish”. This restricts, rather outlaws, the use of other MILs (Modern Indian Languages). Necessarily, while it freely uses Roman expressions and maxims, it attaches no significance to native jurisprudence or doctrines of law. Were it not so, the Babri case should have been decided long ago only if the logo Yato Dharma Tato Jaya had been applied in letter and spirit.
Such usage of the English language has resulted in distortion of the text of charge-sheet and other documents, daily orders and arguments. Had it not been so, the case should not have been about demolition of the Babri Masjid but building (re-construction/restoration) of the Shri Ram Temple, which was demolished by a barbarian Babur’s most barbarian General Mir Baqi.
How can “reconstruction” or “building” be called “demolition”? The real “demolition” was of the temple i.e. the Shri Ram Temple by a brute of a General of Babur, named Mir Baqi, who demolished and destroyed the temple in the year 1528 AD (489 years ago) and constructed a mosque at that place, using the stones and debris of the demolished temple. Was it not an act of horrible barbarity? Does the act of rebuilding of the temple at that site in 1992 sound barbaric in comparison to the inhuman act of Mir Baqi? The Hindu population has long been nursing a very legitimate grouse against the demolition of the temple of Shri Ram, who is worshipped by them and whose precepts regulate the life of the majority of the Hindu population of India, who had been peacefully agitating for decades to restore the Shri Ram Temple at the place where the mosque was raised. But neither governments nor the courts did them any justice. On the contrary, the vote bank politics humiliated them and provoked them regularly by taunting and derogatory expressions amounting to heresy and blasphemy. The Culture minister of the Congress Party had the temerity of calling Shri Ram a fictional character! Other leaders of the Congress and its Mahagathbandhan of some of India’s worst communal and casteist politicians used similar unholy and disrespectful words for Shri Ram or the Hindu community. Had the Hindu been barbarian like Mir Baqi or the Taliban, the matter would have been settled in their way and nobody would have uttered a word against it. Even the courts would have refused to entertain an application.
Having failed to get any relief and redressal of their genuine grievance, the agitated Hindu mobs went into uncontrolled rage and started “damaging” the mosque. The mosque stands there even today. Had it been demolished it would have been razed to the ground as was done to the Shri Ram Temple by Mir Baqi or the Bamiyan Buddha destroyed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Hindu population was attempting to reconstruct, rebuild and restore their ancient temple, which was older than Mir Baqi, Babar & Islam.
The court must correct the wrong English used by the litigants so far. As every ethnic section of the human society has a fundamental right to correct the wrong of the past. Had it not been so, the Prime Minister of Canada would not have asked the Pope this week to apologize to the native population of Canada for the ill treatment meted out to them by the Roman Catholic Church centuries ago. Had it not been so, the British Monarch would not have been asked to apologise to the people of Punjab in the 21st century for the massacre of thousands of innocent people in the Jalianwala Bagh committed by its General Dyer almost a century ago (1919). Had it not been so, the European nations, which committed atrocities on the populations in territories they had colonized in Africa, Asia and elsewhere centuries ago, not apologized to them in this century. The same logic of criminal jurisprudence applies in the case of the Babri Masjid.
Had the descendants of Babar or his General Mir Baqi been alive today, they would have been forced by law to apologise and demolish the mosque to restore the Shri Ram Mandir to its original grandeur. Since their descendants are not known and the petitioners in the case have taken their place voluntarily, they are liable to be sued and should be held responsible and brought to justice for the atrocities and demolition of the Shri Ram Temple by that barbarian of Babur’s General Mir Baqi. The Ansari family and Babri Masjid Committee should be charged with provisions of the criminal laws under which Advani and others have been charged and punished. The Hindu leaders booked erroneously should be discharged immediately in the interests of justice i.e. Yato Dharma Tato Jaya. Clearly, the court has failed to take a holistic view as it has failed to apply the indigenous doctrine of justice embodied in Yato Dharma Tato Jaya and Asatyam Na Bruyate, Satyam Bruyate, Satyamev Jayate, Satyam Pratishtite. The crime was first committed by Babur and Mir Baqi and the 1992 incident was simply a reaction to that barbaric act of an aggressor. The acts of barbarity of Babur and Mir Baqi cannot be legitimized by the Indian judiciary under the provisions of the CrPC, unless they are first applied to the 1528 barbaric act of demolition of the Shri Ram Temple by Mir Baqi. It is the avowed promise of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whose logo says: Yato Dharma Tato Jaya. No court can do any justice in this case unless it adheres to the Supreme Court of India’s Logo “Yato Dharma Tato Jaya” meaning ‘where there is Dharma there is victory’.
‘Satyam’ means Truth and ‘Dharma’ means Justice.
Dharma in absolute terms means justice. It is not religion. This Dharma stands on four strong pillars: never tell untruth, always tell the Truth, Truth always prevails, so respect the Truth. The only purpose of a Justice delivery mechanism is to establish the Truth and thereby promote respect for Truth.
This is Indian indigenous jurisprudence of justice and its delivery mechanism. Looked at with the third eye of wisdom, Dharma will prevail in the Babri case as the Shri Ram Temple is older than Babri Masjid and Dharma is older than the Cr PC. The Court must immediately take action to correct course and do justice to the Hindu population of India.
The communally charged and politically motivated people will think it an exercise in favouring the Hindu community and disfavouring the Muslim community. No, it is not so. The reason is that this line of argument will not be applicable in the case of demolition of a mosque constructed legally on a piece of land and not at the birth place of land encroached upon by destroying a pre-existing temple on it. The Babri Masjid was constructed on the same piece of land on which the Shri Ram Temple had existed and was also called masjid-i-janmasthan. It was later called Babri masjid or Babur’s mosque. I do not know if it is lawful in Islam to call a mosque for prayers to the Almighty as Babur’s mosque rather than Allah’s mosque. The 1992 incident was simply an exercise in regaining control and possession of the land by removing the illegally built structures on it by agitated masses. Can the court demolish it and restore the Janmasthan Mandir in place of the masjid-i-janmasthan?
The charges framed against Lal Krishna Advani & others need to be quashed and they discharged immediately. Ansari and others be charged with criminal misrepresentation of the case to the court and suitably punished unless they tender an apology to the Hindu community for the misdeeds of Babar and his General Mir Baqi immediately.