Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi Judgment is based on Archaelogy and other proofs

The Supreme Court of India's judgment on Ayodhya (delivered on November 9, 2019) relied significantly on archaeological evidence, historical documents, and other records to resolve the centuries-old dispute over the 2.77-acre site in Ayodhya. The judgment allocated the entire disputed land to the Hindu deity Ram Lalla Virajman while allotting an alternative five-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque. Here’s how the court weighed archaeological and other key evidence:

Archaeological Evidence

1. Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) Report:

   • The ASI conducted excavations in 2003 under the court's direction to ascertain the historical nature of the site.
   • The ASI’s report indicated that a large, non-Islamic structure, potentially of religious significance, existed beneath the Babri Masjid site. The structure, with architectural features typical of temples, was dated to the 10th–12th centuries.
   • Pillar bases, architectural fragments, and other artifacts suggested that the structure could have been a Hindu temple, leading the court to conclude there was indeed evidence of a pre-existing non-Islamic structure.

2. ASI’s Conclusion Considered Reliable:

   • The Supreme Court gave considerable weight to the ASI findings, affirming the authenticity of the excavation and report. The court found it crucial that no evidence suggested the remains were of an Islamic origin, reinforcing the Hindu claim to the site.

Historical Accounts and Travelogues

1. Writings by Foreign Travelers:

   • Historical records, including travelogues by writers like William Finch and Joseph Tieffenthaler from the 17th and 18th centuries, recorded the site as a place of worship for Hindus. These documents referenced Hindus’ reverence for Ayodhya as Lord Ram’s birthplace, strengthening the claim of continuous Hindu worship at the site.

2. Colonial and Mughal Records:

   • Records from the British colonial period and Mughal era indicated that both Hindus and Muslims had contested the site. Evidence from these records was cited to illustrate the longstanding and deeply-rooted religious associations.

Faith and Belief of Hindus

• The court took into account the deeply held belief that the disputed location was the birthplace of Lord Ram, recognizing that belief as a significant factor, even if it couldn’t be established scientifically. This belief was acknowledged as a legitimate part of Hindu religious practice.

Observations and Rulings Based on Evidence

1. Continuous Use by Hindus:

   • Based on evidence, including inscriptions, the ASI report, and testimonies about practices on the site, the court concluded that Hindus had uninterruptedly expressed their faith at the site for centuries.

2. Allocation of the Land:

• In light of the ASI’s findings, historical records, and other evidence, the court awarded the entire disputed site to Ram Lalla Virajman, represented by a trust for temple construction.
• The court directed the government to provide an alternative five-acre site to the Sunni Waqf Board for constructing a mosque elsewhere in Ayodhya.

In the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment on the Ayodhya dispute, certain historians and scholars with what were perceived as "leftist" or "secularist" perspectives were criticized for their interpretations and conclusions regarding the historical and archaeological evidence related to the disputed site. The court took issue with some arguments made by these scholars, especially their rejection of a pre-existing Hindu structure beneath the Babri Masjid. Here’s a closer look at how this unfolded:

Key Points in the Allahabad High Court Judgment

1. Critique of Scholars’ Skepticism Toward Hindu Claims:

   • The court observed that some historians argued there was no historical evidence that a temple had ever existed at the site before the Babri Masjid was built. This group, often affiliated with left-leaning academic institutions, disputed the notion that the site had any religious significance for Hindus in ancient times.
   • The court criticized this stance as overly skeptical and, in its view, dismissive of traditional Hindu beliefs and historical claims associated with the site.

2. Archaeological Evidence from the ASI Report:

   • The ASI report from the 2003 excavation revealed evidence of a substantial, non-Islamic structure underneath the Babri Masjid, with features characteristic of Hindu temple architecture. The court found this evidence credible and substantive.
   • The court noted that certain scholars, however, dismissed the ASI findings, questioning the objectivity and methods of the ASI. The judgment specifically addressed these criticisms, expressing concern that some historians ignored or selectively interpreted evidence.

3. Accusations of Ideological Bias:

   • The court expressed the view that the denial of the Hindu temple theory by some historians was driven by ideological bias rather than an impartial reading of the evidence. It suggested that these scholars selectively presented historical narratives that aligned with secular or leftist perspectives, potentially at the expense of a balanced understanding of the site’s history.

4. Historical and Religious Records:

   • The court referred to historical records, including travelogues by foreign travelers and British-era documents, noting that some historians downplayed these sources as inconclusive or irrelevant. However, the court accepted these accounts as valid evidence of the site’s long-standing religious significance to Hindus.

Impact of These Critiques

The Allahabad High Court judgment indicated that it considered these academic positions to be one-sided and not fully reflective of the historical and archaeological record. The court’s criticism of leftist historians became a point of focus in the public discourse surrounding the case, influencing perceptions of bias in historical scholarship related to religious and cultural sites in India.

Subsequent Developments and the Supreme Court’s Stance

When the case moved to the Supreme Court of India, the emphasis was placed primarily on archaeological evidence, historical records, and traditional Hindu beliefs regarding the site. The Supreme Court, in its 2019 judgment, largely bypassed the ideological debates of the Allahabad High Court’s ruling, instead relying on archaeological findings, historical accounts, and evidence of continuous Hindu worship.

In both judgments, however, objective evidence was prioritized over ideological arguments, with the Supreme Court focusing more on tangible archaeological and historical documentation.4o

Importance of Archaeological and Historical Evidence in the Judgment

The Supreme Court emphasized that the ASI’s findings and historical records provided objective evidence crucial to resolving the dispute. Archaeological evidence, bolstered by historical accounts, established a timeline showing Hindu religious association with the site before the mosque’s construction, which played a central role in the court’s decision to allocate the land for a Hindu temple.

This landmark judgment balanced legal precedent with both archaeological and historical evidence, resulting in a ruling intended to be fair and based on facts rather than beliefs alone.

In the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment on the Ayodhya dispute, certain historians and scholars with what were perceived as "leftist" or "secularist" perspectives were criticized for their interpretations and conclusions regarding the historical and archaeological evidence related to the disputed site. The court took issue with some arguments made by these scholars, especially their rejection of a pre-existing Hindu structure beneath the Babri Masjid. Here’s a closer look at how this unfolded:

Key Points in the Allahabad High Court Judgment

1. Critique of Scholars’ Skepticism Toward Hindu Claims:

   • The court observed that some historians argued there was no historical evidence that a temple had ever existed at the site before the Babri Masjid was built. This group, often affiliated with left-leaning academic institutions, disputed the notion that the site had any religious significance for Hindus in ancient times.
   • The court criticized this stance as overly skeptical and, in its view, dismissive of traditional Hindu beliefs and historical claims associated with the site.

2. Archaeological Evidence from the ASI Report:

   • The ASI report from the 2003 excavation revealed evidence of a substantial, non-Islamic structure underneath the Babri Masjid, with features characteristic of Hindu temple architecture. The court found this evidence credible and substantive.
   • The court noted that certain scholars, however, dismissed the ASI findings, questioning the objectivity and methods of the ASI. The judgment specifically addressed these criticisms, expressing concern that some historians ignored or selectively interpreted evidence.

3. Accusations of Ideological Bias:

   • The court expressed the view that the denial of the Hindu temple theory by some historians was driven by ideological bias rather than an impartial reading of the evidence. It suggested that these scholars selectively presented historical narratives that aligned with secular or leftist perspectives, potentially at the expense of a balanced understanding of the site’s history.

4. Historical and Religious Records:

   • The court referred to historical records, including travelogues by foreign travelers and British-era documents, noting that some historians downplayed these sources as inconclusive or irrelevant. However, the court accepted these accounts as valid evidence of the site’s long-standing religious significance to Hindus.

Impact of These Critiques

The Allahabad High Court judgment indicated that it considered these academic positions to be one-sided and not fully reflective of the historical and archaeological record. The court’s criticism of leftist historians became a point of focus in the public discourse surrounding the case, influencing perceptions of bias in historical scholarship related to religious and cultural sites in India.

Subsequent Developments and the Supreme Court’s Stance

When the case moved to the Supreme Court of India, the emphasis was placed primarily on archaeological evidence, historical records, and traditional Hindu beliefs regarding the site. The Supreme Court, in its 2019 judgment, largely bypassed the ideological debates of the Allahabad High Court’s ruling, instead relying on archaeological findings, historical accounts, and evidence of continuous Hindu worship.

In both judgments, however, objective evidence was prioritized over ideological arguments, with the Supreme Court focusing more on tangible archaeological and historical documentation.o

The Allahabad High Court's judgment on the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi dispute was delivered on September 30, 2010. This significant case revolved around a contentious piece of land in Ayodhya, believed by many Hindus to be the birthplace of Lord Ram and historically the site of the Babri Masjid, which was demolished in 1992. The Allahabad High Court’s verdict aimed to settle the decades-long conflict among three main parties:

1. The Nirmohi Akhara (a Hindu religious denomination),
2. The Sunni Waqf Board (representing the Muslim community), and
3. Ram Lalla Virajman (the Hindu deity represented by a legal trustee).

Key Points of the Allahabad High Court Judgment:

1. Three-Way Division of Land: The court ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres:

   • One-third to the Ram Lalla Virajman for the deity’s sanctum.
   • One-third to the Sunni Waqf Board.
   • One-third to the Nirmohi Akhara.

2. Site of Lord Ram’s Birthplace: The court recognized that Hindus believe the central dome of the erstwhile Babri Masjid was the birthplace of Lord Ram. As a result, the section under the main dome was awarded to Ram Lalla Virajman.

3. Legal Validity of Historical Ownership: The judgment included a review of archaeological and historical evidence, with reports from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) suggesting the existence of a structure predating the Babri Masjid, which some interpret as a Hindu temple. However, the judgment did not specifically confirm the existence of a temple but took the ASI report as a significant piece of evidence.

4. Land-Use Restrictions: The court restricted any form of construction or demolition on the site for three months after the judgment to allow the aggrieved parties to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Aftermath and Supreme Court Verdict

Following the Allahabad High Court's decision, appeals were filed in the Supreme Court of India. On November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court delivered its final judgment, overturning the Allahabad High Court’s division of the land. Instead, it awarded the entire disputed land to the deity Ram Lalla Virajman, represented by a trust that was to oversee the construction of a Ram temple. The court ordered that an alternative five-acre plot be allocated to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque.

The Supreme Court’s ruling resolved the legal aspect of this contentious issue, leading to the commencement of the Ram Temple construction in Ayodhya.