Hindu Talibans destroyed Babri, SC told

The Ayodhya title suit hearing witnessed an interesting clash of views in the Supreme Court between the Shia Waqf Board and Sunni Waqf Board on Friday.

The Shia Waqf, which has gone on record with its offer to give one-third portion of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land over to the Hindu faction to the litigation, told a Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that the Shias have decided to donate this piece of land in the interest of peace and harmony in the country. The Shia Board felt that in light of its offer there was no need to set up a Constitution Bench to resolve the dispute.

But the offer became redundant as Sunni Waqf Board has legitimate control over the Babri mosque property. Senior advocate Rajiv Dhavan appeared for Sunni Waqf and submitted that the mosque situated at the disputed land at Ayodhya was demolished by “Hindu Talibans” which cannot be tolerated in a country where Constitution is the civic religion that preserves our democracy and rule of law.

“No faith is given a right under our Constitution to destroy a place of worship and to argue that now that it’s destroyed, you cannot claim a right to pray. The fact that mosque is destroyed does not end our right to pray,” Dhavan argued. With the mosque gone, Sunni Waqf maintained that the right of Muslims to pray does not cease as the fact there existed a mosque forms an essential feature of Muslim faith that needs to be finally decided upon by the Court.

Drawing a parallel with the destruction of Bamiyan statues by the Taliban in Afghanistan, Dhavan said, “It is my view that the mosque (Babri mosque) was destroyed by Hindu Taliban. No faith can justify this destruction.” On the question whether mosque is integral to Muslim faith, Dhavan said that this stray sentence was made in a judgment by apex court in Ismail Farooqui case (1994) which related to acquisition of religious property. But when this comment was relied by the Allahabad HC in the title suit decision, the Muslim side challenged this 24-year old decision.

The Sunni Waqf said that the Hindu side argued that places of Muslim pilgrimage are outside the country and hence a mosque is not essential to the religion. This puts all religious places of Muslims and Christians at risk, said Dhavan.

He further pointed out that UP Government that had kept out of the title suit proceeding before High Court should not be allowed to intervene before SC as well.