• Home
  • About Us
  • Events
  • Submissions
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • NewsVoir
  • Newswire
  • Nasheman Urdu ePaper

Nasheman

India's largest selling Urdu weekly, now also in English

  • News & Politics
    • India
    • Indian Muslims
    • Muslim World
  • Culture & Society
  • Opinion
  • In Focus
  • Human Rights
  • Photo Essays
  • Multimedia
    • Infographics
    • Podcasts
You are here: Home / Archives for Ayodhya

Book Excerpt: The history of December 6, 1992: How Rama appeared inside the Babri Masjid

December 6, 2014 by Nasheman

On December 23, 1949,the Ayodhya Police filed an FIR following the planting of the idol of Rama in Babri Masjid the night before. It named Abhiram Das as the prime accused. The secret story of what happened.

Ayodhya The Dark Night

by Krishna Jha and Dhirendra K. Jha

11 pm, 22 December 1949. Moments before Abhiram Das stood at the threshold of the temple at Ramghat, Ayodhya slept in peace. Although it was barely eleven in the night, the township, located at the edge of Faizabad, had passed into deep slumber. The night was cold, and a layer of still air covered Ayodhya like a blanket. Feeble strains of Ramakatha wafted in from the Ramachabutara. Perhaps the devotees keeping the story of Lord Rama alive were getting tired and sleepy. The sweet murmur of the Sarayu added to the deceptive calm.

The temple at Ramghat on the northern edge of Ayodhya was not very old. The initiative to erect it had been taken just a decade ago. But the enthusiasm did not appear to have persisted, and the construction had been halted halfway. The structure remained small in size and the absence of the desperately required final touches made it look crude but for the grand, projecting front facade and the rooms on both sides of the garbhagriha. In the backyard was a mango grove, unkempt, untended. About a kilometre away, River Sarayu, the lifeline of Ayodhya, flowed along with sandy stretches on both sides of its shoreline.

Abhiram Das stumbled as he climbed the half-built brick steps, lost in the shadows of the dimly lit lamp hanging on the wall, but recovered and entered the side room of the temple. The Ramghat temple was the prized possession of Abhiram Das, who himself lived a kilometre away in a one-room tenement that formed part of the complex of Hanumangarhi, a fortress-like structure in the heart of Ayodhya. Within the precincts of its imposing walls, there was an old, magnificent temple dedicated to Lord Hanuman. The circular bastions on each of the four corners of Hanumangarhi enhanced its structural elegance and artistic grandeur. Around the fortress and as part of the complex, there were rooms for sadhus, a Sanskrit pathshala and a huge, narrow stretch, where there was a gaushala, beside which Abhiram Das lived, close to the singhdwar of Hanumangarhi.

That, however, was only a night shelter for him. In his waking hours, Abhiram Das had innumerable engagements, and the temple at Ramghat always figured prominently among them. Not just because it was under his control, but because it housed his three younger brothers and four cousins, most of whom were enrolled with the Sanskrit pathshala in Hanumangarhi. Two of his cousins, Yugal Kishore Jha and Indushekhar Jha, as well as Abhiram’s younger brother, Upendranath Mishra, were students of Maharaja Intermediate College in Ayodhya. Abhiram Das’s relatives lived in the rooms adjacent to the garbhagriha and survived on offerings made by devotees to Lord Rama. They cooked for Abhiram as well. Thrice a day, they would carry his food to his room, braving the scorching sun in summer, icy winds in winter, and downpours during the rainy season. Abhiram’s closeness to his extended family was unexpected in a sadhu. The ascetic in him often cautioned against such human weaknesses, but it had always been beyond him to transcend them.

Yet, visiting Ramghat temple that night was not part of his original plan as he set out to install the idol of Lord Rama inside the sixteenth-century mosque. Nor were his brothers and cousins used to seeing him at this odd hour in his second home. For, like any other sadhu, he was in the habit of going to bed and getting up early.

Indeed, it was awkward for Abhiram Das too. He had to change his original plan owing to the sudden disappearance of his friend Ramchandra Das Paramhans, who was supposed to accompany him in his surreptitious mission…

…According to the plan, Paramhans was to arrive at the Hanumangarhi residence of Abhiram Das by 9 pm, after his meal. They were to go together to the Babri Masjid, where another sadhu, Vrindavan Das, was to join them with an idol of Lord Rama. The trio was then supposed to go inside the sixteenth-century mosque, plant the idol below its central dome and keep the deserted place of worship under their control till the next morning when a larger band of Hindu communalists would pour in for support. They had been strictly instructed that their entry into the mosque had to be completed at any cost before midnight – the time when there would be a change of guard at the gate of the mosque.

Every detail had been planned meticulously, and everything seemed to be moving accordingly, till Ramchandra Das Paramhans vanished from the scene. Forty-two years later, when none of those involved in planting the idol was alive to contradict him, Paramhans sought to appropriate history. “I am the very man who put the idol inside the masjid,” Paramhans declared in a news report that appeared in the New York Times on 22 December 1991.

However, on that fateful night of 1949 and for a few days thereafter, Paramhans went missing from the scene in Ayodhya. Indushekhar Jha who, together with Yugal Kishore Jha, followed Abhiram Das into the mosque, had this to say about Paramhans: “I saw Paramhans in the evening [of 22 December 1949]. Thereafter, he was not seen in Ayodhya for [the] next three days. Yet it was he who took maximum advantage from that incident.”

Nor did Awadh Kishore remember seeing Ramchandra Das Paramhans in the mosque early next morning when curiosity led him to the spot as early as 5 am. Awadh Kishore recalled what his elder brother, Yugal Kishore Jha, had told him many years later:

“Baba Abhiram Das and Paramhans used to be together most of the time during the months before the installation of the idol. I was therefore surprised not to see him in the Babri Masjid early next morning [on 23 December 1949] when I reached the spot. Later, I asked Yugal Babu about this puzzle. He told me that Baba Abhiram Das was shocked when Paramhans disappeared on the night of 22 December because the original plan was that they would go inside the mosque together and carry out their secret mission.”

There is no precise evidence to suggest exactly where Ramchandra Das Paramhans went that evening. Many senior residents of Ayodhya as well as Awadh Kishore believe that on the evening of 22 December, without informing Abhiram Das, he left town to attend the three-day conference of the All India Hindu Mahasabha that was scheduled to begin on 24 December in Calcutta. As for the reason for his sudden decision to leave Ayodhya and participate in the conference instead of accompanying Abhiram Das, nothing can be said for sure except that he may have been apprehensive of the consequences of the act. On his part, Ramchandra Das Paramhans, after having taken credit in 1991 for installing the idol inside the Babri Masjid, preferred to remain silent on the issue till his death in 2003.

Back in those uncertain moments of 1949, Abhiram Das waited at his Hanumangarhi residence for Ramchandra Das Paramhans till around 10 p.m., after which he left in search of his friend. Paramhans lived in a temple in the Ramghat locality of Ayodhya. It was quite close to the one inhabited by Abhiram Das’s brothers and cousins. But Paramhans was not to be found there. This made Abhiram rather less confident of accomplishing the task he had set out for. The strength he had was that of faith, without any rationale to go with it. But as the moment approached, the magnitude of the job, as well as its possible repercussions unfolded with a clarity that was missing till then.

Wanting to prepare for any eventuality, he decided to give appropriate instructions to his brothers and cousins at the temple in Ramghat before proceeding on his journey towards the Babri Masjid…


With so much force did Abhiram Das enter the room that his cousin Awadh Kishore Jha felt that it was some wild animal blundering inside. He recounted later:

“I lay in my bed trying to understand [what was going on]. He tried to appear confident as ever, but he looked badly shaken. A few days later, I got to know the reason. The disappearance of Ramchandra Das (Paramhans) had shaken and scared him as never before. Abhiram Das looked completely different that night. It was not that he had changed, but that some new feature had unfolded itself in his character. I had always seen him as a 100 per cent confident man. It was around 11 p.m. [on 22 December 1949]. He ordered us all to get up.”

While the occupants of the room were getting out of bed, Abhiram Das kept pacing up and down, quivering – apparently with the strength of the emotions stirring within him. In one hand, he held the long bamboo staff, while the other instinctively fumbled with the beads in the mala-jhola.

As they got up, he asked his younger brother Upendranath Mishra to hold the hand of Yugal Kishore Jha, the eldest of his cousins there, and said, “Listen to me carefully. I am going and may never return. If something happens to me, if I don’t return till morning, Yugal will be my successor and in charge of this temple.” Yugal Kishore Jha pulled his hand back and stared at him incredulously. “What on earth are you up to, maharaj?”

But Abhiram Das said nothing, nor did he look at anyone. Having put the succession issue in order, he was ready to resume his mission. He rushed out of the room and then the temple, and with rapid strides, dissolved into the darkness. His cousins Yugal Kishore Jha and Indushekhar Jha followed him, completely clueless about what was happening.

It took them hardly ten minutes to reach the spot. As they approached the open area near the Ramachabutara, another vairagi emerged from the dark corner of the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid. It was Vrindavan Das, a Ramanandi vairagi of the Nirvani Akhara, who lived in a thatched hut near the gate of the sixteenth-century mosque. A heavy cotton bag hung from his shoulder, and there was a small idol of Rama Lalla in his hands.

Abhiram Das took the idol from Vrindavan Das and grasping it with both his hands, walked past him – as if he were not there – towards the wall that separated the inner courtyard around the Babri Masjid from the outer courtyard that contained the Ramachabutara. Vrindavan Das tried to ask him something in whispers, but Abhiram Das, appearing calmer now, once again took no notice of him.

Abhiram Das stood at the end of the pathway close to the inner courtyard, staring at the walls – his sole hurdle. Then, apparently addressing Vrindavan Das, he said, “Maharaj …”

Vrindavan Das said nothing, just moved closer to him, eager not to miss any word of instruction that might come his way.

“Maharaj,” said Abhiram Das again, this time coaxingly. He turned his head to look at him and said, “Follow me.” With these words, he held the idol firmly and began climbing the wall. Soon, he was straddling it.

Excerpted with permission from Ayodhya: The Dark Night ‒ The Secret History of Rama’s Appearance in Babri Masjid, by Krishna Jha and Dhirendra K. Jha, Harper-Collins India.

Filed Under: Books Tagged With: Abhiram Das, Ayodhya, Ayodhya The Dark Night, Babri Masjid, Book Excerpt, Books, Dhirendra K Jha, Krishna Jha, Rama, Ramachabutara

What did Babri demolition leave behind?

December 6, 2014 by Nasheman

babri-masjid

by Mujeeb Vallapuzha

Every year, Dec 6 is a reminder how the Babri Masjid demolition ripped apart communal coexistence in India. The communal violence that followed the demolition shows how the disaster has polarized the communities in India and, in retrospect, how it has represented a particular religion – Islam – and its followers in a extremely negative light to its other inhabitants.

The composite nature of Indian society, which is known for its religious diversity and communal plurality, was ruptured at the dawn of its independence, which witnessed a nightmarish bifurcation on religious lines; the Babri episode further antagonized the communities. The continued religious violence since is merely an extension of that momentous event. Since the perpetrators of the demolition – the Hindu right-wing forces – have gone largely unpunished, it has further emboldened the fringe groups encouraging them to operate with impunity both under the erstwhile centrist and the current right-wing government. Inter-community conflict has become a more pervasive national phenomenon since the demolition.

Even after 22 years, what makes Babri demolition a dreadful memory is the way it has redefined religious coexistence in the country. The communal polarization has unleashed unprecedented attacks against Indian Muslims.

Following the demolition, places such as Delhi, Bhopal, Kanpur, Bombay, Ahmadabad, and Surat became cauldrons of communal resentment. B.N. Srikrishna Commission Report, compiled after the Bombay Riots, had also pointed out how these communal conflagrations vilified the Muslim community.

Despite the fact that the the Babri demolition was purportedly sponsored by a handful of fascist terror outfits that made the Muslim community all over India feel insecure and threatened the secular fabric of the country, the Muslim community was widely portrayed in the Indian Mass media as foreign invaders and advocates of terrorism. The media completely elided the role of extremist Hindu outfits that were behind the real destruction and mayhem.

What made such a terror campaign acceptable was the fact that the demolition and riots could be used as a political trump card by almost all the political parties. The passions over Ramjanmabhoomi issue were not only employed to distort Indian history but to rouse Hindutva fervor among the people, which manufactured a view of Islam as a belligerent opponent to Hindutva. In short, the demolition of Babri Masjid reversed the story of Hindutva consolidation by presenting Islam and Muslims as the real culprits. It led to an irreversible negative image of Islam and Indian Muslims in the public sphere.

The disaster marked a loss of faith and hope in democratic principles in the country. It ripped open the scars of Partition, engendering a feeling of insecurity among Indian Muslims. Consequently, this feeling of insecurity was exploited by certain vested interests which lured some of the youth from the community into terrorist and anti-national activities, further reinforcing the view that Muslims are prone to violence. Following the demolition, no efforts were made to alleviate the fears and insecurities of the Muslim community.

What Indian Muslims would like to see is not a reopening of those wounds but a restoration of peace and harmony. On this anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition, one hopes that the Indian state once again restores values of secularism and communal coexistence.

However, catharsis is possible only when we remember those moments of despair and devastation.

Mujeeb Vallapuzha is a lecturer at Abdullah Educational Academy, Kerala, India.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Ayodhya, Babri Masjid, BJP, Communalism, Hindutva, Indian Muslims, L K Advani, RSS

Timeline of Babri Masjid case

December 6, 2014 by Nasheman

babri-masjid

1528: The Babri Masjid built by Mir Baqi, a nobleman of Babur’s court

1855: The Hanumangarhi episode. Hindu-Muslim conflict as a consequence of an attempt by Muslims under the leadership of Shah Gulam Hussain to oust the Hindu Bairagis from the Hanumangarhi temple on the grounds that the temple had supplanted the mosque. The Muslims were deafeated. The dispute was not over the Babri Masjid.

1857: Soon after the Revolt, the Mahant of Hanumangarhi takes over a part of the Babri Masjid compound and constructs a chabutra.

30 Nov 1857: Maulvi Muhammad Asghar of the Masjid submits a petition to the magistrate complaining that the Bairagis have built a chabutra close to mosque ( similar complaints are made in 1860, 1877, 1883 and 1884)

1859: The British Government erects a fence to seprate the places of worship of the Hindus and the Muslims. The Hindus are to enter from the East gate and the Muslims from the North.

1885:

29th January: The Mahant files a suit to gain legal title to the land in the mosque and for permission to construct a temple on the chabutra.

24th December: The Mahant’s suit and appeals are dismissed. His claim for the proprietorship of the land in the compound of the Masjid in also dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner.

1886:

25th May: The Mahant appeals again to the highest court in the province.

1st November: The Judicial Commissioner dismissed the Mahant’s appeal again.

1936: An inquiry conducted by the then Commissioner of waqf’s under the UP Muslim Waqf Act, and it is held that the Babri Masjid was built by Babur who was a Sunni Muslim.

1949:

22-23rd December: In the night of an idol of Rama was installed by the Hindus inside the mosque. The Government proclaims the premises as disputed area and locks the gates.

1950:

16th January: A suit is filed by Gopal Singh Visharad in the court of the Civil Judge, Faizabad, praying that he is entitled to worship in the Ramjanmabhumi.

24th April: The District Collector of Faizabad, J.N. Ugra, files  a statement in court that the property in suit has been in use as a mosque and not as a temple.

1951:

3rd March: The Civil Judge orders that the idols should remain. The High Court confirms this order on 26 April 1955.

1961:

18 December: The first civil suit by Muslims is filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board for the delivery of the possession of the mosque by the removal of the idols and other artices of Hindu worship.

1984:

7 and 8 April: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) sponsored Dharma Sansad in a session at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi gives  call to liberate the Ramjanamabhumi.

To create national awareness in support of the liberation of the Bhumi the VHP organizes a rath-yatra of Sri Rama Janaki Virajman on a motorized chariot from Bihar 25 Sept 1984 to reach Ayodhya on 6 October 1984. But Indira Gandhi’s assassination later that month leads to a suspension of the yatra.

1986: Umesh Chandra Pandey files an application in the court of the munsif seeking the removal of the restrictions on the puja. The application is turned down.

1st February: K.M. Pandey, District Judge, Faizabad, orders the opening of the locks to the Hindu for worship. The Muslim community is not allowed to offer any prayers.

March: The Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) is formed. This is followed by a countrywide Muslim ‘mourning’.

12th May: The Sunni Central Waqf Board files a writ petition against the District Judge’s order.

1987:

11 December: The State of Uttar Pradesh applies to the Allahabad High Court that the hearing of the two writ petitions be deferred and the four civil suits be withdrawn from the court of munsif sadar and tried by the High Court.

March: At New Delhi’s Boart Club three lakh Muslims gather to demand handing over the Babri Masjid.

April: The Hindus gather at Ayodhya to pledge the liberation of the shrine.

1988:

December: The Babri Masjid Action Committee splits to form Babri Masjid Movement and the BMAC.

1989:

November: The Shilanyas is held at Ayodhya on 9th Novemeber and the foundation of the temple is laid next day. The plinth is dug 192 feet away from the mosque.

On 11th November the VHP leaders declare that the construction of the temple is being deferred and it would be decided in January 1990.

December: A coalition of the Janata Dal, the Bhartiya Janata Party and the Communist Party of India forms the Government at the the Centre after the general elections.

1990:

15 February: The new government constitutes a committee to talk to the various groups and find an amicable solution.

October: A rath-yatra, from Somnath to Ayodhya led by the BJP leaders start.

The BJP withdraws support to the Janata Dal Governmet.

In the Shilanyas procession and the kar seva on 30th October performed amidst tight security, several people are killed and injured in the police action.

November: The BJP and the VHP decided to resume the Kar seva on 6thDecember.

8th December: An attempt to blow up the structure by Suresh Kumar was made, which was foiled.

28th February 1991: Intelligence Bureau perceived imminent threat to Babri Masjid and sent a security plan.

26th June 1991: Kalyan Singh assuemed Chief Minister office in UP.

10th July 1991: The UP government under the garb of promoting tourism and providing amenities for the visitors; acquired 2.77 acres of land in front of disputed structure.

1st October 1991: VHP proposed a Bajrang Maha Rudra Yagya from 1st Oct to November. On 31st October, Karsevaks climbed the domes of the disputed structure by jumping over the security cardons. They were removed from there along with their flags.

2nd Nov 1991:  In a meeting of the National Integration Council, Kalyan Singh gave an assurance

” as regards the disputed structure I want to make it clear that I assured you the entire responsibility of the protection of the disputed structure in ours. We should be vigilant about the disputed structure. We have strengthened the arrangements for its protection. Now nobody will be able to go there. No incident would be allowed to be repeated when three person climbed on the top of the dome. I want to convey this assurance to you through this council. Overall, it is our clear submission regarding the court; we will abide by the order given by the court. We do not want to do anything by violating its order”

30the December 1991: Road barriers were removed from the feeder roads leading to the disputed structure. Removal of barrier allowed freedom of movement to the larger member of public visiting the disputed structure. Barbed wires and barriers,especially those immediately behind the disputed structure, were removed on or about 2nd of January 1992.

17th Feb 1992: Construction by UP government of the security wall know as Ram Dewar measuring 8 to 10 feet in height, on the three sides of acquired land at Ayodhya including the disputed structure commenced. An overall impression was created that construction of Ram Dewar was a major step taken for construction of temple by the state.

4th May 1992: Barbed wire, concertina rolls and iron pipe barricades were removed from western, eastern and southern sides and from the road outside the complex.

11th July 1992: Ministry of Home Affairs pointed out as man as 12 serious security lapses and deficiencies.

13 to 15th July 1992: S.B. Chavan the Home Minister of India informed the Lok Sabha that UP government had violated the court’s order. The Supreme Court aked for the details as to whether any permanent construction had been made etc. The High Court directed construction to be stopped. The administration however failed to implement this order although it proclaimed to have made attempts to implement it.

23rd August 1992: K alyan Singh in spite of being Chief Minsiter declared that ” If the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to Ram temple would be against the emotion of Hindus, we will make a separate law for the construction of temple”

September 1992: It was announced that Charan Paduka Puja would commence from 26th of September and go on till the 25th November. Sadhus would carry Charan Paduka to 6,00,000 villages for recruiting 60,00,000 Karsevaks. Karsevaks recruited were required to swear an oath that they would not return from Ayodhya before the construction of temple was complete.

October 1992: Commissioner SP Gaur Faizabad was of the perception that the call for Karseva given by VHP was for construction of temple on 2.77 acres acquired land and at the disputed site. He sought appropriate directions for security of the disputed structure in view of these changed circumstances. A reminder was sent by him on the 14th October.

An assurance was given by the state to the Supreme Court that no construction would be carried out in the acquired land.

Bal Thackeray took a decision on 25th October 1992 to participate in the Karseva. It was announced that this was not going to be a mere symbolic Karseva, but the actually Karseva at the spot by construction of temple.

On 29th October, the negotiations collapsed.

VHP called and organized a meeting of the Dharam Sansad on the 30th October for deciding the future course of action. Sants wanted the Prime Minister to hand over the disputed structure to Hindus. Acharya Dharmendra Dev Stated that he had already decided the 6th December 1992 for the Karseva, which decision was later approved by all sadhus.

November 92: The Chief Minister refused to associate the CRPF or the Intelligence Bureau in reviewing the security, asserting that State Government was competent to secure the disputed structure.

On 1st November, the Prime Minister had assured the AIBMAC that the government would not allow karseva and that the law would take its own course.

On 3rd November, A K Saran formed the opinion that approximately 1,50,000 karsevaks would be coming to Ayodhya on the 6th of December and therefore wrote to DIG Faizabad asking him to make arrangements for security, crowd management and traffic management.

The Allahabad High Court, concluded hearing the challenges to the acquisition on 4th November, and reserved judgment. The judgment was slated to be pronounced on the 29th November but was later postponed to the 5thDecember and to the 11th December. It was finally pronounced on the 12th of December 1992.

The BJP and RSS suspended all other programmes with effect from 15thNovember in order to clear the decks for the 6th December.

In the absence of the Prime Minister, to take stock of the situation Cabinet Committee meeting of Arjun Singh, Sharat Pawar and SB Chavan took place on 20th and 26th of November 1992. By now, the number of Karsevaks likely to come to Ayodhya was estimated to be 4 to 5 lakhs.

It was reported in media that the IB had, in its dispatches dated 22nd of November, stated that the Sangh intended to demolish the structure.

In view of the threat perception the Central Government had, by the 24th of November stationed 195 companies of paramilitary forces around Ayodhya. The Chief Minister on the 25th November objected and protested against the stationing of forces at Ayodhya and demanded the withdrawal.

The Supreme Court invited an assurance from the VHP leaders and the State Government to the effect that no construction of either permanent or temporary nature would take place.

On the 28th November, the UP Government undertook to comply with the court’s order dated 25th of November, to the effect that no construction of permanent or temporary nature would take place, though to assuage the religious feeling of Ram Bhakts, construction at some other place would take place.

VHP leaders Chinmayanad and Vijay Raje Scindia filed affidavits in the Supreme Court undertaking that neither any construction would be done nor any construction material would be carried in the Ram Janam Bhoomi Babri Masjid complex. They accepted that the Karseva would only be symbolic and only for assuaging the feelings of the Karsevaks.

Kalyan Singh called an emergency meeting of Ministers and directed them to mobilize Karsevaks in UP, at least 10 people from each Gram Panchayats of which were 75,000.

It was obvious and categorically admitted that no effort to restrict, check or regulate the number of Karsevaks in Ayodhya or Faizabad was made.  The Karsevaks were using the graveyards to defacate. Karsevaks entered into the old mosque and stoned the scooter borne peace rally organized by Congress. Mazar of Maqi Shah, Babri Mazar and another Mazar at Ram Katha Kunj were damaged and graves leveled.

On 29th November, ringing of thalis, blowing of conches, ringing of bells etc was carried out

1st December 1992: The DM informed the government that between 6 and 7 am hours about 35 unknown people damaged 3 graves situated in Kuber Tilla and on the corner of southern side road of the State Park.

2nd December 1992: About 60,000 Karsevaks were present in Ayodhya. The district administration asked for more force to deal with these numbers which was declined by the State Government.

5th December 1992: CM Kalyan Singh,once again and in writing this time, ordered against the use firearms specifically on the 6th of December.

6th December 1992:

On that Sunday morning, LK Advani and others met at Vinay Katiyar’s residence. They then proceeded to the disputed structure, the report says. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Katiyar reached the puja platform where symbolic Kar Seva was to be performed, and Advani and Joshi checked arrangements for the next 20 minutes. The two senior leaders then moved 200 metre away to the Ram Katha Kunj. This was a building facing the disputed structure where a dais had been erected for senior leaders. Religious leaders and others had been making fiery speeches at Ram Katha Kunj for some time.

At noon, a teenaged Kar Sevak was “vaulted” on to the dome and that signaled the breaking of the outer cordon. The report notes that at this time Advani, Joshi and Vijay Raje Scindia made “feeble requests to the Kar Sevaks to come down… either in earnest or for the media’s benefit”. No appeal was made to the Kar Sevaks not to enter the sanctum sanctorum or not to demolish the structure. The report notes: “This selected act of the leaders itself speaks of the hidden intentions of one and all being to accomplish demolition of the disputed structure.”

The demolition was accomplished by smashing holes inside the walls of masjid. Ropes were inserted through these holes in the walls under the domes; the walls were pulled down with these ropes, bringing down the domes as well.

The Idols and cash box removed to safe place before the Karsevaks went inside the domes were placed at their original place at about 7 pm. The construction of a temporary make-shift temple commenced at about 7:30 pm through karseva.

Chief Minister Kalyan Singh announced at 6:45 pm that he had resigned. The Central Government on the other hand claimed that the Chief Minister Kalyan Singh was dismissed.

Filed Under: Indian Muslims Tagged With: Ayodhya, Babri Masjid, BJP, Hindutva, L K Advani, RSS

Ban on rallies in Hyderabad on Babri anniversary

December 5, 2014 by Nasheman

babri-hyderabad

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad police have banned rallies and meetings even as various Muslim groups have called for a shutdown Saturday to mark 22nd the anniversary of the Babri Masjid’s demolition.

Police have issued orders prohibiting meetings, rallies, processions and ‘dharnas’ in order to maintain peace and harmony.

Police Commissioner M. Mahender Reddy said the orders were issued in the view of ‘reliable information’ that certain groups are trying to create disturbances affecting peace and inciting communal animosity between different communities.

The orders, which came into effect Friday morning, will remain in force till Sunday morning.

The orders also prohibit any individual or group from making any speech, gesture or displaying pictures, symbols, placards and flags.

Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, a Muslim political party, has called for a peaceful shutdown to demand reconstruction of the demolished mosque on its original site in Ayodhya.

Majlis Bachao Tehreek and some other organisations have also given a call for a shutdown to mark the occasion. They appealed to Muslims and secular-minded people to observe Dec 6 as the ‘black day’.

Police will make tight security arrangements with the deployment of paramilitary forces at sensitive places as protests and attempts by some outfits to celebrate the day as ‘Vijay Diwas’ led to communal violence in the old city in the past.

However, police in the past allowed few Muslim groups to hold sit-in with limited number of participants at Indira Park (outside the old city) to protest the demolition of the mosque and to seek its re-construction.

(IANS)

Filed Under: India, Indian Muslims Tagged With: All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, Ayodhya, Babri Masjid, Hyderabad, M Mahender Reddy, Majlis Bachao Tehreek

Modi’s Kashmir visit coincides with Babri Masjid demolition

November 27, 2014 by Nasheman

babri-masjid

Srinagar/Authintmail: Prime minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Indian administered Kashmir will coincide with the demolition of the historic Babri Masjid.

Modi will address his first election rally in Kashmir on December 6 which was when, in 1992, rampaging mobs of Hindu zealots tore down Babri Masjid located in Ayodhya town of Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.

The demolition was blamed on the right-wing Kar Sevaks associated with RSS, which is the parent organization of Modi’s Bhartiya Janta Party.

The consequences of the demolition of 16th century mosque are still felt across India where riots are a common occurrence in many parts.

Modi is likely to address voters in Srinagar which will be his first rally in Kashmir.

His party has sought permission from the state government to hold the rally at Sher-i-Kashmir Cricket Stadium in Srinagar.

Thousands of people are expected to participate in the rally with BJP sources saying that people from 10 districts of the region are going to attend it.

Filed Under: India Tagged With: Ayodhya, Babri Masjid, BJP, Jammu, Kashmir, Narendra Modi, RSS

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

KNOW US

  • About Us
  • Corporate News
  • FAQs
  • NewsVoir
  • Newswire
  • Realtor arrested for NRI businessman’s murder in Andhra Pradesh

GET INVOLVED

  • Corporate News
  • Letters to Editor
  • NewsVoir
  • Newswire
  • Realtor arrested for NRI businessman’s murder in Andhra Pradesh
  • Submissions

PROMOTE

  • Advertise
  • Corporate News
  • Events
  • NewsVoir
  • Newswire
  • Realtor arrested for NRI businessman’s murder in Andhra Pradesh

Archives

  • May 2025 (9)
  • April 2025 (50)
  • March 2025 (35)
  • February 2025 (34)
  • January 2025 (43)
  • December 2024 (83)
  • November 2024 (82)
  • October 2024 (156)
  • September 2024 (202)
  • August 2024 (165)
  • July 2024 (169)
  • June 2024 (161)
  • May 2024 (107)
  • April 2024 (104)
  • March 2024 (222)
  • February 2024 (229)
  • January 2024 (102)
  • December 2023 (142)
  • November 2023 (69)
  • October 2023 (74)
  • September 2023 (93)
  • August 2023 (118)
  • July 2023 (139)
  • June 2023 (52)
  • May 2023 (38)
  • April 2023 (48)
  • March 2023 (166)
  • February 2023 (207)
  • January 2023 (183)
  • December 2022 (165)
  • November 2022 (229)
  • October 2022 (224)
  • September 2022 (177)
  • August 2022 (155)
  • July 2022 (123)
  • June 2022 (190)
  • May 2022 (204)
  • April 2022 (310)
  • March 2022 (273)
  • February 2022 (311)
  • January 2022 (329)
  • December 2021 (296)
  • November 2021 (277)
  • October 2021 (237)
  • September 2021 (234)
  • August 2021 (221)
  • July 2021 (237)
  • June 2021 (364)
  • May 2021 (282)
  • April 2021 (278)
  • March 2021 (293)
  • February 2021 (192)
  • January 2021 (222)
  • December 2020 (170)
  • November 2020 (172)
  • October 2020 (187)
  • September 2020 (194)
  • August 2020 (61)
  • July 2020 (58)
  • June 2020 (56)
  • May 2020 (36)
  • March 2020 (48)
  • February 2020 (109)
  • January 2020 (162)
  • December 2019 (174)
  • November 2019 (120)
  • October 2019 (104)
  • September 2019 (88)
  • August 2019 (159)
  • July 2019 (122)
  • June 2019 (66)
  • May 2019 (276)
  • April 2019 (393)
  • March 2019 (477)
  • February 2019 (448)
  • January 2019 (693)
  • December 2018 (736)
  • November 2018 (572)
  • October 2018 (611)
  • September 2018 (692)
  • August 2018 (667)
  • July 2018 (469)
  • June 2018 (440)
  • May 2018 (616)
  • April 2018 (774)
  • March 2018 (338)
  • February 2018 (159)
  • January 2018 (189)
  • December 2017 (142)
  • November 2017 (122)
  • October 2017 (146)
  • September 2017 (178)
  • August 2017 (201)
  • July 2017 (222)
  • June 2017 (155)
  • May 2017 (205)
  • April 2017 (156)
  • March 2017 (178)
  • February 2017 (195)
  • January 2017 (149)
  • December 2016 (143)
  • November 2016 (169)
  • October 2016 (167)
  • September 2016 (137)
  • August 2016 (115)
  • July 2016 (117)
  • June 2016 (125)
  • May 2016 (171)
  • April 2016 (152)
  • March 2016 (201)
  • February 2016 (202)
  • January 2016 (217)
  • December 2015 (210)
  • November 2015 (177)
  • October 2015 (284)
  • September 2015 (243)
  • August 2015 (250)
  • July 2015 (188)
  • June 2015 (216)
  • May 2015 (281)
  • April 2015 (306)
  • March 2015 (297)
  • February 2015 (280)
  • January 2015 (245)
  • December 2014 (287)
  • November 2014 (254)
  • October 2014 (185)
  • September 2014 (98)
  • August 2014 (8)

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in