• 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 L K Advani

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

Why we need public intellectuals

November 1, 2014 by Nasheman

public intellectuals

by Praful Bidwai

When Bharatiya Janata Party leader LK Advani said of the Indian media during the Emergency that “when asked to bend, they crawled”, he received widespread praise from the intelligentsia and even from people opposed to the BJP’s ideology – because he spoke the truth.

Today, not just the media, but leaders from the fields of education, culture, healthcare and law, are crawling before the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh without even being asked to bend. They include the University Grants Commission chairman, Delhi University vice-chancellor, All-India Institute of Medical Sciences director, and numerous serving and former bureaucrats.

These were among the 60 luminaries who met RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat over lunch in Delhi on October 12 at his invitation. Although many of them said they went “only to listen”, media reports suggest that some were ingratiating themselves to the unelected head of an organisation which spawned the BJP – an act unworthy of their positions and democratic propriety.

This is happening when the RSS, BJP and their affiliates have declared their intention to radically reorganise educational curricula along Hindutva lines, including the purging of textbooks of secularist ‘misrepresentations’. Parveen Sinclair, the upright director of the National Council for Educational Research and Training, was forced to resign.

Delhi University’s Sanskrit department, which has no expertise in history, has begun a campaign demanding that history textbooks show that the Aryans were indigenous to India, and not migrants, as most historians believe.

Articles are appearing in the mainstream media glorifying a fiction called ‘Vedic mathematics”’, based on a 1965 book by Bharati Krishna Tirtha, which fails to provide evidence that the sutras (formulas/algorithms) he cites exist in the Vedas. (For a scientific refutation of these claims, see http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/nothing-vedic-in-vedic-maths/article6373689.ece)

Meanwhile, calls for banning/burning books that advance non-Hindutva views have become strident. Fanatics are rampaging through colleges, bookshops, theatres, art galleries and cinema-halls, baying for punishment to dissidents. Everything from political belief, cultural identity to personal morality is being targeted in hysterical campaigns demanding conformity; dissenters are branded ‘un-Indian’.

Intolerance for the right to dissent, palpable in all regions, is now backed by the BJP. This is not to exonerate other parties, including the Congress, regional outfits, or even the Left, which too don’t fully respect the right to dissent.

However, they are not as instinctively, viscerally, and viciously anti-dissent as the BJP/Sangh Parivar, which regards dissent as ‘betrayal’ which must be snuffed out. This is in keeping with the profoundly undemocratic culture of the RSS, which long ago dispensed with the “cumbersome clap-trap of internal democracy” and opted for Ek-Chalak-Anuvartitva (unquestioningly following a single leader, or the Fuehrer Principle).

Yet, the right to differ, dissent, and express dissenting views is at the core not just of democracy – without which it would be impoverished into a majoritarian despotic system – but of knowledge production itself. Without the right to dissent, there can be no progress in the sciences, whether natural or social, and no generation of new knowledge and its dissemination in society through education, dialogue and public debate.

This is a theme that Professor Romila Thapar, one of India’s greatest historians and internationally respected scholars, emphasised in her Nikhil Chakravartty Memorial Lecture on October 26 in Delhi. This was the third lecture in the series: the others were delivered by economist-philosopher Amartya Sen and eminent British historian EJ Hobsbawm.

The theme of dissent couldn’t have been more appropriate for the memorial lecture. Chakravartty was a doyen among India’s post-Independence journalists, who edited the weekly Mainstream. He was for long a member of the Communist Party of India. Yet, he sharply criticised the Emergency – which the CPI then backed – and had to shut down the publication temporarily.

Thapar’s lecture was a tour de force covering many epochs and continents. It was at once a rigorous, scholarly analysis of the evolution of critical intellectual traditions over more than 2,000 years, and a passionate appeal to reason, scepticism and the spirit of questioning authority.

Thapar traced the relationship between dissidence and science from Socrates and Galileo in the west to the Buddha and Charvaka schools in India, and showed that certain principles, precepts and methods of science were common to all civilisations, from Athens and Arabia, to India and China. In our part of the world, we had the Buddha espousing agnosticism, and many materialist schools of thought which questioned karma, afterlife and the immortality of the atman (soul), and spurned various Vedic rituals.

If Aryabhatta hadn’t opposed contemporary royal astrologers, he wouldn’t have been able to show – a thousand years before Galileo – that the earth goes around the Sun. The key to this lay in the primacy he gave to logic and rationality, as distinct from faith and religious dogma. The method was to postulate a hypothesis linking observed phenomena to their causes, and test it through experiments; the results would be tested against future observations and refined till a scientific law was established.

Through her panoramic survey Professor Thapar showed the continuity of rational thinking and logical explanation across different countries and periods, which was invariably opposed by religious orthodoxy. Buddhist ideas were described in Brahminical orthodoxy as “delusional”, and a range of different schools like Charvakas, Ajivikas, atheists, materialists and rationalists, were all lumped into “one category – nastikas”, because they questioned the Vedas as “divinely revealed”.

Thapar says this reminds her of “the Hindutvavadis of today for whom anyone and everyone who does not support them, are Marxists!”

Numerous streams of thought coexisted in ancient and medieval India. Some “questioned beliefs and practices upheld by religious authorities”. Among them were women, such as “Andal, Akka Mahadevi and Mira, flouting caste norms, who were listened to attentively by people at large…” Amir Khusro is best known as a poet and composer, but he also studied astronomy; his heliocentric universe “distanced him from orthodox Islam”.

Later came social reformers like Ram Mohun Roy, Phule, Periyar, Shahu Maharaj, Syed Ahmed Khan and Ambedkar, who developed modern-liberal progressive values. Indian society has since been undergoing major changes, which need “insightful ways of understanding” so that social and economic conditions can be related to culture, politics and other phenomena. Public intellectuals are needed to explore these connections and “to articulate the traditions of rational thought in our intellectual heritage.”

As Thapar reminds us, there are “many specialists in various professions, but many among them are unconcerned with the world beyond their own specialisation.” These professionals are not identical with public intellectuals. “There are many more academics, for instance, than existed before. But it seems that most prefer not to confront authority even if it debars the path of free thought.”

Public intellectuals must take positions fiercely independent of those in power, must be seen as autonomous, and question received wisdom. In addition to possessing an acknowledged professional status, they must have a concern for “what constitute the rights of citizens” and particularly “issues of social justice”; and must be ready “to raise these matters as public policy”.

Thapar ends with an analysis of why public intellectuals are in decline in India and what they can do to become more assertive and effective. She didn’t speak a day too soon. (A recording of her talk is available for non-commercial use at http://sacw.net/article9874.html)

The writer, a former newspaper editor, is a researcher and rights activist based in Delhi.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP, Education, Hindutva, History, Intellectuals, L K Advani

  • « 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