'Muslims accepted Hindus prayed at Ram's birthplace'


New Delhi, Aug 20 (IANS): Worship by Hindus at the disputed site in Ayodhya has been accepted by Muslim witnesses in the case, the Hindu parties' counsel said at the hearing in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman, submitted before a Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, that "historical travelogues, gazetteers, archaeological evidence and oral evidence. All this demonstrates the Hindus have, from time immemorial, believed the Ram Janambhoomi is the birthplace of Lord Ram, where the Babri Masjid has come up."

Despite the structure of Babri Masjid, the faith and belief of Hindu's was never shaken and they continued to worship at the site identified as birthplace of Lord Ram, he said.

He told the court that the archaeological report is very crucial as it ascertains the mosque had come up on the ruins of a Hindu temple, along with the evidence of several witnesses, which identified it as a Hindu pilgrimage attracting worshippers from all parts of the country.

Vaidyanathan read out statements of many witnesses in the case, which included Muslims, before the court establishing the process of worship of the "Garbhagriha" or sanctum sanctorum, the innermost sanctum of a Hindu temple where the idol of the primary deity of the temple resides.

One Muslim witness said the Hindus revere Ram Janambhoomi as Muslims do Mecca, contended the counsel before the court. He also cited the evidence of Mahant Ram Chandradas, aged 90 while he recorded his statement in 1999, who claimed to move in Ayodhya at a very early age and witnessed the Hindus worshipping Lord Ram at the site for many years.

"Witnesses have claimed the existence of culture of performing 'aarti' at the Ram Chabutra. Devotees would also take bath at Saryu River, and 'charan chins' (footprints)existed at the platform of the Ram temple," argued the Hindus' counsel.

Earlier, during the hearing Vaidyanathan referred to the archaeological report citing figures of crocodiles (representing the holy Ganga River) and tortoises (representing the holy Yamuna River), which were alien to Islamic culture.

Instead, these animal figures were aligned with the Hindu faith in addition to the cultural artefacts recovered from the excavations. "Archaeology reports establish that the disputed building, Babri Masjid, was built on top of an earlier building, which was a massive structure of Hindu temple. Even the Allahabad High Court accepted this report. And, no person from any other religion except Hindus have continued to offer prayers at the site," Vaidyanathan told the court.

He also contested the Allahabad High Court judgement, which in four civil suits, partitioned the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

"The temple and mosque cannot coexist at the same spot. Ram Janambhoomi is a deity and a juridical person, subject to law, and the spirit of the divine is indestructible," Vadiyanathan told the court.

The lawsuit, filed in the Ayodhya case, has also included the birthplace as a co-petitioner, and together it has sought claim over the 2.77 acres of the disputed site where the Babri Masjid was razed in December 1992.

Earlier, during the day, the Hindu parties cited the recovery of a 12th century stone slab from the site of the disputed mosque in 1992 with inscriptions in Sanskrit establishing the existence of a temple at that place.

Vaidyanathan informed the court that the authenticity of the epigraphic evidence inscribed on the slab had not been questioned so far. The slab was stuck between the walls of the mosque and it fell down during the destruction of the mosque. The dimension of the slab is 4 feet by 2 feet and it is diagonally broken into two pieces.

Although broken, it did not hamper the deciphering of the inscriptions on the slab in Sanskrit which categorically established the existence of a temple and its essence linked to Lord Vishnu and his incarnation Lord Ram, argued Vaidyanathan.

The hearing on the matter will continue on Wednesday.

Top Stories

Comment on this article

  • S Shetty, Tulunad

    Wed, Aug 21 2019

    Kitna Jaahil tha Babar

    DisAgree Agree [6] Reply Report Abuse

  • ad, mangaluru

    Wed, Aug 21 2019

    Can we have one structure accommodating Ram, Allah, Jesus and so on worshipping ONE GOD.

    DisAgree [3] Agree [8] Reply Report Abuse

  • Chowkidar Chor Hai!, Mangalore

    Wed, Aug 21 2019

    God must be going crazy with these bigots!

    In the year 2019, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in India, and said:

    Once again the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.
    Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good humans. He gave Noah the blueprints, saying: "You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights. "

    Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard – but no Ark.

    Noah!
    He roared, I’m about to start the rain!
    Where is the Ark ?

    Forgive me, Lord, begged Noah, but things have changed. I needed a building permit. I’ve been arguing with the inspector about the urgent need for the permit. But he needs a huge bribe.

    Getting the wood was another problem. There’s a ban on cutting local trees. I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the animals – but they also need a huge fee to allow that!

    When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will.

    Then the court ruled that I couldn’t build the Ark until the government conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood.

    Then there is a government regulation on compulsory employing minorities, backward classes, schudule classes for building the ship.

    The trade unions say I can’t use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers .

    To make matters worse, the government have seized all my assets, claiming I’m trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species. So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark.

    Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow 🌈 stretched across the sky.
    Noah looked up in wonder and asked,
    “You mean you’re not going to destroy the world?”

    “No,” said the Lord.
    “The Government already has.”..!!😛😛

    DisAgree [4] Agree [12] Reply Report Abuse

  • Jossey Saldanha, Nashville

    Wed, Aug 21 2019

    There's only One God & he's the Creator ...

    DisAgree [7] Agree [9] Reply Report Abuse

  • Krishna, Udupi

    Wed, Aug 21 2019

    we call him BRAHMA....

    DisAgree [2] Agree [8] Reply Report Abuse

  • S Shetty, Tulunad

    Wed, Aug 21 2019

    That's what we have been thought, one god different names.

    And we don't believe in religion, ours is a way of life,

    We do not need a religion to control mankind,

    DisAgree [4] Agree [8] Reply Report Abuse

  • gm, Mlur

    Wed, Aug 21 2019

    You live in your way and let other live in their way.

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • Valerian Menezes, Kota

    Tue, Aug 20 2019

    Good that the court is conducting every day trial. Hope to get a judicious judgement soon.

    DisAgree [2] Agree [2] Reply Report Abuse

  • SmR, Karkala

    Tue, Aug 20 2019

    Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman, deflecting the Supreme Court bench of Judges instead of producing the evidence using Aastha or Faith.

    In the first argument, he has said to the court that all document are lost to 'dacoits'. Then he brought the case of traveler British traveler 'William Flinch' but when the judge asked his nationalist he doesn't know his country of origin.

    Now once again he is bringing wage theory of Muslim witness despite the historical record that 1859 British administrator erects fence to separate the places of worship, with the inner court to be used by Muslims and outer court by Hindus.

    Very few people now that there are nine temples within Ayodhya according to the Mahanat all claims that it is the birth place of Ram Lalla.

    The Supreme Court should consider the historical records. Interestingly, the first demand for a Ram temple to be built in place of the Masjid was in 1883 by a Hindu priest. At that time, the British authorities refused to bow to the priest’s request.

    whereby Hindus were to offer prayers at the chabootra (platform) outside the mosque,” writes political scientist, Christophe Jaffrelot (Director at CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Paris) in The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics: 1925 to the 1990. “Hindu priests and devotees came to render homage to Ram on this site, which was regarded as his birthplace.” Dutch anthropologist, Peter van der Veer confirms this and explains how the chabootra came into being, in God Must Be Liberated!’ A Hindu Liberation Movement in Ayodhya: “When the British annexed Awadh in February 1856, they decided to put up a railing around the Babar mosque, so that the Muslims could continue to worship within the mosque, while the Hindus were forced to make their offerings on a platform, which they raised outside the fence.

    The judgment should be based on the true accounts of Valmiki Ramayana and historical facts.

    Jai Hind

    DisAgree [3] Agree [4] Reply Report Abuse


Leave a Comment

Title : 'Muslims accepted Hindus prayed at Ram's birthplace'


 
 
 
 

 
You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.


Security Validation

Enter the characters in the image