According to the Ramayana, Ayodhya was founded by Manu, the progenitor of mankind, and measured 12x3 yojanas (one yojana is about 13 kms) in area. Both Ramayana and Mahabharata describe Ayodhya as the capital of the Ikshvaku dynasty of Kosala, which included Dasharatha and Rama. Sri Rama was born in Ayodhya after his father did Puthrakameshti Yaga praying for a male child to rule the kingdom after him. King Dasaratha was blessed with not one but four sons, Rama, Lakshmana, Bharata and Shatrugna. Sri Rama is the seventh Avathara of the Dasavathara of MahaVishnu. Lakshmana, Bharata and Shatrugna were Nityasooris who serve MahaVishnu in Vaikunta and came to earth to be of service to Sri Rama. Adhisesha, chakra and Shanga are respectively Lakshmana, Bharata and Shatrugna. Hence Ayodhya is very sacred to Hindus as Ram Janma Bhoomi, the place of birth of Sri Rama. If Jerusalem and Mecca are believed to be sacred places for the Christians and the Muslims due to the origin of their respective religions, so is is Ayodhya and Ram Mandir, the birth place of Rama, sacred to the Hindus.
Ayodhya is on the banks of the Sarayu River and is now located in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. According to Hindu cosmology, Ayodhya is believed to have existed since the Treta Yuga, the second age in the cycle of four Yugas. In the Common Era Ayodhya was known as Saketa. During Buddha's time, Saketa was ruled by Prasenadi whose capital was Sravasti.This connection to ancient epochs amplifies the city's historical importance. In the 16th century, the temple was attacked and destroyed by Babur in his series of temple raids across the northern India and the Mughals constructed a mosque, the Babri Masjid, on top of the Hindu temple. According to the mosque's inscriptions, it was built in 1528–29 by Mir Baqi, a commander of the Mughal emperor Babur. According to the Hindu belief, the site of the #Babri_Mosque in Ayodhya is the exact birthplace of Rama. The Ayodhya dispute was a political, historical, and socio-religious debate in India, centred on a plot of land where Sri Rama was born.
Before the 1940s, the Babri Masjid was called Masjid-i-Janmasthan (mosque of the birthplace) in common parlance as well as official documents such as revenue records. H.R. Neville, the editor of the Faizabad District Gazetteer (1870), wrote that the Janmasthan temple "was destroyed by Babur and replaced by a mosque." He also wrote "The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babur came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babur's mosque. The materials of the old structure [i.e., the temple] were largely employed, and many of the columns were in good preservation."
The Jesuit missionary Joseph Tiefenthaler, who visited the site between 1766 and 1771, wrote that either Aurangazeb (1658–1707) or Babur had demolished the Ramkot fortress, including the house that was considered as the birthplace of Rama by Hindus. He further stated that a mosque was constructed in its place, but the Hindus continued to offer prayers at a mud platform that marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1810, Francis Buchanan visited the site, and stated that the structure destroyed was a temple dedicated to Rama, not a house. Many subsequent sources state that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a temple. Buchanan also recorded that there was an inscription the wall of the mosque stating it to have been built by Babur.
In 1853, a group of armed Hindu ascetics belonging to the Nirmohi Akhara occupied the Babri Masjid site, and claimed ownership of the structure. Subsequently, the civil administration stepped in, and in 1855, divided the mosque premises into two parts: one for Hindus, and the other for Muslims. In 1883, the Hindus launched an effort to construct a temple on the platform. When the administration denied them the permission to do this, they took the matter to court. In 1885, the Hindu Sub Judge Pandit Hari Kishan Singh dismissed the lawsuit. Subsequently, the higher courts also dismissed the lawsuit in 1886, in favour of status quo. In December 1949, some Hindus placed idols of Rama and Sita in the mosque, and claimed that they had miraculously appeared there. As thousands of Hindu devotees started visiting the place, the government declared the mosque a disputed area and locked its gates. Subsequently, multiple lawsuits from Hindus, asking for permission to convert the site into a place of worship were made. The picture below is a makeshift temple in which Ram Lalla resided for many years.
A team of Archeological Survey of India in the leadership and B. B. Lal conducted a survey of the land in 1976–77. They found 12 pillars of the mosque that were made from the remains of a Hindu temple. The base of Pillars had Purna Kalasha which was 'ghada' (water pitcher) from which foliage would be coming out. These symbols were found in almost all the temples of 12th and 13th Century. For Hindus, it is one of the eight auspicious symbol of prosperity also known as Ashtamangala Chinha. The excavation team found many terracotta sculptures that depicted human beings and animals, a characteristic of a temple, not a mosque.
In 2003, a 50 plus member team from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conducted a second excavation of the site on court orders. The excavation was conducted from 12 March 2003 to 7 August 2003, resulting in 1360 discoveries. The summary of the ASI report indicated what appears to be the presence of a 10th-century shrine under the mosque. According to the ASI team, the human activity at the site dates back to the 13th century BC. The next few layers date back to the Shunga period (second-first century BC) and the Kushan period. During the early medieval period (11–12th century), a but short-lived huge structure of nearly 50 metres north–south orientation was constructed. On the remains of this structure, another massive structure was constructed; this structure had at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it. The report concluded that it was over the top of this construction that the disputed structure was constructed during the early 16th century. They found over 50 pillars, hinting that below the mosque stood a Hindu temple that could be dated back to the 12th Century AD. The excavators further found a temple system that depicted a crocodile (a symbol of the Holy Ganga to signify a symbolic bath in the holy rivers of the Ganges, Yamuna and Saraswati to wash off one's sins. They also got the temple 'pranali' (system). We have to bathe the deity and the 'abhisheka jal' flows through 'pranali'. This 'makara pranali' was also excavated.
The ASI team also unearthed several remains of a temple's 'shikhara' (tower) from the mosque's premises, adding to the evidences of a Hindu structure underneath ASI team also found another architectural member known as Amalka. Below the 'amalka' there is the 'grivah' and also the 'shikhara' portion of the temple in North India. The ASI archaeologists found 263 pieces of terracotta objects of gods, goddesses, human figures, female figurines that consolidated the theory that it was the site of a temple. An inscription of 'Vishnu Hari Shila Phalak' was found on two remains found at the site that proved to be an important circumstantial evidence that stated the existence of a Hindu temple there.
Muslim groups and the historians supporting them disputed these findings, and dismissed them as politically motivated. The Allahabad High Court, however, upheld the ASI's findings. The excavations by the ASI were heavily used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building.
A land title case on the site was lodged in the Allahabad High Court, the verdicts of which was pronounced on 30 September 2010. In their verdict, the three judges of The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 1.1 hectares (2+3⁄4 acres) of Ayodhya land be divided into three parts, with one-third going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Lord Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, one-third going to the Islamic Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and the remaining one-third going to Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious denomination. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site. The excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India were heavily used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building. The five judges Supreme Court bench heard the title dispute cases from August to October 2019. The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a "structure", whose architecture was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic. On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to give an alternative 2-hectare (5-acre) plot to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board to build a mosque, which the government allotted in Dhannipur, Ayodhya.
All the three parties appealed against the division of disputed land to the Supreme Court. The five judges Supreme Court bench heard the title dispute cases from August to October 2019. On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered to the government to give alternate 5 acre land to Sunni Waqf Board to build the mosque. On 5 February 2020, the trust known as Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra was created by the government of India. The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra trust began the first phase of construction of the Ram Mandir on March, 2020. Prime Minister Narendra Modi performed Bhoomi Pujan and laid the foundation stone of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya on 5 August 2020.
Let us go back a little bit to cover certain other happenings. In the 1980s, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and other Hindu nationalist groups and political parties launched a campaign to reclaim the site for Hindus and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ram Lalla) at this spot, construct the Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir (Rama birthplace temple) at the site. In 1985, the Rajiv Gandhi government allowed Hindus to access the site for prayers. In November of 1989, the VHP laid the foundations of a temple on land adjacent to the disputed mosque. On the 6th of December 1992, the VHP and the Bharatiya Janata Party organized a rally at the site involving 150,000 volunteers, known as kar sevaks. The rally turned violent, and the crowd overwhelmed the security forces and tore down the mosque on 6 December 1992, resulting in communal riots leading to over 2,000 deaths.
The demolition resulted in several months of intercommunal rioting between India's Hindu and Muslim communities, and triggering riots all over the Indian subcontinent. A day after the demolition of the mosque, on the 7th of December 1992, The New York Times reported that over 30 Hindu temples across Pakistan were attacked, some set on fire, and one was demolished. Hindu temples in Bangladesh were also attacked
Archaeologist KK Muhammad accused several historians of undermining the findings. Over the years, various title and legal disputes also took place, such as the passage of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance in 1993. It was only after the 2019 Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya dispute that it was decided the disputed land be handed over to a trust formed by the Indian government, for the construction of a Ram temple.
Ram Lalla Vigraham, the infant form of Rama, an avatar of Vishnu, is the presiding deity of the temple. Ram Lalla was a litigant in the court case over the disputed site in 1989, being considered a "juristic person" by the law. He was represented by Triloki Nath Pandey, a senior VHP leader who was considered as Ram Lalla's closest 'human' friend.
The original design for the Ram temple was devised in 1988 by the Sompura family of Ahmedabad.The Sompuras have contributed to the design of over 100 temples worldwide for at least 15 generations, including the Somnath temple. The chief architect of the temple was Chandrakant Sompura, and he was assisted by his two sons Nikhil Sompura and Ashish Sompura, who are also architects. A new design, with some changes from the original, was prepared by the Sompuras in 2020, in accordance with the Hindu texts the vastu shastra and the Shilpa Shastras. According to the temple trust, the final blueprint includes temples dedicated to Surya, Ganesha, Shiva, Durga, Vishnu and Brahma in the temple grounds. Two idols of Ram Lalla (one of them being 5 years old) will be placed in the sanctum of the temple. The temple will be 72 m wide, 110 m long and 49 m high, and once complete, the temple complex will be the world's third largest Hindu shrine.
It is designed in the Gujara-Chaulukya style of Northern Indian temple architecture. A model of the proposed temple was showcased during the Prayag Kumbh Mela in 2019. The main structure of the temple will be built on a raised platform and will have three storeys. It will have five mandapas in the middle of the garbhagriha (sanctum sanctorum) and on the entryway. The tallest Shikhara will be above the Garbhagriha. The building will have a total of 366 columns. The columns will have 16 idols each to include the incarnations of Shiva, the 10 Dashavataras, the 64 Chausath Yoginis, and the 12 incarnations of the goddess Saraswati. The width of the stairs will be 4.9 m. In accordance with scriptures dedicated to the design of temples dedicated to Vishnu, the sanctum sanctorum will be octagonal. The temple will be built in 10 acres, and 57 acres of land will be developed into a complex with a prayer hall, a lecture hall, an educational facility and other facilities including a museum and a cafeteria. According to the temple committee, over 70,000 people will be able to visit the site. Devotees of Lord Ram have generously donated a substantial amount of gold and silver items, including coins and bricks, both before and after the formation of the Trust. However, due to security concerns, the donated items will be melted down into a solid block under the supervision of a reputable organization.
Larsen & Toubro offered to oversee the design and construction of the temple free of cost and became the contractor of the project. The Central Building Research Institute, National Geophysical Research Institute and the Bombay, Guwahati and Madras Indian Institutes of Technology assisted in areas such as soil testing, concrete and design. The construction work will be accomplished with 600 thousand cubic feet of sandstone from Bansi pahadpur village mountain in Rajasthan. In the 1990s, more than two hundred thousand bricks etched with the 'Sri Rama' in several languages had arrived from various parts of the country to be used in the foundation. There will be no use of iron in the construction of the temple, and the fusing of the stone blocks will require ten thousand copper plates. In a culturally significant move, Thailand is symbolically contributing to the inauguration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya by sending soil to the Ram Janmabhoomi, building on their prior gesture of sending water from two rivers in Thailand to honor the temple.
Now let us see who all helped this temple come back into existence, working selflessly and tirelessly.
Mahant Ram Chandra Paramhans
The former head of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas in Ayodhya, Mahant Ram Chandra Paramhans led the battle for Ram temple for more than 50 years. In 1934, he played a key role to mobilize Hindu activists to take over the structure in Ayodhya. Later, post-independence in 1949, Mahant was instrumental in installing the statue of Lord Ram inside the structure. Then the Nyas approached the court, staking claim over the land and fought legal battle till the mid 80s. Born in Bihar, Mahant Ram Chandra Paramhans died in 2003
T.N.Pandey
In court papers, Triloki Nath Pandey is described as the "next friend" of the infant Lord Ram. The deity was one of the litigants in the court battle. For centuries, a deity or an idol has been treated as a "juristic person" in Indian law because many devotees donate their land and possessions to idols who are synonymous with their shrines. A devotee or the manager of the shrine or trust typically handles the deity's possessions. In light-hearted legalese, the idol is represented by someone called a "friend" of God. Through Mr Pandey, Lord Ram claimed ownership of the land in Ayodhya, purely because he claimed it was his birthplace. During the marathon 40-day final hearings in the Supreme Court, Mr Pandey, who was battling arthritis, sat on a chair. "I must have visited courtrooms hundreds of times in the last 10 years or so. I didn't talk much there. The lawyers spoke on my behalf. Remember, I am the symbol of God," he said. He would also sign papers on behalf of the deity." He has now passed away.
Judge Krishna Mohan Pandey,
He was the first judge on whose orders the lock of the Ram temple was opened. A landmark verdict on February 1, 1986, which opened the lock of Ram temple, came out from the pen of Krishna Mohan Pandey, who used to be the district judge of Faizabad. However, after this order, his promotion was stopped. It is said that later when the central government changed, only then his promotion file was approved and he was made a judge of the High Court.
Sri Kameshwar Chaupal
Chaupal was given the status of ‘first karsevak’ by the RSS. Hailing from Patna, he is known to have laid the first brick of the foundation stone at Ram Temple in 1989. He is a dalit and has even contested LS elections in 1991 against Ram Vilas Paswan
Sri KK Nair
An ICS Officer hailing from Kerala, he played an unforgettable role in reinstating the fundamental right to worship of Hindus in the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement, much before India became a republic. Born in 1907, he joined as a Civil Servant in Uttar Pradesh in 1945 and became the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate of Faizabad (now Ayodhya) in 1949. In December of 1949, the then CM of UP, Mr. GV Pant, ordered, at the behest of PM Nehru, that Hindus be expelled from the Temple Complex. Nair refused to implement the order, pointing out that the real stake holders were performing puja and expelling them would lead to riots and bloodshed. Though he was suspended by Pant for this, he fought back legally and won. He later started his legal practice at Allahabad High Court. Taking the fight for Ram Mandir forward, Nair and his family joined Jan Sangh. His wife Shakuntala became an MLA in the UP Assembly in 1952 and later, in 1962, both he and his wife entered the fourth Lok Sabha from UP. The couple was arrested during the infamous emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi.
L K ADVANI
As BJP President stood up on rath yatra in 1990 from Somnath, which was supposed to culminate in Ayodhya. His yatra gained popularity across the country. He received warm welcome at every place where he arrived, thus strengthening the demand for Ram temple.
MURLI MAHOHAR JOSHI
Then top BJP leader, also played key role in the temple movement, giving it the much-needed political push with the party.
ASHOK SINGHAL
He was the president of the VHP and was one of the people behind the campaign in 1984 that demanded a Ram mandir in Ayodhya. He is considered as one of the architects of the Ram temple movement.
KALYAN SINGH:
He was UP`s Chief Minister when the Babri masjid structure was demolished by thousands of kar sevaks. He refused to give orders to shoot Karsevaks.
He however, following the demolition of the mosque resigned from the post on the evening of Dec 6.
HH Shri Jayendra Swamigal,
One who is lesser known is the 69th head pontiff of Kanchi Mutt. He was amongst the early few in the country who aroused the need to build a big bhavya mandir for Prabhu Shri Ram in his birth place and probably amongst countable few from South India. Not only did he start the conversation around the Mandir but played key part in trying to resolve the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute during the NDA rule, by engaging with stakeholders from both communities and the government. Like how Shri Krishna mediated between pandavas and kauravas, he favoured peaceful resolution in this issue. He tried hard to build consensus around the issue through peaceful negotiations.
K PARASARAN
Senior Supreme Court lawyer and former Attorney General of India K Parasaran successfully fought the Ayodhya land dispute case for the Hindus. In the age of 90 plus he was standing for long hours in the court without wearing footwear and arguing for Ram Lalla to get his home back. The man whose sheer brilliance turned the case in favour of the side fighting for Lord Ram. He has been named as a trustee in the Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.
K K MUHAMMED
Former regional director, North ASI who led the excavation team that first claimed to have unearthed the remnants of a Hindu temple at the Babri Masjid site in 1976-77.
VINAY KATI:
A firebrand Hindu leader, was also the founder of the Bajrang Dal that gave a cutting edge to the temple movement. Vinay Katiyar went on to become a three-term MP from Ayodhya.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy argued fundamental right of Hindus to pray trumped property rights of the Sunni Waqf board. It turned the tide in favour the present verdict.
JUDGES BEHIND THE VERDICT.
And a group photo of the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde and Justice Abdul Nazeer. Delivering a unanimous verdict on a case that had long polarized the country and frayed the secular tapestry of Indian society, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said in the verdict, the faith of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the site was undisputed, and he is symbolically the owner of the land.
THE TIMELINE OF THE MOVEMENT
Though the destruction of the Temple took place in 1528, the issue assumed legal dimension only in 1885 when Mahant Raghubir Das filed a suit in Faizabad (now Ayodhya) Court, seeking permission to build a temple on the land adjoining the Mosque which was constructed upon the destroyed Temple. After failing to get permission from the Court, Mahant Raghubir Das filed a Title Suit in Faizabad Court against the Secretary of State for India, seeking permission to build a temple on the chabootara i.e. the rostrum of the Mosque, only to face rejection again.
Matters rested thus till 1949 when the idol of Lord Ram appeared inside the mosque. For Hindus, this was divine revelation though detractors argued otherwise. Subsequently, two suits were filed in Faizabad court seeking permission to conduct Hindu Poojas for Lord Ram. The court granted permission to conduct pujas though the inner courtyard gates were to remain locked.
Further, in 1959, Nirmohi Akhara and Mahant Raghunath filed another suit seeking possession of the land since they claimed to be the sect responsible for conduct of puja. In 1961, UP Sunni Wakf Board filed a possession suit and also demanded the removal of the idol of Lord Ram.
In 1984, the Ram Janmbhoomi Movement commenced under the aegis of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), with BJP leader LK Advani leading the campaign. In 1986, a third party – lawyer U C Pandey – appealed, before the Faizabad Sessions Court for the gates to be unlocked, on the grounds that the Faizabad district administration, and not a Court, had ordered its closure. The court ordered the opening of the gates to allow Hindu “pooja and darshan”. Unhappy with this development, Muslims constituted what they called ‘Babri Mosque Action Committee (BMAC).
On 9th of November, 1989, the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi allowed VHP to perform ‘shilanayas’ (laying of foundation stone for the Ram temple) near the mosque. Later, in the same year, all title suits were shifted to Allahabad High Court. Another suit filed by Ram Lalla Virajman in the High Court named Nirmohi Akhara (1959) and Sunni Waqf Board (1961) suits as defendants.
The ’Rath Yatra’ was launched by Advani ji in 1990 from Somnath (Gujarat) to Ayodhya to whip up support for the Ram Janmbhoomi Movement. BJP assumed power in UP in 1991.
On 6th of December, 1992, the disputed structure was removed by Karsevaks (helpers in a religious cause) who also constructed a make-shift temple in its place.
In 1993, Narasimha Rao government issued an ordinance acquiring 67.7 acres of land (the dispute site and adjoining areas). Later, it was passed as a law – Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993, to facilitate acquisition of land by Central government. The acquisition was upheld by SC which, in its 1994 judgment, reasoned that every religious immovable property is liable to be acquired. The SC adjudged that offering namaz at mosque was not integral to Islam unless that mosque had any particular significance in Islam.
In Feb 2002, the horrific Godhra incident took place wherein Hindu karsevaks were burnt alive in Sabarmati Express, just days after it was announced by VHP that Temple construction would begin by March 2002.
In Apr 2002, Ayodhya Title Dispute case began at High Court and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was ordered by the court to excavate the site to determine if a temple lay underneath the mosque. ASI submitted its report in 2003 which stated that remnants of a 10th century Hindu temple were found in the excavation. Muslims, as expected, questioned the ASI report.
On Sep 30, 2010, the Allahabad HC delivered its judgment, dividing the land between three parties: one third each to Sunni Wakf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla Virajman. The HC allotted the dome of the demolished Babri Masjid, under which the makeshift temple currently stands, to the Hindus. The nearby Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi also went to the Nirmohi Akhara. The one-third share of the Sunni Wakf Board comprises the outer courtyard of the disputed land.
This verdict (of Allahabad HC) was stayed by SC in 2011 which called it strange and admitted a batch of petitions. The issue dragged till Jan 8, 2019, when CJI Gogoi used his administrative powers to list the matter before a 5-judge constitution bench, headed by the CJI himself and comprising Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud. On Jan 10, 2019 Justice U Lalit recused himslef, prompting the Supreme Court to reschedule the hearing to January 29 before a new bench.
In Mar 2019, the Constitution Bench ordered a court-monitored mediation, despite objections from some of the key parties. The mediators were former apex court judge, Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla, as Chairman, spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu. The mediation efforts failed and the constitution bench led by the CJI decided to hear the appeals from August 6 on a day-to-day basis.
Finally, on 16th of October, 2019, in a unanimous verdict, Supreme Court cleared the way for the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya by granting the entire 2.77 acre of disputed Ram-Janmbhoomi Babri Masjid land in Ayodhya to deity Ram Lalla.
THE VERDICT
Possession of disputed land will be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla, one of the three litigants in the case. The land will remain with a central government receiver.
Centre directed to frame scheme within 3 months and set up a trust for construction of a temple.
Muslims to be allotted an alternative and suitable land of 5 acre, at a prominent place, to be handed over to Sunni Waqf board building the mosque.
SC dismisses plea of Nirmohi Akhara seeking control of entire disputed land. However, it asks the Centre to grant representation in the trust to Nirmohi Akhara if deemed fit by the government.
Babri mosque, demolished on December 6, 1992, was not built on vacant land. Fact that there lay a temple beneath the destroyed structure has been established by the ASI. The underlying structure was not an Islamic structure. ASI had not established whether temple was demolished to build the mosque.
Hindus consider this place as birthplace of lord Ram, even Muslims say this about disputed place. Faith of Hindus that Lord Rama was born at demolished structure is undisputed. The existence of Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutra and Bhandar grih are the testimony of the religious fact of the place. Evidence suggests Hindus were in possession of outer court yard.
Evidence suggest Muslims offered Friday prayers at mosque which indicates they have not lost possession. Despite obstruction caused in offering prayers at Mosque, evidence suggests that there was no abandonment. Muslims have not adduced evidence they were in exclusive possession of dispute site, says SC.
Title cannot be established on ground of faith, belief; they are kind of indicator for deciding dispute.
UP Sunni Central Waqf Board has failed to establish its case in Ayodhya dispute. On the contrary, Hindus established their case that they were in possession of outer courtyard.
Pronouncement of the verdict, which commenced at 10:30am, went on for 45minutes.
The verdict has attained finality and all the appeals have been disposed
Jai Sri Ram Jai Sri Ram Jai Sri Ram Jai Sri Ram Jai Sri Ram Jai Sri Ram Jai Sri Ram Jai Sri Ram
Ayodhya Ram Mandir Opening Date
The temple is almost ready for the tourists and they can visit it on the inauguration day on 24 January 2024. The Mandala Utsava at Ayodhya will take place from January 23 to March 10. The day following Lord Sri Rama’s Prana Pratistha (consecration).
Abhisheka and several poojas will be done on this occasion each day.
Ayodhya Ram Mandir Timing 2023
Temple opening timing in the morning will be 7:00 AM to 11:00 am, and 2:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
Darshan Timings will be same in all seasons, summer and winter. The temple trust has chosen to observe a 10-day ceremony of Lord Ram’s prana pratishtha and to begin the process of consecrating Ram Mandir on January 14 following Makar Sankranti. The temple is slated to be inaugurated by Prime Minister Modi on January 24, 2024.
श्री राम राम रामेति रमे रामे मनोरमे ।सहस्रनाम तत्तुल्यं रामनाम वरानने ॥
Shri Rama Rama Rameti, Rame Rame Manorame;
Sahasrenama tattulyam, Rama Nama Varanane
Jai Anjaneya
आंजनेय मतिपाटलाननं – कांचनाद्रि कमनीय विग्रहं
पारिजात तरुमूल वासिनं – भावयामि पवमान नन्दनं
Anjaneya matipaatalaananam – kanchanaadri kamaneeya vigraham
Parijaata tarumoola vaasinam – bhaavayaami pavamaana nandanam
Sarvam Sri Krishnarpanam
Source: Various newspaper articles.
Comments