On 22nd January, the Pran-Pratishtha of Ram Mandir was done in Ayodhya. It was a momentous occasion for millions of people across the country. On this occasion, let’s take a look at India’s longest running property dispute case. The first suit in Ayodhya title dispute case was filed 134 years ago. It has worked its way up the legal ladder over the years, from the Faizabad Civil Court to Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court. All the while India transitioned from a British colony to an independent republic with its own set of problems.

Before 1947-

• 1528: Under the leadership of first Mughal king Babur, his commander Mir Khan constructed the Masjid. According to the Archaeological Survey of India Report, 1891, pp. 296-297, he constructed this masjid in A.H. 930, during the reign of Babur. The report states that the temple must have been a fine one as many of its columns were used by the invaders in the construction of Babur’s masjid.
• In 1822: someone made the first reference to the masjid occupying Ram mandir. Hafizullah, a Faizabad court officer, stated in 1822, that Babri masjid was built on the site of Ram Mandir, next to Sita ki Rasoi.
• 1853: The first conflict was noted in 1853. According to a Hindu sect, the mosque was built on the site of a temple that was destroyed during Babur’s rule.
• 1858: Post the revolt of 1857, the Government of India Act of 1858 was passed. This marked the beginning of the rule of British Crown. It transferred the government territories and revenues of East India Company to the British Crown. Now, the first recorded legal history of the Masjid can be dated back to 1858. But the proof of Mandir goes all the way back to William Flinch, Joseph Tieffenthaler in 1740’s etc.
• A man named Mohd Salim filed an FIR on 30th November, 1858, against 28 Nihang Sikhs for installing their nishan and writing “Ram” inside the Babri masjid. They were accused of conducting puja and havan as well. Interestingly, Mutawalli of Babri Masjid, in his first petition to the British government in Faizabad high court had referred to the disputed land as “Masjid Janmasthan.” This became first legal documentary evidence of the presence of Ram Mandir and of Ram Janmabhoomi. It also provided evidence that the Hindus used to worship both outside and inside the courtyard.
• Then the Britishers built a fence in 1859. They divided the site into two areas, that is, for Muslims and Hindus. Muslims were allowed to pray inside while Hindus were allowed to worship outside in the courtyard. Hindus started worshipping by creating a “chabutara” within the then masjid complex. It was a 11×17 foot “chabutara” which was under the open sky without any roof. Yet they didn’t give up.
• In the civil court of Faizabad, Mahanth Raghubar Das filed suit (No. 61/280) against the Secretary of State for India in Council in 1885. Das pleaded in his lawsuit that the Hindus be allowed to build a temple at the location of the chabutra in the outer courtyard. The suit was however, dismissed. Then a Civil Appeal (No. 27) was filed in 1886 against the 1885 ruling. FER Chamier, the District Judge of Faizabad, made the decision to go to the location before issuing the order. However, he too dismissed it.
• It should be noted that from 1528-1858, there is no evidence of Namaz being offered at the Janmasthan site.

After 1947- 

• 23rd December, 1949-1950: Following police reports that the mosque contains idols of the Hindu deity Rama. Fearing public unrest, the government decided to declare it as “Disputed Property” and locked its gates. It should be noted that the Muslims made no FIR that their were not able to offer Namaz. It was only the Hindus who had lodged an FIR that they were unable to pray. Later on, Congress had ordered the removal of idol from Janmasthan site. However, the then collector of Ayodhya, K.K Nayar had refused to comply stating that he couldn’t find any brahmin to remove the idol. Thus, the court ordered status quo to be maintained.
• On January 16, 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad filed a lawsuit in the Faizabad civil court, requesting the exclusive right to perform puja and a permanent injunction that would forbid removing the idol from the Janmasthan. He became the first person in independent India to file a lawsuit in this case. After the court issued a temporary injunction, the Allahabad High Court division bench subsequently upheld the decision. Uttar Pradesh, which was then governed by Govind Ballabh Pant’s Congress party, filed an appeal against the injunction order on April 24, 1950.
• 1959-61: Nirmohi Akhara, one of the 14 akharas recognized by the Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad, filed a case on December 17, 1959, requesting ownership of the location. Two years later, on 18th December 1961, the Sunni Waqf Board enters the dispute case. It claimed the mosque, adjacent land and demanded that the idols be removed. Later on, the court clubbed suits and the Nirmohi Akhara, Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas (representing Ram Lalla) and Sunni Waqf Board became primary parties in the case.
• 1981-89: The then Congress government was going through public pressure. This was on account of the mass conversions in Meenakshipuram in 1981 and the Sikh riots of 1984. Approximately, 400-800 dalit women had been converted to Islam. Then the assassination of Indira Gandhi led to massacre of Sikhs. This had put Congress in a pickle. So in 1989, congress led by Rajiv Gandhi allowed the VHP to hold the Shilanyas ceremony, during which the foundation stone was to be placed.
• However, due to increased communal tensions, the union government asked the VHP to conduct Shilanyas outside the disputed site which the VHP declined.
• Things again became murky, so in 1990, L.K. Advani started his Rath Yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya. The aim was to spread awareness and to raise a collective demand for Ram Mandir. The yatra was to culminate on 30th October 1990 in Ayodhya. Mulayam Singh was the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and he had vehemently opposed the campaign. L.K. Advani was arrested in Bihar and so he could not complete his Yatra. But in support of the Ram Mandir movement, thousands of Karsevaks had gathered in Ayodhya. As they proceeded towards the Babri Masjid chanting bhajans the police under CM’s order had open fired in which many died including the Kothari Brothers. As per eye witness accounts the police while carrying dead bodies carried numerous injured Karsevaks and tossed them alive in Saryu river. This led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6th December 1992 and Justice Liberhan Commission was set up.

Police firing at civilians in 1990

• On 3rd April, 1993, the P V Narasimha Rao-led Congress government at the center passed the “Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act,” which allowed them to purchase all disputed areas (67.7 acres) which were pending before the Allahabad High Court. Ismail Faruqui and a few other people filed petitions contesting the validity of the act.
• 1994: The Supreme Court ruled that namaz could be performed anywhere, “even in open,” and that a mosque was not a “essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam.” As a result, “its acquisition (by the state) is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India.” The 2.77 acres, which formerly contained the disputed structure, could be included by the government in the 67.7 acres of land that will be purchased under the Acquisition of Certain Area Ayodhya Act, 1993.
• 2002–05: In order to ascertain who owns the site, three High Court judges started hearing the case in April 2002. They also ordered the ASI to conduct excavations in order to ascertain whether the Hindus’ claims about the existence of a temple there are true. The claim was found to be true by the ASI, which started operations in June 2003. The Muslim parties disagreed with the findings. In order to preserve communal harmony, the Supreme Court banned all religious activity on the acquired land in March 2003.
• The United Progressive Alliance, led by Congress, took office in 2004. The Court soon after announced that it would review the exoneration of Advani. In 2009,  Liberhan commission, submitted its report after 48 extensions.
• In 2010: the Allahabad High Court in its ruling on September 30, 2010, divided the disputed land into three portions. One third going to the Sunni Waqf Board, one third to the Nirmohi Akhara, and one third to the party supporting “Ram Lalla.” The decision was later on challenged by Sunni Waqf Board and the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha.
• In 2011: the supreme court stayed high courts order and maintained status quo.
• 2016: On February 26, 2016,Subramanian Swamy, a Bharatiya Janata Party member of parliament, filed a plea in the Supreme Court, requesting that a Ram temple be built at the disputed site.
• 2017: On March 21, 2017, India’s then-chief justice, J S Khehar, proposed an out of court settlement.
• 2019: Chief Justice Gogoi assembled a five-judge constitution bench to hear the appeals. The Supreme Court appointed a panel for mediation to settle the dispute. Following the failure of the mediation process, the court started holding daily hearings from 6th August 2019. Finally on 9th November 2019, it passed a verdict in Favour of the Hindus. It granted Muslims a separate 5-acre land for the construction of a mosque. The supreme court stated that this unanimous verdict was based on facts and not on faith.

Final Thoughts-

22nd January marked the culmination of 500 years of struggle wherein the majority community that is Hindus fought a legal battle for over 134 years. Just to be able to worship their Shri Rama on Rama’s place of birth in Ayodhya. This struggle involved seeing their temples getting razed time and again by the Mughals invaders. The journey involved conversions, killings in the name of faith and yet surviving all those atrocities to legally battle. Generations passed yet Hindus legally battled to seek their right to worship first under the Britishers and then again in independent India.

This epic battle is not merely a victory over title of a piece of land but marks the resurgence of a civilisation that is Bharat. It marks the beginning of – the end of colonial mindset!