Ayodhya verdict- is it contradictory?

Indian law has a peculiarity- a Deity worshiped at a particular place has legal personality and can initiate a law-suit to recover his property. This doctrine has been settled law since 1887 when the Bombay High Court stated, in the Dakor Temple case, that the “Hindu idol is a juridical subject and the pious idea that it embodies is given the status of a legal person.”That is what has happened in the Ayodhya case.

Islam considers a building no longer used as a mosque not to be a mosque. In Pakistan, the Shaheed Ganj Mosque was taken over by Sikhs. The British upheld their occupancy. Then, in 1935, the Sikhs destroyed the mosque and built a gurudwara. To this day, it survives as a Sikh place of worship. Why? In Islamic law, it is no longer a Mosque. It is merely a building. On the other hand, the Sikh and Hindu population was ethnically cleansed from the area. The property was taken over by the Government. It refused to permit a mosque to be raised on the site. Thanks to Pakistani support for Khalistani separatists, a Gurudwara was constructed on the site in 2004. Some years later, some locals tried to get it back under the pretense that it contained the tomb of a Sufi Saint. However, this type of Saint worship is frowned on by the orthodox, so the place remains a Gurudwara. Why? A mosque is not a mosque unless it is being used as a mosque. Even the Ayatollahs and the Wahabbis agree that a mosque can be moved or demolished for any proper purpose of Governance. The Babri Masjid was not used as a mosque from 1949 onward. It was closed to Hindu worship, but a Pundit was permitted to perform religious ceremonies once a year. Under Rajiv Gandhi, it was opened to Hindu worship in 1986. A mass-movement for the construction of a temple on the site began at this time. In consequence, it was demolished by a large gathering of Hindu activists almost thirty years ago.

The Supreme Court states that Muslims have been unlawfully deprived of property and ordered that they receive a larger plot of land as restitution. But, no mosque can be built at the place because the structure that was demolished was not a mosque. By contrast, the Hindu deity continued to receive worship from a Hindu Pundit in that ancient building under the control of the Archaeological Dept. Later, the Government of India, by a decision of Rajiv Gandhi's government, was opened to Hindu worship directed at a particular deity with legal personality.

The Wire, with typical perversity, finds the SC ruling to be contradictory.

In other words, the court says that:
1. the mosque was constructed well over 450 years ago,
2. there is proof that Muslims worshipped there from 1857 till 1949, when they were illegally ousted “through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship”;
3. but because “they have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century… on a balance of probabilities, the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims.”

If the Mosque was used by Hindus then the Deity's claim to the entire area stands proven. His legal personality received continuous worship. However, Muslim use of the structure came to an end in 1949. The Government could have permitted the Muslims to use it again prior to its demolition. But the Government did not do so. Thus, the building which was demolished- which had witnessed both Hindu and Muslim worship- had long ceased to be a mosque but had not ceased to be the domicile of the Deity who has won this suit.

What the court leaves unaddressed is the purpose the mosque served  between 1528, when it was built, and 1857.

It served the purpose of both Hindu and Muslim worship. However, it ceased to serve the latter purpose in 1949. By contrast, Hindu worship continued. This worship was specifically directed at a Deity with legal personality. By contrast, Allah has no legal personality. Nor does Lord Vishnu or Lord Buddha or any other Universal God or Savior. However, temple deities do have legal personality

If a dispute arose in 1856 between local Hindus and Muslims over the manner in which the inner and outer courtyards were being used, it stands to reason that this is because Muslims and Hindus had both been praying there from before.

Quite right. Hindus had been praying there before. Thus the Hindu deity had a property claim under Indian law. God did not.

In any event, when the court categorically asserts, “The Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago,” it accepts that it was a mosque throughout its lifetime and thus, by definition, would have belonged to Ayodhya’s Muslim residents.

Quite right. The Muslims were wrongfully deprived of the mosque by the Government of India. That's why it stopped being a Mosque.  Later, the entire building was razed to the ground- again unlawfully. Thirty years later, the Muslims have a claim to restitution of land for a mosque but not of this specific plot of land because the Deity has a superior legal right on the basis of continuous occupancy.

Yet, because the Muslim plaintiffs were able to provide no evidence to prove their exclusive possession or even that namaz was offered for over 300 years, the court handed the site over to the Hindu plaintiffs.

If the Muslims said they were offering prayers to a specific Saint who was buried on the spot, and that they continue to make pilgrimages to the area and offer such prayers as close as possible, then, if Indian Courts accorded legal personality to Sufi Pirs, they would be on an equal footing with the Hindus. Alternatively, they could say they were worshiping 'Allah of Ayodhya' who was distinct from 'Allah of Mecca'. But that would be anathema.

Incidentally, nowhere have the Hindu plaintiffs, other than the Nirmohi Akhara which the court ousted, been asked to demonstrate exclusive possession of the site.

The Deity may be considered a 'Hindu plaintiff'. He has won his suit. It may be observed that Hindus temples do not normally refuse to allow worshipers of other Deities from entering and offering prayers. Thus, if I go to the Balaji temple, I am not barred from the premises on the grounds that I also go to the Swaminarayan Temple. On the other hand, if I desire to go to Mecca and enter the sacred precinct despite being a Buddhist or Christian, permission could- quite properly- be denied. This does not mean every mosque would bar people from another faith. Indeed, a searcher for the truth is likely to be welcomed. However, Mosques are exclusively for Islamic worship. You will be politely but very firmly told that you are not welcome to pray to Hecate or the Great Spaghetti Monster while others offer namaaz.

Hindus worshipped at the Ram Chabutra outside the domed structure and the 18th century European traveller Jozef Tieffenthaler’s account of the worship of the ‘bedi’ or chabutra/cradle is cited, but that is an ambiguous source for the claim that Hindus worshipped inside the inner courtyard, let alone on an exclusive basis.

It is reasonable to believe, on the basis of current practice, that Hindus did enter the inner courtyard for- what Muslims would consider- a superstitious reason. No doubt, becoming familiar with Islamic namaaz, they would be attracted to that religion and, it is more than likely, gradually became Islamicized. However, the majority remained Hindu. When they gained power, they reduced Muslims to a second class status. Many Muslims, more especially those of higher status, emigrated to Pakistan as a result. Politicians may have pretended otherwise. But the truth stares us in the face.

Why has it taken this long for this dispute to be resolved? One reason is because Indian lawyers are utterly shite. Their metier is beating up policemen not forensic logic.