By accident or design, the Commission seems to have made some inadvertent observations which cannot be contradicted or controverted. He has ended up supporting the Ramjanambhoomi case:
In Chapter No. 2 (Ayodhya & its Geography)
page No. 23 the Report says:
Para 9.1: "Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the birth place of the Hindu God Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy and historical city."
Para 9.2: "Ancient Ayodhya was traditionally the epitome of Hindu life, culture and a paradigm of coexistence of a multi-religious society. It was a peaceful place with a regular influx of visitors, pilgrims, Sadhus and Sants, monks, travellers, tourists."
Para 9.3 : "Ayodhya was also known variously as Vishala, khosla(sic) or Maha Khosla, Ikshvaku, Ram Puri, Ra Janam Bhoomi"
Para 9.4: "Ayodhya is of special and specific importance for the sect of Ram believers or those loosely term as the Ramanandis in Hindu Religion. The place was the place of unequaled pilgrimage for Hindus, Monks, travelers, pilgrims, sadhus & sants irrespective of their region & faith."
Para 9.5 : ..."This Place had become emotive issue owing to its position as the birth place of Ram, a theme present in every facet of the culture, connecting the past with the present & the future. this religious fervour had kept the town for centuries alive after success ruler had gone by"
Page 25, Para-10.3 :
"On the East of Ayodhya is Faizabad town with a population of about 2,10,000. It has a large number of temples mostly dedicated to the Hindu God Vishnu."
Page-26, Para-10.10
"The town is currently inhibited (sic) (inhabited!) With a multi-religious population consisting of Muslims, Buddhist, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, etc., but the majority of the population is Hindu. The temples were open to public of all denominations."
Page 29, Para 12.1
"There are large numbers of temples, mosques, shrines, tombs, gardens and other religious monuments spread over a large area; rather, metaphorically it is said that in Ayodhya every house is a temple.”
Page 29, Para 12.2
"Prominent temples were Sankat Mochan Mandir, Shakti Gopal Mandir, Shesh Avatar temple, Ved Mandir, Maniram Ki Chawni, Hanuman Garhi, Preethi Ke Thakur, Kanak Bhawan, Rang Mahal, Anand Bhawan, and Kasushalya Bhawan........"
Page 32, Para 12.12
"The topography and facts about Ram Katha Kunj, Ayodhya town or the Ram Janambhoomi complex or Ram Katha Kunj or the disputed structure are however not disputed. The facts are corroborated by NC Padhi in his statement with no contradiction."
Chapter-4 (Sequence of Events)
Page 61, Para 18.6
"In the year 1528, the Mughal Emperor Babar ordered his commander Mir Baqi to erect a mosque at Ayodhya. Protagonists of the present movement claimed that after demolishing the temple at the birth place of Ram, Mir Baqi constructed the mosque i.e. the "disputed structure."
Page 61, Para 18.8
"Worship of idols installed on the Ram Chabutra by Hindu devotees in general was performed for a considerable period. There was no objection from the Muslims staking the counter claim prior to the shifting of idols into the disputed structure in 1949."
Page 62, Para 18.9
"It is, however, not the Commission's mandate to record a finding with respect to the exact question of history and a discourse on whether a mosque was constructed at the place of temple is outside the Commission's purview. Suffice to say, the construction of the mosque by Mir Baqi in 1528 is now an admitted fact."
Page 63, Para 18.13
"Although, there was no order restraining the Muslims from going to the disputed structure or from offering Namaz therein either by the judiciary or from the administration, yet namaz was not offered at the disputed structure since 1934. No processions were taken out inside the disputed structure nor any grave dug there about."
Comment: This clearly shows that the Commission indirectly confirms that a mosque was constructed at the site of the temple. Ayodhya is in existence from times immemorial while Babur came much afterwards and the mosque was constructed in 1528 CE.
Page 88, para 26.2 say:
"...It is noteworthy that no member of the Muslim community from Ayodhya was a member of the Babri Masjid Action committee or other committee protesting the opening of locks at the disputed structure. Sultan Shahabuddin Owaisi, a Member of Parliament from Hyderabad challenged the opening of locks alongwith some others became a forerunner for taking on the Hindu organisation"
Page 89 Para 26.4 says:
"Muslims variously protested between 1st of January to the 30th of March, 1987. Apart from giving calls for, boycotting Republic Day (which call was later withdrawn), Bandhs were observed and a public rally held at Boat Club in Delhi. Public threats of violence were made by personalities no less than the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid, Shahabuddin and Suleiman Sait, etc."
Comment: Yet the Commission fails to make any adverse comment on these individuals.
In Paragraph 158.3 the Commission says that it "...never became a movement...". Whereas, in Para 158.9 & 159.10, it contradicted itself with the contention as to "...entire process of the movement" and "...leaders of the movement".
Chapter 1 (INTRODUCTION)
Page 15, Para 7.3
"Prominent members of the Muslim community claimed on behalf of their constituents, to be adversely affected by the demolition, in their sentiments and emotions. They claimed that their religious feelings were hurt. Initially various councils (sic) (counsels) representing the Babri Masjid Action Committee, Waqf Board, other Muslim organizations and individuals appeared and associated with the Commission before and during the framing of the Commission's rules."
Page 15, Para 7.4
"Thereafter, it was in the last stages, i.e., almost after a decade, that the counsel for the Muslim Law Board joined the proceedings. Mushtaq Ahmed started appearing before the Commission after half a decade of its existence; before the joining or associating of the Muslim Law Board before the Commission. Azad Makhmal representing Shahabuddin and another lawyer A. Haq showed up once or twice but made no worthwhile contribution to the inquiry. Mushtaq Ahmed did, however, cross-examined some witnesses intermittently. After a decade of the Commission's inquiry, one Bahar-ul-Barki representing the AIMLB appeared along with senior Counsel, Yusuf Muchhala representing the Muslim Personal Law Board and cross-examined some key witnesses like L.K. Adjani in part. No evidence was led or information provided to the Commission with respect to the conspiracy or pre-planning or the joint common enterprise, by any of these counsels. O.P. Sharma, advocate who also joined almost the fag end of the inquiry conducted himself equally ineffectually."
At Page 17 Para 8.3 the Commission says:
"The dispute with respect to disputed structure is proclaimed to be as ancient as history. Innumerable writings in books and research papers, commission proceedings were placed on the record of the commission. The title of the property was never settled much less finally by any civil court which is still pending before the honourable high court till date. From time to time rulers of the time permitted the people of their faith the possession."
Story of acquisition of 2.77 acres of land surrounding the structure:
The 2.77 acres land was acquired by the UP Govt. on Oct. 1991 for public purpose. This acquisition was challenged in the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High court by a local Muslim. The case was heard by full bench comprising of Hon'ble justice H.C. Mathur, Hon. Justice Brijesh Kumar & Hon. Justice S.H.A. Raza. The arguments were over by Nov.04, 1992. The date fixed for the pronouncement of the judgement was 4th December 1992. Justice Mathur & Justice Brijesh Kumar had already written their openion regarding this acquisition order. But the justice Raza delayed the pronouncement of its Judgement to the 11th of December 1992 which was after the 6th December, date fixed for commencement of karsewa.
This deliberate delay in pronouncement of the order infused a sense of disappointment in the mind of the people to get justice and ultimately led to the incidents. The Kar sevaks broke loose and climbed up the disputed structure. The structure was made to collepse in five hours and a temporary canopy (makeshift structure) was errected on the debris of the disputed structure where the Pooja is going on.
A few words regarding the civil suites:
The first civil suit regarding the title of Ram Janambhoomi was filed in 1950 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 1/1989). The second suit was filed in 1959 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 3/1989). The third suit was filed in 1961 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 4/1989). The fourth suit was filed in 1989 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 5/1989). For 40 years the cases remained hanging fire in district court of Faizabad.
After 40 years, in 1989 these cases were transferred to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. Since then another twenty years have passed. Due to the retirement of one or the other judge, the bench had to be reconstituted eleven times and consequently the justice is not only been delayed but also derailed and denied.
Conclusion:
Even after 40+ extensions during seventeen long years of the country's valuable time and wasting four years in marely preparing huge volume of useless report, the commission declared many prominent personalities as culpable without giving them a chance of hearing. It is shameful that in its long list of culprits one had already been died before the date of incident and seventeen therafter before submission of its report. The adverse comments made towards the apex judiciary of the country, Media, head of the state(governor) and other respectable segments of the society are highly unacceptable.
Convened by Chamapat Rai, Joint General Secretary-VHP, and compiled by members of the team i.e. Amba Charan Vashisth, K.K. Sharma, Vinod Bansal, Rakesh Upadhyay.
