Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

[Ayodhya Hearing] [Day 7] 'Muslims Cannot Claim Ownership Merely Because They Offered Prayers At Disputed Site', Submits Counsel For Ram Lalla

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
16 Aug 2019 12:05 PM GMT
[Ayodhya Hearing] [Day 7] Muslims Cannot Claim Ownership Merely Because They Offered Prayers At Disputed Site, Submits Counsel For Ram Lalla
x

On the seventh day of the Ayodhya hearing, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan resumed his arguments on behalf of Ram Lalla Virajman. Through archaeological evidence including maps, photographs and an ASI report, based on a survey conducted in 2003, Vaidyanathan attempted to persuade the constitution bench that before the Babri Masji was constructed, there existed a temple of Lord Ram at the...

On the seventh day of the Ayodhya hearing, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan resumed his arguments on behalf of Ram Lalla Virajman. Through archaeological evidence including maps, photographs and an ASI report, based on a survey conducted in 2003, Vaidyanathan attempted to persuade the constitution bench that before the Babri Masji was constructed, there existed a temple of Lord Ram at the disputed site.

Citing the ASI report, it was submitted that there existed a massive, pillar-based structure dating back to the 2nd century BC. Vaidyanathan went on to submit that the land on which the structure was erected could not have been agricultural and nor was the structure residential, but public in nature. Upon being questioned by Justices DY Chandrachud and SA Bobde as to whether there was any proof of this being a religious structure, Vaidyanathan reiterated that it was massive in nature and the ASI survey was conclusive about there being a mandap at the cite with pillars.

Earlier, photographs from a 1990 report were presented to the bench showing pillars with sculptures and images of deities on these pillars. Using these photographs, Vaidyanathan argued that there never used to be a mosque on the disputed site as practice of Islam does not allow such scriptures.

"Just because prayers are being offered, it does not amount to ownership. Muslims could offer prayers on streets but that doesn't mean they own it.", he said

"I submit that there never used to be a mosque there. It might have been used as a mosque, but it wasn't a mosque in accordance with Sharia law", he added. 

In those times, a structure as massive as this, to which the public had access would appear to have been a temple, said Vaidyanathan. He further added that while there was nothing to suggest that it was a temple for Lord Ram, belief that it is the Ram Janmabhoomi and preponderance of probability indicate that it was indeed a Ram temple.

Since reliance was being placed heavily on the ASI survey, Justice Bobde asked whether the excavated materials had undergone carbon dating. Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Sunni waqf board, interjected saying carbon dating could only be carried out on organic material such as bones, not idols made of bricks and metals. Vaidyanathan answered saying carbon dating was carried out on excavated materials found at the site, not on the idols.

Suggestions that there could have been a Buddhist temple had also been disproved by Prof Nagaswamy of ASI, submitted Vaidyanathan.

Assuring the court that the excavated materials had been thoroughly analysed and cross examined, Vaidyanathan submitted that the archeological evidence suggested that the mosque was constructed on the ruins of the Ram Temple, as the underlying foundation of the structure never changed.

The hearing will now resume on Monday, August 19, with CS Vaidyanathan informing the bench today that he will move on to oral submissions after presenting archeological evidence.

Next Story