AYODHYA OF RAM

AYODHYA
OF RAM
CONFLICTS &
NEGOTIATIONS
AS
SPATIAL PRACTICES
VC7101B
MA
RESEARCH
ARCHITECTURE
STUDENT NO 33171769
2010-11

Ayodhya has become important.
‗Everywhere, barricading…and questions about your name, religion, identity. Imagine a citizen of India in Ayodhya,
Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh having to carry a certificate to prove who they are and where they live…In this town of just
40,000 people, there is something like 6000 personnel of the police and paramilitary forces, not to mention the
intelligence units, most of whom are posted in and around the 67 acres of land, surrounding the disputed site acquired by
the government - 67 acres that no longer belong to the people of Ayodhya, 67 acres surrounded by the yellow
barricade.‘1
Conflicts (events) never simply happen in space but, are about space making. Space gets redefined the way
conflicts unfold. The two categories intermesh and continuously shape each other. Space is the very medium
and language within which conflicts and negotiations are conducted. Its elasticity is its capacity to internalise
forces, where a force field (of politics) operates on matter and fall into form. Politics too is not a formless -
abstract process, but rather a formal process, a process in form. As D‘Arcy Thompson says, form is a diagram of
forces.2
The essay attempts to see how conflicts (and negotiations) play out around the ownership of an 80 x 138 sq ft
piece of land in Ayodhya within an imaginary, constructed, real - image and architecture of the Ram3 Temple and
through the organisation, subversion, representation, erasure and transformation of space.
Governmentality can be understood as the circulation of people and things in space. Circulation is regulated
through thresholds, barriers and walls, as without them there is no movement. Society can therefore be seen as
organised by walls and unwalling, borders and unbordering. Borders being porous allow differential movement –
they filter and register - who and what can move and how far, they organise, exclude etc., affecting other
dynamics.4
The Ram Temple movement in Ayodhya is in the crux of religious, political, ideological, and spatial conflict. Its
story unfolds as a dispute of claims for the land by both Hindus and Muslims. Behind it lie issues of faith, power
and politics – a politics of religion, history, and archaeology, of ideology and space. The progress of Ayodhya
from a relative local5 non-issue to a potent, divisive national movement will be seen as reﬂected in the changing
character, materiality and position of a series of borders that constantly get reorganised around the disputed site;
the increase in territory / area; changes in security apparatus; shifts in filtering access; and the changing
character of the Ayodhya law suits.6
The essay simultaneously follows the object (Ram Temple) through its process of production – the making of the
image of Ram and the Ram Temple for the Ram Temple Movement. To build the temple one had to demolish the
mosque. And to actually demolish the mosque, an imagery of a virtual temple had to be constructed - in this case
a virtual temple below the mosque and an imagery of a proposed temple. The two imageries of the temples were
strategically coalesced into one, one based on the other. A play of object and images in virtuality and reality both
trying to destroy each other. The destruction of Babri Masjid is read not through the literal destruction but through
the construction of temple as an image and object both – the construction of the fetish. Before you even think of
breaking the false god with the hammer, you need to show that there is a false god.
1 Ayodhya Gatha; Director: Vani Subramanian; Producer: PSBT (Rajiv Mehrotra); Produced In: 2007. http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/471/Ayodhya-
Gatha/TUE9PStP
2 Conflicts and Negotiations lecture notes 2010-11, Dr Eyal Weizman, Paulo Tavares.
3 Hindu God
4 Conflicts and Negotiations lecture notes 2010-11, Dr Eyal Weizman, Paulo Tavares.
5 The issue began as a local one. The main players are Sunni Central Wakf Board and Nirmohi Akhara - from Ayodhya. The original legal plea also involves
people from Ayodhya.
6 Filed ﬁrst in the lower court and subsequently consolidated and transferred to the High Court - Conflict of space through judiciary.

Source:
1850’s (INDIA UNDER BRITISH RULE OF EAST INDIA COMPANY)
It was in the post-1857 period when political conditions in India were fluid that a mahant7 of Ayodhya constructed
a chabutra8 on the land leading to the masjid and started worship, claiming it to be the janmasthan9 of Shri Ram.
The mahant filed a case in 1885 claiming title to the land in the mosque and for permission to construct a temple
on the chabutra. Colonel Chamier, an Englishman serving as the District Judge decided a suit claiming a right to
build a temple outside the masjid premises, visited the site. In a judgement delivered in 1886, the judge
observed:
―I found that the masjid built by Emperor Babar, stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west
and south, and it is clear of habitation. It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on the land specially
held sacred by the Hindus. But as that occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be
done is maintain the parties in status quo. In such a case as the present one, any innovation would cause more harm and
derangement of order than benefit.‖
The mahant‘s suit was thus dismissed. So were his appeals to the superior courts. The British officials favoured
the status quo, for religious and political reasons. The site was then demarcated for the first time in 1859; the
colonial British administration put a railing around the site, denominating separate areas of worship for Hindus
and Muslims; separating the Ram Chabutra from the masjid; inner court to be used by Muslims and the outer
court by Hindus. The Hindus are to enter from the East gate and the Muslims from the north. And that is the way
it stood for about 90 years.10
7 Religious Superior in particular the Chief Priest of Hindu Temple also called pujari.
8 The ram chabutra outside the mosque is a raised platform, 17 x 21 feet in area, about hundred paces from the mosque proper.
9 Birth place
10 Mishra, V. C. (1991) Ram Janmabhoomi, Babri Masjid : historical documents, legal opinions, and judgements, Delhi: Bar Council of India Trust; p 30

Map showing disputed property. Map is part of record prepared in Suit 1885, filed by Sri Gopal Sahai, Amin, Commission appointed by the
Sub-Judge, Faizabad. 6th Dec 1885, Mahant Raghubir Das claiming title to the land in the mosque and for permission to construct a
temple on the chabutra. The line indicates the railing for demarcation but, strangely, the plans indicate the gate on the east but not in the
north.
Original document (previous page) and translated in Urdu with devanagari script for court proceedings (above).
Source: High Court Judgement in Sep 2010, pg 5096, pg 5097 respectively.

Site Plan of Babri Masjid so called Ramjanmastan Chabootra submitted by Mahant Raghubardas along with the plaint of Suit No 61/280
of 1885 (Mahant Raghubardas v/s Secretary of State & Others) decided on 24-12-1885 by Sub-Judge, Faizabad.
The plan shows the railing separating areas in possession of ‗Hindoos‘ and ‗Mohammadans‘ and the two gates to the north and east of
the site. The Muslims however, had to enter through the Hindu Territory.
Source: The Babri Masjid Question 1528-3003; A matter of national honour; ed A.G.Noorani (2003)

22-23 DECEMBER 1949 (INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS11)
In the early hours of December 23, 1949 the idol of Ram, which was already on Ram Chabutra, was moved
under the central dome of the Masjid and the words ‗Sita Ram‘ etc were written on the walls, both inside and
outside the masjid in geru12 and yellow colour. This was interpreted as having established that the site was
indeed the Ram Janmabhoomi…Both sides filed civil suits. On 29th Dec 1949, the Government declared the area
“disputed”. Entry into Babri Masjid was banned and the gates locked (both Hindus and Muslims were excluded
and a Receiver13 appointed to look after the property), saying the matter was sub judice.
The movement of the idol from outside the mosque to inside the mosque as a claim to the place of worship can be
identified as a defining politically engineered moment of the Hindu-Muslim conflict. The violation was a result of
premeditated collusion between bigoted sections of the political party and the local Faizabad bureaucracy led by
a (self-admitting) deputy commissioner.14
The critical mind is generally the one that shows the hands of humans at work everywhere so as to slaughter the sanctity
of religion, the belief in fetishes, the worship of transcendent, heaven-sent icons, and the strength of ideologies. The more
the human hand can be seen as having worked on an image, the weaker is the image‘s claim to offer truth... The only
way to defend science against the accusation of fabrication, to avoid the label of ‗socially constructed‘, is apparently to
insist that no human hand has ever touched the image it has produced. But what would happen if, when saying that some
image is human-made, you were increasing instead of decreasing its claim to truth? We could say, contrary to the critical
urge, that the more human-work is shown; the better is their grasp of reality, of sanctity, of worship. That the more
images, mediations, intermediaries, icons are multiplied and overtly fabricated, explicitly and publicly constructed, the
more respect we have for their capacities to welcome, to gather, to recollect truth and sanctity.15
Until 1980‘s the dispute remained confined to the individuals of Ayodhya. Further the issue remained confined as
a religious issue. The only claim made or demand raised during this period was confined to individual rights -
removal of the receiver, rights to collect offerings, or possession of land etc. the demands remained confined to
civil courts. There was no demand by the public at large at any forum.16 By 1989 the only contribution of the
judicial process was that instead of two suits, there were five. All were taken over by the High Court. A Special
Bench of three judges was constituted to hear all of them together. Arriving at the area in dispute, the Special
Bench says, ‗It is not in dispute that the entire disputed area ABCD consists of two parts, (1) inner court, which
included the disputed building and, (2) outer courtyard. This division of the disputed premises in the inner
courtyard and outer courtyard came to exist in 1856-1857 when it is said that an iron-grilled wall17 was erected
separating the disputed building along from the other constructed parts including the Chabutra called Ram
Chabutra. The exact date or period is not on record nor the parties could throw any light thereon except that its
existence has been noticed in P. Karnegi's Historical Sketch (supra) published in 1870 and that shows that it was
constructed sometime after 1855 and also admitted by Mohd. Asghar, defendant no.2 in Suit 1885 in his written
statement‘.18
11 Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as Prime Minister. First General Elections were held in 1952. India was independent in 1947.
12 An earthly red colour
13 Court appointed priest
14 http://www.southasiamonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=994&catid=54&Itemid=102
15 Latour, B. and Weibel, P. (2002) Iconoclash, [Karlsruhe]: ZKM; London : MIT Press.
16 In Jan 1950, a suit is filed by Gopal Singh Visharad in the Court of the Civil Judge, Faizabad, praying for a declaration that he is entitled to worship in the
Ramjanmabhumi. On 3rd March 1951, an interim injunction order by Civil Judge allowed a Hindu priest in but forbade entry to others and the idols were not
to be removed.16 In 1959, a civil suit was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara filed in Faizabad. The Akhara stakes claim to the disputed land and claims to be
responsible for conducting the puja. On 18th Dec 1961, the first civil suit by Muslims is filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board for the delivery of the
possession of the mosque by the removal of the idols and other articles of Hindu worship.
17 Referred to as railing earlier
18 High Court Judgement, pg 2297.

Plan 01
Sketch map dated 25.05.1950 prepared by Shri Shiv Shankar Lal Pleader, Commissioner, showing the building in suit.
In the court of the civil judge, Faizabad Regular Suit No 2 of 1950 / Shri Gopal Singh Visharad v/s Zahur Ahmad and others.
Souce: High Court Judgement, pg 5092

Plan no 02
Plan 02 showing the building in suit with its locality.
Dated 25.01.1950
In the court of the civil judge, Faizabad Regular Suit No 2 of 1950 / Shri Gopal Singh Visharad v/s Zahur Ahmad and others.

Plan no 03
Redrafted based on Plan 01 with markings in green by the court.
Both plans – 01 and 03 indicate markings of the kasauti pillars later claimed as evidence of a temple destroyed to build the mosque. Also
worth noticing is the thick wall indicating the building in suit and the two gates prominently.

Plan no 04
Plan 04 redrafted – based on Plan 01 and Plan 02 and translated in English. Markings in green by the court.

The Suit 4 has been filed for the property identified as "ABCD" in the sketch map. In the court of the civil judge, Faizabad Regular Suit No
12 of 1961 / Sunni Central Board of Wakf, UP and Others v/s Shri Gopal Singh Visharad and others.
The High Court on the above map – ‗The inner lineABCD in this map does not include the complete four walled structure, as it was, but
some part on the extreme southern side is left out which on south west is marked, 'Chabutara' and on south east, just behind 'Ram
Chabutara'. The correctness of this map has seriously been doubted by all the defendants (Suit-4) and in fact, the defendants no. 3 and 4
along with their written statement dated 22/24.8.1962 have filed another sketch map (Plan 01) a copy whereof is appended herewith. For
the convenience purpose, the relevant part of the said sketch map which is now the area of dispute with which we are concerned…is
reproduced as‘ Plan 03 previously.
Wrt plan 03, ‗it may also be mentioned that part of the property shown in this map on the southern side as "CDKL" and the entire part just
opposite on the south eastern side parallel to "CDKL" has not been shown in the map appended to the plaint (Suit-4) and therefore, this
part has been left for claiming any relief and cannot be treated to be a part of property in dispute for the purpose of Suit-4..

The plaintiffs (Suit 4) in order to prove two documents i.e. letter issued by the District Magistrate, Faizabad in December, 1949 moved an
application no. 20(O) of 2002 for summoning the original record from the State Government. Pursuant thereto the District Magistrate,
Faizabad produced a file containing official correspondence and other documents which was placed under a sealed cover by this Court's
order dated 29.05.2009.The aforesaid file contains a letter dated 16th December, 1949 of the District Magistrate, Faizabad accompanied
by a blue print of the map of the disputed site duly scaled. The position of various structures shown therein is not in any manner different
than what is contained in the two maps, one prepared by Gopal Sahai Amin in Suit 1885 and another by Sri Shiv Shankar, Court's
Commissioner in Suit-1 on 25.05.1950. Since it is a scaled map, having been prepared by Government authorities duly signed by the City
Magistrate Faizabad, we find no reason not to place reliance thereon.
Source: High Court Judgement, pg 2293, 2294.
Sketch of the disputed shrine at Ayodhya. The dispute is over the shaded area.
Source: Anatomy of a confrontation, Ed. S. Gopal, pg 94.

1980’s
(1980 CONGRESS I
1984-85 CONGRESSS I19)
The disputed structure had two locked gates and only the pujaris were allowed inside. The darshan of the idol of Ram
Lala installed in the sanctum sanctorum could be had only through the iron grills of the gate which the VHP sought to
project as the imprisonment of Ram Lala.20
A meeting of the Dharm Sansad21 of the VHP was held at New Delhi in April 1984, wherein it was decided to
start the movement of the „liberation‟ of the idols in the disputed structure. The demand for ―liberating‖ the idols
and the movement for opening of locks of the disputed structure veered around to the demand for construction of
a temple by 1989. Political parties started perceiving and realising the political potential of the religious issue for
acquiring power. The dispute was transformed into a 'national' issue by the BJP22 and VHP,23 imbuing it with
cultural and political significance. An important factor which made this transformation possible was the mobilising
potential of religious symbols and images.24 As Franco Berardi says, what is interesting is not image as a
representation of reality, but its dynamic power, its ability to stir up and build projections, interactions and
narrative frames structuring reality, its ability to select among infinite possible experiences, so that imagination
becomes image in action. Images have become dangerous. Images are the basic political dispositive today - an
interpretative and narrative dispositive for constructing new realities. We cannot do without images,
intermediaries, mediators of all shapes and forms, because this is the only way to access god, nature, truth and
science.25
In 1985 an architect was appointed by the VHP to design the Ram Mandir.26
VHP is our client and they approached me with this project. In the year 1985 first they had contacted me. There was no
design brief given; only that they want to have a two storey temple. On ground floor they want Ram Lala as main deity
and on the first floor they want Ram Darbar (Ram, Sita, Laxmanji and Das Hanumanji). Nagar Shaily was and is being
practiced in the northern region. So I adopted that style as this temple‘s architecture style. Only thing I had measured was
the size of the room in which Idol was kept. Ram Lala is being worshiped in a room right now so we determined the
Garbhagriha size from that. All dimensions are based on Garbha griha in Shilpashastra. From all this we finalised the
style and size of the temple. Client had told me that according to Shilpashastra whatever the size of temple will come we
will acquire that much land so you don't need to worry about site plan.27
On 1st Feb 1986, a district judge ordered the gates of the mosque to be opened and allowed Hindus to worship
inside the disputed structure.28 Later that year, the VHP announced its plan to construct a Ram Mandir at the
disputed site.29
19 Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister
20 Ayodhya 6 December 1992; p 24. Lala – child; Ram Lala – Ram in child form
21 Dharm – Religion; Sansad – Parliament. In the object oriented conception, ―parliament‖ is a technical term for ―making things public‖ among many other
forms of producing voices and connections among people. Here a religious parliament.
22 Bharatiya Janata Party – one of the two major political parties (the other is the Indian National Congress)
23 Vishwa Hindu Parishad – religious organisation – World Hindu Organisation.
24 Religious Symbols and Political Mobilization: The Agitation for a Mandir at Ayodhya; Author: K. N. Panikkar; Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 21, No. 7/8
(Jul. - Aug., 1993), pp. 63-78
25
26 The Mandir is not primarily considered a place for communal worship but the home of God, or the particular Deity. There are a number of architectural
styles, but the chief ones are North Indian (Nagara) and the South Indian (Dravida). To help build a temple (e.g. through offering financial support) is still
considered an act of piety. http://hinduism.iskcon.com/practice/312.htm
27 The architect Chandrakant Bhai Sompura.
28 The order read: The appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to open the locks of the gates ‗O‘ and ‗P‘ forthwith. They shall not impose any
restriction or hurdle in the Darshan and Pooja etc of the applicant and other members of the community in general. However, the respondents are free to
make an independent decision to control any law and order problem according to the needs of the situation and to regulate the entry of the pilgrims.
29 The plan contemplated the shifting of the mosque to another place and if this was not possible, the construction of the temple in the area leaving the
three domes of the mosque intact. Ayodhya 6 December 1992 – Narsimha Rao; p 38.

30‗Shree Ram Mandir
(A Marvellous Celestial Creation of Architecture in Horizon)
At Ayodhya (Under Construction), U.P.
CLIENT: Vishwa Hindu Parishad
The whole sub-continent where the great Nation India is situated and which inhabits the Ancient race of people called Hindus, looks forward anxiously, the
setting up of Shri Ram Temple. The erection of Shri Ram Temple at Ayodhya will be synonymous to translation of Faith of Hinduism in the architectural
from of illustrious divine edifice. Nonetheless, few people know the impressive architectural particulars of immense value and knowledge of the proposed
Shri Ram Temple, highlighted below:
Shri Ram Temple is designed and planned to be constructed in Nagar style of Architecture, popular in North India.31 It will have the super fine inter-
connected five architectural sections such as Garbh Gruha, Antral, Mahamandap or Gudhmandap, Rangmandap & Praveshmandap leading to Darshana of
Idol of Lord Shri Ram, an incarnation of Shri Vishnu, who maintains the worldly life on Earth.
The temple will have magnanimous plinth dimensions of 270‖ in length, 126‖ in width and 12‘3‖ in height. ... The Garbh Gruha will be of the size of 20‘ x 20‘
where Shri Bal Swarup Ramji‘s idol will be installed and on the floor above Garbh Gruha there will be Shri Ram Darbar under the dome. Garbh Gruha will
have one gate whereas Maha Mandap will have Seven gates. There will be beautiful carvings and installations of number of divine idols, keeping in view
Shashtra‘s guidelines. There will be total number of 212 Pillars and the total quantity of Marble and Granite to be used will run into 2.75 Lakhs Cft.
In the annals of Architecture Shri Ram Temple will be the rarely seen, unique kind of splendid creation ever conceptualized soft not only in India but at any
place on Earth, attracting at a future date, not only millions of devotees but students of Architecture as also tourists from all over the Globe.‘ - website
Actual Site Plan of proposed Ram Temple on disputed site covering entire Babri Mosque at Ayodhya
30 This page is from the website of the architect of the Ram Temple – Mr Chandrakant Sompura
http://www.sompuracb.com/architectures-8.html#rammandir
31 ―Excavations have revealed that original Ram temple was built in Nagar sheli style prior to its destruction. We are also following the same architecture,"
Sompura said (2002). Elaborating on its dimensions, he said the temple would be four times bigger than the original one. To be built at a cost of Rs 25
crore, it would need 2.75 lakh lakh cubic ft of pink sand stone being specially quarried from Bansi Pahrapur near Bhartapur in Rajasthan.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-02-07/ahmedabad/27126936_1_temple-stone-ayodhya-sri

With the image making of the object - the temple, the image of Ram was also re-constructed side by side. The
imagery of Ram has always been a peaceful one carrying a bow on his shoulder, accompanied with his wife Sita
and younger brother Lakshman. But a transformation takes place around this time. Ram was now projected
alone wielding his bow and arrow in militant form. Sita was removed from the day to day greeting of ‗Jai Siya32
Ram‘ and the aggressive and patriarchal slogan ‗Jai Shri Ram‘ was introduced. As mentioned, an image, a thing
is not only a representation but it organises affect; desires are projected into it. The two imageries of Ram and
the Temple were combined and used for campaigns. As Latour says, there is a direct connection between the
status of images and politics. Constructing images has always been a carefully planned, elitist and governed
action.33 The VHP and the BJP effectively exploited this issue realising its enormous political and electoral
potential to come into power.
The Shri Rama Janmabhoomi movement is not one of bricks and mortar, but is one that will restore the honour of the
nation and its culture. People take great pride in, and receive inspiration from temples which signify their glorious past.
This can be done only when we have a proper and full-fledged temple at the site. The basic ethos of the Shri Ram
Janmabhoomi movement is to rejuvenate the Hindu samaj and culture, and not just an issue of bricks and mortar.34
An issue is not political because power relations are at work.35 Mouffe explains, ‗The political‘ as the dimension of
antagonism – the friend/enemy distinction; ‗the political‘ as always a collective identification. Politics is not made
up of power relationships; it is made up of relationships between worlds. The task of a political fetish is to
organise a crowd. What makes people act politically is what he calls ‗passions‘. Collective identifications have to
do with desire, with fantasies, with everything that is precisely not interests or the rational.
Denying the political nature of the movement, the BJP says
No. It is an issue of our cultural resurgence and identity, where Shri Rama, as maryada purushottam, has a prime place
of importance. The movement is an expression of the collective consciousness of the Hindu ethos which was also
articulated by Shri K M Munshi in case of the Mandir at Somnath: ―The Hindu sentiment in regard to this temple is both
strong and widespread. In the present conditions, it is unlikely that, that sentiment will be satisfied by mere restoration of
the temple or by prolonging its life. The restoration of the idol would be a point of honour and sentiment with the Hindu
public.‖ Hence, for the Hindus Shri Rama Janmabhoomi movement is not political. The ones who are politicising the issue
are the ones who are negating this importance of Shri Rama. By giving the Babri structure a significance other than that
of monument of slavery, the issue becomes politicised. Not accepting a legitimate claim of the Hindus on their holy sites
is what causes politicisation.36
Significantly, the “next friend” of the idol and the place of worship himself admit to the political nature of the suit
by arguing that it has been prompted by the rapidly growing temple movement.
32 Sita also called Siya
33 Latour, B. and Weibel, P. (2002) Iconoclash, [Karlsruhe]: ZKM ; London : MIT Press.
34 http://www.hvk.org/ram/janm/a26.htm
35 Ranciere
36 http://www.hvk.org/ram/janm/a14.htm

1989 (NATIONAL FRONT37)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
O.O.S NO. 5 OF 1989
(R.S.NO. 236/1989
1. Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, Ayodhya, also called Bhagwan Sri Rama Lala Virajman, represented
by next friend, Sri Deoki Nandan Agrawal Senior Advocate/ Retired High Court Judge,56 Dilkusha, Allahabad is no more and in his
place Sri Triloki Nath Pandey S/o Askrut Pandey, Karsewakpuram, Ayodhya, Distt. Faizabad is substituted as next friend of plaintiff
nos.1 and 2.
2. Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, Ayodhya, represented by next friend, Sri Deoki Nandan Agrawal Senior Advocate/ Retired High
Court Judge,56 Dilkusha, Allahabad is no more and in his place Sri Triloki Nath Pandey aged about 65 years S/o Askrut Pandey,
Karsewakpuram, Ayodhya, Distt. Faizabad.
3. Sri Deoki Nandan Agrawal Senior Advocate/ Retired High Court Judge,56 Dilkusha, Allahabad is no more and in his place Sri Triloki
Nath Pandey aged about 65 years S/o Askrut Pandey, Karsewakpuram, Ayodhya, Distt. Faizabad.
…......Plaintiffs38
A fifth suit was filed in July 1989 by plaintiffs no. 1 and 2, namely the idols (Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman) and the
place of worship situated thereat (Asthan Sri Ram Janma Bhumi, Ayodhya), both represented by next friend, Sri
D.N. Agarwala and plaintiff no.3 Sri D.N. Agarwala himself.39…‘the plaintiff deities and their devotees are
extremely unhappy with the prolonged delay in the hearing and disposal of the said suits, and are not satisfied
with the working of the Receiver…‘
Tamen explains that there is an important difference between claiming that a soulless object has liability and
claiming that it has rights. Rights entail some measure of belief in the interests of inanimate objects, and so in the
possibility of inanimate objects‘ making their interests known… Communication does not amount to the existence
of independent interests. Communicative intentions and the expression of interests and the existence of an
autonomous point of view, are, as it were, predicated by the very act, an interpretive act, through which they are
made to conform to the interests of the predicating party.40 The concept of “legal representation” appears to be
the concept through which the epistemological uncertainties of language-attribution procedures are bypassed. In
the case of incompetents … A way has to be devised of initiating the relation of legal representation, which is
done through a second instance of representation, which is called the “friend of the (natural) object”. That friends
are not paid in cash is taken to mean that a more genuine form of representation can be obtained thereby…What
is singular in all invocation of the various duties of friendship in this context is the deletion from representation of
the very fact of representation, that is, the deletion of all references to the existence of two different parts whose
interests are temporarily brought together by a carefully bound contract. Such duplicity is typically explained
away by the consideration of an overarching moral dimension. To be able to tell what counts as legitimate
―communication‖ of their object‟s intentions and needs.41
37 On October 11, 1988, the Janata Dal was formed by merger of Jan Morcha, Janata Party, Lok Dal and Congress (S), in
order to bring together all the parties opposed to the Congress I government. Soon, many regional parties rallied around the
Janata Dal including the DMK, TDP, and AGP and formed the National Front. The five-party National Front jumped into the
electoral fray in 1989 after joining hands with the BJ) and the two communist parties - the Communist Party of India-Marxist
(CPI-M) and the Communist Party of India (CPI). Chandra Shekhar from Samajwadi Janata Party became the P.M.
38 http://elegalix2.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/ayodhyafiles/hondvsj-oos-5-1989.pdf
39 The suit was filed ‗for a declaration that the entire premises … belong to the plaintiff's deities and for a perpetual injunction against the defendants
prohibiting them from interfering with, or raising any objection to, or placing any obstruction in the construction of the new temple building at Sri Ram Janma
Bhumi after demolishing and removing the existing buildings and structures etc. situate there at, in so far as it may be necessary or expedient to do so for
the said purpose‘. - Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Dharam Veer Sharma, J. http://elegalix2.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/ayodhyafiles/hondvsj-oos-5-
1989.pdf
40 What lawns and countries can ―communicate‖ is typically what the believers in the communicative virtues of lawns and countries expect them to
communicate. This explains why they can never prove their interpreters wrong.
41 Tamen, M. (2001) Friends of interpretable objects, Cambridge, Mass. ; London: Harvard University Press. Chapter 5 – Rights; pg 87-98. To describe
interpretation as a set of actions that, by attributing language and intentions to certain objects, also skip all further consideration of finer ontological
distinctions between those objects. Interpretation is described as nothing but an elaborate exercise designed to make unspeaking objects speak. Whatever
is thought to deserve interpretation is also thought to matter to those who engage in that kind of exercise.

The issue of whether plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons42 was affirmative and part of the reasoning by the
judgement is as follows: ‗That the place itself, or the Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, as it has come to be
known, has been an object of worship as a Deity by the devotees, as it personifies the spirit of the Divine
worshipped in the form of Sri Rama Lala or Lord Rama the child. The Asthan was thus deified and has had a
juridical personality of its own even before the construction of a Temple building or the installation of the idol of
Bhagwan Sri Rama thereat…The actual and continuous performance of Puja of such an immovable Deity by its
devotees is not essential for its existence as a Deity. The deity continues to exist so long as the place exists, and
being land, it is indestructible. Thus, Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi is an indestructible and immovable Deity
who has continued to exist throughout the ages.‘43
…Thus, it is well settled and confirmed by the authorities on jurisprudence and Courts of various countries that for a
bigger thrust of socio-political-scientific development evolution of a fictional personality to be a juristic person became
inevitable. This may be any entity, living inanimate, objects or things.44
The ―next friend‖ adds:
The deities are impatient for a temple, the architect has already taken charge of the Ayodhya temple design, and a date
has been set for its construction.
The historian, Panikkar explains that the temple campaign launched and led by the VHP, with the active support
and participation of the BJP and RSS45, was religious only in form but political in content - a project pursued in
religious idiom for political ends – a process of politicising Ram – politicising religion. Resolution or support for
the temple construction movement was brought on the election manifesto of BJP in 1991. It was at this stage that
the so called religious issue completely merged with the political issue.
Political activity is whatever shifts a body from the place assigned to it or changes a place‘s destination. It makes visible
what had no business being seen, and makes heard a discourse where once there was only place for noise; it makes
understood as discourse what was once only heard as noise…Politics occurs when there is place and a way for two
heterogeneous processes to meet.46
The issue emerged on the national political scenario and the people were mobilised for the same. It had set up
the political agenda for the nation. The movement touched a sympathetic chord in the mind of Hindus, even in
areas where worship of Rama was not popular. This was possible because Ayodhya was imbued with a symbolic
meaning, both about the „self‟ as well as the 'other'.47
42 Persons are classified as a natural and juristic person. A natural person is a being to whom the law attributes personality in accordance with reality and
truth. Legal persons are beings, real or imaginary, to whom the law attributes personality by way of fiction. Legal personality is an artificial creation of the
law...e.g. a group of human beings, a fund, an idol. An idol may be regarded as a legal persona in itself...The law recognises certain human agents as
representatives of the idol or of the fund. This is no mere academic distinction, for it is the legal persona of the idol that is bound to the legal relationships
created, not that of the agent. Legal personality then refers to the particular device by which the law creates or recognizes units to which it ascribes certain
powers and capacities. A legal person is holder of rights and duties, it can own and disposes of property, it can receive gifts and it can sue and be sued in
its name in the courts. However, the juridical person in the idol is not the material image, and it is an exploded theory that the image itself develops into a
legal person as soon as it is consecrated. It is not also correct that the Supreme Being of which the idol is a symbol or image is the recipient and owner of
the dedicated property. The idols‘ ―interests are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who in law is its manager…‖ The fictitious
ownership which is imputed to the deity is determined by the expressed intentions of the founder; the debutter property cannot be applied or used for any
purpose other than that indicated by the founder. The deity as owner therefore represents nothing else but the intentions of the founder. In case of
dedicated property the deity is to be regarded as owner not in the primary but in the secondary sense.
43 The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded and have given reasons as to why the place believed to be the birth place of Lord Ram is a deity. Reliance has
been placed on paras 19,20 and 21 of the plaint - 19. That it is manifestly established by public records of unimpeachable authority that the premises in
dispute is the place where Maryada Purushottam Sri Ramchandra Ji Maharaj was born as the son of Maharaja Dashrath of the solar Dynasty, which
according to the tradition and the faith of the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Rama is the place where HE manifested HIMSELF in human form as an incarnation
of BHAGWAN VISHNU. The place has since ever been called Sri Rama Janma Bhumi by all and sundry through the ages.
44 http://elegalix2.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/ayodhyafiles/hondvsj-oos-5-1989.pdf
45 Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (a voluntary organisation for socio-cultural change in Hindu society formed in 1925)
46 Rancière, Jacques.: Disagreement : politics and philosophy / Jacques Rancière; p 30, p 34.
47 The friend / enemy distinction – Carl Scmitt

Politics is a matter of subjects or, rather modes of subjectification. By subjectification, Ranciere means the production
through a series of actions of a body and a capacity for enunciation not previously identifiable within a given field of
experience, whose identification is this part of the reconfiguration of the field of experience.
The necessary pre-requisite was to establish Ayodhya as essentially Hindu by linking it with the legend of Ram.
The disputed structure was projected as a national shame, and as an insignia of slavery, requiring removal. The
dual meaning of Ayodhya-a symbol of Hindu identity and Muslim atrocity-became socially visible through a series
of public interventions, from Ram shila puja on 30 September 1988 to the demolition of the Masjid on 6
December 1992; more importantly, participation in them facilitated their internalisation as well. It was this
intelligibility which made Ayodhya a powerful mobilising force.48 The rath yatra49 and the temple construction
movement had been elevated to the rights of the Hindus versus the rights of the Muslims.
The coercive character of mobilisation was not confined to the political, it embraced the domain of religion as
well. The Mandir-Masjid controversy was firmly anchored in religious faith and supporting the movement for the
retrieval of the temple was projected as a religious obligation. Another trait which underlined the Hindu
mobilisation was the emphasis on the irrational. By invoking faith as the only criterion for locating the temple at
the Masjid site,50 the Hindutva not only tried to dismiss facts and evidence as inconsequential but also distanced
itself from the rational. The principal thrust of the movement was fostering idolatry, which the religious reformers
of the nineteenth century had rejected as irrational and inconsistent with scriptural prescriptions. The twin
features of Hindu mobilisation-irrationality and coercion-are reminiscent of the fascist experience in Europe says
Panikkar.51 52
Belief is a polemical mode of relations.53
It is a matter of religious faith which cannot be decided by any court. - Vishnu Hari Dalmia, President of VHP 54
One can define religion as that which removes things, places, animals, or people from common use and
transports them to a separate sphere. Agamben explains, not only is there no religion without separation, but
every separation contains or conserves in itself a genuinely religious nucleus. The apparatus that activates and
regulates separation is sacrifice. Sacrifice always sanctions the passage of something from the profane to the
sacred, from the human sphere to the divine. ―To consecrate‖ was the term that designated the exit of things
from the sphere of human law.55
(Jul. - Aug., 1993), pp. 63-78
49 Chariot journey undertaken to mobilise mass opinion. (Rath=chariot, vehicle; Yatra=journey).
50 Towards this end the present day Ayodhya was identified as the Ayodhya of Valmiki's Ramayana which underlined its antiquity as well as its sanctity,
being the birth place of Rama. That historical evidence did not bear out this claim was hardly important as faith rather than reason or historical proof was
invoked for support. A historian of the Hindutva camp spelt out the 'rationale' as follows: In religion, it is a matter of faith and not of proof ... by faith and faith
alone Hindus believe Ramajanmabhumi in Ayodhya to be the birth place of Lord Ram. The sanctity thus attributed to Ayodhya not only underlined its
Hinduness but also made the construction of the Muslim-other easier. The alleged destruction of the temple by Babur was not just a desecration of an
ordinary place of worship but a grave assault on Hindu faith itself.
51 The observation of Theodore Adorno is instructive in this respect. The fascist propaganda is psychological because of its irrational authoritarian aims
which cannot be attained by means of rational convictions but only through the skilful awakening of 'a portion of the subjects' archaic inheritance'. . . The
objective aims of fascism are largely irrational in so far as they contradict the material interest of great number of those whom they try to embrace... Since it
would be impossible for fascism to win the masses through rational arguments, its propaganda must necessarily be deflected from discursive thinking; it
must be oriented psychologically, and has to mobilise irrational, unconscious, regressive processes - Religious Symbols and Political Mobilization: The
Agitation for a Mandir at Ayodhya; Author: K. N. Panikkar; Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 21, No. 7/8 (Jul. - Aug., 1993), pp. 63-78
(Jul. - Aug., 1993), pp. 63-78
53 Bruno Latour
54 http://www.rediff.com/chat/trans/0112vish.htm; New Delhi, January 12, 2001, 7 pm IST
55 Profanation is the counter apparatus that restores to common use what sacrifice had separated and divided. ―To profane‖ signified to restore the thing to
the free use of men. Agamben, Giorgio, 1942-: What is an apparatus? P 18.

In January 1989, a third Dharma Sansad was organized by VHP and it was decided to hold the Ram
Shila56 Poojan programme at every temple of the country.
Firstly, it is a mass contact and mobilization programme which emotionally involves and integrates the Hindu society to a
national cause. It is a programme which connects every individual to the national memorial of Shri Ram. In a way it is a
memorial which will be built by mass participation brick by brick. Thirdly, the dharmacharyas (religious leaders) of all the
sects of Hinduism have come together on a common platform and are actively participating in mass mobilisation of
Hindus.57
The Ram shila puja performed was a turning point. The message of the puja, planned in every village –
apparently 500,028 in number - was intended to reach every Hindu household whose active involvement with the
movement was to be sought through a 'token minimum offering of Rs. 1.25',58 through sale of coupons,
subscription vouchers, and financial assistance from RSS funds. A sum of Rs 8.25 crores was collected during
the programme, and was deposited with several nationalised banks and in fixed deposits in public sector
companies. The VHP allegedly spent Rs 18,600,000 on the Shilanyas. The first phase of the puja was the
consecration and worship of bricks, inscribed with the name of Rama59 – called Ram Shilas - to lay the
foundation of the Temple. For organising the consecration the entire country was divided into Upakhandas,
Khandas and Prakhandas.60 The pujas were followed by Mahayagnas in every Prakhanda which in effect was a
site for propaganda. Once the consecration was over, the bricks were wrapped in saffron cloths and displayed
publicly. They now became 'idols' of worship and aroused considerable religious frenzy. The second phase was
processions, in which Ram Shilas were carried around in different localities to eventually reach Ayodhya. It
implied a transition in participation from religious to a collective public space, ensuring thus an open commitment
to the cause, and a greater visibility and out-reach.61
On 2nd November, 1989, the place for performance of Shilanyas62 was chosen, and in the evening a flag was
hoisted at the site. The same day the architect of the proposed temple – Mr Sompura took measurements and
marked the exact spot for Shilanyas. Despite the Allahabad High Court ruling on 14th August, 1989 and 7th
November, 1989, declaring status quo on the disputed site, the Uttar Pradesh Government and the Central
Government caved in under mass pressure and could not stop the Shilanyas63…On 9th November, 1989 the
foundation stone was laid. At a meeting on the same day, the VHP decided that the natural culmination of the
Shilanyas programme was the construction of the Temple.64
56 Shila refers to a Vaishnava (Hindu) aniconic representation of Vishnu, in the form of a spherical, usually black-coloured stone found in the sacred river
Gandaki.[1] [2] They are more often referred to as Shaligram Shilas, with Shila being the shortened version. The word Shila translates simply to 'stone' and
Shaligram is a less well-known name of Vishnu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sila_%28murti%29
57 A BJP mouthpiece, B.K. Kelkar clarified the purpose of the puja; Religious Symbols and Political Mobilization: The Agitation for a Mandir at Ayodhya;
Author: K. N. Panikkar; Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 21, No. 7/8 (Jul. - Aug., 1993), pp. 63-78
58 Coupons of the denominations of rs 1.25, rs 5.00 and rs 10.00 were printed. Religious Symbols and Political Mobilization: The Agitation for a Mandir at
Ayodhya; Author: K. N. Panikkar; Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 21, No. 7/8 (Jul. - Aug., 1993), pp. 63-78
59 A form of branding – tattooing.
60 An Upakhanda covered 2000 people, a Khanda which consisted of five Upakhandas had a population of 10,000 and ten Khandas made up a Prakhanda
of 100,000 people.
(Jul. - Aug., 1993), pp. 63-78. About 275,000 consecrated bricks (Ram Shilas) from India and abroad reached Ayodhya safely by the end of October 1989.
An estimated 60 million people participated in the programme. The VHP made its own arrangements and stored the bricks in the Ved mandir complex, 200
mts north of the disputed site. …the VHP was allowed to lay the foundation stone of the proposed temple at a spot in front of the disputed structure which it
claimed did not form part of the disputed property. …this was generally agreed to by all sides involved in the suit in the interest of peace.
62 Foundation-stone laying ceremony.
63 The permission for the shilanyas was given on the understanding that it would be symbolic and that no further construction would be raised by the
organisations till either a negotiated settlement was found between the representatives of the Muslim and Hindu communities or the position amply clarified
by the High Court. The VHP-BJP combine however, took advantage of the permission and after laying of the foundation stone, immediately declared its
intention to continue construction work till the temple was completed. The plans of the temple were not made public either, thereby keeping it ambiguous as
to whether the temple was meant to be extended towards the disputed structure or not. P.V.Narsimha Rao - Ayodhya 6 December 1992; p 56.
64 http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/ch3.html

The connection to Ayodhya and the Ram Temple Movement Panikkar explains was kept alive through a series of
other symbols associated with Ram - Ram Jyoti, Ram Paduka, Ram Prasad, Ram Pataka, Ram Gulal and so on.
On 1st September 1990, ‗Sri Ram Jyoti‘ (light/fire) was ignited by arani manthan (creating fire through the
process of friction of wood blocks) at Ayodhya. The torch was multiplied into many torches and then sent to
thousands of villages where people were expected to light their Diwali lamps with them. A senior police official
felt that Rama Jyoti was potentially more dangerous than Rath yatra which went through a pre-chartered route
covering highways, while Rama Jyoti would penetrate remote villages, thus making it virtually impossible to
monitor.65 Similarly, earth dug up in Ayodhya was redistributed to different parts of India in a heroic effort to unite
all Hindus in nationhood. On 25th September 1990, senior BJP leader L.K. Advani began his 10000 km Rath
yatra – a tour of the country to garner support for the move to build a Ram temple at the site. The Rath yatra
resulted in nationalisation of the Ayodhya movement and communal riots across the country.
Long before the demolition of the Masjid, the VHP‘s demand for a Mandir had rested on the mobilisation of a
―mass of literary, historical, archaeological and judicial evidence‖, which it compiled and formally presented to the
GOI in Dec 1990 as ―uncontroverted‖ proof. The VHP has strategically combined myth and history – matters of
faith and evidence – belief and facts - to argue what is termed its ‗pro Mandir thesis‘. The very form of the
presentation of its demands, as a historically testifiable thesis, made ‗proof‘ a central element in the debate. For
the VHP, the historicity of the figure of Ram or the proof of his birth at the present day Ayodhya are hardly
relevant questions, by ―international standards prevalent in this kind of issue‖.66 So the relevant task was to prove
the long history of the sacredness of the site and a persistent tradition of worship there by Ram devotees, the
existence of an earlier Vaishnava Mandir at the very spot of the Babri Masjid and the demolition of the temple in
1528 by Babar‘s general Mir Baqi, and the assimilation of some of its parts within the mosque that was
constructed in its place.
(Jul. - Aug., 1993), pp. 63-78
66 for, it explains, no-one demands evidence around the sacredness of sites like the dome of rock at Jerusalem, and no one questions the Christians right to
the holy site

1991 (CONGRESS I67)
On 10th Oct 1991, the State Government acquired 2.77 acres of land. The declared object of the acquisition was
―for development of tourism, providing amenities to pilgrims of Ayodhya.‖ The Supreme Court held that the object
of the acquisition was ‗veiled‘. The courts quashed the acquisition finding it to be malafide and being for
extraneous purposes or considerations viz. construction of temple. The acquisition was found to be deceptive.68
Various security measures were taken by the Government in view of the karseva announced in 1990 to start the
construction the temple. The Liberhan Commission Report claims the security apparatus in the state of Uttar
Pradesh was rendered nugatory by a systemic program of scaling down the security measures which would be
deemed insufficient. The electronic measures including closed circuit televisions, metal detectors, etc. were
intentionally rendered inoperative and ineffective by the administration to ensure anonymity of the miscreants
and easy access to the disputed structure.69 The physical security had been downgraded. The karsevaks were at
no risk from the state‘s agencies since the police personnel were instructed not to retaliate under any
circumstances.
The distance between the inner cordon and outer cordon was 150 ft. distance between the isolation cordon and
inner cordon was 10 to 15 feet. There was iron double barricading with inlet and outlet doors with main entry and
exit gate in the main disputed structures. There was a passage provided by wooden barricading to regulate
pilgrims. Walls were constructed as boundary of the worship site with two doors therein.
In Feb 1992, construction of boundary wall called Ram Deewar of the proposed temple started in the garb of
construction of a security wall, on the east, west and south, - three sides of the disputed structure around 2.77
acres of acquired land. The height of the wall varies between five and a half feet high (from inside) to six to
seven feet (from outside). The effective height of the security wall was lowered by dumping excavated earth near
it to enable karsevaks70 to scale it.
Shilanyas and main building of disputed structure had double iron barricades. In the outer cordon, a 10 feet wall
was constructed to which subsequently, three gates were added. There was a barricading of 10 feet height.
There were some concertina wires in the inner cordon. The level of barricading was low. It was adequate to
regulate the crowd. Pilgrims could approach the 2.77 acres in two lines, one for men and other for women with a
dividing barricade being there.
67 P.V. Narsimha Rao as PM
68 Liberhan Commission Report, p 772.
69 Liberhan Commission Report, p 928.
70 Volunteer for holy task. Here - A volunteers coming forward to build the temple.

Plan dated 1/5/2000. The site of Ram Janmabhumi / Babri Masjid Complex, Ayodhya, Faizabad, UP. The plan
shows the various security measures
Source Liberhan Commission Report, Map 01

Plan dated 1992, It is noteworthy that the plan is called Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Premises by now.
Source: High Court Judgement

Plan dated 1992. It is noteworthy that the plan is called Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Complex by now.
Various coloured markings indicative of various security measures and their locations within and around the Ram
Deewar.
Source: Liberhan Commission Report Map 02

6 DECEMBER, 1992 (CONGRESS I71)
71 PV Narsimha Rao as Prime Minister

The object of the government in 1992 in Uttar Pradesh appeared to be redemption of electoral promise of
construction of temple and the mandate given by the people for the same. The demolition was inherent in the
movement as is so evident in the ‗Actual Site Plan‘ of the temple.

On 6th Dec 1992, the Babri Masjid was destroyed…the debris was cleared and carried away by the karsevaks as
holy mementos, leaving the place flat in the form of a chabutra. The Deity was then re-installed at the same spot,
the place was enclosed by a brick boundary wall and a canopy was also erected for the protection of the Deity,
and puja was continued.
‗As one visits Ayodhya today —one sees the Ram Lala idol ensconced on a ramshackle tent amidst the debris. All round
the site is bare rubble, barbed wire fencing and Central Reserve Police Force pickets. At the moment, nobody can come
anywhere near the entire disputed complex. Only the priest and his assistants are there to minister to the needs of the
deity. As things stand just now, the site is virtually inaccessible, rubble piled all over around it.‘
The Liberhan Commission Report says that the methodology adopted by karsevaks was that they went inside
the domes, made holes in the walls, put ropes in them and pulled down the walls of the disputed structure
bringing down the domes. On analysis, it emerged that the demolition was effectively carried out by less than a
hundred karsevaks who entered under the three domes and pulled down the walls in a pre-planned and
organised manner.72
The search for the suitable object to attract destruction and hatred is reciprocal: ―before you wanted to attack my
flag, I did not know I cherished it so much, but now I do‖ The provocateurs looking for what triggers indignation
faster, the others looking eagerly for what will trigger their indignation most fiercely. During this search, all
recognise the image in question as a mere token; it counts for nothing but an occasion that allows the scandal to
unfold. The object that is disputed is just a stake for something entirely different.73
A Fetish is something that is nothing in itself, but simply the blank screen onto which we have projected, erroneously, our
fancies, our labour, our hopes and passions. Yet somehow the fetish gains in strength in the hands of the anti-fetishists.
The more you want it to be nothing, the more action springs forth from it. Iconoclasm does not break an idol or fetish, but
destroys a way of arguing and acting that was anathema to the iconoclast. In reality the hammer strikes sideways,
landing on something other than what the iconoclast wanted to break.74
What was destroyed was much more than an old mosque. The mosque, in any case, had been fairly insignificant
as a religious or historical structure; but its rubble became the symbol of utmost violence, the deepest
transgressions of religion in history. Each blow on the stone structure came as an assault on the nation‘s secular
self and on its cherished ideal of a collective history.75 To affirm the thing also means participating in its collision
with history. Just as a thing accumulates productive forces and desires, so does it also accumulate destruction
and decay. Things condense power and violence.76
It is tragic and ironical that the Ram-Chabootra and Kaushalya Rasoi, which continued as places of worship
during periods of Muslim and British rule were destroyed aswell, by the very 'devotees' of Lord Ram. The idols in
Sita Rasoi have been removed and no worship is offered there.77 The economic situation in Ayodhya has
worsened considerably post 1992 destruction. Farmers are not allowed to go to Ayodhya and sell vegetables
during curfew time, and the vegetable rot in the fields. Money lenders are not willing to give loans to people in
Ayodhya. People are not prepared to marry off their daughters here. In the last 10 years Ayodhya‘s social fabric
and its temples have been ruined. Today many temples are closed because they are not able to give offerings to
72 Liberhan Commision Report, p 797. The Bajrang Dal held ―constructive programmes‖ to train its volunteers in places such as Kanpur and Mathura on
how to pull down old, strong structures.
73 Latour, B. and Weibel, P. (2002) Iconoclash, [Karlsruhe]: ZKM ; London : MIT Press.
74 Latour, B. (1999) Pandora's hope : essays on the reality of science studies, Cambridge, Mass. ; London: Harvard University Press.
9The fetish may be understood as both the mosque and the ram idol / temple – as there are two levels of iconoclasm)
75 Guha-Thakurta, T. (1997) Archaeology as evidence : looking back from the Ayodhya debate, Calcutta: Centre for Studies in Social Sciences.
76 Hito Steyerl – A thing like you and me
77 Mahant jugal Kishore, sarju kunj temple, Ayodhya.

god.78 Temples have been confiscated by the government after the demolition of the Babri masjid in 1992. The
priests are not allowed to offer puja, nor are the pilgrims allowed to worship in these temples. Most of the temples
are in a dilapidated condition.79 And the worst of all, more than 2000 people died in riots across the country that
followed the demolition.
The Prime minister responded to the destruction: ‗The demolition of the mosque was a most barbarous act. The
Government will see to it that it is rebuilt.‘ However, a new mosque could not be built on the site without first
destroying the temple and the images. Worship was banned on site.
Post destruction, in June / July 1992 wrt findings in the debris, the BJP White Paper claims –
―Demolition provides the ultimate proof - the debris of the Babri structure reveals unimpeachable archaeological and
epigraphic evidence that a pre-11th century temple -- a Vaishnavite temple - existed at the site.
Ironically only by demolition of the disputed structure the most unimpeachable pieces of evidence which remained buried
inside the disputed structure could be recovered from the debris of the demolished structure. Not merely artefacts
testifying to the existence of the temple were recovered, but epigraphic references which settled beyond doubt the fact
that the temple was dedicated to Sri Rama were also recovered… The experts, who visited the site on behalf of the
academic organisation, The Historians Forum, on the 2nd and 3rd of July 1992, are unanimously of the view that the
temple, to which these fragments belong, is of the developed Nagara style of ancient temple architecture which was
current in northern India during the latter part of the early medieval period i.e. the period after 900 A.D. and before 1200
A.D.‖80
These findings were argued by the BMAC81 team as having been planted.
Meanwhile, the model proposed by the VHP becomes a site of pilgrimage in itself.
―A model of the temple has been made. This will be taken to Karsevakpuram in Ayodhya and consecrated there at a new
temple in the compound. Devotees can have darshan here until the original temple comes up at the spot where Ramlala
was born.‖82
Chandresh Pandey had crafted a smaller model of the temple in 1995. The alterations in the new model, made of
thermocol and marble, became necessary following the changes proposed in the plan of the temple for Ayodhya.
These pertain to the "darshan pandal" or the main entry point. Instead of a single door proposed earlier, the new
design has three gates/doors…Besides, the 2.25-foot-tall statue of Ram Lala too needed alterations. The sling of
arrows it wears is on the right shoulder, whereas convention and logic deem it necessary to place them on the
left. The VHP does not want to imply, even by default, that Ram was a southpaw. The Ram Lala statue on
special instruction, portrays Ram seated on a lotus – the lotus is the election symbol of the BJP.83
78 Hashim Ansari, plaintiff, Babri masjid, Ayodhya.
79 List of temples confiscated - Janmasthan mandir, Ram lalla bhavan, Sita rasoi, Kayekai bhavan, Vishwamitra ashram, Ram khazana, Prachin anand
bhavan, Khobar bhavan, Kop bhavan, Manas bhavan, Sumitra bhavan, Hanuman mandir, Sakshi gopal mandir, Ramanuj ashram, Phalharijika ashram,
Ram janaki mandir. – Source: film -
80 From BJPs White Paper on Ayodhya and the Ram Temple Movement, Chapter III, The evidence and dialogue on Ramjanmabhoomi - The evidence from
June-July 1992 excavations - proof of 11th century temple under and inside the Babri structure 5.2. The evidence obtained in the fresh excavations in June
and July 1992 as analysed and reported by Historians Forum; Bharatiya Janata Party, April 2003. http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/ch3.html
81 Babri Masjid Action Committee
82 Acharya Giriraj Kishore, senior vice-president of the VHP.
The President of the VHP Vishnu Hari Dalmia said (http://www.rediff.com/chat/trans/0112vish.htm): We have a model that has been stationed at the Kumbh
Mela and the pilgrims there are having a look at it and perform a puja.
83 http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1713/17130060.htm

1993 (CONGRESS I84)
On January 2, 1993, the district administration of Ayodhya lifted the ban and permitted Hindus to worship at the
Ram shrine on the site of the demolished mosque.85
"The Government has decided to acquire all areas in dispute in the suits pending in the Allahabad High Court. It has also
been decided to acquire suitable adjacent area. The acquired area excluding the area on which the disputed structure
stood would be made available to two Trusts which would be set up for construction of a Ram Temple and a Mosque
respectively and for planned development of the area. The said area is located in Revenue Plot Nos. 159 and 160 in the
said village Kot Ramchandra.‖86
On January 24, 1993, the Government of India promulgated a presidential ordinance to acquire 67 acres of land
around the disputed site and simultaneously the President of India referred the following question to the
Supreme Court of India for consideration and opinion thereon, namely:
Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri
Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure
stood?87
But the judgement delivered one year and nine months after the date of Reference was that ‗the Special
Reference…is superfluous and unnecessary and does not require to be answered. For this reason, we very
respectfully decline to answer it and return the same‘.88 The Indian Supreme Court held the opinion that 'it was
not its job to decide if a Hindu Temple existed at the site where the Babri Mosque stood before 1992.' It further
went on saying 'it was not its job to decide if, as Hindus claim, their god Lord Rama was born there.' It really is a
most complicated real estate dispute i.e. who the land legally belongs to - Hindus or contesting Muslims, marking
an important reaffirmation: in the eyes of the law, a place of worship like a mosque is a piece of property and as
such is subject to the normal civil laws which apply to any other piece of property. They also opined that the most
satisfactory way of resolution of the problem is by negotiation.89 90
84 PV Narsimha Rao as Prime Minister
85 Ayodhya and the Politics of India's Secularism: A Double-Standards Discourse; Author(s): Ramesh Thakur; Source: Asian Survey, Vol. 33, No. 7, South
Asia: Responses to the Ayodhya Crisis (Jul., 1993),pp. 645-664
86 27th December 1992 -
87 The Ayodhya Reference: Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries, Swapan Dasgupta and others.
88 Ayodhya 6 December 1992; p 311.
At the hearing, it was strenuously urged that the question of fact referral is vague, the answer to it is by itself not decisive of the real controversy since the
core question has not been referred; and it also gives no definite indication of the manner in which the Central Government intends to act after the Special
Reference is answered, to settle the dispute. It was urged that the question referred is, therefore, academic, apart from being vague, and it does not
serve any constitutional purpose to subserve which the advisory jurisdiction of this Court could be evoked; that the real object and purpose of
the Reference is to take away a place of worship of the Muslims and give it away to the Hindus offending the basic feature of secularism; and
that, therefore, we should decline to answer the Special Reference. - Ayodhya 6 December 1992; p 290.
89 The relevant portion of the judgement reads: ―The hearing left us wondering why the dispute cannot be resolved in the same manner and in the
same spirit in which the matter was argued, particularly when some of the participants are common and are in a position to negotiate and resolve the
dispute. We do hope this hearing has been the commencement of that process which will ensure an amicable resolution of the dispute and it will not end
with the hearing of this matter. This is a matter suited essentially to resolution by negotiations which does not end in a winner and a loser while adjudication
leads to that end. It is in the national interest that there is no loser at the end of the process adopted for resolution of the dispute so that the final outcome
does not leave behind any rancour in anyone. This can be achieved by a negotiated solution on the basis of which a decree can be obtained in terms of
such solution in these suits. Unless a solution is found which leaves everyone happy, that cannot be the beginning for continued harmony between ―we the
people of India‖ ―. - The Ayodhya reference – Supreme Court judgements and commentaries – Swapan Das Gupta and others; p 104.
90 http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ajoy/asi_report_babri.htm

Map of acquired area (67 acres) surrounding Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya.
Source: xyz

2003 (BJP91)
The three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to undertake
excavations at the disputed site to ascertain whether a temple or religious structure existed before the demolition
of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992.i This decision is the first instance in the history of Indian archaeology
where the discipline's principal method of excavations has been legally endowed with the potentials for
unearthing the 'truth'.92 The ‗scientificity‘, ‗specialisation‘ and ‗uniqueness‘ of the archaeological testimony was
used as a tool to provide tangible material evidence such as the physical remains of a building interpretable as a
temple.93 Interpretation is described as nothing but an elaborate exercise to make unspeaking objects speak.
Whatever is thought to deserve interpretation is also a matter of concern to those who engage in that kind of
exercise.94 In the area of spatial investigation, the object performs both as evidence and as a witness95 and
thereby moves to a quasi-subject position. The archaeological material found is used by different agents for
different means, in each context it speaks through a different discipline, through different technologies and
through different interpreters. It is simultaneously historical evidence, an ideological tool, a political weapon, and
legal evidence. As Bruno Latour says there is a connection between objects and their political relationship. ‗Each
object gathers around it a different assembly of relevant parties. Each object triggers new occasions to
passionately differ and dispute.‘ When an object ‗speaks‘ it becomes the ‗agent of the controversy in dispute‘.
The act of translation then turns into an event. The objects address the forum via their ‗translators‘ who are most
often ‗expert witnesses‘ in science and technology. The object and its translator constitute a necessary and
interdependent rhetorical unit.96 The multiplicity of voices that participate in this assembly – archaeologists,
historians, ethnographers, architects, and political activists, empower the object and allow it to act as a catalyst
for a re-organisation of form.
―Archaeological evidence are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temple of
North India‖ (ASI Report 2003: 272).ii 'There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure
having a minimum dimension of 50x30 meters in the north-south and east-west directions, respectively, just below the
disputed structure.'
However, when the science of archaeology is exploited and interpreted (in different ways) for a certain
predetermined ideology and political end; (on the one hand to give ‗material proof‘ of the existence of an earlier
Hindu temple on the site and thus 'justify' the destruction of the mosque and the primordiality of the Hindu
dharma97, and on the other to deny any definite Hindu presence until relatively recent times,) its scientific integrity
is inevitably compromised and skewed.98 And as Tapati-Guha says, it then marks out clearly ‗objective‘ from
‗motivated‘ scholarship, and ‗history‘ from ‗belief‘. It raises questions in the terms of rhetoric of the debate, and
91 Atal Bihari Vajpaye as Prime Minister
92 The assumption is that, unlike victim testimony, the scientific evidence pronounced by expert witnesses is more difficult to contest legally; that the
testimony of ‗things‘ cannot be undermined by any ‗suspect political subjectivity‘.
93 Negotiating evidence
94 Tamen, M. (2001) Friends of interpretable objects, Cambridge, Mass. ; London: Harvard University Press. Chapter 7 – hostility to interpretation; pg 117 -
129.
95 The difference between a witness and a piece of evidence is that evidence is presented while a witness is interrogated. However, the legal process
already tends to blur the distinction when it demands that the witness approximates objectivity by assuming a pose of neutrality, while the presentation of
evidence for cross-examination and interrogation seems to have granted the object some traits of subjectivity. The category of the ‗object-witness‘ might be
the right term to describe the ground between this object-subject divide.
96 Weizman, Eyal Forensic Architecture – Only the criminal can solve the crime. Not only about scientific enquiry but also its associated rhetoric, about
science as a tool for persuasion – the way in which a scientific investigation is presented, the techniques and technologies of demonstration, and the
methods of theatricality, narrative and dramatization involved.
97 By attaching a certain context to material found in the ground, in this case the identification of the stones as the origins of a nation‘s identity, the work
engages in a process of (re)presentation of the past and an establishment of priorities for the future. The political implications of archaeology and
architectural practices and their essential role in shaping nation-building paradigms. - Born again landscape – Dana Behrman.
98 Ayodhya and the Politics of India's Secularism: A Double-Standards Discourse; Author(s): Ramesh Thakur; Source: Asian Survey, Vol. 33, No. 7, South
Asia: Responses to the Ayodhya Crisis (Jul., 1993),pp. 645-664

the wider questions about the status of evidence and the nature of knowledge in archaeology. It becomes
necessary to even plot the way professional domains are boundaried and policed. The lessons from Ayodhya are
about the abuse of and threat to disciplines of history and archaeology, to the integrity of their investigative
methods and the objectivity of their knowledge and the unresolved contradictions that have trapped the
disciplines in their own shells.99
The ASI report is highly disputed and considered by many reputed historians to be questionable. The Sunni
Central Waqf Board, one of the litigants in the dispute, said the report was 'vague and self-contradictory', that the
ASI has 'misinterpreted the findings'. He did not deny the authenticity of the discovery of archaeological materials
but only differed in interpretation and refused to take evidence as conclusive evidence that the temple was a
Hindu temple. They also accused the ASI report of ignoring the discovery of glazed tiles and pottery indicative of
Muslim settlements in the area before Babar's invasion. The material excavated was interpreted by various
parties as Jain/ Buddhist /Hindu (Ram and Shiva) temples.100 The debate focused almost entirely on the
interpretation of the archaeological findings of 2003. ‗To refute a legal/rhetorical statement it is enough to refute
one of the two: to show either that the object is inauthentic or that its interpreter is biased.‘101
To lie is an effort in construction. Evidence being constructed does not mean that it is not real – a fictionalisation
of reality. The realities to which humans are attached are dependent on a series of mediations. In the sciences,
the degree of objectivity and certainty is directly proportional to the extent of artificiality, layering, heterogeneity,
multiplicity, and complexity of mediations. There is a level of construction even in a scientific fact. The emphasis
is on how, by what means or mediation. The difference that counts, when scientists meet in confidence, is not
the one between fact and construction but the one between good and bad facts. The constructed and real are
not opposed terms and the operative question is how to distinguish between good construction and bad. The
distinction has its use in the pursuit of peace. The more carefully fabricated the more real and long lasting.102
After thorough studies and interpretations, a conclusive report was prepared and cross examined. The validity of
different interpretations and the expertise of judgement between the interpretations becomes the question. After
the judges give their verdict based on the report, the disputed facts no longer stay disputed and become a (legal)
fact – subject to the right of appeal. „Indisputable‟ facts are presented while the dispute is still going on, and the
conclusion of the dispute is with „disputable‟ assertions; matters of concern become matters of fact.
99 Guha-Thakurta, T. (1997) Archaeology as evidence : looking back from the Ayodhya debate, Calcutta: Centre for Studies in Social Sciences.
100 Jain representatives demanded to an observer to monitor the excavation that was however turned down by ASI.
101 Weizman, Eyal Forensic Architecture – Only the criminal can solve the crime.
102 Whose cosmos, which cosmopolitics? Bruno Latour; A genuine acceptance of constructivism requires a reassessment of the whole history of
iconoclasm and critique. Words like ―reality‖, one could say, denote forms of deference. But an intermediate step of representation is needed. When
discussing interpretation, ―representation‖ often appears as shorthand for a property that proper interpretations should display, namely that they should be
capable of standing for whatever it is they are discussing. Such a property is more often than not predicated on notions such as resemblance and
correspondence. This need not depend on any theory about truth as correspondence. The approximation to the ‗truth‘, and with it the acceptance of the
inability to achieve precise identification through translation, is a key factor in the debate about the historiography of the object. It is enough to indicate that
the satisfactory nature of interpretation is thought through notions such as that of adequate representation. One derives therefrom the idea of
representationality as the uncontroversial property par excellence of every interpretation. - Tamen, M. (2001) Friends of interpretable objects, Cambridge,
Mass. ; London: Harvard University Press. Chapter 7 – Deference; pg 130 - 143.

Illustrations showing the key to trenches and sections of the site
Source: Archaeology after Excavation – D Mandal, P 106, 110,111, 118.
Images showing excavated trench, remains of pillar bases, indicative wall marked by line.
Source: Plates in Ayodhya, Archaeology after demolition – D. Mandal

Isometric view of excavated site with demolished structure
Isometric view of excavated site
Isometric view of excavated site with conjectured columns

SEPTEMBER 2010 (CONGRESS led United Progressive Alliance (UPA103))
On Sep 22, 2010 the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology had issued orders in consultation with the
Ministry of Home Affairs to all mobile telecom services providers in the country for banning all bulk SMS and MMS in all
service areas with immediate effect for next 72 hours as a step to avoid any kind of violence regarding Babri masjid
verdict.
The Allahabad High Court on September 30, 2010 ruled majority that the disputed land will be divided into three
parts: the site of the Ram Lala idol to Ram, Nirmohi Akhara gets Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutra, Sunni Wakf
Board gets the rest. The Order by Justice S.U. Khan reads:
Order:-
Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as
described by letters A B C D E F in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in Suit No.1 to the extent
of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.
However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final
decree.
It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said
map.
It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor
adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the
adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.
The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months.
List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief
Justice.
Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui (1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for
a period of three months unless this order is modified or vacated earlier.
The Allahabad high court has said that the status quo will be maintained for 3 months because they want to give
the 3 parties time to work out amongst themselves how the 1/3rd division of the land will happen.104 The court
now seems to suggest that a real solution lies in the political domain, with the active participation of civil
society.105 The judiciary, which is supposed to be a politically neutral and non-partisan forum, becomes a
decidedly political space. The court made a political solution, not a decision based, as it should have been,
strictly on facts and law. The great advantage of letting facts merge back into their dishevelled networks and
controversies, and of letting beliefs regain their ontological weight, is that politics then becomes what it has
always been, anthropologically speaking: the management, diplomacy, combination, and negotiation of human
and non-human agencies.106
KT: Many people have come to the personal conclusion that there is a strong element in the solution posed by the judges
of reconciliation, of compensation, of compromise.107
‗Proportionality‘ is a fundamental tenet of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) which seeks to establish a proper
relation between means and ends; between goods, evils and lesser evils. Proportionality can be understood as a
certain ‗calculating mechanism‘ for the reduction of evil. But proportionality is not merely an abstract system of
legal and/or ethical calculation and judgment. Rather, it is a material practice that results in the configuration of
physical structures – a ‗Material proportionality‘ - the principle that arranges the distribution of legal rights across
103 Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister
104 Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as
described by letters A B C D E F in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in Suit No.1 to the extent
of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed. However, it is further declared that
the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree. Order by Justice
S.U.Khan.
105 September 26, 2010; Ayodhya: is a solution possible? (The Hindu, 27 September 2010) by K.N. Panikkar
107 AJ - Arun Jaitley – Sr BJP (Opposition party) Leader on Devil‘s Advocate (with KT - Karan Thapar). http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/132154/devils-advocate-
jaitley-on-ayodhya-verdict.html

technological systems and architectural configurations... But they all add up to a new concept of security and
attempts at pacification.108
AJ: Court has phrased it in a manner it doesn‘t add to tensions, it dilutes tensions in India.
AJ: This judgement is a step forward in the construction of the temple.
This judgement also lays down the foundation which if it takes us on that track it improves intercommunity relations in
India, it will also add to India‘s integration as a nation.
AJ: Parties are likely to move to the Supreme Court (appeal court), parties are also likely to sit for negotiations.109
Atleast in two specific important areas, the judges have relied on something which is not indisputable – in the first
instance they relied on faith or belief and on the second instance they relied on contested opinion.
Facts have gone too far, attempting to transform everything else into beliefs
They believe in belief. They believe that people naively believe. The belief that others believe is a very precise
mechanism that allows the human an extraordinary degree of freedom. By removing human agency twice, it makes it
possible, at no cost, to free the passage for action, to clear the path by disintegrating entities into mere beliefs and
solidifying opinions and positions into hard facts. No one has ever had so much freedom. Freedom is precisely what
permits and justifies the iconoclast‘s strokes. Freedom from caution and care.110
The role of the intellectual is not, then, to grab a hammer and break beliefs with facts, or to grab a sickle and
undercut facts with beliefs, but to be factishes – and maybe a bit facetious – themselves, that is, to protect the
diversity of ontological status against the threat of its transformation into facts and fetishes, beliefs and things.111
108 Eyal Weizman
109 AJ - Arun Jaitley – Sr BJP (Opposition party) Leader on Devil‘s Advocate (with KT - Karan Thapar). http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/132154/devils-advocate-
jaitley-on-ayodhya-verdict.html

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agamben, Giorgio, 1942-: What is an apparatus? : and other essays / Giorgio Agamben ; translated by David
Kishik and Stefan Pedatella.. Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University Press, 2009.
Aggarwal, J. C. and Chowdhry, N. K. (1991) Ram Janmabhoomi through the ages : Babri Masjid controversy,
New Delhi: S. Chand.
Bevan, R. (2006) The destruction of memory : architecture at war, London: Reaktion.
Bharatiya Janata, P. (1993) BJP's white paper on Ayodhya & the Rama Temple movement, New Delhi: Bharatiya
Janata Party.
Evidence for the Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir, [New Delhi : Vishva Hindu Parishad, 1990?].
Guha-Thakurta, T. (1997) Archaeology as evidence : looking back from the Ayodhya debate, Calcutta: Centre for
Studies in Social Sciences.
India. Liberhan Ayodhya, C. and Jain, A. K. (2010) A report on demolition of structure at Ayodhya of Ram
Janambhoomi Babri Masjid on 6th December, 1992 : commission of inquiry report of the Liberhan
Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry, 2009, Delhi: Akalank Publications.
India. Supreme, C. and Dasgupta, S. (1995) The Ayodhya reference : the Supreme Court judgement and
commentaries, New Delhi: Voice of India.
Latour, B. (1999) Pandora's hope : essays on the reality of science studies, Cambridge, Mass. ; London: Harvard
University Press.
Latour, B. and Weibel, P. (2002) Iconoclash, [Karlsruhe]: ZKM ; London : MIT Press.
Latour, B. and Weibel, P. (2005) Making things public : atmospheres of democracy, Cambridge, Mass. ; London:
MIT.
Mishra, V. C. (1991) Ram Janmabhoomi, Babri Masjid : historical documents, legal opinions, and judgements,
Delhi: Bar Council of India Trust.
Narsimha Rao, P.V. (2006) Ayodhya : 6 December 1992, Penguin Books India.
Rancière, Jacques.: Disagreement : politics and philosophy / Jacques Rancière ; translated by Julie
Rose.. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press
Schmitt, Carl, 1888-1985.: The concept of the political / Carl Schmitt ; Chicago : University of Chicago Press,
2007.
Tamen, M. (2001) Friends of interpretable objects, Cambridge, Mass. ; London: Harvard University Press.

ARTICLES FROM JOURNALS
Berardi, Franco The Image Dispositif
Latour, Bruno Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopilitics?
Mouffe, Chantal (2001) “Every form of art has a political dimension”, Grey Room 02.
Weizman, Eyal Forensic Architecture – Only the criminal can solve the crime.
Steyerl, Hito (2010) A thing like you and me, Journal – e-flux.
Religious Symbols and Political Mobilization: The Agitation for a Mandir at Ayodhya; Author: K. N. Panikkar;
Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 21, No. 7/8 (Jul. - Aug., 1993), pp. 63-78
ELECTRONIC RESOURCES
http://elegalix2.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/DisplayAyodhyaBenchLandingPage.do
Decision of Hon'ble Special Full Bench hearing Ayodhya Matters
FILMOGRAPHY
Ram ke Naam (In the name of God) – Anand Patwardhan; (1991, Colour, 75 minutes)
Ayodhya Gatha – Dir: Vani Subramaniam. India, 2007, Colour, 62 minutes.
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/471/Ayodhya-Gatha
Ayodhya se Varansi Tak (From Ayodhya to Varanasi, prayers for peace) – Suma Josson.
Bhagwan Shri Ram Asmita Ke Kendra - http://shreeramjanmabhoomi.org/videos/video/
All images are from the above films / videos.

ENDNOTES
i We took the view that archaeological evidence will be of importance to decide such an issue. We had made a suggestion in regard to excavation of
the site in question by an order date 1.8.2002 and invited the suggestions from the parties in this regard. It was further observed that till excavation order is
passed the ASI will get surveyed the disputed site by Ground Penetrating Radar and Geo-Radiology and will submit its report in this regard.i
The ASI placed the order for GPR Survey to Tojo-Vikas International Pvt. Ltd. Who have submitted the report along with annexures on 17th February 2003.
In conclusion, the GPR survey reflects, in general a variety of anomalies…that could be associated with ancient and contemporaneous structures such as
pillars, foundations walls slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the site. However, the exact nature of those anomalies has to be confirmed by
systematic ground truthing, such as provided by archaeological trenching‖.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances the ASI is directed to get the disputed site excavated as under: ―The area shown in the report of the
Commissioner submitted in Suit No. 2 of 1950 (OOS No. 1 of 1989) covering an area of approximately 100x100 shown in the map plan no. 1 referred to by
letters A,B,C,D,E,F and thereafter northern portion up to the end of the raised platform and further to the west, south and east to the said site to the extent
of 50 feet. If it is necessary to excavate towards north or any area more than 50 feet to the disputed area, it can do so to find out the true position as
regards to any foundation. It is made clear that the archaeologists (excavators) shall not disturb any area where the idol of Shri Ram Lala is existing and
approximately 10 feet around it and they shall not affect the worship of Shri Ram Lala and thus, status quo as regards His Puja and worshippers' right of
Darshan shall be maintained.i
…the Court provided certain safeguards to ensure transparency in the task of ASI. Besides others, the Court permitted the parties or their counsels to
remain present on the spot during the course of excavation proceedings. The Court also asked ASI to photograph and video-graph the process of
excavation and to maintain record pertaining thereto. As it was not practicable for the Court to note and sort out day to day hurdles and objections, so it
appointed two experienced judicial officers of Faizabad Judgeship to act as observer and obtain orders of the Court wherever the need might be…
A 14 members team of ASI - took about five months period (from March 12 to August 7, 2003) in carrying out the excavation work and thereafter submitted
a bulky report in two volumes together with 45 site note-books, 12 albums containing 329 black and white photographs, w8 albums having coloured
photographs, 11, videocassettes (VHS), digital photographs in compact disc (6 DVD cassettes), Registers of Pottery, unsealed bones, architectural objects
stored in tin-shed at the excavated site, individual list of 9 boxes containing bones, glazed-wares, antiquities etc. day to day Registers, Antiquity Registers.
Of 184 anomalies so indicated in GPR Survey, 39 were found confirmed at specified depth and location, 74 were not found in spite of digging up to required
depth and remaining 44 could not be probed owing to unavoidable constraints.
http://elegalix2.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/ayodhyafiles/hondvsj-ann-3.pdf; p 28.
ii The available archaeological evidences produced in this regard are as under:
1. The evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards upto the construction of the disputed structure (ASI Report 2003: 272);
2. The discovery of a massive structure found just below the disputed structure associated with ‗pillar bases‘ (ibid.);
3. The discovery of a ‗circular shrine‘ dated circa 10th century AD on stylistic ground (ibid.: 71);
4. the discovery of a decorated octagonal sandstone block allegedly similar to that found in the Dharmachakrajina Vihara of Kumaradevi at Sarnath which
belongs to the early twelfth century AD. (ibid.: 56);
5. The discovery of some other decorated stones pieces and decorated bricks (ibid.: 272).

AYODHYA OF RAM

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to AYODHYA OF RAM

Similar to AYODHYA OF RAM (20)

More from Sabrina Ball

More from Sabrina Ball (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

AYODHYA OF RAM