The Ayodhya dispute: from 1528 to the demolition

Detail

Why Ayodhya matters in this chapter

• NCERT names Ayodhya as the fourth major development after 1989. The other three are the end of Congress dominance, Mandal and the new economic policy.
• Ayodhya dispute: a fight over one plot of land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. Hindus believe it is the birthplace of Lord Ram (Ram Janmabhoomi). From 1528 to 1992 a mosque, the Babri Masjid, stood there.
• The dispute moved from local courts into national politics. It reshaped the BJP and the debate on secularism. In India, secularism means the State treats all religions equally and favours none.

Early history (1528–1949)

• 1528: A mosque with three domes, the Babri Masjid, was built at the site.
• It was built in the Islamic year 935, which runs from September 1528 to September 1529 CE, by Mir Baqi, who may have been a bey (noble) serving the Mughal emperor Babur [5].

• In the 1961 title suit, the Muslim parties said Mir Baqi was the "Commander" of Babur's forces and built the mosque on Babur's instructions [4].

• Gazetteers: The Lucknow, Barabanki and Faizabad district gazetteers record a long history of conflict over the site.

• 1858: NCERT records that Nihang Sikhs performed puja inside the site before colonial officials removed them.
• On 28 November 1858 the Thanedar (police officer) of Oudh, Sheetal Dubey, reported that "Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa" had held a hawan and puja of Guru Gobind Singh inside the mosque and set up a symbol of Sri Bhagwan [4].

• The mosque's muezzin complained, and the Nihang Sikh was later evicted from the site [4].

• 1949, the structure is sealed:

• On the night of 22–23 December 1949, idols were secretly placed under the central dome [4].
• On 29 December 1949, the property was attached (taken into official custody) under Section 145 of the CrPC 1898, and a receiver was appointed. Section 145 lets a magistrate take charge of land when a dispute over it threatens the peace [4].

The long legal battle: the title suits

A title suit is a civil case in which someone asks a court to declare who owns a property.

Year	Plaintiff	What they asked for
1950	Gopal Singh Visharad (a Hindu worshipper)	The right to pray near the idols [4]
1959	Nirmohi Akhara (Ramanandi Bairagis)	Management and charge of the "temple" [4]
1961	UP Sunni Central Waqf Board	A declaration that it owned the site, and possession [4]
1989	Next friend of the deity, Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman, and of Asthan Shri Ram Janmabhumi	Title, and an order letting a temple be built. The suit argued that both the idol and the birthplace are legal persons [4]

• 10 July 1989: All suits were moved to the Allahabad High Court. On 14 August 1989 the High Court ordered status quo, meaning nobody could change anything at the site [4].

The turning points: 1986 and 1989

• 1986, locks opened:
• On 25 January 1986, Umesh Chandra applied for the locks to be opened [4].
• On 1 February 1986 the Faizabad District Judge ordered the locks opened and gave devotees access for darshan [4].

• On 3 February 1986 the High Court ordered that the nature of the property must not be changed [4].

• Growing mobilisation: Hindu groups said the mosque stood on Ram's birthplace and had been built after a temple was destroyed.

• 1989, shilanyas: A shilanyas (foundation-laying ceremony) for a temple was held. Further construction stayed banned.
• Two opposing feelings:
• Many Hindus felt their claim to the birthplace had been ignored.
• Muslims wanted an assurance that they would keep possession of the mosque.
• As a result, tension and court cases kept multiplying.

The Ram Janmabhoomi movement

• Ram Janmabhoomi movement: a campaign from the mid-1980s, led by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), to build a Ram temple at the disputed site.
• The BJP formally adopted the demand at its Palampur session (Himachal Pradesh) in 1989.
• Effect on politics:
• The BJP moved towards a Hindutva (Hindu-nationalist) platform.
• It accused other parties of "pseudo-secularism", meaning favouring minorities while claiming to be neutral.
• Religion became a central issue in elections.

The Rath Yatra (1990)

• Rath Yatra: a political march on a chariot-styled vehicle. L.K. Advani set out from Somnath (Gujarat), September 1990, towards Ayodhya to build support for the temple. The yatra ran from September to October 1990 and passed through many states [5].
• How a march brought down a government:
• Advani was arrested in Bihar (October 1990).
• The BJP withdrew outside support from the National Front government.

• The V.P. Singh government fell (November 1990). See §2 on coalitions.

• What followed:

• Police fired on kar sevaks (volunteers who came to build the temple) in Ayodhya in October–November 1990.
• The BJP grew fast in UP and formed its government there after the 1991 assembly election, with Kalyan Singh as Chief Minister.

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991

• Section 3: No one may convert a place of worship of one religious group into a place of worship of another religion or group [2].
• Section 4: A place of worship keeps the religious character it had on 15 August 1947 [2].
• Section 5: The Act does not apply to "Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid" in Ayodhya. It also does not apply to any suit, appeal or proceeding about that site [3].
• Section 7: The Act overrides any other law that conflicts with it [4].
• What the 2019 judgment said about the Act:
• It imposes a "non-derogable obligation" (a duty that cannot be weakened) to enforce secularism [4].
• It protects the equality of all faiths, which the Court called a basic feature of the Constitution [4].

Demolition: 6 December 1992

• NCERT's line: Critics saw the demolition as a serious challenge to Indian democracy.
• What happened:
• A large crowd destroyed the mosque, its boundary wall and the Ramchabutra.
• A makeshift temple was put up under the old central dome, and the idols were placed there [4].

• In 2019 the Supreme Court held that the demolition broke both the status quo order and an assurance given to the Court. It called it "an egregious violation of the rule of law" [4].

• Riots: Riots broke out across the country and killed more than 2,000 people [5]. Mumbai saw riots in December 1992–January 1993, and the Srikrishna Commission inquired into them.

• Action against state governments:
• The Kalyan Singh government (UP) resigned, and President's rule followed.
• The Centre dismissed the BJP governments of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh under Art. 356.

• Art. 356 (President's rule): if the President is satisfied that a state government cannot run according to the Constitution, the Centre takes over that state's government.

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):

• A nine-judge bench upheld the dismissal of these three governments.
• It held that secularism is part of the basic structure. The basic structure is the core of the Constitution that Parliament cannot destroy, even by amendment.
• It held that a state government that works against secularism can be dismissed under Art. 356.
• It also held that a proclamation under Art. 356 can be examined by the courts (judicial review).

After the demolition: the legal endgame (beyond 1992)

• 1993 Act: The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993 let the Centre acquire about 68 acres, including the disputed site [4].

• Under Art. 143, the President asked the Supreme Court for its advice on whether a Hindu temple had stood there before the mosque [4].

• M. Ismail Faruqui v. UoI (24 October 1994):

• The Court struck down Section 4(3) of the 1993 Act, which had ended all pending suits [4].
• It upheld the rest of the Act and declined to answer the President's question [4].

• As a result, the suits were revived, with the Centre as statutory receiver (official custodian of the site) [4].

• 2019 verdict (M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 9 November 2019):

• The 1989 deity suit was decreed in its favour. The disputed site goes to a trust that the Centre had to set up within three months under Sections 6 and 7 of the 1993 Act [4].
• 5 acres in Ayodhya go to the Sunni Central Waqf Board as restitution (making up for a wrong) for the "unlawful destruction" of the mosque [4].

Prelims Hooks

• Babri Masjid: built 1528 (935 AH) by Mir Baqi, linked to Babur [5][4].
• Idols placed inside on the night of 22–23 December 1949. The site was attached under Section 145 CrPC on 29 December 1949 [4].
• Faizabad District Judge ordered the locks opened on 1 February 1986 [4].
• Places of Worship Act 1991: cut-off date 15 August 1947. Section 5 exempts Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid [2][3]. Trap: the Act froze religious character as of 1947, not 1950.
• Rath Yatra: from Somnath (Sept 1990) → Advani arrested in Bihar (Oct 1990) → BJP pulled support → V.P. Singh government fell.
• S.R. Bommai (1994): nine-judge bench. Secularism is part of the basic structure. The Art. 356 dismissals of MP, Rajasthan and HP were upheld.
• Ismail Faruqui (1994): struck down only Section 4(3) (end of pending suits) of the 1993 Acquisition Act. The Court declined the Art. 143 reference [4].
• 2019 verdict: site to a trust under the 1993 Act; 5 acres to the Sunni Central Waqf Board [4].
• Body–function pair: Srikrishna Commission → inquiry into the Mumbai riots of 1992–93.

Mains Points

• Secularism tested (GS-I/II): Ayodhya turned a property dispute into a national test of Indian secularism. Bommai answered by making secularism part of the basic structure and a valid ground for using Art. 356. The 2019 Court called the Places of Worship Act a law that protects the equality of all faiths [4].
• Federalism and Art. 356: The 1992 dismissals show the tension between the Centre's duty to protect constitutional order and states' autonomy. Bommai answered with judicial review of Art. 356, and later Sarkaria-style limits on its use built on it.
• Rule of law vs mass mobilisation: The demolition broke a status quo order and an assurance given to the Supreme Court [4]. It shows how street movements can override courts and fuel riots. Remedies include accountability through inquiry commissions and firm administration.
• Religion and coalition politics: The Rath Yatra brought down the V.P. Singh government. It made the "Mandal vs Mandir" split the main axis of 1990s politics and prepared the ground for the BJP-led coalitions that followed.