11-05-2003, 03:41 AM
Here are some key dates in the history of Ayodhya.
1528
Mughal Emperor Babar's nobles destroy a Rama temple and construct Babri mosque on it in Ayodhya, the birth place of Lord Rama.
1859
British colonial rulers annexe mosque site and create separate Muslim and Hindu places of worship, building a wall to put an end to rising tension
between followers of the faiths.
1885
The first case was filed in 1885 by Raghubar Das, mahant of the Ram Janmasthan, seeking permission to build a temple on the site.
1949
Government proclaims site a disputed area and locks gates to the mosque after Muslims claim Hindu faithful broke in and installed idols of Lord Rama.
1950
The second case was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad in January 1950 seeking permission for worship.
The third legal battle for the contentious piece of land in Ayodhya began when Ramchandra Paramhans filed a suit on December 5, 1950, seeking permission to
worship without hindrance the deities at Ram Janambhoomi. The civil judge of Faizabad combined both the petitions on February 1, 1951.
1961
Ansari filed a suit on December 16, 1961, under the banner of Sunni Central Boards of Waqfs, seeking delivery of the mosque and the
removal of the idols. Though the legal war of attrition between Ansari and Paramhans has now been going on for more than four decades, off the battlefield, they
are the best of friends.
1983
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) launches a campaign to build a temple on the disputed site.
1984
Committee is set up to "liberate" Rama's birthplace and build temple. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Lal Krishna Advani, assumes leadership
of campaign.
1986
Lower court judge orders gates of the disputed site opened to allow Hindus to worship there. (1985: Rajiv Gandhi had to appease Muslims by overturning Supreme Court decision on Shah Bano alimony case. Muslims took processions against SC ruling in 1985. The 1985 ruling in the case of Shah Bano Begum v. Mohd Ahmed Khan precipitated a storm of debate about the existence and future of personal laws in India. As is well known, this judgment found that Muslim men had to pay support to their divorced wives in spite of the fact that this was not traditionally required according to Muslim personal law as it had been interpreted in India. The Muslim outcry against this ruling was overwhelming, forcing the government, which had originally supported the Supreme Court's ruling, to overturn it with new legislation reimplementing the more conservative interpretation of the personal law. Some even blame this ruling and the political struggles which followed it for the resurgence of communal passions and politics during the last decade. Curiously, however, the Supreme Court had already decided that Muslim men must pay maintenance to their divorced wives in spite of their personal law in several cases prior to Shah Bano (Bai Tahira, Fuzlunbi). What made the Shah Bano opinion so threatening to the Muslim community? This decision led to a controversy and in order to dilute the judgment in the Shah Bano case, the Muslim Women's Bill, later to become the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was passed by Rajiv Gandhi's Parliament. Women's organisations are critical of the Act. They are opposed to it primarily because it denies Muslim women the option of exercising their rights under the provisions of secular legislation, which the CrPC is. Hasina Hashia, member of the AIMPLB and an associate professor in Jamia Millia Islamia university, is categorical that Muslim women are not entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period and that Section 125 CrPC cannot apply to them. [url="http://www.flonnet.com/fl1814/18140890.htm;"]http://www.flonnet.com/fl1814/18140890.htm;[/url] [url="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/3499/act17.htm;"]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/3499/act17.htm;[/url] [url="http://www.wluml.org/english/publications/dossiers/dossier20/indianislamandreform.htm)"]http://www.wluml.org/english/publications/...mandreform.htm)[/url]
1989
Congress government, under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, allows first foundation stone to be laid for construction of a Hindu temple near the mosque.
Hundreds killed in rioting by Muslims.
1989
The last case was filed in July 1989 by retired high court judge D N Agarwal claiming ownership of the disputed land. In July 1989, the Allahabad
high court clubbed all five suits (1885, 1950, 1950, 1961, 1989) into one and ruled that a three-judge bench would hear the combined suit and
further, that until verdict was given, status quo had to be maintained.
1990
Advani, then BJP president, begins Rath Yatra to win support for building temple. (The Then Prime MinisterVP Singh implented old Mandal Commision report to get the votes of backwardr tribes/castes by splitting Hindu tribes and religions as response to Devilal's waiver of loans to agriculturists. Mandal commission report implementation led to riots and strikes and suicides by young students that belonged to the tribes and castes classified as advanced. To stop this restlessnes and death, Advani attempted to divert the attention of Hindu students from tribal distinctions to Ram temple.)
1992
Dispute reaches climax when the mosque is brought down using sledgehammers, crowbars and bare hands. Rioting erupts and some 3,000 people are
killed. (And thousnads of temples in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and India were destroyed and desecrated)
1994
Supreme Court rules status quo must be maintained at Ayodhya until lower court decides on clutch of title suits. Since 1950, at least five suits filed for
ownership of site by Hindu and Muslim groups with no ruling.
1998
BJP rides to political centre-stage on manifesto supporting building temple. To form coalition government with secular allies, BJP says it will abide by
court ruling.
1998
Supreme Courts makes government "statutory receiver" of undisputed land surrounding mosque site. Legal experts say this gives government obligation to
maintain status quo.
Jan 2002
Right wing parties, saying courts are taking too long, set a deadline of March 15 to start construction.
Feb 2002
Violence erupts in Gujarat after burning to death of 55 Hindu women and children in attack in Godhra on a train carrying Hindu activists from Ayodhya, a well
planned and supportred by Islamic Jihadis, to stop March 15 plan.
Mar 2002
NEW DELHI, MARCH 13: The Supreme Court today forbade any "religious activityââ on the 67-acre acquired land in Ayodhya even after the Centre came
out in support of the ââsymbolicââ puja proposed to be held there on March 15. (The Attorney General interpreted the law and gave his opinion to SC. The secularist NDA members said, " though
Sorabjee told us that it was his personal view and interpretation of thelaw, we made it clear that on such a sensitive issue, there was no room for a personal opinion. It has deeply hurt the PM and the NDA governmentâs secular image.
This indicates that to keep the secular image they would interpret the law accordngly to suit their needs to get the minority votes.)
Ayodhya, March 15: The ``mahant,'' who, on March 14, declared that he would ``kill'' himself if not allowed to perform the``puja'' on the acquired land, agreed to perform it outside the acquired land in Ram Kot Mohalla today. He would then proceed to the disputed site for a ``darshan'' at the makeshift Ram temple, he had declared. But, a few hours later, as the procession, permitted by the administration in violation of Section 144 of the Cr.PC, traversed the 500 metres from the ``karsevakpuram'' to the ``akhara,'' Paramhans fell in line with the administration's decision to end the procession and perform the ``puja'' and ``daan'' right there. The ``daan'' of the two Dholpur stone slabs was received not by the Faizabad Divisional Commissioner, A. K. Gupta, as announced earlier, but by Mr. Singh. The Leader of the Opposition, Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-Indian, launched a scathing attack on the Government in the Lok Sabha today, accusing it of ``betraying the hopes and expectation of the people and failing the nation,'' while Somnath Chatterjee of the CPI(M) of the state of Bengal supporting the Muslim stand wondered whether the country would survive as a secular nation, he said.``Secularism is dead as long as this Government is in power.'' He termed the Government's decision to send a member of the Prime Minister's Ayodhya cell to receive the ``shila'' from the VHP today a ``constitutionalsacrilege.''
Nitish Kumar Parmar, a Hindu and a nephew of sitting Congress MP from north Gujarat Pravin Rashtrapal, was stabbed to death in sensitive Shahpur locality of Ahmedabad, police said.
Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, the chief minister of the communist state of Bengal, admitted that the Indo-Bangla border was being used by Islamic terrorist outfits and smugglers and this was nothing new. It was not possible for the state government alone to prevent north Bengal being used by the insurgents as free corridor until and unless the borders were being protected properly by the BSF personnel, he said. The chief minister also said that a total of 30 persons have been arrested over the past two years in the state on charges of being operating as ISI agents. The culprits involved in the attack on the train at Godhra in Gujarat did not cross over to Bangladesh through Indo-Bangla border in West Bengal. However, the chief minister said, âwe have completed around 70 per cent of the border roads. But fencing is far from complete.â
Hyderabad, March 15: After Friday prayers Muslims attacked police and ten people were stabbed in old city. (vaartha)
PTI [ SUNDAY, MARCH 17, 2002 12:29:16 PM ] ISLAMABAD: Over 800 militants, arrested following the ban on five jehadi groups imposed by President Pervez Musharraf on January 12, have been released under the newly formulated
conditional amnesty after the detainees signed an undertaking, promising not take part in extremist activities. The released activists belonged to the Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Sipah-e-Sehaba of Pakistan, (SSP), Sipah-e-Muhammad and Harkatul Mujahideen. Of the five outfits, Jaish and Lashkar were blamed by New Delhi for various terrorists attacks, including the one on December 13 on the Indian Parliament.
1528
Mughal Emperor Babar's nobles destroy a Rama temple and construct Babri mosque on it in Ayodhya, the birth place of Lord Rama.
1859
British colonial rulers annexe mosque site and create separate Muslim and Hindu places of worship, building a wall to put an end to rising tension
between followers of the faiths.
1885
The first case was filed in 1885 by Raghubar Das, mahant of the Ram Janmasthan, seeking permission to build a temple on the site.
1949
Government proclaims site a disputed area and locks gates to the mosque after Muslims claim Hindu faithful broke in and installed idols of Lord Rama.
1950
The second case was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad in January 1950 seeking permission for worship.
The third legal battle for the contentious piece of land in Ayodhya began when Ramchandra Paramhans filed a suit on December 5, 1950, seeking permission to
worship without hindrance the deities at Ram Janambhoomi. The civil judge of Faizabad combined both the petitions on February 1, 1951.
1961
Ansari filed a suit on December 16, 1961, under the banner of Sunni Central Boards of Waqfs, seeking delivery of the mosque and the
removal of the idols. Though the legal war of attrition between Ansari and Paramhans has now been going on for more than four decades, off the battlefield, they
are the best of friends.
1983
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) launches a campaign to build a temple on the disputed site.
1984
Committee is set up to "liberate" Rama's birthplace and build temple. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Lal Krishna Advani, assumes leadership
of campaign.
1986
Lower court judge orders gates of the disputed site opened to allow Hindus to worship there. (1985: Rajiv Gandhi had to appease Muslims by overturning Supreme Court decision on Shah Bano alimony case. Muslims took processions against SC ruling in 1985. The 1985 ruling in the case of Shah Bano Begum v. Mohd Ahmed Khan precipitated a storm of debate about the existence and future of personal laws in India. As is well known, this judgment found that Muslim men had to pay support to their divorced wives in spite of the fact that this was not traditionally required according to Muslim personal law as it had been interpreted in India. The Muslim outcry against this ruling was overwhelming, forcing the government, which had originally supported the Supreme Court's ruling, to overturn it with new legislation reimplementing the more conservative interpretation of the personal law. Some even blame this ruling and the political struggles which followed it for the resurgence of communal passions and politics during the last decade. Curiously, however, the Supreme Court had already decided that Muslim men must pay maintenance to their divorced wives in spite of their personal law in several cases prior to Shah Bano (Bai Tahira, Fuzlunbi). What made the Shah Bano opinion so threatening to the Muslim community? This decision led to a controversy and in order to dilute the judgment in the Shah Bano case, the Muslim Women's Bill, later to become the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was passed by Rajiv Gandhi's Parliament. Women's organisations are critical of the Act. They are opposed to it primarily because it denies Muslim women the option of exercising their rights under the provisions of secular legislation, which the CrPC is. Hasina Hashia, member of the AIMPLB and an associate professor in Jamia Millia Islamia university, is categorical that Muslim women are not entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period and that Section 125 CrPC cannot apply to them. [url="http://www.flonnet.com/fl1814/18140890.htm;"]http://www.flonnet.com/fl1814/18140890.htm;[/url] [url="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/3499/act17.htm;"]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/3499/act17.htm;[/url] [url="http://www.wluml.org/english/publications/dossiers/dossier20/indianislamandreform.htm)"]http://www.wluml.org/english/publications/...mandreform.htm)[/url]
1989
Congress government, under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, allows first foundation stone to be laid for construction of a Hindu temple near the mosque.
Hundreds killed in rioting by Muslims.
1989
The last case was filed in July 1989 by retired high court judge D N Agarwal claiming ownership of the disputed land. In July 1989, the Allahabad
high court clubbed all five suits (1885, 1950, 1950, 1961, 1989) into one and ruled that a three-judge bench would hear the combined suit and
further, that until verdict was given, status quo had to be maintained.
1990
Advani, then BJP president, begins Rath Yatra to win support for building temple. (The Then Prime MinisterVP Singh implented old Mandal Commision report to get the votes of backwardr tribes/castes by splitting Hindu tribes and religions as response to Devilal's waiver of loans to agriculturists. Mandal commission report implementation led to riots and strikes and suicides by young students that belonged to the tribes and castes classified as advanced. To stop this restlessnes and death, Advani attempted to divert the attention of Hindu students from tribal distinctions to Ram temple.)
1992
Dispute reaches climax when the mosque is brought down using sledgehammers, crowbars and bare hands. Rioting erupts and some 3,000 people are
killed. (And thousnads of temples in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and India were destroyed and desecrated)
1994
Supreme Court rules status quo must be maintained at Ayodhya until lower court decides on clutch of title suits. Since 1950, at least five suits filed for
ownership of site by Hindu and Muslim groups with no ruling.
1998
BJP rides to political centre-stage on manifesto supporting building temple. To form coalition government with secular allies, BJP says it will abide by
court ruling.
1998
Supreme Courts makes government "statutory receiver" of undisputed land surrounding mosque site. Legal experts say this gives government obligation to
maintain status quo.
Jan 2002
Right wing parties, saying courts are taking too long, set a deadline of March 15 to start construction.
Feb 2002
Violence erupts in Gujarat after burning to death of 55 Hindu women and children in attack in Godhra on a train carrying Hindu activists from Ayodhya, a well
planned and supportred by Islamic Jihadis, to stop March 15 plan.
Mar 2002
NEW DELHI, MARCH 13: The Supreme Court today forbade any "religious activityââ on the 67-acre acquired land in Ayodhya even after the Centre came
out in support of the ââsymbolicââ puja proposed to be held there on March 15. (The Attorney General interpreted the law and gave his opinion to SC. The secularist NDA members said, " though
Sorabjee told us that it was his personal view and interpretation of thelaw, we made it clear that on such a sensitive issue, there was no room for a personal opinion. It has deeply hurt the PM and the NDA governmentâs secular image.
This indicates that to keep the secular image they would interpret the law accordngly to suit their needs to get the minority votes.)
Ayodhya, March 15: The ``mahant,'' who, on March 14, declared that he would ``kill'' himself if not allowed to perform the``puja'' on the acquired land, agreed to perform it outside the acquired land in Ram Kot Mohalla today. He would then proceed to the disputed site for a ``darshan'' at the makeshift Ram temple, he had declared. But, a few hours later, as the procession, permitted by the administration in violation of Section 144 of the Cr.PC, traversed the 500 metres from the ``karsevakpuram'' to the ``akhara,'' Paramhans fell in line with the administration's decision to end the procession and perform the ``puja'' and ``daan'' right there. The ``daan'' of the two Dholpur stone slabs was received not by the Faizabad Divisional Commissioner, A. K. Gupta, as announced earlier, but by Mr. Singh. The Leader of the Opposition, Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-Indian, launched a scathing attack on the Government in the Lok Sabha today, accusing it of ``betraying the hopes and expectation of the people and failing the nation,'' while Somnath Chatterjee of the CPI(M) of the state of Bengal supporting the Muslim stand wondered whether the country would survive as a secular nation, he said.``Secularism is dead as long as this Government is in power.'' He termed the Government's decision to send a member of the Prime Minister's Ayodhya cell to receive the ``shila'' from the VHP today a ``constitutionalsacrilege.''
Nitish Kumar Parmar, a Hindu and a nephew of sitting Congress MP from north Gujarat Pravin Rashtrapal, was stabbed to death in sensitive Shahpur locality of Ahmedabad, police said.
Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, the chief minister of the communist state of Bengal, admitted that the Indo-Bangla border was being used by Islamic terrorist outfits and smugglers and this was nothing new. It was not possible for the state government alone to prevent north Bengal being used by the insurgents as free corridor until and unless the borders were being protected properly by the BSF personnel, he said. The chief minister also said that a total of 30 persons have been arrested over the past two years in the state on charges of being operating as ISI agents. The culprits involved in the attack on the train at Godhra in Gujarat did not cross over to Bangladesh through Indo-Bangla border in West Bengal. However, the chief minister said, âwe have completed around 70 per cent of the border roads. But fencing is far from complete.â
Hyderabad, March 15: After Friday prayers Muslims attacked police and ten people were stabbed in old city. (vaartha)
PTI [ SUNDAY, MARCH 17, 2002 12:29:16 PM ] ISLAMABAD: Over 800 militants, arrested following the ban on five jehadi groups imposed by President Pervez Musharraf on January 12, have been released under the newly formulated
conditional amnesty after the detainees signed an undertaking, promising not take part in extremist activities. The released activists belonged to the Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Sipah-e-Sehaba of Pakistan, (SSP), Sipah-e-Muhammad and Harkatul Mujahideen. Of the five outfits, Jaish and Lashkar were blamed by New Delhi for various terrorists attacks, including the one on December 13 on the Indian Parliament.