This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/world/asia/ayodhya-supreme-court-india.html

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 6 Version 7
Indian Court Favors Hindus in Dispute Over Ayodhya Religious Site Indian Court Favors Hindus in Dispute Over Ayodhya Religious Site
(about 2 hours later)
NEW DELHI — India’s Supreme Court on Saturday ruled in favor of Hindus over a piece of land Muslims also claim, greenlighting the construction of a temple on the site where a mosque stood before it was demolished by a frenzied mob three decades ago. NEW DELHI — India’s Supreme Court on Saturday settled one of the country’s most divisive and religiously charged cases, ruling in favor of Hindus over a piece of sacred land that Muslims also claim, where a mosque stood before it was demolished by a frenzied mob three decades ago.
The Supreme Court ruling handed Prime Minister Narendra Modi a major victory as he seeks to recast India as a Hindu nation and shift it from its secular foundation. The destruction of the 400-year-old mosque spurred deadly riots in the 1990s that have set the tone for the sectarian tensions that haunt India today. Although the case has been in litigation since the 1950s, the court’s decision Saturday is a crucial moment for India, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi recasts the country as a Hindu nation, away from its secular underpinnings.
The mosque has been appropriated by political parties as election fodder, including Mr. Modi’s governing Bharatiya Janata Party, which swept elections in May. And its destruction spurred riots that have set the tone for the country’s sectarian tensions ever since. Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party made the dispute a key campaign issue in the run-up to elections in May, which it swept.
In the lead-up to the decision, right-wing Hindus said the ruling would cement their status as leaders of India after centuries of rule first by the Muslim Moghul Empire and then by British colonialists. But Muslims fear that the decision will relegate them to second-class citizens and potentially empower Hindu extremists. The dispute tugged at the emotions of right-wing Hindu voters who say that for centuries they were robbed of their rightful place as the leaders of India, ruled first by the Muslim Moghul Empire and then by British colonialists.
In the highly anticipated ruling, the five-judge panel placed the sliver of barren land barely three acres in a government-run trust. But Muslims fear that the court’s decision will relegate them to second-class citizens and potentially empower Hindu extremists. Though many appeared to accept the ruling with sullen resignation, they see an India where Muslims lynched by mobs are seldom condemned by the government and where members of the ruling party are implicated in sectarian violence.
The decision allows Hindus to construct a temple, which they have planned since the Babri Mosque was destroyed in 1992. Many Hindus believe that the disputed site was the birthplace of their revered god Ram, and an earlier temple was demolished during Moghul rule to build the mosque. Mr. Modi tried to calm those fears in an address to the nation Saturday night.
The court also ruled that Muslims would be given five acres to build a mosque at a prominent site in Ayodhya, in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. “Today’s message is to unite, to associate and to live together. In the new India fear, animosity and negativity should have no place,” Mr. Modi said.
In the highly anticipated ruling, the five-judge panel unanimously decided that the sliver of barren land — barely three acres — would be placed in a government-run trust. The decision allows Hindus to construct a temple, which they have planned since the Babri Mosque was destroyed in 1992.
Many Hindus believe that the disputed site was the birthplace of their revered god Ram — the deity was even granted legal standing by the Supreme Court — and that an earlier temple was demolished during Moghul rule to build the mosque.
The court also ruled that Muslims would be given five acres to build a mosque at a prominent site in Ayodhya, the town at the center of the dispute, in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.
When the Babri Mosque was demolished by Hindu extremists, it set off riots across the country that killed around 2,000 people in some of the worst violence India had seen since its bloody partition in 1947. In place of the mosque, Hindus erected a tent resembling a temple that still stands and draws thousands of tourists every day.When the Babri Mosque was demolished by Hindu extremists, it set off riots across the country that killed around 2,000 people in some of the worst violence India had seen since its bloody partition in 1947. In place of the mosque, Hindus erected a tent resembling a temple that still stands and draws thousands of tourists every day.
The mosque was built in the 1500s during the era of Mughal rule, a period of history that many right-wing Hindus believe serves as a reminder of their humiliation under Muslim occupation. Although sites like the Taj Mahal — also built during Mughal rule — are iconic symbols of India, some right-wing Hindus see them as testaments of their past oppression. The mosque was built in the 1500s during the Mughal rule, a period that many right-wing Hindus believe serves as a reminder of their humiliation under Muslim occupation. Although sites like the Taj Mahal — also built during Mughal rule — are considered iconic symbols of India, right-wing Hindus see them as testaments to past oppression.
Some Hindu nationalists want to erase that history and replace it with symbols that reinforce India as a Hindu nation. About 80 percent of India’s population is Hindu.Some Hindu nationalists want to erase that history and replace it with symbols that reinforce India as a Hindu nation. About 80 percent of India’s population is Hindu.
Hindus from around the world have donated hundreds of bricks carved with the inscription “Sri Ram” hoping that the court would rule in favor of building the temple. The bricks have sat in a pile next to the contested site, ready to be fixed and shaped into a temple after the ruling. “Post the independence of our country, we have erased all the symbols of British imperialism,” said Ram Madhav, general secretary of the B.J.P. “The names of our roads have been changed, the statues of Queen Elizabeth and all of them have been removed.”
“Post the independence of our country, we have erased all the symbols of British imperialism,” said Ram Madhav, general secretary of the governing Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P. “The names of our roads have been changed, the statues of Queen Elizabeth and all of them have been removed.”
India should undergo a similar exorcism of certain symbols of Moghul rule, including the Babri Mosque, Mr. Madhav said, calling the 300-year reign of the Mughal Muslim emperors “cruel.”India should undergo a similar exorcism of certain symbols of Moghul rule, including the Babri Mosque, Mr. Madhav said, calling the 300-year reign of the Mughal Muslim emperors “cruel.”
“It’s as simple as that,” he said. “This is not about religion. We are not against any religion. India is one of the most religiously diverse places in the world.”“It’s as simple as that,” he said. “This is not about religion. We are not against any religion. India is one of the most religiously diverse places in the world.”
The B.J.P. has risen to power on a wave of Hindu nationalism, and restoring a temple to Ram in Ayodhya has become a central issue of its platform. When the Supreme Court announced its decision, lawyers outside the court yelled “Hail Lord Ram” while Hindu devotees blew conch shell horns, a celebratory tradition.
The party’s leaders deny that they have stirred anti-Muslim fervor and insist that India is an inclusive nation that embraces it minorities. But B.J.P. officials have seldom condemned the lynchings of Muslims across the country, and some party members have been implicated in sectarian violence including the destruction of the mosque. In Ayodhya, just yards from the disputed site, Indian sadhus shouted “Praise mother India” while devotees passed out sweets to mark the victory. But not all pockets of Ayodhya were filled with jubilation.
A rush of Hindu pilgrims visited Ayodhya over the weekend ahead of the court’s verdict. Sudarshan Jain and his family, pilgrims from Rajasthan, a state hundreds of miles away, visited an open-air workshop where craftsmen chiseled floral designs and figurines of Ram on pink sandstone slabs that will form the temple. The first floor of the would-be temple is ready to be fixed in place, the craftsmen said The town’s Muslim population kept off the streets and tried to keep their heads down. Some appeared to hope that now that the decades-long court decision had been settled, the sectarian tensions that have become a way of life in Ayodhya would finally settle.
Iqbal Ansari, whose father was a litigant in the case and had demanded the Babri Mosque be restored, said he welcomed the decision and hoped it would put an end to years of sectarian tensions.
“We should stop seeing each other from the religious prism. The court’s verdict is final and we will not appeal against it.”
While Mr. Modi’s government welcomed the ruling, it was quick to call for unity and warned Hindus from boisterous celebrations for fear they would spark sectarian clashes. While India under Mr. Modi has adopted a Hindu tilt, the prime minister has also focused on raising India’s profile on the international stage.
Officials in Delhi have been dismayed by the persistent coverage of India’s sectarian disharmony, including the antigovernment protests in the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir, which was stripped of its autonomy in August.
In the hours after Saturday's ruling, India’s Muslim community was divided between those who want to contest the Supreme Court decision and those who want to move on for the sake of sectarian harmony. Those who want to contest it have come to see the restoration of the Babri Mosque as a proclamation of Muslims’ place in India, and they fear that more religious sites will be targeted for destruction.
Shortly after the court announced its verdict, senior government officials were quick to call journalists in and promise — anonymously — that no more mosques would be destroyed and that they, too, wanted to move on and build the nation. In the run-up to this year’s election, Mr. Modi promised to deliver ambitious growth, to make India a $5 trillion economy by 2025. But growth so far has been sluggish, with unemployment reaching a 45-year high.
A rush of Hindu pilgrims visited Ayodhya ahead of the court’s verdict. Sudarshan Jain and his family, pilgrims from Rajasthan, a state hundreds of miles away, visited an open-air workshop where craftsmen chiseled floral designs and figurines of Ram on pink sandstone slabs that will form the temple. The first floor of the would-be temple is ready to be fixed in place, the craftsmen said
Hindus from around the world have donated hundreds of bricks carved with the inscription “Sri Ram,” hoping that the court would rule in favor of building the temple. The bricks have sat in organized piles next to the contested site, numbered and ready to be fixed and shaped into a temple, which devotees say can be constructed within hours once they are given the green light.
“These are not stones, but feelings of millions of Hindus,” Mr. Jain said, “Now the dream is going to be a reality.”“These are not stones, but feelings of millions of Hindus,” Mr. Jain said, “Now the dream is going to be a reality.”
Sitting in the courtyard of his home in Ayodhya, Haji Mahboob Ahmad, a litigant who supports rebuilding the mosque, said before the decision that if the court ruled in favor of a Hindu temple, Muslims would accept it. Sitting in the courtyard of his home in Ayodhya, Haji Mahboob Ahmad, a litigant who supported rebuilding the mosque, said before the decision that if the court ruled in favor of a Hindu temple, Muslims would accept it.
But he feared that right-wing Hindu forces would be emboldened and more mosques would be destroyed, cementing the feeling of many Muslims that they are slowly becoming second-class citizens. But he feared that right-wing Hindu forces would be emboldened and more mosques would be destroyed.
“Violence against Muslims will rise, and it will become institutionalized,” said Mr. Ahmad, 75, who had to flee the town for a month after the mosque was demolished nearly 30 years ago.“Violence against Muslims will rise, and it will become institutionalized,” said Mr. Ahmad, 75, who had to flee the town for a month after the mosque was demolished nearly 30 years ago.
“Those people who say there is no fear, they are lying,” he added. Ahead of the verdict, schools were shut and 4,000 security officers were deployed to the area in case of sectarian violence. Rallies were banned, shops barred from selling kerosene and people prevented from collecting bricks or stones. Social media was alight with anticipation, and citizens and community leaders appealed for calm.
For decades, Mr. Ahmad said, living steps from the destroyed mosque felt like living in an open-air prison because of the security around the neighborhood. The ruling comes just three months after Mr. Modi’s government achieved another key B.J.P. goal, when his government stripped the Muslim-majority state of Kashmir of its autonomy in August, increasing central government control over the territory, which Pakistan also claims.
“Now the issue should be solved forever and everyone should live in peace,” he said.
Ahead of the verdict, schools were shut and 4,000 security officers were deployed to the area. Rallies were banned, shops barred from selling kerosene and people prevented from collecting bricks or stones. Social media was alight with anticipation, and citizens and community leaders appealed for calm.
Mr. Modi, on Twitter, appealed for calm in the wake of the verdict.
“Whatever verdict is delivered by the Supreme Court will not be anyone’s victory or loss,” he wrote. “I appeal to my countrymen that everyone’s priority should be that the verdict strengthens the great tradition of peace, unity and good will of India.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Hindus’ favor on Ayodhya hands Mr. Modi a major victory just six months after his party swept elections and he was granted a second term as prime minister.
The ruling also comes just three months after Mr. Modi’s government achieved another key B.J.P. goal, when his government stripped the Muslim-majority state of Kashmir of its autonomy in August, increasing central government control over the territory, which Pakistan also claims.
Many in the B.J.P. say they believe that Muslims and other minorities in India, including Christians, have been given a special status that has set them apart from their Hindu peers, creating a nation that has a tiered structure they would like to flatten.Many in the B.J.P. say they believe that Muslims and other minorities in India, including Christians, have been given a special status that has set them apart from their Hindu peers, creating a nation that has a tiered structure they would like to flatten.
Hindu temples, for example, are controlled by the government, while Christians and Muslims control their own churches and mosques and can partly be governed by their own religious laws. Hindu temples, for example, are controlled by the government, while Christians and Muslims control their own churches and mosques.
“If the Supreme Court hands them a victory, all stars will have aligned in the B.J.P.’s favor,” Milan Vaishnav, the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s South Asia program, said before the decision. “If the Supreme Court hands them a victory, all stars will have aligned in the B.J.P.’s favor,” Milan Vaishnav, the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s South Asia program, said before the decision.
“There is short-term fear about communal tensions,” he said. “The soil is pretty fertile for conflict.” “There is short-term fear about communal tensions,” he said. “The soil is pretty fertile for conflict. The longer term fear is do Muslims and other minorities of India begin to feel resigned to a permanent status as second class citizens? The genius of India in the way it was constructed is that it avoided that tension eating away at the state unlike its neighbors.”
Maria Abi-Habib reported from New Delhi, and Sameer Yasir from Ayodhya, India. Suhasini Raj and Hari Kumar contributed reporting from New Delhi.Maria Abi-Habib reported from New Delhi, and Sameer Yasir from Ayodhya, India. Suhasini Raj and Hari Kumar contributed reporting from New Delhi.