On December 23, 1949, a radio message sent at 10.30am by the district magistrate K K Nayar to the then chief minister Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant, the chief secretary and the home secretary. It read: “A few Hindus entered Babri Masjid at night when the Masjid was deserted and installed a deity there. DM and SP and force at spot. Situation under control. Police picket of 15 persons was on duty at night but did not apparently act.” This message was based on police constable Mata Prasad’s report to the Ayodhya police station earlier.
Secondly, till October 1949, on the eve of the take-over of the mosque and its gradual conversion into a temple on December 22-23, 1949, the government-sponsored efforts were in the context of chabutra and no other place. On December 26, 1949, Nehru asked Pant to interest himself personally in the matter.
On January 9, 1950, Sardar Patel also remonstrated with him: “Any unilateral action based on an attitude of aggression or coercion cannot be tolerated.” Nehru offered to go to Ayodhya himself. Pant dissuaded him. “Finding Pant immune to his pleadings,” Nehru turned to the state’s home minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. “I fear that we are leading again for some kind of disaster.” Again the matter was left to hang fire.
It’s also a lie that it was very long when last namaz was performed there and it was defunct place of worship. The Babari Masjid was very much a mosque where namaaz was said right till its forcible takeover with the help of K K Nayar, the deputy commissioner of Faizabad. The same K K Nayar later became a Jan Sangh MP. With the connivance of Mr. G B Pant the local administration foiled the attempt by P.M. Jawaharlal Nehru to set right the wrong. Let the record speak for itself.
On January 29, 1985, Raghubar Das who claimed to be the mahant of the Janmasthan Ayodhya, filed a civil suit against the Secretary of State for India in council for “a decree for awarding permission to construct a temple over the Chabutra Janmasthan situated in Ayodhya and restraining the defendant from prohibiting or obstructing the plaintiff in the construction of the temple.”
The dimensions of the chabutra were specified. And read how they described the desired platform: “the chabutra of Janmasthan is 21 feet towards East and West and 17 feet towards North and South, and therein Charan Punya lies and there also a small temple over it, which is worshipped.” The Mahant never claimed the Sanctum Sanctorum of the temple lay in the mosque.
The suit was keenly contested. The plaintiff, the government pleader, one Mohammed Asghar and his pleader were fully heard. The mahant argued that “if a temple is constructed no harm is done to any one and the worship which is done at present will continue in the same manner in future also.” That was at the chabutra. The sub-judge of Faizabad, Pandit Hari Kishan Singh, however, dismissed the suit by judgment dated December 24, 1985.
Rest is very fresh in the minds of every Indian!
The most popular citizen journalists' reports on merinews chosen automatically on the basis of views and comments
View more jobs