Ram Lalla invokes ‘faith’ to claim right over Ayodhya land

Counsel for Ram Lalla CS Vaidyanathan contends in the SC that the mosque was built after demolishing the existing temple which is not permissible under Shariat

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, August 14

Invoking the "faith" of millions of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at Ayodhya, Ram Lalla's counsel on Wednesday claimed exclusive right over the disputed 2.77-acre land ordered to be divided equally between the deity, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Wakf Board by the Allahabad High Court.

"It is the faith of people that it is the place where Lord Ram was born. It was always considered to be the birthplace of Lord Ram," senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, representing the deity, told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi.

"It is clear that the structure (temple) was there," he told the Bench - which also included Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.

The court should not go beyond and examine as to how rational their belief was, said Vaidhyanathan who had on Tuesday contended that the birth place of Lord Ram itself is a deity and that Muslims cannot claim right over the disputed land as dividing it would amount to "destruction" and "mutilation" of the deity.

On day six of the hearing on cross-appeals against the September 30, 2010 order of the Allahabad High Court, Vaidyanathan also contended on behalf of Ram Lalla that the mosque was built after demolishing the existing temple which is not permissible under Shariat.

Referring to William Finch's travelogue 'Early Travels to India', he said the English trader had mentioned that Hindus believed Ayodhya was birth place of Lord Ram. Finch had visited India in 1608-1611. As the Bench asked as to when it was first called Babri Masjid, Vaidyanathan said, "In the 19th century... There is no document available to show that before the 19th century it was known as Babri Masjid."

Responding to a query from the Bench, he said 'Baburnama' was silent on this. This prompted the Bench to further ask if there was any objective evidence to show that Babur ordered demolition of the temple. Vaidyanathan said Babur had asked his general to demolish it.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing a Muslim party, objected to Vaidyanathan's submission about 'Baburnama' being silent about Babur's visit to Ayodhya. 'Baburnama' mentioned Babur crossing the river to Ayodhya and some of its pages were missing. The hearing would resume on Friday.

RELATED Ram Lalla juristic person, says SC