ASI and Ramjanmbhoomi

.

Having read yesterday’s arguments of Ms. Meenakshi Arora, I am compelled to say that the submissions appeared unnecessarily verbose and, in several places, disconnected from the basic historical and archaeological facts. The Supreme Court is surely not the appropriate forum for rhetorical excess; the Court deserves concise arguments supported by evidence and reason.

Let us therefore come to the facts.

1. Carbon dating and the question of Muslim origin

It has been argued that certain artifacts have been carbon-dated to around the 7th century. Muslims invaded and established political power in India much later than that period. If the dating is accepted, on what historical or archaeological basis can those artifacts be attributed to Islam or a mosque? Chronology itself raises a fundamental question that cannot simply be brushed aside.

2. If the artifacts may be Buddhist or Jain, how does that support a mosque?

It has apparently been accepted that some of the artifacts could be associated with Buddhism or Jainism rather than Hinduism. But this itself establishes an important point: such artifacts would not be artifacts of a Muslim religious structure.

Moreover, the attempt to draw a rigid civilizational boundary between these traditions requires considerably more nuance. In the Hindu religious tradition, Lord Buddha is regarded as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Buddha was born at Lumbini, and the traditions surrounding his birth are rooted in the religious and cultural milieu of ancient India. Similarly, the concept of Chaturmas is found across Indian religious traditions, including Hindu and Jain traditions.

The existence of related religious concepts across Hindu, Buddhist and Jain traditions does not prove that every structure belongs to one particular faith. But neither can such common cultural features be casually used to deny the shared historical and civilizational context of ancient India.

3. Architecture, pillars and archaeological comparison

The shape and dimensions of the pillars and other structural elements deserve serious consideration. Similar circular structures and architectural elements have reportedly been identified by the ASI in the archaeological remains associated with ancient Dwarka, including underwater investigations.

Ancient builders ordinarily used stone and other materials available in their surrounding geographical region or through contemporary trade networks. Therefore, similarities in stone, dimensions, structural form and architectural technique cannot simply be dismissed without proper comparative analysis.

If archaeological structures at two historically significant sites display substantial similarities in dimensions, shapes, materials and architectural characteristics, the appropriate response is not rhetoric but scientific comparison. The evidence should be examined in the context of the architectural traditions of ancient India, particularly periods predating the establishment of Muslim rule.

4. Lotus symbolism, astronomical references and chronology

There is also the question of iconography.

Indian religious literature contains extensive symbolism associated with the lotus. Sita's traditional birth narrative is associated with the earth and the plough, while lotus symbolism is deeply embedded in Indian religious traditions. Lakshmi is traditionally associated with the lotus, and the lotus appears prominently in Vaishnava iconography and Hindu religious literature.

If an archaeological artifact contains a lotus motif together with an astronomical representation such as a solar eclipse, that evidence deserves careful interpretation. One must ask: what religious, cultural and astronomical tradition does such iconography most naturally correspond to?

It is particularly relevant if the artifact in question has been dated to approximately the 10th century. Such evidence should be interpreted objectively, rather than forcing it into a predetermined conclusion.

5. The argument concerning a previous temple

Finally, there appears to be an argument that even if a temple had existed earlier and was subsequently destroyed, the later construction of a mosque would somehow settle the question of ownership or historical legitimacy.

Consider the analogy.

Suppose I build a house on my land. The house is destroyed. My descendants do not have the resources to rebuild it. Years later, another person occupies the site and constructs a house there. Does the fact that the later structure exists automatically make that person the legitimate owner of the underlying land?

Obviously not.

The existence of a later structure and the question of the historical ownership or character of the underlying site are two different questions. Archaeology, historical records, inscriptions, architectural evidence and material remains must therefore be examined to determine what existed at the site before the later construction.

The Court does not need rhetoric, emotional appeals or unnecessarily prolonged arguments. It needs evidence, chronology, archaeology and law.

My sincere request is therefore simple: let us keep the arguments focused on the facts and the evidence. If the archaeological evidence supports a particular conclusion, establish it scientifically. If it does not, explain why.

Ultimately, common sense should complement evidence, not replace it—and neither should rhetoric replace either.

Ram mandir

The question of Ram Janmabhoomi cannot be discussed intelligently without first understanding the place of faith and belief in a religious claim.

Faith necessarily proceeds from belief. An atheist, by definition, does not accept the religious proposition on which such faith rests. The Court therefore cannot understand the nature of a religious claim by pretending that the underlying belief does not exist.

The Supreme Court itself recognized in the Ayodhya judgment that the faith and belief of Hindu devotees concerning Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman are matters of personal conscience and that the Court is not required to test the rationality or strength of that belief beyond determining whether it is genuinely held.

There is another important legal question.

In the case concerning Guru Granth Sahib, the Supreme Court recognized its capacity to be treated as a juristic person, arising from the religious significance accorded to it and its installation in a gurdwara. The same judgment also reaffirmed the established legal principle that a consecrated and publicly installed Hindu deity can possess juristic personality.

Then what is the objection to recognizing Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman as a juristic person?

In fact, in the Ayodhya proceedings, the legal personality of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman was not contested. The Supreme Court itself dealt with the deity as the first plaintiff in Suit 5.

The distinction is important: the Court did not recognize the abstract geographical entity “Asthan Shri Ram Janam Bhumi” as a juristic person. But that is entirely different from the legal personality of the deity Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman.

The historical and textual evidence must also be considered carefully.

The Valmiki Ramayana describes Ayodhya as a magnificent and highly developed city and gives an extensive account of its religious and civic life. More importantly, Ayodhya Kanda contains a description of Rama staying with Sita in a splendid temple of Lord Vishnu.

Therefore, it is historically unsound to suggest that the Ramayana presents Ayodhya merely as an ordinary secular settlement devoid of established religious institutions.

At the same time, historical claims must be stated accurately.

It would be incorrect to assert without qualification that Babur's own Baburnama contains a straightforward statement that he personally destroyed the Ram temple and constructed the mosque. The surviving historical record is more complicated; Beveridge's notes concerning the inscription and the missing portions of the Baburnama contain an interpretation concerning the replacement of a Hindu shrine, but the underlying diary material is incomplete.

That does not end the historical inquiry. It simply means that the claim must be evaluated through all available evidence—archaeology, inscriptions, architectural remains, historical accounts, documentary records and evidence of worship—rather than through one disputed quotation.

And that is precisely why consistency is important.

If the law can recognize the religious significance of Guru Granth Sahib on the basis of the faith and practice of its followers, and if it can recognize a consecrated Hindu deity as a juristic person, then Hindu belief concerning Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman cannot be dismissed merely because the religious concept is unfamiliar or different.

Different religions may have different conceptions of the Divine. The law need not declare one theology correct and another incorrect. It must, however, apply the same legal standard to both.

That is the real issue.

ASI survey on Ram mandir site

Ram Janmabhoomi: Faith, Juristic Personality and the Historical Evidence

The Ram Janmabhoomi dispute cannot be understood solely through the lens of modern property law. At its heart lies a question of faith, belief, religious practice, archaeology and historical continuity—all of which must be examined together.

Faith necessarily arises from belief. A person who does not accept a religious proposition may not share the faith arising from it. Yet the law is not required to determine whether a religious belief is rational or irrational. Its task is to understand the existence and nature of that belief and then apply the relevant legal principles consistently.

The Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgment recognized the importance of Hindu faith and belief concerning Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman, while simultaneously emphasizing that title to property is a secular legal question. This distinction is important: faith may explain the religious claim, while historical and legal evidence determines the legal consequences.

The Juristic Personality of a Deity

A particularly important legal question concerns the status of a deity.

The Supreme Court has recognized Guru Granth Sahib as capable of possessing juristic personality in the context of Sikh religious practice. Indian law has likewise long recognized the juristic personality of a duly consecrated Hindu deity.

There is therefore no conceptual legal inconsistency in treating Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman as a juristic person. Indeed, in the Ayodhya litigation, the deity was treated as a legal plaintiff.

The distinction must, however, be maintained between the deity and the geographical birthplace. Recognition of Ram Lalla as a juristic person does not automatically mean that every claim concerning the geographical site is established. Those questions require separate legal and evidentiary analysis.

What Does the Historical Evidence Show?

The historical evidence concerning Ayodhya extends well beyond religious belief.

An important inscription associated with Gahadavala king Chandradeva, dated 23 October 1093 AD, records his visit to Ayodhya, ritual bathing at the sacred river during a solar eclipse, religious worship and grants to Brahmins.

The astronomical reference is particularly interesting because the date and occurrence of the eclipse are independently capable of scientific verification. The inscription therefore provides valuable epigraphic evidence of an established Hindu sacred and pilgrimage tradition at Ayodhya centuries before the Mughal period.

Strictly speaking, this inscription alone does not establish that a temple stood on the precise disputed parcel. Its importance lies in establishing the religious character of Ayodhya during the period.

The evidence becomes considerably more significant when considered cumulatively with the Vishnu-Hari inscription, archaeological findings and architectural remains examined during the ASI investigation. The Vishnu-Hari inscription has been interpreted as referring to the construction of a substantial temple dedicated to Vishnu and containing references to his incarnations, including Rama.

Thus, the historical question should not be reduced to the search for a single sentence stating, in modern terminology, “a Ram temple stood on this exact piece of land.”

Ancient history is reconstructed through the convergence of inscriptions, archaeology, architecture, iconography, literary sources and evidence of religious practice.

The Valmiki Ramayana and Ayodhya

The Valmiki Ramayana itself provides an extensive description of Ayodhya as a prosperous and religiously significant city. It also contains references to temples and worship associated with Vishnu.

This is important because it demonstrates that the religious character of Ayodhya is not a modern invention. The city occupies a significant place in the ancient Indian religious and literary tradition.

The argument should therefore not be that the Ramayana alone proves the legal title to a modern parcel of land. Rather, its significance lies in establishing the antiquity and religious importance of Ayodhya and the Rama tradition.

What About Babur and the Baburnama?

The Baburnama also deserves careful examination, but claims concerning it should be made with precision.

Babur personally recorded an episode in which he ordered the destruction of religious images at Urvai near Gwalior, identified by modern scholarship as Jain Tirthankara sculptures. This establishes from Babur's own memoir that the destruction of religious images was not unknown to him.

However, it would be historically unsafe to claim that the surviving Baburnama contains a direct statement that Babur himself demolished the Ram temple at Ayodhya. The evidence concerning the Ayodhya demolition is more complicated and must be considered alongside inscriptions, later historical accounts, architectural evidence and archaeology.

That distinction is important because a strong historical argument does not require an exaggerated claim.

The Larger Legal Question

The central issue is therefore one of consistent standards.

If the religious beliefs of Muslims are relevant to understanding the mosque as a place of worship, then Hindu religious beliefs must equally be relevant to understanding the temple and the worship of its deity.

If Guru Granth Sahib can acquire juristic personality through the religious beliefs and practices of its followers, the legal recognition of a Hindu deity as a juristic person cannot be dismissed merely because the theological concept is different.

And if historical claims are to be evaluated through evidence, then all available evidence must be considered together—not selectively.

The Ram Janmabhoomi question therefore cannot be reduced either to “mere faith” or to “mere archaeology.”

It involves:

faith and belief → religious practice → literary tradition → inscriptions → archaeology → architecture → historical records → and finally the application of law.

The proper judicial approach is neither to validate a belief merely because it is sincerely held nor to dismiss it because it is religious. It is to examine the evidence objectively and apply the same legal and evidentiary standards to every faith tradition.

Ultimately, the most compelling argument is not that one isolated piece of evidence proves everything. It is that multiple independent strands of historical and archaeological evidence must be read together.

That is how history is established—and that is how a difficult legal question should be approached.

The belief is that Lord Ram was born at a place-  Justice Ashok Bhushan

- Your honour, It's not merely a belief but there are ample of evidence to corroborate and prove existence of Lord Ram.
1. In dwarka Lord Krishna was alleged to have theft a garland which was later found with Jamvant , krishna fought battle with Jamvant only to found later that it was same Jamvant who has fought war against Ravan in his army when he had incarnated as Lord Ram. Jamvant seek pardon and gave his daughter to Lord Krishna who became his wife. This clearly relates Krishna with Lord Ram.
2.Arjun has turned arrogant and Krishna wanted to curb down his arrogance, he send Hanuman for the mission , Lord Hanuman succeeded in realising Arjun of his arrogance and he bowed before Lord Hanuman, krishna came there at that moment they all had conversation. Lord Hanuman asked Lord Krishna to show his Ramavtar swaroop, which Krishna obliged him by saying come to dwarka I will show you my Ram swaroop there .
         This clearly establish relation between  Jamvant, Hanuman,   Lord Ram and Lord Krishna.
Evidence:- since evidence of dwarka has been found which prooves existence of Lord Krishna, Krishna reveals his Ramavtar and the characters of Treta are found during Krishna ,do we still have the doubt about the existence of Lord Ram.

Text mentioning where Lord Ram was Born. - Mr. Rajiv Dhavan.

Refer Skand puran, vaishnav khand ,ayodhya mahatma.

Pillars doesn't have God in them.
- Pillars doesn't necessarily have God in them, pillars have what we depict in them,which is indicative of our inclination. Lotus and dwarpal clearly indicates the mental inclination depicting some one at the dwar(gate) Ayodhya was a kingdom and a kingdom had dwarpal and lotus resembles Goddess Lakshmi. The main statue is established in the Garbh Grih . Since Babur and ibrahim lodhi had fascination of destroying Idols, which is mentioned in baburnama who knows they might have destroyed the Idols.

Tajmahal was indeed built by the money of Indian Taxpayers and by Indians there is no iota of doubt on it. But the labourers are concern about their wages and not of memory of shahjahan about his mumtaj. Suppose I am an engineer, you are a muslim you come to me for a design  to built a monument in the memory of your wife , I provide you my service am I concerned about your wife ? No it's my profession .

- The place become juristic person when Kush established Idol of Lord Ram when he left for his abode at the beginning of dwapar. The traces of it could be found at Kanak bhawan.

Lord Ram says Janmabhoomi is of more importance than that of Heaven, it itself shows manifestation
Of Janmabhoomi and it's importance.

Ram mandir hearing

Consequences of demolition of babri masjid.
Let me be very clear that I don't support demolition of babri masjid, because if everyone starts taking law in their own hand it detoriates justice system in the country. But since it's a legal issue I would like to bring it to the notice of honourable court that muslim invaders demolished numerous temples in India just to establish and spread their own religion. They build many masjid just besides Hindus temples, ASI has numerous evidence of the said facts,my question to Mr. Dhavan is that didn't it hampered the conscience and belief of Hindus. Didn't it had any repercussion on Hindus belief.
Disclaimer:- I don't support Revenge, muslims have every constitutional Rights available , but since you have raised the issue of consequences of demolition of babri masjid, in that context I have reminded you of the facts.

Plea on behalf of Idol, Plea claiming Janmabhoomi.

Plea claiming janmasthan should be given more importance than that of plea claiming of Idol, since Janmabhoomi came into Existence first than came the Idol. Idol has no relevance without the Existence of Lord Ram. Idol was established as per vedic rituals by his Son Kush after Lord Ram left for his abode. So Idol is dependent on the Existence of Lord Ram and the Janmabhoomi is known because  of Ram and the lineage of Ikshvaku. Kush was the inheritor of the Janmabhoomi and kingdom of Kush has reference with regards to dwarpar yug, which reference could be found in the Purana.
           Both the plea should be entertained and is legally binded  and Janmabhoomi has grater significance.

Janmabhoomi is is a juridical person.

With reference to skand puran where it's mentioned that by merely seeing the Janmabhoomi our all previous life sins get vanishes. It clearly states the importance of Janmabhoomi. The bhoomi belongs to the lineage of Ikshvaku and after Lord Ram left for his abode kush rebuilt the place at the beginning of dwapar. The reference of rebuilding of the structure by kush can be found at kanak bhavan.

Since Janmabhoomi alone has such Religious significance why can't be it a juridical person.

Aspect of belief and Janmabhoomi
The belief in the hindu religion is that Performing rituals at tirth has greater Religious importance. Ayodhya is one of the seven moksha tirth and hence it has much more Religious significance than other tirth in the country.
Since the belief emphasises more on the Janmabhoomi hence it has its own aspects which should not be hampered.

Article25- Sorry! If it hurts but at a time the truth has to be spoken. Does muslim only has the conscience and right to Religious practices,With all due respect Will a temple be allowed to be built beside mecca.
What should be emphasised and debated here his whose conscience and belief is being hurt here of Hindus or muslims.

Acceptance: Distinction of Janmabhoomi is evident.
If it's case of Janmabhoomi than all hands should be off the place including the court.

I only hope that Mr. Dhavan doesn't repudiate from his words!