14.5 C
New Delhi
Friday 17 January 2020

Dhavan quotes Iqbal (1877-1938) to prove Babur (1483-1530) ‘revered Lord Rama’

Claiming that Babur was not a destroyer although Mir Baqi had built the mosque at the behest of the conqueror and on the orders of a Sufi, Rajeev Dhavan, a senior advocate representing the Muslim side in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, cited a famous line of Muhammad Iqbal who lived about four centuries after the advent of Mughals in India

The Supreme Court today set a new deadline to complete the Ayodhya case hearing. The apex court asked all the parties to the dispute to complete the debate by 17 October. Earlier, the Supreme Court had set the date of 18 October to complete the debate. Hearing in the case continued in the Supreme Court for the 37th day. On Friday, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan started his arguments on behalf of the Muslim side.

Justice Bobde asked whether divinity was imposed on anything in Islam. To this, the Muslim side said that this happened in both religions and that the mosque was an example of this in Islam.

Justice Bobde said that one always heard that there was nothing like this; “you worship Allah and not any thing“; we want to see if any institution has considered the mosque to be revered because one comes there only to worship Allah”.

Dhavan said that the Hindu parties accused Babur of breaking the temple and building a mosque, but Babur was not a destroyer. The mosque was built by Mir Baqi at the behest of a Sufi, the lawyer claimed. Dhavan read out a famous line Allama Mohammed Iqbal in support of his claim: ‘Hai Ram ke wajūd par Hindostan ko nāz; ahl-e-nazar samajhte hain us ko Imam-e-Hind (India is proud of the existence of Rama; those with the right vision regard him as the imam of India),’ much as Iqbal lived on this earth centuries after both Babur and Mir Baqi were gone.

During the hearing, Justice Chandrachud asked whether there was any evidence that Babur had given any financial aid to Babri Masjid? Dhavan denied that there was any kind of evidence thereof. He said that the evidence of the temple claimants did not exist either.

Muslims were compensated after the attack on the mosque: Dhavan

Dhavan said that in 1855, a Nihang came to the plot now disputed and he worshipped Guru Govind Singh there and marked it thus. However, everything was removed later. The British governor-general and Faizabad deputy commissioner had given rent-free villages for maintenance of the mosque and then revenue villages as per Babur’s decree, Dhavan claimed. Due to financial support, the other party’s adversity position could not be achieved, the advocate for the Muslim side said.

The Nirmohi Akhara, one of the Hindu parties to the dispute, however, claims that the Nihang Dhavan referred to was a member of their order and that he had worshipped Lord Rama at the spot. This, in fact, is among the prime reasons that make them a claimant of the site in Ayodhya.

Dhavan said that after a previous attack on the mosque in the year 1934, compensation was given to the Muslims to make up for the loss. On 10 December 1884, a Bairagi Fakir entered the mosque building and sat down. When he did not come out despite the administration’s warning, he was forcibly removed and his flag was also uprooted, Dhavan said.

The advancing of the date implies that there are only four days of hearing left in the case.

Previously, on Thursday, the Hindu side had placed its arguments in the Supreme Court. The counsel was presented first by Ram Lalla Virajman’s lawyer; then by Nirmohi Akhara and later by Gopal Singh Visharad.

Advocate Sushil Jain started the debate on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara. He told the court that now this hearing has become like a T20 match. The court expressed displeasure over his comment. Also said that you were given four and a half days. Now you have to answer, so now you are saying 20-20? So was your last argument a test match?

Stay on top - Get daily news in your email inbox

Sirf Views

CAA: Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste

So said Winston Churchill, a lesson for sure for Prime Miniter Narendra Modi who will use the opposition's calumny over CAA to his advantage

Archbishop Of Bangalore Spreading Canards About CAA

The letter of Archbishop Peter Machado to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, published in The Indian Express, is ridden with factual inaccuracies

Sabarimala: Why Even 7 Judges Weren’t Deemed Enough

For an answer, the reader will have to go through a history of cases similar to the Sabarimala dispute heard in the Supreme Court

Tanhaji: An Unabashed Celebration Of Hindutva

Tanhaji: The Unsung Warrior Film Review | Featuring Ajay Devgn, Saif Ali Khan, Kajol, Sharad Kelkar, Luke Kenny and Neha Sharma

Lunar eclipse: Why astrology says 10 Jan relatively innocuous

On 10 January, the penumbra of the earth's shadow rather than the umbra will cause a lunar eclipse, which the scriptures do not recognise

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

For fearless journalism

%d bloggers like this: