Arvind Singh 🇮🇳

The key difference between Indian & Pakistani diplomacy:Pakistan builds relationships without making them at anyone’s expense sovereign, principled, and inclusive.India too often does the opposite: strengthens ties by targeting or isolating others (be it Pakistan, China, or neighbours).True diplomacy lifts all boats, not sinks some to float higher.

Btw, when did Ganga or any other river become vegetarian?

The case will eventually reach the Supreme Court. You no lawyer, fine. But you ARE a scholar, a history PhD whose very thesis was coincidentally on the subject at hand. You can help. A lawyer representing the Muslim side could submit your expert opinion through an affidavit. Courts do consider expert testimony from historians, archaeologists, linguists, epigraphists, and conservation specialists. The court may also permit expert examination where you would not argue law but explain historical evidence, inscriptions, architecture, chronology, or holes in the Hindu claims. Besides, you could also help lawyers interpret Persian and Sanskrit sources, analyze ASI reports, identify weak assumptions, locate archival material, and critique methodology used by the Hindu side. Courts do not automatically accept academic opinion, but serious scholarship DOES enter pleadings and CAN BE cited in arguments. Sometimes courts appoint amici curiae or expert committees. Even if not formally appointed, scholars may provide material that finds its way into the court record. You could also file or support an intervention application. If you can demonstrate that you have direct scholarly expertise and that the matter affects the case. There are MANY ways you can help courts see the “truth.” Go ahead, give it a shot. Am sure the Muslim side will immensely appreciate your efforts.

The basic idea of the Places of Worship Act was mooted by a bunch of Muslim ulema and MP’s. They met PM Rajiv Gandhi in 1989 to demand cessation of Ram Janmabhoomi movement and legal protection to the Babri masjid. When Chandra Shekhar initiated dialogue between VHP and Babri Masjid Action Committee, Gandhi wrote him a letter suggesting ways and means to resolve the dispute. One of the suggestions was to bring the places of worship bill to protect religious sites. It was PVN Rao who brought the bill in 1991, as a tribute to Rajiv Gandhi. It preserved and protected the religious character of places as they were on 15 August 1947. The Muslims wanted the bill to have the threshold of 26 January 1950. They wanted to include Ram temple-BM in the proposed act. The takeover of the site had happened on 22/23 December 1949. If the demand were accepted, the disputed mosque would have been covered in the act and Hindus could not have claimed the Ram Janmabhoomi. But the act did not include the ASI protected monuments. Many archaeological sites do have religious places and their preservation and protection falls under the ASI mandate emanating from Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1956. The Bhojshala site fell under this act. It was an 11th century temple and two centuries later Allauddin Khilji destroyed it and his successors built a mosque. But in 2003, the ASI allowed Muslims to offer namaz at the site. Hindus filed a writ petition to challenge the order. Muslims argued that the places of worship act protects the monuments. First, the breach comes from Muslims in 2003, had they not insisted on their right to worship, the issue would not have resurfaced. Second, the 1991 act does not cover the ASI protected monuments. The MP HC quashed the 2003 directive by the ASI and reaffirmed the character of the site as a Hindu temple dedicated to goddess Vagdevi.

The Ayodhya judgment made the Bhojshala judgment possible. Here is how.