New Delhi--Dr. Udit Raj, Chairman of Buddha Education Foundation and the All India Confederation of SC/ST Organisations, told the press that Special Leave Petition (SLP) no. DC 466/2011 has been filed in the Supreme Court against the judgment of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in the much disputed matter of Ayodhya. Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar - Senior Advocate, Nitin Meshram - Junior Advocate and E.C. Vidyasagar - Advocate on Record are the team which is defending the matter in Supreme Court. Shri Sangh Priya Gautam, Advocate - Former Union Minister is extending full cooperation in this matter. The High Court had dismissed our petition in 2003 saying that relief was not sought against any of the parties in the suit. The Buddhists in India now challenge the legality and constitutionality of impugned judgment delivered on 30.9.2010. Not only disputed land but construction before the existence of Babri Mosque belong to Bauddh Vihar. Justice Sudhir Aggarwal held that Kasauti Pillars of disputed structure, strongly resemble Buddhists pillars of those seen at Varanasi (page no. 4690 of Volume 19). Justice S. U. Khan held that Carnegy has mentioned that the Kasauti Pillars, which were used in the construction of mosque, strongly resembled Buddhist Pillars which he had seen at Banaras. Accordingly, it is also possible that they were also ruins of some Buddhist religious place on and around the land on which the mosque was constructed and some material thereof was used in the construction of mosque (page no. 246). It is worthwhile to mention that P. Carnegy, was an officiating commissioner and Settlement Officer of Faizabad District as well as a British archaeologist. He found that the Kasauti pillars of disputed structure had a strong resemblance with the Bauddh Vihar of Sarnath, Varanasi. He submitted this report in 1870.
Dr. Udit Raj said that Buddhists are the necessary parties wherever history and culture are concerned. Prof. Wilson observed that the Chinese traveler Hwen Thsang found no less than 20 Buddhist monasteries with 3000 monks at Ajudhia in the 7th century. Fa-hein, another great Chinese traveler, recorded in Chinese language which was later translated into English, found that king Prasenjeet, the ruler of Kosal (also known as Ayodhya) was an ardent follower of Buddha.
The Archeological Survey of India submitted its report in 2003 and found that there is circular shrine beneath the disputed structure. After this, the Allahabad High Court ordered for further collection of evidences but, so far, it has not been done. It is most likely that this shrine is of Buddhists. It says that 50 pillar bases in association of huge structure are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with temples of North India. This itself supports that it could be a Buddhist place because temples of North India connotes to Hindus, Jain and Buddhists as well. Objecting to the finding of ASI, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs - plaintiff number 1 O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 said that the short report on inscription one of which is in Nagari, and are in Arabic, show how casual and preconceived in its notion was the ASI. The first is not to be dated with any certitude to the 11th century : its time range could be 7th-12th centuries, and it could be a Pali record of Buddhist provenance ---- a piece of evidence negativing the presence of Hindu temple.
In the whole litigation, Hindus have not been in a position to prove that Lord Rama was born here. At the most, they have evidence that the idol was placed stealthily on 22nd and 23rd December, 1949. Thus, there is no historical and archeological evidence in their support. Similarly, Muslims have also failed to name the organisation and person who built the Babri Mosque. On the basis of mere prayer offered there, they are claiming the title of the land. The Babri Mosque structure does not resemble the mosques spread over the country including the mosques built by Babar. This Babri Mosque lacks in vazoo and minarettes.
The Allahabad High Court has wrongly given land to Hindus, Muslims and Nirmohi Akhara. On the basis of above facts, Buddhists and Ambedkarites are the real claimants of this land. The Supreme Court has been urged to decide the matter on the basis of Constitution and the rule of law. And if it happens, this communal dispute will be settled forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment