Source: thehindu.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\u00a0Supreme Court\u00a0<\/strong>asked the Ayodhya deity\u2019s lawyer why the Hindus insist the disputed land is divine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court questioned why the Hindu parties want the disputed land to be recognised not only as a separate juristic person but also as a divinity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhy do you insist on divinity (to Ramjanmabhumi) to establish juristic personality to the land? A ship is a juristic person, but not divine…,\u201d Justice S.A. Bobde, on the five-judge Ayodhya Bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, asked senior advocate K. Parasaran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cOrdinary people need tangible forms of god to concentrate while worshipping unlike those in higher state of devotion,\u201d Mr. Parasaran, representing the Ayodhya deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, replied. \u201cBut why is it in this case you need bestow divinity to the land?\u201d Justice Bobde persisted. To this, Mr. Parasaran expanded the concept, but first asked a counter-question to the Bench. \u201cThen why give divinity to the idol also?\u201d Mr. Parasaran asked the judges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He then explained a legal fiction is created for a need. In this case, it is to secure the rights and obligations of the deity. The land should be accorded a divine status to protect the people\u2019s belief in it as the birthplace of Lord Ram.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Janmasthan itself, being an object of worship by Hindus, was widely believed to be a deity and offering worship to the land constitutes the religious practice of a substantial and large class of persons who visit Ayodhya to worship Lord Ram. There is, thus, sufficient religious merit to treat the Janmasthan as a juristic entity on the basis of the belief that it is a manifestation of Lord Ram and hence sacred,\u201d Mr. Parasaran submitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Earlier in the day, Justice Bobde countered the Muslim side\u2019s argument on the futility of trying to fix morality in the conquests, wars and spoils of war of past centuries. This was in the context of the Hindus\u2019 version that Mughal Emperor Babur demolished a temple dedicated to Lord Ram to build the Babri Masjid in the 16th century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe are not here to see if Babur was a sinner. We are here to see if Babur followed the law on the secular use of property… to see if he was subject to any law,\u201d Justice Bobde observed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To this, advocate Nizam Pasha, for a Muslim party, explained that Babur was the sovereign and what he did was the law at the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cToday we have moved so far from what a sovereign was in those days… We cannot assume that the law was Sharia at the time of Babur and then say law was not followed by Babur and say what he did (building Babri Masjid) was wrong,\u201d Mr. Pasha argued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He attempted to demolish the \u201cdogmatic\u201d picture of a mosque in Islam presented in court by the Hindu side in the Ayodhya case. \u201cThe idea of a mosque in Islam is also that of a cultural centre,\u201d Mr. Pasha submitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Senior advocate C.S. Vaidynathan, also for Ram Lalla Virajman, meanwhile made it clear that they did not want any part of the Ayodhya mediation efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The CJI responded that the Bench was hearing the appeals with the objective to complete the court hearing by October 18, if not a day earlier on October 17.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Chief Justice said the Bench would even consider sitting on Saturdays to stick to its schedule<\/p>\n\u2018Tangible form\u2019<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Babur\u2019s motivation<\/h4>\n\n\n\n