As the euphoria of the laying foundation of Ram Temple at the site of Babri Masjid continues, the space for fact, law and reason shrinks. A series of videos on Faizan Mustafa’s Legal Awareness Web series explain historical and legal aspects of the Babri Masjid demolition and the judgment of the Supreme Court on the matter.
Was the site of Babri masjid always recognised as the place of birth of Ram? How did it acquire such a recognition in the hindu consciousness? Faizan Mustafa explains the roots of the dispute and establishes that the site was not recognized as the birth place of Ram at least till 1855. He further cites historians and court judgments to explain that the structure of Masjid was not under the dispute when it originated.
The narrative that the site of Babri Masjid is the birthplace of Ram has acquired a central place today. However, is there any historical evidence in support of this claim? How does the Supreme Court Judgment deal with the question of evidence? What are the findings of the report by the Archaeological Survey of India? Professor Mustafa answers these questions and provides various historical accounts to establish that there is no Sanskrit inscription before 1528 which claims the disputed site as the birthplace.
How did a site recognised as a Masjid for at least 400 years since 1528 become a Ram Temple? What are the historical and political events since 1949, when the "miracle" of forcibly placing the idol of Ram inside the Masjid was engineered, that led to the conversion of the Mosque into a temple? And, how was an illegal act of conversion normalised and institutionalised?