NEW DELHI: Nirmohi Akhara on Tuesday dropped its strong opposition to deity Ram Lalla’s suit claiming ownership over the 2.77 acres of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land in Ayodhya to settle for a conciliatory approach where it said it would never seek relief at the cost of the deity’s interests.

At the beginning of Day 13 of proceedings, senior advocate Sushil Jain read out Nirmohi Akhara’s statement on maintainability of the suit filed by Devki Nandan Agarwal on behalf of the deity Ram Lalla. “The Akhara will not press the issue of maintainability of suit number 5 of 1989, which has been filed on behalf of the deities through Agarwal as their next friend provided other Hindu parties do not press or question the ‘sevait’ right of Akhara in relation to the deities in question and maintainability of Nirmohi Akhara’s suit,” Jain said.

“A suit filed by Akhara ‘as a sevait’ is a suit filed by and on behalf of the deities. The relief sought by Akhara for ‘restoration of charge and management from receiver’ cannot be categorised as a relief against the interest of the deities for which it can be said that they should be represented as a defendant through a disinterested next friend,” Jain told a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.

However, Jain clarified that the Akhara’s stand required a similar gesture from other Hindu parties.

Senior advocate P N Mishra, appearing for Ram Janmasthan Punaruthan Samiti (RJPS), gave an interesting twist to the proceedings. He cited various historical accounts given by Hans Baker, Alois Anton Fuhrer, Henry Beveridge and Z A Desai to question the popular perception that Babur’s general Mir Baqi constructed the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1528 AD, two years after Babur conquered India and established Mughal rule.

Mishra said these historical accounts based on translation of inscriptions on pillars and slabs rendered a confusing and unrealistic account. The references variously mention the mosque being constructed by Mir Baqi in 1528, by Mir Khan in 1523, byy Abdul Baqi Isphani in 1516 as well as contained reference to being built by Baqi Tashkandi and Mir Baqu. “So who was the person who constructed it?” he asked.

Moreover, Babur Nama and Babur’s daughter’s Humayun Nama, the two biographical accounts of the first two Mughal emperors, did not make any mention of Babri Masjid being built in Ayodhya though these referred to many areas around Ayodhya, Mishra said.

Mishra said this was the reason why Allahabad HC had said, “We are perturbed by the manner in which Ashraf Hussain/Desai have tried to give an impeccable authority to the tests of alleged inscriptions which they claim to have existed on the disputed building though repeatedly said that the original text has disappeared. The fallacy and complete misrepresentation on the part of the author in trying to give colour of truth to this text is writ large from a bare reading of the write-up. We are really at pains to find that such blatant fallacious kind of material has been allowed to be published under the authority of Archaeological Survey of India, government of India, without caring about its accuracy, correctness and genuineness of the subject.”



In Video: Nirmohi Akhara drops its strong opposition to deity Ram Lalla’s suit