Skip to main content

VHP doesn't represent all Hindus, Sunni Waqf Board all Muslims: NAPM on SC ruling

Counterview Desk
India's top civil rights network, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), even as describing the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgement unjust, has said, it is an "assault on the secular fabric of the Constitution". In a statement signed by top social workers and activists, NAPM said, "The judgement conveys an impression to Muslims that, despite being equal citizens of the country, their rights are not equal before the law."
Signed, among others, by Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), Aruna Roy of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, Dr Binayak Sen of the Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties, Prafulla Samantaraof the Lok Shakti Abhiyan of the Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti, among tens of others, the statement said, by addressing the two sides as ‘Hindu’ and ‘Muslim’ the judgment violates the secular character of the state.
"There were no parties with these names before the Court. The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board was a petitioner representing that specific disputed land (and not the entire Muslim community of the country). Nor is ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’ (on behalf of Vishwa Hindu Parishad) a representative body of all Hindus", the statement insists.
NAPM believe, despite all this, "if the Apex Court was of the view that such a judgement was the ‘need of the hour to let peace prevail and move ahead’, the judgment should have said so in so many words."

Text:

The National Alliance of People’s Movements condemns the ‘unanimous’ verdict by the 5-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya matter. The judgement, instead of holding accountable before law all those who criminally demolished the 450 year old Babri Masjid has rewarded the violators.
The judgement legitimizes majoritarianism and mobocracy and strikes at the very secular fabric of our Constitution. Full of contradictions, the verdict only pays sermons to the values of equality and fraternity, but ends up violating these very principles in its relief.
The judgement also does not pass the test of logic. Despite the Court stating at the outset of the hearing that the judgement in the matter of title dispute would be pronounced based on facts and not faith, the final judgement has ended up privileging faith in a disproportionate way and opening a dangerous flood gate.
On the one hand, the Court upheld that a masjid stood at the ‘disputed site’, that there was no evidence of a temple below the mosque (the Court accepted presence of a non-muslim structure), that idols were unlawfully sneaked into the mosque in 1949 and that the mosque itself was unlawfully demolished in 1992.
However, on the other hand, while issuing directions, the Court ordered that a temple be constructed at the very site of demolition of the mosque, which not only defies logic but is also a gross abuse of the due principles of law and natural justice.
To camouflage this, the Court directs that 5 acres land be given for ‘rehabilitation of the mosque’. There is no clarity as to the legal and constitutional basis for arriving at such a decision!
The invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution in this context would in fact give rise to many new challenges in the future. This was a clear title suit where the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Wakf Board was agitating for its legal rights and the question was not about ‘finding alternative land for the mosque’.
The judgement conveys an impression to Muslims that, despite being equal citizens of the country, their rights are not equal before the law. This is an extremely worrying message from the highest court in today’s times when Muslims are already being targeted and marginalized in many ways.
It is as if the Court is granting them a favour by offering the land. Further, granting the land (beneath the mosque) as a legal right to the same party which demolished the mosque is a historical insult to the values and principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Another unprecedented and unconstitutional aspect of the judgement is addressing the two sides as ‘Hindu’ and ‘Muslim’ which is clearly in violation to the secular character of the state and can prove quite dangerous.
There were no parties with these names before the Court. The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board was a petitioner representing that specific disputed land (and not the entire Muslim community of the country). Nor is ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’ (on behalf of Vishwa Hindu Parishad) a representative body of all Hindus.
Despite the verdict mandating that the central and state government must strictly implement the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 which stipulates maintenance of status quo on the character of disputed sites as it existed in 1947, the judgement sets in motion a very dangerous precedent of allowing majoritarian faith over facts. Based on this, any community / sect can use their faith to contest the ownership of any structure and forcibly take over and demolish it by vicious campaigning and support from highest powers of state machinery. And it is no exaggeration to state that in the delicate circumstances that our nation is in today, the majoritarian political and religious forces would fully abuse such a judicial precedent and indulge in persecution of minorities.
If the Apex Court was of the view that such a judgement was the need of the hour to let peace prevail and move ahead, it should have said so in so many words
Be this as it may, the ‘Ayodhya matter’ itself is far from resolved and accountability is yet to be fixed on those who indulged in the criminal act of demolition. There are many unanswered questions. What happened of the Liberhan Commission’s Report? Why has the CBI been dragging its feet even 27 years after the demolition? Why haven’t the perpetrators of the crime been prosecuted and brought to justice?
Within days of the verdict, we also observe that the All India Hindu Mahasabha has now written to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister to withdraw all cases against the karsevaks responsible for the Babri demolition!
It is also a harsh reality that the political leaders, party and their violent affiliates who were behind the ‘Rath Yatra’ and demolition of the masjid in 1992 and the Gujarat pogrom of 2002, are in power in the centre and the state, to who the Apex Court’s verdict hands over the ‘disputed land’ on a platter despite admitting that they were guilty of criminal acts.
Ironically, these communal elements are now preaching to others that the ‘bitter past must be left behind’ in the interest of a ’new India’, seeking peace and brotherhood!
With a combination of draconian measures including the abrogation of Article 370 and lockdown of Kashmir for over 100 days, the communal criminalization of Triple Talaq, the proposed Citizenship Amendment Bill and proposals to extend the National Register of Citizens (NRC) across the country, the present verdict not only emboldens and encourages these powers but also gives them legal sanctity in the pursuit of their ‘Hindu Rashtra’ project.
If the Apex Court was of the view that such a judgement was the ‘need of the hour to let peace prevail and move ahead’, the judgement should have said so in so many words that it was depriving one party of their rightful ownership of the disputed site for pragmatic reasons, placing the imposed ‘compromise’ on record and acknowledging the sacrifice expected of the Muslim community.
Without such an express acknowledgement, it would be very unjust to call this decision, justice. We demand that the Supreme Court reviews this faulty judgement within the framework of the Constitution and decides it again on the basis of fact, law and logic and not on the basis of ‘faith’.
This is important since this is not just the case of one ‘disputed religious site’, but is necessary to ensure that hate-mongering elements do not get an opportunity to carry forward their divisive agendas and violate the Constitution.
We also demand that the state stop registration of false cases and persecution of anybody who critiques this judgement on the basis of law and logic. All those responsible for the criminal act of demolition must be brought to book at least now.
We hope that in this challenging climate of struggle for justice, the common citizens of the country and in particular, people belonging to both Hindu and Muslim faiths maintain peace. Democracy-loving citizens and groups need to be ever vigilant to ensure that in the garb of ‘temple construction’, there is no further hate and bloodbath.
At a time when the very right of citizens to question, reason and expression are trampled upon and all dissent is termed as anti –national, we must be on our toes to defend our democracy.
NAPM deeply appreciates the courage and peace-loving nature of the common masses, in particular the Muslim community and resolves to stand by them in these trying times. NAPM commits itself to fight alongside those who are wronged and continue its collective struggle for a just society based on peace, equality, reason, freedom, liberty and fraternity.
Let to organize to save our country from right-wing majoritarianism and strive to ensure that the values of the Constitution as well as the aspirations of Gandhi, Ambedkar, Maulala Azad, Bhagat Singh, Periyar, Shubash, Phule, Savitribai, and others are kept alive.

Comments

TRENDING

When democracy becomes a performance: The Tibetan exile experience

By Tseten Lhundup*  I was born in Bylakuppe, one of the largest Tibetan settlements in southern India. From childhood, I grew up in simple barracks, along muddy roads, and in fields with limited resources. Over the years, I have watched our democratic system slowly erode. Observing the recent budget session of the 17th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile, these “democratic procedures” appear grand and orderly on the surface, yet in reality they amount to little more than empty formalities. The parliamentarians seem largely disconnected from the everyday struggles faced by ordinary exiled Tibetans like us.

Study links sanctions to 500,000 deaths annually leading to rise in global backlash

By Bharat Dogra  International opinion is increasingly turning against the expanding burden of sanctions imposed on a growing number of countries. These measures are contributing to humanitarian crises, intensifying domestic discord, and heightening international tensions, thereby increasing the risks of conflicts and wars. 

Dhurandhar: The Revenge — Blurring the line between fiction and political narrative

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan*  "Dhurandhar: The Revenge" does not wait to be remembered; it arrives almost on the heels of its predecessor, released on March 19, 2026, just months after the first film’s December 2025 debut. The speed of its arrival feels less like creative urgency and more like calculated timing—cinema responding not to storytelling rhythm but to the emotional climate of its audience. Director Aditya Dhar, along with actor Yami Gautam, appears acutely aware of this moment and how to harness it.

BJP accounts for 99% of political donations in Gujarat: Corporate giants dominate

By Jag Jivan   An analysis of the official data on donations received by national parties from Gujarat during the Financial Year 2024-25 reveals a staggering concentration of funding, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) accounting for nearly the entirety of the contributions. The data, compiled in a document titled "National Parties donations received from Gujarat during FY-2024-25," lists thousands of transactions, painting a detailed picture of the financial backing for political parties from one of India’s most industrially significant states.

Alarming decline in India's repair culture threatens circular economy goals: Study

By Jag Jivan  A comprehensive new study by environmental research and advocacy organisation Toxics Link has painted a worrying picture of India's fading repair culture, warning that the trend towards replacement over repair is accelerating the country's already critical e-waste crisis.

Beyond the island: Top mythologist reorients the geography of the Ramayana

By Jag Jivan   In a compelling new analysis that challenges conventional geographical assumptions about the ancient epic, writer and mythologist Devdutt Pattanaik has traced the roots of the Ramayana to the forests and river systems of Central and Eastern India, rather than the peninsular south or the modern island nation of Sri Lanka.

Captains extraordinaire: Ranking cricket’s most influential skippers

By Harsh Thakor*  Ranking the greatest cricket captains is a subjective exercise, often sparking passionate debate among fans. The following list is not merely a tally of wins and losses; it is an assessment of leadership’s deeper impact. My criteria fuse a captain’s playing record with their tactical skill, placing the highest consideration on their ability to reshape a team’s fortunes and inspire those around them. A captain who inherited a dominant empire is judged differently from one who resurrected a nation’s cricket from the doldrums. With that in mind, here is my perspective on the finest leaders the game has ever seen.

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

‘No merit’ in Chakraborty’s claims: Personal ethics talk sans details raises questions

By Jag Jivan  A recent opinion piece published in The Quint by Subhash Chandra Garg has raised questions over the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Atanu Chakraborty from HDFC Bank , with Garg stating that the exit “raises doubts about his own ‘ethics’.” Garg, currently Chief Policy Advisor at Subhanjali and former Secretary of the Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India, writes that the Reserve Bank of India ( RBI ) appears to find no substance in Chakraborty’s claims, noting, “It is clear the RBI sees no merit in Atanu Chakraborty’s wild and vague assertions.”