.jpeg)
The demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992 remains one of the most contentious episodes in India’s modern history. For many citizens, it represents a serious failure of constitutional governance, law enforcement, and institutional accountability. The structure was demolished in full public view, despite prior assurances to the Supreme Court and the presence of security forces. The inability or unwillingness of the authorities to prevent the demolition continues to raise troubling questions about state responsibility.
The mobilisation that culminated in the demolition was officially described as peaceful. However, critics have long questioned how large numbers of participants were able to access and carry demolition tools to a protected site without obstruction. While security arrangements existed on paper, their implementation proved ineffective. In at least one instance, a state government attempted to halt the movement, but central intervention reportedly allowed the procession to continue. These events have led many observers to conclude that the outcome was foreseeable and preventable.
The Supreme Court’s 2019 verdict on the Ayodhya dispute sought to bring legal closure to the issue. While the judgment awarded the disputed land for the construction of a Ram temple and directed the allocation of alternative land for a mosque, it did not explicitly adjudicate the criminal illegality of the demolition itself. This omission has been a source of continuing debate. Legal scholars and civil rights groups have questioned whether the verdict sufficiently addressed accountability for the destruction of a place of worship protected under the rule of law.
The political consequences of the Ayodhya movement were profound. Leaders associated with the mobilisation later rose to the highest offices of government, and the movement itself significantly altered India’s electoral landscape. Many analysts argue that religious mobilisation became a durable political strategy, shaping subsequent campaigns and public discourse.
Concerns have also been raised about the independence of institutions, including the media and the judiciary. Sections of the press were criticised for celebrating the verdict uncritically and for framing it as a political achievement rather than a complex constitutional judgment. At the same time, critics argue that dissenting voices, particularly from minority communities, have often been marginalised or portrayed as disruptive.
Following the Ayodhya verdict, disputes over other religious sites, including in Mathura and Varanasi, have intensified anxieties among Muslims. Episodes of communal violence and selective application of law have reinforced perceptions of unequal justice. In several instances, members of minority communities have alleged that they faced prosecution even when they were victims of violence, while perpetrators were not held accountable.
Even statements urging restraint have not always been well received. When RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat publicly suggested that Hindus should refrain from seeking temples beneath every mosque and allow communities to live in peace, the response from more hardline elements was hostile. This reaction illustrates the internal tensions within majoritarian politics and the difficulty of containing religious polarisation once it becomes politically entrenched.
The Supreme Court’s direction to allot land for the construction of a mosque has been formally complied with, but progress on the mosque remains limited, while the Ram temple nears completion. Symbolic acts by political leaders, including participation in temple rituals, have further blurred the line between religion and state, prompting debate about constitutional secularism and equal representation.
For many Muslims, the Babri Masjid episode is not only about a disputed structure but about the broader message conveyed by the state and society—namely, whether constitutional guarantees apply equally to all citizens. The perception that political expediency can override minority rights continues to deepen mistrust.
More than three decades later, the wounds associated with the Babri Masjid demolition have not fully healed. The episode remains a reminder that reconciliation requires not only legal closure but also accountability, restraint, and a renewed commitment to constitutional values.
---
*Law student and human rights activist
Comments