Indian Supreme Court clears way for Hindu temple at site where 460-year old mosque once stood

A cow stands in front of a security barricade in a street in Ayodhya, India, November 9, 2019. (REUTERS PHOTO)
Updated 10 November 2019
Follow

Indian Supreme Court clears way for Hindu temple at site where 460-year old mosque once stood

  • Ruling a huge victory for Hindu nationalists under Prime Minister Narendra Modi
  • A separate piece of land in Ayodhya would be given over to Muslim groups to build a new mosque

NEW DELHI: India’s top court cleared the way on Saturday for a Hindu temple to be constructed at a hotly disputed holy site, in a huge victory for Hindu nationalists under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The Supreme Court ruled that the site in Ayodhya in northern India, where Hindu mobs destroyed a 460-year-old mosque in 1992, must be handed over to a trust to oversee the construction of a Hindu temple, subject to conditions.

A separate piece of land in Ayodhya would be given over to Muslim groups to build a new mosque, the court ruled in a historic judgment aimed at ending a bitter and decades-old legal and sectarian battle.

Ahead of the verdict Indian authorities ramped up security across the country and Modi called for calm as police went on alert.

Thousands of extra personnel deployed and schools closed in and around the northern city of Ayodhya, center of the bitter dispute, and elsewhere.

Barricades were erected on roads leading to the Supreme Court building in New Delhi with officials and volunteers scouring social media for inflammatory posts in what is Facebook’s biggest market.

The verdict, it is hoped, will put an end to an angry and at times arcane legal wrangle that British colonial rulers and even the Dalai Lama tried to mediate.

Hard-liners among India’s majority Hindus, including supporters of Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), believe that Lord Ram, the warrior god, was born in Ayodhya.

They say that in the 16th century, Babur, the first emperor of the Mughal Islamic dynasty, built a mosque on top of a temple at the 1.1-hectare site.

In the 1980s, as Hindu nationalism and the BJP began to strengthen, pressure grew for the mosque to be knocked down and replaced by a glorious Hindu temple.

In 1992, a Hindu mob estimated to number 200,000 did just that, reducing the mosque to rubble.

This unleashed some of the worst religious riots since India’s bloody partition at the end of British colonial rule in 1947, leaving around 2,000 people dead, mainly Muslims.

Ten years later in 2002, after 59 Hindu activists died in a blaze on a train from Ayodhya, riots in Gujarat state — when Modi was its chief minister — saw upwards of 1,000 people perish, again largely Muslims.

In 2010, a High Court ruled that Muslims and Hindus should split it — albeit unevenly, with Hindus granted the lion’s share.

This left no one happy. Both Hindu and Muslim groups appealed and the Supreme Court in 2011 stayed the lower court’s ruling, leaving the issue unresolved.

The case also involves a nonagenarian lawyer representing a Hindu deity and has seen a high drama including a lawyer representing Muslim groups tearing a purported ancient map showing the temple.

The BJP has campaigned for years for a temple to be built at Ayodhya, and the verdict is a major victory for the party, just months into Modi’s second term.

But it will also send shudders through many in the 200-million-strong Muslim minority who fear that the BJP is bent on turning India into a purely Hindu nation.

Modi is nevertheless desperate to avoid bloodshed and ahead of the verdict, the BJP and the more hard-line RSS organization have told supporters to avoid any provocative celebrations.

Muslim groups have also appealed for calm.

“Whatever is the verdict by the Supreme Court, it won’t be anybody’s win or loss,” Modi tweeted late Friday.

“My appeal to the people of India is that our priority is to ensure the verdict strengthens the values of peace, equality and goodwill of our country.”


Israel defends Somaliland move at UN amid concerns over Gaza motives

Women walk in front of a gas station, in the city of Hargeisa, Somaliland. (AFP file photo)
Updated 30 December 2025
Follow

Israel defends Somaliland move at UN amid concerns over Gaza motives

  • Some states question if recognition part of a bid to relocate Palestinians or establish military bases
  • US President Donald Trump's peace plan for Gaza states: "No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and ⁠those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return"
  • US accuses Security Council of double standards after Western countries recognized Palestinian state

UNITED NATIONS: Israel defended on Monday its formal recognition of the self-declared Republic of Somaliland, but several countries at the ​United Nations questioned whether the move aimed to relocate Palestinians from Gaza or to establish military bases.
Israel became the first country to recognize Somaliland as an independent and sovereign state on Friday.
The 22-member Arab League, a regional organization of Arab states in the Middle East and parts of Africa, rejects “any measures arising from this illegitimate recognition aimed at facilitating forced displacement of the Palestinian people or exploiting northern Somali ports to establish military bases,” Arab League UN Ambassador Maged Abdelfattah Abdelaziz told the UN Security Council.
“Against the backdrop of Israel’s previous references to Somaliland of the ‌Federal Republic of ‌Somalia as a destination for the deportation of Palestinian people, ‌especially ⁠from ​Gaza, its unlawful ‌recognition of Somaliland region of Somalia is deeply troubling,” Pakistan’s Deputy UN Ambassador Muhammad Usman Iqbal Jadoon told the council.
Israel’s UN mission did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the remarks or address any of them in its statement at the council meeting. In March, the foreign ministers of Somalia and Somaliland said they had not received any proposal to resettle Palestinians from Gaza.
US President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Gaza states: “No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and ⁠those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return.”
Israel’s coalition government, the most right-wing ‌and religiously conservative in its history, includes far-right politicians who advocate the ‍annexation of both Gaza and the West ‍Bank and encouraging Palestinians to leave their homeland.
Somalia’s UN Ambassador Abukar Dahir Osman said ‍council members Algeria, Guyana, Sierra Leone and Somalia “unequivocally reject any steps aimed at advancing this objective, including any attempt by Israel to relocate the Palestinian population from Gaza to the northwestern region of Somalia.”

SOMALILAND VS PALESTINIAN STATE
Somaliland has enjoyed effective autonomy — and relative peace and stability — since 1991 when Somalia descended into civil war, but ​the breakaway region has failed to receive recognition from any other country.
“It is not a hostile step toward Somalia, nor does it preclude future dialogue between ⁠the parties. Recognition is not an act of defiance. It is an opportunity,” Israel’s Deputy UN Ambassador Jonathan Miller told the council.
In September, several Western states, including France, Britain, Canada and Australia announced they would recognize a Palestinian state, joining more than three-quarters of the 193 UN members who already do so.
Deputy US Ambassador to the UN Tammy Bruce said: “This council’s persistent double standards and misdirection of focus distract from its mission of maintaining international peace and security.”
Slovenia’s UN Ambassador Samuel Zbogar disputed her argument, saying: “Palestine is not part of any state. It is illegally occupied territory ... Palestine is also an observer state in this organization.”
He added: “Somaliland, on the other hand, is a part of a UN member state and recognizing it goes against ... the UN Charter.”
Israel said last week that it would seek immediate cooperation with ‌Somaliland in agriculture, health, technology and the economy. The former British protectorate hopes Israeli recognition will encourage other nations to follow suit, increasing its diplomatic heft and access to global markets.