The stage is set for a judicial verdict on what is arguably India’s most disputed plot of land. On Friday, September 17, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition seeking the verdict to be deferred and hence, in the backdrop of appeals for peace and warning against communal violence, the three-member Bench of Justices Sudhir Agarwal, S.U. Khan and D.V. Sharma will pronounce on Friday who owns the title to the ‘disputed site’ in Ayodhya where Babri Masjid once stood.

The Babri Masjid was demolished by a group of kar sewaks affiliated to the RSS and the Bharatiya Janata Party on December 6, 1992. Both Hindus and Muslims claim their rights on the land.

Gopal Singh Visharad, Nirmohi Akhara, the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board and Ram Lalla Virajman are the main parties to the title dispute, which has dragged on for the last six decades.

Though the ‘first suit’ was filed in a Faizabad court on July 19, 1885, by Mahant Raghubar Das, who sought rights over ‘Ram Chabootra,’ a raised platform in front of the 16th century Babri Masjid at Ayodhya, the title suit has figured in the law courts only since 1950.

The court will be doing a tightrope walk as there are many tricky questions involved. Is it a ‘fact’ that a Hindu temple was demolished and structure of a mosque was erected under the auspices of an invader whose subjects did not have any say?

While some Muslim organisations claim that their community held the title of the land for centuries, some Hindu organisations maintain that they (Muslims) got the possession of the land during the invasion of a foreign ruler — first Mughal emperor Babar — in the 16th century and built a mosque after demolishing the 10-11th century Ram temple. These Hindu organisations are citing the Archeological Survey of India’s excavation report which claims that a Hindu temple/shrine structure did exist before the mosque was built.

The court is considering three major points: One, whether there was a temple at the disputed site prior to 1528; two, whether the suit filed by the Babri committee in 1961 is barred by limitation (subject to interpretation of the laws prevailing at the time of the suit and possibly the British period too); and third, whether Muslim oganisations perfected their title through adverse possession.

The issue of adverse possession is the most interesting point that is being watched. A decision, either way, will have far-reaching implications as a precedent. How far back in the past can one go to establish the title of a property by virtue of adverse possession?

The issue of adverse possession cuts both ways. If Muslim organisations have held the land since the 16th century, some Hindu organisations claim that Muslim bodies stopped using the Babri Masjid for offering ‘namaz’ since 1949, and “we have been worshipping Ram Lalla idols there since then.”

In essence it is adjudicating on the validity of the registration of the mosque, its adjoining land and a graveyard known as Ganj-e-Shaheedan Qabristan, as Waqf property no. 26 at Faizabad with the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs under the Act of 1936. In short, it has to decide whether the Waqf Board has the title or the ownership.

It is going to be a landmark judgment as the issue relates to mythology, archaeology as well as modern history. If the verdict goes in favour of the Babri mosque, it will hurt sentiments of the majority community. And, the minority community will feel the heat of partiality in ‘secular India’ if the verdict goes against it — although, ironically, on ‘ground zero’ there is at present neither a Babri Masjid nor a Ram temple.

The Archaeological Survey of India had carried out excavations at the site following court orders. The findings of the ASI, which submitted a 574-page report containing opinions, maps and drawings, a list of archaeological evidence and contemporary 16th century literature, besides later research done by scholars form part of the body of evidence produced before the court.

While the ASI reported to the court that excavations by it revealed distinctive features associated with a 10th century North Indian temple beneath the site, the Waqf Board challenged the findings and accused the ASI of ignoring the discovery of glazed tiles and pottery, besides two graves, which, it held, proved that Muslim settlements existed there even before Babur’s invasion.

There is no dispute that the Babri mosque was built in 1528 by Mughal emperor Babur’s general, Mir Baqi, and named after the emperor. Nor is there any dispute over the ‘belief’ that Ayodhya is where Lord Rama was born. The legend of Rama , revered by the Hindus as the seventh incarnation of Lord Vishnu, received a fillip with the publication of Ram Charit Manas by Tulsidas in 1600.

Even Ain-i-Akbari, written by Abul Fazl and completed in 1598, spoke of Ayodhya among the foremost places of pilgrimage—“one of the holiest places of antiquity” and the residence of “Ram Chandra”. Some scholars have cited the Encylopaedia Brittanica ( 1989 edition) as stating that “Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque erected by the Mughal emperor Babur in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple” in support of the contention that the mosque was indeed built after demolishing a temple.

The contention is also corroborated by the order of a Sub Judge of the Faizabad court, Pandit Hari Kishan, in 1885. “It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus; but as the event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the status quo. In such a case as the present one, any innovation could cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit”. While some Muslim organisations cite the order to contend that there is no fresh ground to change the status quo, the VHP cites it to buttress its point that there was indeed a temple where the mosque stood for over 450 years.

For 39 long years the initial batch of title suits were heard by the Faizabad Civil Court. When it failed to decide the title either way, the UP government requested the Allahabad High Court for a speedy trial. The special bench was constituted by the High Court in July, 1989, and all the pending cases were transferred to it. But this Bench, too, took 20 years to examine the evidence and witnesses. The final hearing in the case began on July 23, 1996, and concluded on July 26, 2010.

A BJP-led government headed by Kalyan Singh assumed power in 1991 and promptly ordered the acquisition of 2.75 acres around the mosque. The Babri Masjid Action Committee convener Zafaryab Jilani filed a writ to prevent any kind of construction on the acquired land. The Supreme Court was also moved against the acquisition but the petition was referred back to the Allahabad High Court. But before the high court could act, the mosque was demolished in December 1992.

The Central government took over 67 acres in and around the disputed site under its custody after the demolition. In 1994, the Supreme Court dismissed all interim orders issued by various courts and directed that the land would remain under the custody of the Central government and that a status-quo would be maintained until the title suits were disposed of by the special bench of the high court.

“On September 24, it won’t be the end of the legal battle,” says a police officer in Lucknow. “The party which loses will certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. But it is the immediate reaction that we are worried about,” he adds.

The apprehension is genuine as irresponsible elements on both sides have recklessly asserted that whatever be the verdict of the court, they would stick to their own respective agenda. It prompted the Allahabad High Court to warn people against speculation and committing contempt of court.

A worried Prime Minister Manmohan Singh chaired a meeting to take stock of the situation. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati held two review meetings and formed teams of senior officers who are daily visiting the districts to supervise arrangements to maintain law and order. She has also asked the Central government to deploy 458 companies of central para-military forces to deal with any eventuality and has followed it up by calling on the Governor to push the case. For good measure, she has instructed her own party cadre to be on guard.

The tension is ‘visible’ in many cities of Uttar Pradesh, where security personnel have taken up positions. Personnel of UP’s Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) are present at railway platforms, bus stations, malls and every other public place. Residents of Ayodhya already have 150 companies (around 15,000 men) of the PAC and more than 20,000 state policemen guarding them.

The memories of the arson, bloodshed, long curfew hours and rioting are still fresh in the temple town. And residents seem unanimous that they have had enough. “I don’t want to see that madness again,” says Nazir, a teastall owner, while Hashim Ansari (90), the oldest surviving plaintiff in the original title suit, had this to say : “This is a holy place…there is no Hindu-Muslim dispute here…nothing will happen, just ensure that politicians are kept out.”

But politicians, being politicians, are unlikely to oblige. VHP’s Vinay Katiyar says belligerently, to anyone who is willing to listen, “Courts cannot and should not try to settle matters relating to faith and religion.” Says former BJP President Rajnath Singh, “The BJP’s view is very clear about a grand temple of Lord Rama in Ayodhya and the party is committed towards it.”

Yet, there are signs that the political discourse has moved on. The mood of the country is different and people may not take too kindly to rabble-rousing leaders. A young nation has no time for disputes that make little sense to it. Men and women in their twenties have little or no recollection of the events that are 18 years old; and they have even less patience for ownership issues related to mosques and temples.

On the contrary, the common man is questioning injustices, protesting against well-connected criminals going scot-free, demanding better compensation for land, more jobs, more water and electricity and raising other bread and butter issues.

“I am not interested in the judgment, this way or that,” quips Mamata Singh, coordinator at the ‘Humsafar Crisis Centre for Women’. Adds Tarun Patel, newly elected President of the Youth Congress (central zone), “The young are more concerned about better education and more job opportunities… they have left the mandir-masjid issue far behind”.

Both communities are convinced that they are on a strong wicket. Some Hindu organisations refer to revenue records pertaining to the British period, which describe the site as ‘Janmasthan’. They also claim that emperor Akbar allowed them to build a “Ram Chabootara” and “ Sita ki Rasoi” within the Babri structure and within barely 50 years of the construction of the Babri masjid.

Some Muslim organisations, on the other hand, point out that regular namaz was offered at the mosque till January, 1949, but concede that there are 77 “recorded attempts” to wrest control of the mosque before 1947.

They question the insistence of the VHP on building a temple at the exact spot where the Babri Masjid stood. There are hundreds of temples in Ayodhya and the VHP can easily construct a grand temple anywhere it feels like, they point out. Even if it is conceded that a temple existed there, what is the historical evidence that Rama was born at that very spot and nowhere else, they argue.

Another twist to the complex issue was added in 1999 when a Buddhist organisation laid its claim on ‘Ram Janmabhoomi’ and a few other religious sites. Temples were built there, they claimed, by Hindu kings after demolishing Buddhist monasteries. Indeed, how far back can history be stretched and how many perceived wrongs can be set right?

10th-11th century: Hindu religious organisations claim Lord Rama temple was built at his birthplace in Ayodhya during this period.

1194 AD: Muslim religious groups claim that the Turkish sultans found a mound at Ram Kot in Ayodhya.

1528: First Mughal emperor Babar's general, Mir Baqi, with the guidance of one Musa Ashikan built a mosque at Ram Kot site and named it after Babar, implying it was either built on his orders, or in his honor.

1853: A sect called the Nirmohis claimed the structure, contending that a mosque stood on the spot where a temple had been destroyed. Violence erupted. The civil administration refused permission to build a temple.

Jan 19, 1885: A Hindu Mahant Raghubir Das filed a case before Faizabad Sub-Judge, Pandit Hari Kishan, to build a temple over the mosque, claiming that it was the birthplace of Lord Rama. It was the first title suit.

Dec 22, 1949: Icons of Rama and Sita 'appear' in Babri Masjid. The Waqf Board, claiming ownership of the land, and Hindu parties file counter civil suits. The government declares the site 'disputed' and locks the building gates.

1984: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad and BJP launch a movement for building Ram Janmabhoomi temple at 'Dharam Sansad' (Religious Parliament).

Feb 11, 1986: During Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress regime, Faizabad District judge orders the opening of the disputed structure to Hindus.

Nov 9, 1989: The first stone of a temple was laid by the VHP and other Hindu organsiations. Temple's foundation laid next day by a Harijan from Bihar, Kameshwar Chaupal; the plinth was dug 192 feet away from the masjid.

Dec 23, 1990: Evidence for the Ram Janmabhoomi temple presented to the Central government by the VHP.

Dec 6, 1992: RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal and BJP 'kar sewaks' demolish disputed structure and make a makeshift temple there. P.V. Narasimha Rao-led Congress government was in power at the Centre. Kalyan Singh-led BJP ruled UP at that time. Incident triggers large-scale rioting in the country.

Dec 16, 1992: P.V. Narasimha Rao-led Congress government sets up one-man M.S. Liberhan Commission to probe the circumstances that led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid.

Jan 2003: Canadian geophysicist Claude Robillard performs a search with ground-penetrating radar and said: "There is some structure under the mosque, ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 metres in depth, that could be pillars, foundation walls and slab floorings.

July 5, 2005: Security forces kill five Kashmiri terrorists attempting to storm the disputed site.

June 30, 2009: The Liberhan Commission submits its report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The report holds 68 people culpable, including top BJP leaders, L.K. Advani, Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi, and former NDA PM Atal Bihar Vajpayee, and more critically, Kalyan Singh, former UP Chief Minister, in whose regime the Babri Masjid was demolished. The report accused the RSS of being the chief architect of the demolition.

July 26, 2010: Special Bench of the Allahabad HC reserves the judgment in the title suit.

Sept. 17: HC refuses to defer the judgment.

Sept. 24: Court to announce much-awaited Ayodhya verdict.