New Delhi: A Special Leave Petition has been
filed in the Supreme Court claiming that a Buddhist monastery
(Baudh Vihar) existed at the site of Babri mosque and hence
the disputed land at Ayodhya should be handed over to
followers of the faith.
The SLP was filed by Udit Raj, the Chairman of Buddha
Education Foundation and All India Confederation of SC/ST
Organisations yesterday against the judgement of Allahabad
High Court`s Lucknow bench in the Ayodhya title suits.
Giving the information at a press conference on Friday,
Raj told reporters, "The Budhists in India challenge the
legality and constitutionality of the judgement. Not only the
disputed land but even the construction before the existence
of Babri mosque belong to Baudh Vihar."
Former Union Minister and Bhartiya Janshakti Party
leader Sanghpriya Gautam, who accompanied Raj, quoted from the
Allahabad High Court judgement to support the argument.
"Justice Sudhir Agrawal held that Kasauti pillars of
disputed structures, strongly resemble Buddhist pillars of
those seen at Varanasi. Justice S U Khan held that Carnegy
(British Archeologist) has mentioned that the Kasauti pillars,
were used in the construction of mosque, strongly resembled
Buddhist pillars which he had seen in Varanasi," Gautam said.
"Accordinlgy, it is also possible that there were also
ruins of some Buddhist religious place on and around the land
on which the mosque was constructed and some material was
thereof used in the construction of the mosque," he said.
Raj said that the ASI in its report submitted in 2003
had found that there was a circular shrine beneath the
disputed structure after which the Allahahad High Court
ordered further collection of evidences.
"So far it has not been done. It is most likely that
this shrine is of Buddhists. The mosque is made on the ruins
of Baudh Vihar and hence should be given to Buddhists," Raj
He said that the ASI had maintained that pillar bases
in association of huge structure are indicative of remains
which are distinctive features found assoicated with temples
of Northern India.
"This itself supports that it could be a Buddhist
place because temples of North India connote to Hindus, Jains
and Buddhists all...Temples of North India are not necessarily
Hindu temples. To conclude them as Hindu temples is not
correct," he said.
Both Gautam and Raj at the same time maintained that
they could consider withdrawing their demand if both Hindus
and Muslims accepted the Allahad High Court verdict and
refrained from further appeals into the matter.
"Had Hindus and Muslims brought an end to the dispute
and accepted the judgement, we would have not made this move.
We are the real claimants but in the larger interest of
nation, we would have foregone our claim. But now since both
parties have appealed in the Supreme Court, why should we, who
are real claimants, remain silent," Gautam said.
Udit Raj agreed with the contention saying this can
still be considered if both parties come to an agreement and
stop further litigations.