Ayodhya Dispute: Case Analysis And Verdict

Abstract

In India, the Ayodhya controversy has a long history of political, historical, and socio religious conflict1. The debate in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh2, revolves around a plot of land that Hindus believe is the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram. India is a one-of-a-kind
country that is fast progressing while also being recognised for its variety. In India, people have deeply embedded attachment to religious sentiments and belief.It has both positive and negative effects on people. We typically believe that we must be faithful to
our deity and respect our religion. Politicians, on the other hand, make use of these sentiments. They attempted to persuade people to vote by linking their programmes and agenda to religion. Politicians utilise a "divide and rule" strategy to influence and
manipulate people's religious beliefs and emotions toward their gods. Nonetheless, people's differing perspectives and beliefs cause societal friction, which leads to bloodshed and instability. Some disputes last for a long period and necessitate a court of
law trial. One such disagreement arose in the matter of “M Siddiq (D) ThrLrs v. Mahant Suresh Das &Ors”, also known as the “Ayodhya Dispute” Case. The main focus of the article is in regards to the understanding of the dispute and analyse the verdict
that was given in the case.