Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India – There was increased security in Ayodhia, a city in North India, before the Supreme Court's verdict on a site claimed by both Muslims .
Early on Saturday, the city seemed deserted while residents stayed inside their homes, waiting for the decision to be announced.
Some had even stocked up on food in advance, right in If the decision provoked anger, violence, and ultimately curfew in this historic city.
But when the Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict, the Hindu Ayodhia, by majority, slowly returned to normal and the people back on the street.
In a verdict that disappointed Muslims, the court ordered the Hindus to control the site, paving the way for the construction of a temple.
The Hindus believe that Lord Ram, the warrior god, was born on the site in Ayodhia and claim that the first emperor Emperor Babur built a mosque on a temple there.
On Saturday, five judges, led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoy, also directed the Indian government to devote five acres (two hectares) of Muslim land to the mosque and admitted that it was demolished 1992 violates the rule of law.
The Supreme Court ordered the government to form a committee within three months to direct the construction of the temple.
The Hindus rejoice
The Indians in Ayodhia welcome the decision, saying it respected the interests of both Hindus and Muslims.
Some greeted the streets while others chanted Jai Shri Ram (Hello Lord Ram), a religious slogan that was politicized in the early 1990s during the Aries Temple movement that led to the destruction of the mosque. Beavers.
"This is a historic day for all Hindus around the world and I am really proud of how the Supreme Court has handled the whole issue. There could be no better judgment than that, "Bharat Das, Z.
" I even welcome the court's decision to grant alternative land to Muslims. This sentence will strengthen the link between Hindus and Muslims in the country. "
Rajendra Tivari, who owns a small shop in the city, welcomes the decision for economic reasons.
" If a huge Aries temple is built in Ayodhia, it will boost the local economy as more tourists flock to the city. That would mean better business opportunities for people like me.
"The economy of Ayodhia depends entirely on Ram and if there are no tourists we will have nothing to eat.
"Even Muslims cannot deny this fact. The people of this city, regardless of their religion, have to prosper, and this decision has done so. "
Mixed reactions among Muslims
The reactions among the Muslim community in Ayodhya were mixed.
There was also a sense of relief that the result was ending a dispute that turned into
"We want closure and the Supreme Court showed us the way. We would have no problem if it [the temple] was built there, but we would have been happier if the court determines where the mosque will be built ", ka called Babu Bhai, a member of the Babri Mosque Citizens' Permit Committee.
Akram Khan, a resident, welcomed the decision: "Senior members of our community, who were also part of the negotiations, have already said that they respect and welcome the judgment, so there is no reason to be different.
" Our five generations they have witnessed so much animosity over this dispute and if the court thinks it should be heard, we welcome it. "
Meanwhile, the Muslim Personal Rights Council across India has said it is not satisfied as it has promised to evaluate legal options, including filing five
Critics speak online
Critics of the ruling are vocal on social media, with some saying the verdict is a faith-based decision.
Kapil Komidi, an Indian author and journalist, wrote on Twitter: " What happened today is not the end of a calamitous chapter in our history. This is the beginning of the calambitic phase. What they have done in Ayodhya, they will seek to repeat in a dozen other places. And the horror of Ayodhia will seem trivial as they make their way to the revenge story. "
Writer Rana Ayyub stated:" The privileged who did not suffer during the anti-Muslim slaughter of Babri in 1992 are talking about incarceration. Closing for whom? "
International Lawyer Suhitra Vijayan wrote on Twitter:" The Hindu Rashtra (19459018) is here and this is the beginning of an era of fear. In the years to come, Ayodhia and Gujarat's pogrom will pale in comparison. We will remember the people who were meant to defend our constitution, to give their responsibility to truth and justice. "
Several people said they agreed with the arguments of Professor of Law Faizan Mustafa.
In a Huffington Post on Saturday, Mustafa said:" I do not appear to have given the Supreme Court any importance in persuading other problems. The court, even observing that the faith is confined to an individual believer and unable to determine a dispute for land, ultimately gave the land at issue for the construction of a Hindu temple.
"This means that the faith of some people has gained notoriety over the rule of law, although in the ideal the latter should have set a property dispute. "
Government, opposition to the sentence
Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the sentence should not be viewed as a victory or a loss for anyone.
the calmness maintained by the [1.3 billion] Indians on the coming day of sentencing demonstrates India's inherent attachment to peaceful coexistence, "Modi said. "Let this spirit of unity and unity trigger the trajectory of our nation's development. Let every Indian be empowered. '
Opposition parties welcomed the court's ruling and called for peace and harmony in the country.
However, there was some reaction from opposition politician Asaduddin Owaisi, President of all over India Majlis-e-Itehadul Muslimen.
"If Babri Masid had not been demolished that day, what would be the solution today?" he said. "There is discrimination against Muslims and no one can deny it. We are fighting for our legal rights."
He rejected the promise of an alternative plot to Muslims, saying that he feared that other mosques in the country might see Hindu nationalists making such allegations.
Valay Singh, author of Ayodhia: City of Faith, City of Discord, described the sentence as a "remarkable decision".
"Even more interesting is how even one judge disagrees," he told Al Jazeera, "which speaks volumes about the times we live in."