Romila Thapar in the Hindu:
The verdict is a political judgment and reflects a decision which could as well have been taken by the state years ago. Its focus is on the possession of land and the building a new temple to replace the destroyed mosque. The problem was entangled in contemporary politics involving religious identities but also claimed to be based on historical evidence. This latter aspect has been invoked but subsequently set aside in the judgment.
The court has declared that a particular spot is where a divine or semi-divine person was born and where a new temple is to be built to commemorate the birth. This is in response to an appeal by Hindu faith and belief. Given the absence of evidence in support of the claim, such a verdict is not what one expects from a court of law. Hindus deeply revere Rama as a deity but can this support a legal decision on claims to a birth-place, possession of land and the deliberate destruction of a major historical monument to assist in acquiring the land?
She goes on to express fears about this setting a legal precedent:
...The verdict has created a precedent in the court of law that land can be claimed by declaring it to be the birthplace of a divine or semi-divine being worshipped by a group that defines itself as a community. There will now be many such janmasthans wherever appropriate property can be found or a required dispute manufactured. Since the deliberate destruction of historical monuments has not been condemned what is to stop people from continuing to destroy others? The legislation of 1993 against changing the status of places of worship has been, as we have seen in recent years, quite ineffective.
There is no such fear, says Ashok Malik in the Pioneer:
Why was the Ayodhya case singular? When he delivers a judgement, a judge is conscious he is setting a precedent. He may be triggering the process of what is called case law, which could determine future judgements in subsequent, unrelated cases. There was no such burden on the three judges of the Allahabad High Court. The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 prohibits any change in the "religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947". The only exception it makes is for the Ayodhya site, which was already the subject of a court case when the law was enacted.
As such, and despite the fear-mongering and doomsday scenarios of professional secular fundamentalists, there is no danger of the Ayodhya judgement being used to change the ownership or denominational identity of any other religious structure, be it in Varanasi or Mathura or elsewhere. The judges were conscious of this. They realised they were opening no floodgates and setting off no wave of me-too litigation. They knew this was a one-off, that the Ayodhya verdict represented a once and forever challenge. This allowed them to tweak the boundaries of jurisprudence.
At Law and Other Things blog, Aditya Sondhi, an advocate and law teacher in Bangalore, had this first reaction:
As a lawyer, it is intriguing that suits claiming declaratory reliefs of title have been disposed of more akin to a partition suit where all contesting parties end up with a share in the property that is the subject matter of litigation. But that is precisely the acute judicial balance that the Court has struck in dealing with a vexed dispute that entailed mixed questions of mythology, history, faith and law.
Extraordinary facts make for extraordinary law. Rather than recognize the absolute right of any community over the land, the Court has been able to lucidly declare the common but disparate interest of each group based on their co-existent practice of worship at the site. It is almost as if that 'easementary' right has been elevated to one of ownership. While this may not be commonplace in civil law, a case of this nature inherently requires Courts to evolve supple principles of law to deliver real justice. To my mind, the judgement reinforces one's belief that law and religion are a heady mix and can determine standards that are credible and conclusive. Indeed, the Sunni Wakf Board may feel aggrieved (as might the other plaintiffs) by the outcome, and, undoubtedly, even if the judgement is affirmed by the Supreme Court in challenge, the execution of the decree to cause 'partition' in metes and bounds is certainly going to be inflammatory and extremely complex. Nevertheless, the decision vindicates the position of those who chose to have the matter resolved by a Court rather than by a mob.
Of course, Courts do not decide matters that are purely religious or that are not disputes of a "civil nature" under Indian civil law, but equally, such judgements prove that the Indian legal system is able to confront and resolve volatile religious disputes without fear or favour. This ensures the supremacy of law and not that of men. But for this judgement, the Ayodhya dispute would have necessarily resulted in an extra-legal solution, as was attempted in 1992. The political class was all along, as Ram Guha said, "pusillanimous" in coming up with a workable solution, either by way of reconciliation or by legislation.
At Kafila, Nivedita Menon has an impassioned piece :
Technicality? Legality? The judgement is utterly cavalier and selective about when it will emphasize legalities and technicalities, and when it will ignore them. When one argument seems a little weak, other, quite contradictory ones are added on, just to be on the safe side. Like a liar who says, sorry I couldn't do what I promised to do, because I was flat out with dengue, and also I was busy looking after my old mother who fractured her foot, and then it started raining heavily so the roads were flooded.
"Faith" is enough to ground a judgement in a modern court of law, but also, the ASI report shows that a temple was demolished to build the mosque, and also the Sunni Waqf Board is unable to prove its rights conclusively.
M.J. Akbar in the Sunday Guardian:
"...the Allahabad judgement is a semi-colon, not a full stop. The full stop will come when the Supreme Court takes a decision. Muslims will appeal, as they have every right to. It must also be stressed that in 1993 Parliament clearly prevented the courts from hearing any other dispute over a place of worship. Ayodhya is the last case of its kind.
He also correctly, in my view, points out how important it is for the legal process to be completed:
The Congress, which has been in power during all four of the nodal points of the Babri-Ayodhya controversy — opening of British Raj locks and installation of idols in 1949, laying of the foundation stone for a temple in 1989, destruction of Babri in 1992 and the verdict in 2010 — is in search of an "amicable" settlement. The game is old and evident. Congress policy on the dispute has rotated around one axis: how to get the temple built without losing the Muslim vote. The BJP has no Muslim vote to lose, but it will support such an under-the-surface endeavour since it obviously wants a temple to be constructed as soon as possible. If Ayodhya is the last case of its kind perhaps we should let it complete the legal process as well. We have waited for six decades; why not wait for two or three years more? Any "amicable" settlement is unlikely to be amicable enough for everyone, to begin with and could degenerate into a "political" compromise that could strain community relations rather than heal them. If we trust our institutions then we must trust them fully.
Vir Sanghvi in HT:
I disapproved of the Ayodhya movement. I understood Muslim concerns and fears. But I still felt that if the Babri Masjid Action Committee or some other Muslim body would show some flexibility and make a grand conciliatory gesture, it would strengthen Indian secularism and finish off the Ayodhya movement before it poisoned the atmosphere and damaged India.
Now that the judgement is in and the court has forced a compromise on both sides, I can't help wondering: could a better deal have been struck two decades ago when the Masjid was still standing?
If only both sides had shown a little magnanimity and a degree of flexibility in the 1980s, lives would have been saved and India would have been spared a terrible and entirely unnecessary trauma.
Vir Sanghvi in the New Indian Express:
When I see the utter lack of interest displayed by most Hindus in the Ayodhya judgment, I wonder sometimes if the battle between two competing visions of Indian secularism has not finally been settled. The verdict allows for the construction of a mandir at Ayodhya but I do not hear Advani and other BJP leaders rejoicing that they can finally build that grand temple which was once so crucial to their vision.The BJP has abandoned the overtly Hindu ideology which once defined it. Even Narendra Modi — regarded as a Hindu fascist by his secular opponents — rarely talks about Hinduism these days, preferring to focus on development and his attempts to bring prosperity to Gujarat. Nobody mentions wanting to change the basic character of India or complains about the injustices done to Hindus by our Constitutional secularism.In the long run, it might count as no more than a foot-note to history but the measured response to the Ayodhya verdict marks something quite fundamental and significant. It marks the acceptance of the demise of a certain kind of political Hinduism that once sought to transform the very character of India and its secularism. Is it any wonder that we rarely hear the word Hindutva any longer? Like the Ayodhya movement, it is a concept that is past its sell-by date.
Shekhar Gupta notes the positives in the Indian Express:
... the fact that this class that came up with the most articulate criticism of the judgment seemed overwhelmingly inclined towards the Muslim argument, in spite of having been (at least) born Hindu, spoke well for our society and the system. So here is my first takeaway from this September 30. When all else fails, politics, social dialogue, intellectual and philosophical argument lean on the system of institutions. But for that you have to build great institutions and also tolerate what you might sometimes see as their excesses.
...L.K. Advani spoke to my colleague, Indian Express Senior Editor Vandita Mishra, expressing satisfaction with the court order but underlining that it did not justify the Babri demolition. Now, if you are a student of contemporary politics, think hard. This is a clearer denunciation and disowning of the crime of 1992 by a top BJP leader than you have heard of the Emergency of 1975 by a top Congress leader. There have been "regrets" expressed, but only about its "excesses". Only a fortnight ago, Advani had told Vandita and Saubhik Chakrabarti (Eye, September 19) that had he known the consequences that followed in either case, he would not have gone to Ayodhya while he would certainly have visited Pakistan.
Barkha Dutt noted in the Hindustan Times:
But, should the party have been so quick in using the verdict to talk about a "grand mandir" at Ayodhya? If, as the party argued, the Allahabad High Court had paved the way for national reconciliation, then could the BJP not have shown a little more magnanimity of response? For instance, L.K. Advani, whilst talking about a Ram Mandir, could have also been more specific in welcoming the building of an adjacent mosque. Both Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal have underlined the "very unique" historic tradition of Hindus and Muslims offering prayers alongside at the site before the 1857 mutiny. The BJP could have focused more than they did on this syncretic history of India's religious edifice.
Dilip Padgaonkar in the Times of India:
The biggest infirmity of Thursday's verdict, therefore, is that the court treated Lord Ram as a 'juristic person'. In the eyes of the law, a deity or an idol is thus entitled to be placed on par with flesh-and-blood litigants. The sheer brazenness of this stand, which belittles the exalted stature of Hinduism's most revered divinity, makes you wince.
After this bit of 'creative' legal thinking, the other infirmities in the verdict appear to be no more than trifles. Take the issue of whether or not a mosque was built after demolishing a temple. From all accounts, the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India were incomplete at best and, at worst, misleading. At any rate, experts are divided on the subject. But that did not persuade the judges to exercise a bit of circumspection.
A day earlier, the same paper had pointed out:
in the Indian judicial system, deities have always been regarded as legal entities who could fight their case through the trustees or managing board in charge of the temple in which they are worshipped by devotees.
If Ram Lala fought his case in Lucknow, even Kashi Vishwanath of Varanasi had done so in the Supreme Court when the UP government enacted the Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 for better management of the ancient temple.
The Supreme Court, in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi, vs State of UP [1997 (4) SCC 606], recognised the right of a deity, though not for the first time, to move court and said, "Properties of endowment vest in the deity, Lord Sri Vishwanath."
It dismissed claim of the priests that they alone had the right to manage the temple on behalf of the deity and said management of the temple by mahant/pandas/archakas did not mean it became their property. It upheld the Act saying it was merely for better management of the temple.
Similarly, in Bihar State Board of Religious Trust vs Ramsubaran Das [1996 SCALE (2) 702], the SC had pointed to ancient revenue records attaching the temple land in the name of the deity. It had said, "That mahants dealt with the properties in their own names does not detract from the fact that the temples were public temples as they would well be said to be dealing with on behalf of the deities to whom the properties are dedicated."
J. Venkatesan in the Hindu agrees:
Legal experts are unanimous that a Hindu idol, as per the long established authority and founded upon religious customs of the Hindus, is a 'juristic entity,' and it has 'juridical status' with power of suing and be sued.
In 1983, Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath of Varanasi fought a legal battle in the Supreme Court when the Uttar Pradesh government enacted the Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983, for better management of the ancient temple. The Supreme Court had ruled that a deity could move the court and said: "Properties of endowment vest in the deity Lord Sri Vishwanath."
Besides the Supreme Court, various High Courts had also recognised the fact that a temple deity would be a legal entity and even a devotee or a regular worshipper could move the court on behalf of the presiding deity, which will be considered a perpetual minor
He also quotes Supreme Court lawyer Harshvir Pratap Sharma as saying:
"The Indian judicial system treats deities as legal entities who could have a legal representation in courts through trustees or an in-charge of the temple in which they are worshipped."
...Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Code recognises a 'sitting deity' as an individual. As the sitting deity is a perpetual minor and not time- barred, the Allahabad High Court admitted the suit filed on behalf of Ram Lalla and appointed the next friend to represent the Lord, and finally ruled in favour of the deity.
Sahmat fears:
The ASI's controversial Report which claimed otherwise on the basis of 'pillar bases' was manifestly fraudulent in its assertions since no pillars were found, and the alleged existence of 'pillar bases' has been debated by archaeologists. It is now imperative that the site notebooks, artefacts and other material evidence relating to the ASI's excavation be made available for scrutiny by scholars, historians and archaeologists.
Abhinav Garg reports in the Times of India:
The ASI view that evidence pointed to the existence of a temple, forms the key material evidence relied upon by the court. Perhaps keeping in mind the criticism of ASI's findings, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma in their comments have countered allegations of the report being influenced by powers that be.
They emphasized that the court controlled excavation was transparent. The charge that the finding of a huge structure preexisting the Babri Masjid, was "managed" has been addressed in detail. It had been alleged that the report was "biased and imagined" and failed to faithfully reproduce the actual findings.
The first point to note was that the ASI was brought in by the court on its own in 2002, not by any party or the government. The ASI did the GPR survey and excavation under the orders of the court and under supervision by two judicial officers appointed by the court, in the presence of the counsel for the parties.
But the most disgusting part of this critical exercise, the importance of which to the case is brilliantly captured by Justice Agarwal (p3869-4333), was the way the Muslim parties attacked the ASI work in court, including on the ground that the BJP was ruling then, and that the ASI team did not include sufficient number of Muslims in the excavation work. This led to the court chiding them for suffixing experts with "Muslim", "Hindu" or "Christian" (Justice Agarwal p230). But now, after the verdict, the secularists attack the court for relying on the ASI report in almost the same language the Muslim parties used to attack the ASI prior to the verdict!
A day earlier, in the same paper, he charged:
...the media did not highlight that the two judges have dismissed the suits of the Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara (believed to be the proxy for the Congress party), and also that the two judges have decreed only the two suits filed by the Hindu parties. The consequence of this is immense, as will be unveiled in the next part of this article.
Manoj Mitta in the Times of India:
Though thousands of pages in this verdict have been devoted to quotes from Hindu scriptures, it made little effort to examine the illegality of the 1949 act. The mischief played with the idols, in a bid to convert a masjid into a mandir, was central to the adjudication of the title suits.
Yet, the three judges on the bench, despite delivering separate judgments, adopted the common approach of treating the forcible installation of idols as a fait accompli. They did not dare question its legality or validity. This, despite the fact that the bench had, in May 2009, specially called for and placed on record the original file of the district administration that dealt with the 1949 episode.
The verdict could have been radically different had the judges mustered the courage to analyse this crucial issue. Advocate Anupam Gupta, who grilled an array of leaders on the Babri Masjid demolition before the Liberhan Commission, told TOI: "Since the title suits had derived from the installation of idols, the judges would have had to acknowledge that the Hindu claim was based on a patent illegality and that nothing said about the history of the Hindu belief prior to 1949 would have cured this illegality."
In Times of India itself, Rajni Bakshi recalls philosopher Ramchandra Gandhi who visited the troubled site a year before the demolition of Babri masjid and found, posted above the main arch of the mosque, a sign that said "Janmasthan Sita ki Rasoi":
Outside the mosque's northern wall 'Ramu' Gandhi found a platform where a rolling board and rolling pin were being worshiped as deities. In those humble objects of daily life Ramu perceived powerful symbols of "generativeness" going back to our ancient aboriginal roots. Ramu concluded that the Ramkot mound in Ayodhya was, in ancient times, a sacred fertility grove. This shrine to mother earth or Divine Mother came to be known, in Puranic times, as Sita ki Rasoi and later represented by the board and rolling pin as symbols of nurturing love.
...
Aveek Sen in the Telegraph recounts his experience in Delhi on the day of the judgment:
Then, all of a sudden, as if from one of the minarets I had once climbed to the top of, emanated, into the expanse of the evening, a sombre, amplified voice that we soon realized was not the azaan. It was a call to the people who had gathered at the gate and inside — a call of the last solemnity — to react to the verdict with dignity and restraint, to not give in to disappointment or a sense of injustice and not be roused to untoward passions. Within the cadences of an almost ritual Urdu that I understood only in parts, I caught the words high court, supreme court and appeal. They sounded strangely incongruous, even absurd, as they floated out into the evening on the steady wings of an indescribable melancholy, which was somehow more musical to my ears than worded.
And, finally, a gossip column in the Telegraph notes:
The Ayodhya verdict seems to have split the Congress vertically. The status-quoists, led by the PM and Ahmad Patel, want the law to take its course till the Supreme Court takes the final call. The Gandhis, both Sonia and Rahul, are tight-lipped but are patiently listening to everyone who has something to say. Digvijay Singh, who has earned the tag, albela, ever since he described a senior minister as "Quick Gun Murugun" in private, wants the government to push for an out-of-court settlement. But his colleagues in the AICC secretariat — such as Janardhan Dwivedi and Motilal Vora — are equally keen that the party should not be seen to be delaying the construction of the Ram temple. Some Muslim MPs too want the controversy settled out of court, but they don't believe that the Manmohan Singh government would take the plunge.
--
| Recent Posts |
Oct 03, 2010 09:20 AM 1 | Dilip Padgaonkar in the Times of India: This guy is a senior journalist and writes crap. Cant he look at some legal rules before writing ? Shows the quality of Indian journalism today. |
| Oct 03, 2010 12:25 PM 2 | The fever has broken, with the High Court judgment. The complete cure can wait for the Supreme Court verdict. |
| Oct 03, 2010 03:08 PM 3 | Jackass upon jackass trying to outdo each other in being a jackass. A 10,000 page verdict which they haven't read, have no idea what the judges have said, what evidences they have examined and yet they feel compelled to hold forth on intricacies of law, history and jurisprudence. Well one can only hope at some stage some of these fine people will read the judgement. |
| Oct 03, 2010 05:46 PM 4 | Moderator's note: In future please do not type comments in all-caps: Today's Poem (30-9-2010) Rock edicts from B.C. was unearthed by an archaeologist: "History Hanged Sabushanmughom is a bilingual poet from Kerala,India |
| Oct 03, 2010 06:21 PM 5 | Clearly, the verdict has underlined that India is a Hindu country. This is very helpful for all. |
| Oct 03, 2010 09:47 PM 6 | Finally the Allahabad court has dared to resolve an issue which could have broken the very essence of India - Secularism. Whether minorities accept or not, India is the most secular and tolerant country in the world, secular than most western nations and all muslim nations. Please step out of India to see what a great nation we have been historically and what we can be for the future of the world. Secularism is fundamental to our existence and the judges have done their best for the country when the so-called political, religious and executive leaders have failed us miserably. Unfortunately the so-called experts are of the opinion that judges based their verdict on beliefs as opposed to facts.. First please read thru the entire judgement before making expert opinions. Second, in matters of religion, fact is largely beliefs that inviduals and communities hold. 80% of world's population say God exists... But can atleast one person prove it...It is the belief that God exists and NOT that God actually exists. The judges have certainly used archaelogical facts that were available to them...So my dear intellectuals please think before you opinionate and don't add fuel when the judges are trying to put out the fire.. While I strongly condemn the destruction of Babri Masjid, I strongly plead with all muslims in India to magnanimously out of their own will allow the Hindus to build the temple at Ayodhya because Ayodhya is strongly believed by majority Hindus as the birth place of Ram.. Let us respect each others holy sites and move on to address the core and real issues that confronts both the minorities and the majorities alike - poverty, lack of education, corruption, bad governance etc.. Let us work towards the future, for our future generations and not let us destructed by divisive forces... |
| Oct 03, 2010 10:20 PM 7 | Now that a judgement based on 'faith and belief' has been delivered, let the muslims and hindus of India come to an agreeable settlement. Rama has millions of temples in India and so does not require one more addition. When the belief is that, the heart of every hindu is his temple, nothing is going to be lost if there is no temple for him in the very place he was supposed to have been born for which there is no documentary evidence. Muslims also have mosques everywhere in the country and even in Ayodhya. So no harm is going to happen if they do not have a mosque in that place of contention. No doubt the pulling down of the Babri mosque that stood there was an act of crime, an act of sacrilege for which the criminals responsible have to be punished. They can have a mosque constructed in a nearby place if they so desire. Let that place in Ayodhya which generated so much hatred between the two communities become a place for the common good of the people of both communities so as to bring eternal unity between them. |
| Oct 03, 2010 10:33 PM 8 | I have read comments for the last three days.Let us recapitulate what Judges said : 1 Justice Sharma said Ram's Janamstahl is where presently idols are placed. Rest of the two judges only said that Hindus believe so since the Mosque came into existence. So ruling of High Court does not confirm the Ram's birth place. Hindus believe so is the ruling. 2. Justice Sharama says Ram Mandir was demolished an dmosque built.Hence Masjid is not as per Tenets of Islam . Rest of the two judges said Mosque was built over the ruins of Mandir .But says nothing about the Tenets of Islam . Hence the three judges say Masjid was built over the ruins of a Temple.That is what ASI Report confirms. [ My comments : Per Tents of Islam Majid is not sanctified hence can't be considered a Masjid .] 3.Indian Law gives certain rights to Deity which can be represented by an individual.In this case as per Law Ram Lala 's rights have been accepted. Strange but that is the Law. That is why we say Law is ass.So Judges were within Law to decide per evidence before them. Only detailed reading of the Judgment can reveal the basis of this decision. 4.Advani has admitted the demolishing of Maskid is not justified.He is prosecuted along with others in separate case. Why the prosecution is going on snail's pace .Well The Secus and Psecus who are asking this question should actually answer why so ? After all it is their Sarkar. We can't say anything as we are dubbed Sanghies. 5.Majority of Muslim Leaders and Hindu Leaders want to settle it among themselves sas Courts create more confusion EXCEPT JAMA MASJID IMAM AND OWAsi.Both are extremely hardliners . 6.Judges were pro Hindus.NO Judges with majority gave a decision which can be challenged but was impartial. The best reading is Justice Khan's decision. 7.Since Masjid was built upon a Temple or ruins of the Temple.The builder of the Masjid neither purchased the land nor gifted by the holders hence the Masjid was build illegally.So was masjid demolished which too was illegal act. IF SC TAKES THE ABOVE STAND THEN MUSLIMS WILL NOT ONLY LOOSE AYODHYA BUT ALSO KASHI AND MATHURA MASJIDS SUFFER THIS INFIRMITY ALONG WITH HUNDREDS OTHERS. SO WHERE WILL MUSLIMS will STAND THEN ?? Submission : The High Court has given a sobering decision and challenging one.We should take advantage of the current thinking among Hindus and Muslims and both prevail upon the hardliners among them to buzz off.WHEN RIOTS BREAK no hardliner from both side dies nor their children. I find here except a few confused Laloos Panjoos every body wants reconciliation .And these Laloos Panjoos oppose every thing by nature not by brains . Finally Races have to give and take when hatchet is to be buried. Muslims World over in Turmoil but are better placed in India barring some Rotey Lals on both the sides whose only profession is breast beatings . KUMAR,MUNU ,AHMED are few examples of must oppose every thing and anything . It is in Hindus and Muslims interest to forget the past and build a new future. |
| Oct 03, 2010 10:58 PM 9 | Barking Dutt finds a fault in Advani's reaction? Well she can kiss my ass! |
| Oct 03, 2010 11:39 PM 10 | Aahhh the Travails of being an ultra-secularist (thanks to Shekhar Gupta for this term) and losing to the bigotted Sanghis. Barkha-the-bak-bak-Dutt continues with where she left off on the TV channel in her HT article. First - her grouse is against the lawyers of Hindu Groups who flashed the victory signs. Well, the groups have been waiting for 60 years (you can say 400 years too if you are a lil melancholic) for this endorsement from a legal authority about their claim to the land. Yes, they were relieved and they were happy. So, they flashed their smiles and signs. But tell me Ms Dutt, did your TV crew leave the place and walk-out (or walk-away) if they felt offended about the worst sort of small-mindedness. Nope....they stuck around and they reported feeding in bits of breaking news to you back at the studio. BTW, you too display a similar kind of small-mindedness when you were reporting 26/11 by asking people who lost their relatives how they feel, by behaving like a raving maniacal "curtain saleswomen". And ofcourse, your interview process where you scrape and scratch the "victims" till they cry isn't exactly "large mindedness". Secound - BJP speaking about the grand mandir. Well, let me get you in on a secret - the BJP and all other elements of the Sangh Parivaar always wanted to build a mandir (and a grand one at that) in that place. So Advani was just stating the obvious. As for the timing - need not be of your chosing. Again, your 26/11 coverage showed that you people value "breaking news" more by showing the positions of the security forces on the ground and getting down from a helicopter than about the timing of the new. And again, if your channel was offended, your crew could have walked out. Third - about the mosque. The Mossies have not shown any inclination or plan of buidling a mosque there - yet. So, why should BJP go out of its way and say that it would welcome a building of an adjacent mosque. Let the mossies say that they accpet the verdict and that they would like to build a mosque in the 1/3rd piece of land given to them and then we can talk. In fact, when the Babri structure was present, offers were made to them to relocate the structure "brick-for-brick" to a different place. But, no, the mossies did not want to show any magnanimity. Finally - your grouse that the judges divided the land but did not mention the demolition. Now, do you know how we feel when you keep harping about Gujarat 02 riots but fail to make a passing mention of the Sabarmati express? |
| Oct 04, 2010 12:31 AM 11 | >> Justice Sharama says Ram Mandir was demolished an dmosque built.Hence Masjid is not as per Tenets of Islam . What is forgotten though, is the Hindu tenet which says that all religions are the same and hence mandir/masjid makes no difference. >> The builder of the Masjid neither purchased the land nor gifted by the holders hence the Masjid was build illegally. How do you know that? And how do we know if a temple (if there was one before that) was build on legally purchased land? >> IF SC TAKES THE ABOVE STAND ... The SC should take a stand that the faith based issues/questions etc that HC deliberated on are irrelevant to the court. If none of the specific parties/litigants have a right, none of them should be allowed to take ownership of the land. >> It is in Hindus and Muslims interest to forget the past and build a new future. To build a new future, they should forget/ignore the madir vs masjid issue itself and recognize that to fight over such things is backwardness. |
| Oct 04, 2010 02:23 AM 12 | >> The SC should take a stand that the faith based issues/questions etc that HC deliberated on are irrelevant to the court. If none of the specific parties/litigants have a right, none of them should be allowed to take ownership of the land. The court did based its award based on long use of the property by different groups. I think you have no clue how the law operates. You hear some crap written by low IQ journalists and keep on repeating without making any sense. You also seem completely oblivious of something called "Precedent". I don't think you know about it. Most of loose cannons who are repeating this junk in newspapers also don't know about Precedent. There are several precedents set by SC & HCs where a property is used by multiple parties without any clear title. The parties are provided partitioned property by courts. The Justice Khan of this judgment himself gave the verdict in the same court earlier. There are lots of groups worshiping in that place. A lot of parties entered into litigation claiming they are all worshiping there hence they should be considered party to the litigation and should be awarded the title. The court dismissed all the title requests because no one could provide a clear title. The court recognized that Muslims worshiped there. The Wakf board represented Muslims. The court recognized that Hindus worshiped there. The court recognized that deity Rama is the an entity for the purpose of the case. This is not first time it happened. In Varnasi, the court also ruled that deity Krishna as a party when the local Govt. wanted to shift the temple and several groups opposed it. A lot of lawyers on NDTV brought up these points. I know you are one of those influenced by clueless journos who are calling this a mistake of Himalayan proportions. First, it was awarded based on faith. YOU KEEP repeating that LIE again and again and again. Then the argument is this judgment did not deal with the destruction in 1992. That case is not in front of the judges. No party even argued about and asked the judges to provide injunction against the parties. BJP is not even a party to the suit. You can hope that SC nullifies your verdict. But you have no clue (Zero/Zilch) about law or what is even a precedent. But you like any of those bozos/bimbos arguing law without understanding the law can only hope that SC nullifies it. |
| Oct 04, 2010 03:36 AM 13 | |
| Oct 04, 2010 03:53 AM 14 | >> What is forgotten though, is the Hindu tenet which says that all religions are the same Actually, where is this tenet? I didn't know that Hinduism has any tenets. |
| Oct 04, 2010 03:58 AM 15 | >> The SC should take a stand that the faith based issues/questions etc that HC deliberated on are irrelevant to the court. If they are irrelevant in this case, then they should be irrelevant in the demolition case too. Then why is that such a big issue, instead of a minor crime of property destruction. >> they should forget/ignore the madir vs masjid issue itself The issue was never really Mandir, but the specific Janambhoomi. But those who demand birth certificates for Lord Ram, or suggest that toilets be built there are not expected to understand this. |
| Oct 04, 2010 07:42 AM 16 | >> >> The SC should take a stand that the faith based issues/questions etc that HC deliberated on are irrelevant to the court. >> If they are irrelevant in this case, then they should be irrelevant in the demolition case too. Then why is that such a big issue, instead of a minor crime of property destruction. To deliberate on whether theologically it a mosque as per Islamic tenets is irrelevant to court. There are some hindus who believe that it is birth place of Ram, just as some Muslims believe that it is a Mosque which as per Sharia they cannot surrender etc. Will the court also deliberate on whether as per Muslim belief in Sharia, whether it is ok to demolish the Mosque and build a temple in that place? How are they going to decide between Ram vs Shariah? The court need not affirm or reject these beliefs (worse still, give primacy of one belief over the other). Demolition of an existing mosque/temple (and in this case, the associated communal incitement/violence etc) is definitely of interest to the court. The court does recognize the right of religion and assumes the responsibility to protect that right. >> The issue was never really Mandir, but the specific Janambhoomi. True, but the self-claimed Ram-bhakhs should also learn to behave in a way that brings repute to Ram. They can't turn into hooligans, murderers, rapists, demolishers of places of worship of other religions etc in their supposed expression of devotion for Ram. |
| Oct 04, 2010 07:59 AM 17 | >>>> If they are irrelevant in this case, then they should be irrelevant in the demolition case too. Then why is that such a big issue, instead of a minor crime of property destruction. >> To deliberate on whether theologically it a mosque as per Islamic tenets is irrelevant to court. Read my post again. >> True, but the self-claimed Ram-bhakhs should also learn to behave in a way that brings repute to Ram. Your usual incoherence again. Spitting in all directions, hoping to make at least someone as filthy as you. From talking about mosques and temples, you have gone off on conduct of the Ram Bhakts. If so, how about the conduct of the Allah worshipers? Were they bringing repute to Allah when they demolished a temple and built a mosque, as accepted by the courts? |
| Oct 04, 2010 08:28 AM 18 | >> From talking about mosques and temples, you have gone off on conduct of the Ram Bhakts. >> If so, how about the conduct of the Allah worshipers? Were they bringing repute to Allah when they demolished a temple and built a mosque ... Those who demolished a temple and built a mosque centuries back (assuming that is what happened) also bring disrepute to the religion/god they profess (this is the case with any act of atrocity in the name of religion), yet the more enlightened times one is (like well defined law/constitution, international declarations on rights etc), the greater the crime. |
| Oct 04, 2010 08:33 AM 19 | >> assuming that is what happened The courts have accepted it. Like it or not, we have to accept it, though seculars have been known to disregard unfavorable court rulings. >> also bring disrepute to the religion/god they profess (this is the case with any act of atrocity in the name of religion), yet the more enlightened times one is (like well defined law/constitution, international declarations on rights etc), the greater the crime. I can live with that. And if people who claim to be reasonable make as much noise when such (or worse) acts are committed by followers of other religions, I have no problems with them. The rest of the crowd (which includes almost all Indian seculars), are just Jihadis to me. |
| Oct 04, 2010 10:01 AM 20 | >>Those who demolished a temple and built a mosque centuries back (assuming that is what happened) also bring disrepute to the religion/god they profess (this is the case with any act of atrocity in the name of religion), yet the more enlightened times one is (like well defined law/constitution, international declarations on rights etc), the greater the crime. Can you please explain the above in english?? |
| Oct 04, 2010 10:07 AM 21 | >>What is forgotten though, is the Hindu tenet which says that all religions are the same and hence mandir/masjid makes no difference. Why don't you give the evidence of the above 'tenet'? After the disappointing judgment for seculars, everyone has become an expert on Hinduism! |
| Oct 04, 2010 10:27 AM 22 | Kumar Per Islamic Tenets the Babri Masjid was NOT a sanctified Masjid as it was built on the then existing or RUINS OF THE TEMPLES. Judges has taken the stand that Ram Lala is a recognised entity who has Legal interests in this case.Ram Lala can be represented by a person . This is the Law . So judges are bound to give decision and they gave within Legal Tenets. 2. Masjid was built upon the ruins of a Temple full Bench has said so .ASI has dug out the Temple and you can see it provided Courts give you permission.Seek the same to see the facts since you are not ready to believe the COURTS . Hence Babri Masjid has no sanctity as a Msque per Islam . What you have to say ? ] Now please give straight answer no hither-thither as per your habit. And what problems you have if Hindu Muslims reconcile why you oppose and why you impose certain conditions like let Sanghies seek forgiveness ,repent etc ? Let both the races decide what they want. What are your specific objections incidentally ? Straight answers no Gol Gol evasion . Incidentally till now you were Votary to ; 'JOh Court kehey gee wohi Manjur' But not now. [Another Secular sickness to disown whatever committed for decades ] |
| Oct 04, 2010 10:33 AM 23 | >> The builder of the Masjid neither purchased the land nor gifted by the holders hence the Masjid was build illegally. >>How do you know that? Because as per the court judgment it was built after demolishing a temple. >>And how do we know if a temple (if there was one before that) was build on legally purchased land? If it was not, the burden of proof is on you. Prove that the original temple was built on an alien place of worship! >>If none of the specific parties/litigants have a right, none of them should be allowed to take ownership of the land. Your ignorance of law is appalling and you make no attempt to learn. Right to property is also determined by usage over long periods of time. That's what the courts have ruled. |
| Oct 04, 2010 11:18 AM 24 | let no one count the chickens before they hatch.there is supreme court and the litigants should go to the supreme court with written assurances that they will abide by the verdict and there wont be any shahbano type post judgement moves. the supreme court can try and make the supreme court bench consisting mainly of parsi/sikh/christian judges for fairplay along with equal represntation to the muslims/hindus if there is shortage. |
| Oct 04, 2010 11:36 AM 25 | "the supreme court can try and make the supreme court bench consisting mainly of parsi/sikh/christian judges for fairplay along with equal represntation to the muslims/hindus if there is shortage.' Munu sawamy Shows how biased the Gentleman is. |
| Oct 04, 2010 12:18 PM 26 | "The impoverished have understood a simple, important, over-riding reality: poverty is not communal. There is no shortage of places for prayer in our country. There is, however, a shortage of self-respect, since every hungry stomach in our country is a sharp slap on the face of the idea of India. 2010 is a hundred years away from 1992" MJ AKBAR |
| Oct 04, 2010 01:52 PM 27 | """""The Constitution Bench ( Supreme Court ) rebutted this contention. The Bench stated: 'The correct position may be summarised thus. Under Mohammed law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession…A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India'. (para 82) Even if a temple is in ruins as the ASI had found, or destroyed as Ram temple was, any Hindu can sue on behalf of Lord Rama in court for recovery! No such ruling exists for a mosque. That is, the Ram temple on Ramjanmabhoomi has a superior claim to the site than any mosque. This the fundamental truth in the Ayodhya dispute. This truth will apply to Kashi Vishvanath and Brindavan temple sites as well"""". SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY EX-Union Minister for Law and Justice. (during Rajiv Gandhi's time as PM) First of all a masque is not a sacred place according to Indian Law. What is a sacred place? A sacred place is one which is held sacred even if a temple is demolished in that place. A sacred place can not be shifted to another place. In Soudi for example , a mosque where Mohammed the prophet prayed was destroyed to pave the way for a road to go through it. If at all the land purchased by the person who built it(Babri Masque) or the one who ordered it, there could have been a battery of lawyers arguing that a sacred place could have never been sold in the first place( in this case Sri Rama's temple at Ayodhya ,underneath Babri Masque) . In Indian law a Deity like Rama or Krishna for example , can represent himself in court through a trust or temple authority or even a devotee. The present judgment is not based on "faith" of judges or the faith of "majority" people but the judgement is based on law. Judges can not invent a law, therefore they have to follow the established law and at best they can interpret and pass judgement. Muslim organisers were the people who were dead against postponing the judgement because they were expecting judgement in their favour. This is also a reason why they were costantly repeated that they abide by law,by whatever the court's decision. Now hypothetically,just for the sake of argument,let us assume that the judgement had gone in favour of Masque , all these so called ignorant secularists , could have been already making a sitting protest in side RSS head quarters and someone upstart might even have gone fast unto death . Shall they please do the same thing now ?? NO , offcourse not, they are not doing it. But most wonderful result is that these same people are theorizing as to why RSS has accepted it??. And then they are also answering it. (See TV channels , the anchor questions first with a terrible accent and speaking as much fast. And then he answer the question himself !!!. The anchor again interferes the moment someone is giving any answer to a question and pol vaults to another person , before that person anwers he jums like a cangaroo. No one knows exactly,what they are speaking ,perticularly the so called experts. |
| Oct 04, 2010 02:25 PM 28 | " Let's talk on Ayodhya: Ansari to Mahant Three days after the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court delivered its historic verdict, 90-year-old Mr Ansari, who's one of the petitioners in the title suit, met of Hanumangarhi, who is also the president of Akhil Bhartiya Akhara Parishad, at Ayodhya on Sunday to explore the possibility of an amicable solution. Though Mahant Gyan Das refused to divulge details, Mr Ansari said, ``I have initiated the move after being asked by the Sunni Central Waqf Board''. http://economictimes...icleshow/6680262.cms |
| Oct 04, 2010 03:05 PM 29 | dear ghai i wish i can say that there is no bias and the judge forgets his religion the moment he is on the chair.this is true only of hinduism and not other religions where u can question/punish the god.can u say any story like this in other religions lord shiv writes a poem to satisfy the question of a pandava king on wthether women have a natural odour to their hair or its by adding herbs.he says that there is natural odour and the minister nakkeeerar objects and rules that there is no proof and its a wrong poem.the angry god shows himself and asks whether he considers even parvathys hair too doesnt have odour to which nakkeeerar replies yes and adds that even if the god opens his third eye and burns him he will say that god is wrong as there is no proof.(pseudoseculars are not a new phenomenon and existed since thousands of years and are a major part of hinduism followers).there r thousands of other stories of god being womaniser/gets wiser after suffering due to a boon given by him etc and no where god asks directly/thru his followers to save him/temple etc. are there any stories/myths in other religions which says that even god has to show proof and if not he is wrong.real hindus(pseudosecular) consider karma above religion/god and thats the casualty with this judgement. imagine a situation like tirupathi/srirangam taken over by hindu terrorists like golden temple/hazratbal mosque some years back,majority of hindus would not have minded army/paramilitary/entering to capture them and the damages suffered as temple/idol/book all comes below karma. subramaniam swamy s contention of temple is a sacred place is absolutely wrong as there r hundreds of stories of god leaving the place and going to another area becos of the illactivities performed by the villagers where it was residing. lord ganapathy the most popular god and seen in almost all nook and corners and all places r sacred for him.they throw the idol of lord ganesha after 3/10/21 days during ganesh puja celebrations.they keep a statue of lord ganesh in the corner houses and my uncles house being a corner one one idol is kept in lock and key with daily pujas.we have lost the idol 6 times in the past 15 years as there is a beleif that stolen lord ganesh has lot of power and has to be installed.the rate of the stolen lord ganesh is also very costly when any one plans to instal the idol in a temple.the beauty of hinduism is the place/space given to all practises/beleifs/acceptance and to make an ego issue of a specific spot is exactly opposite of real hinduism |
| Oct 04, 2010 03:16 PM 30 | there r temples which r older than 1500 years near karan prayag in uttarkhand known as adibadri temples.they have no idols and the beleif is that god got angry with the villagers and left the place becos of their bad behaviour and till today there r no idols and noone tries to place any idol in them. uttarkhand itself is known as devbhoomi and quiet a bit of hills r under sikh pilgrimages with the stories of gurugobind coming in the dreams and informing about the location of hemkund sahib/roopkund sahib etc.the hindu gods have peacefully left those sites for sikhs inspite of thousands of stories about the living place of various gods.the attempts by some hindu fanatics to create trouble was very strongly resisted by the local hindus. |
| Oct 04, 2010 04:15 PM 31 | Lord shiv writes a poem to satisfy the question of a pandava king on whether women have a natural odour to their hair or its by adding herbs.he says that there is natural odour and the minister nakkeeerar objects and rules that there is no proof and its a wrong poem.the angry god shows himself and asks whether he considers even parvathys hair too doesnt have odour to which nakkeeerar replies yes and adds that even if the god opens his third eye and burns him he will say that god is wrong as there is no proof.(pseudoseculars are not a new phenomenon and existed since thousands of years and are a major part of hinduism followers)" How well can the stories be twisted for convenience !! The whole nakeerar episode by Shiva was to punish his head weight and to teach him a lesson. When Nakeerar is shown as an example of pseudo seculars, i can only laugh.. FYI, pseudo sec is a hypocrite who applies secularism only to one community (in India, the majority) and when it comes to the other (minorities), he speaks something else. "subramaniam swamy's contention of temple is a sacred place is absolutely wrong as there r hundreds of stories of god leaving the place and going to another area becos of the illactivities performed by the villagers where it was residing" What has this got to do with Ayodhya ? Are there some stories that say Ram has left this place ? |
| Oct 04, 2010 04:40 PM 32 | dear ghai bias is inherent in human beings. can u explain why majority of indians will vote for sachin as the greatest while majority of srilankans for murali,westindians for sobers and so on. before a drug/vaccine is approoved for consumption by general public it has to undergo a double blind randomised control trial where the bias is removed from all sides.for ex if someone wants to prove that yoga will cure cancer 100 patients are taken who r not known/related to either the pro or anti group and some of the volunteers are taught yoga and others some normal exercises with patients having no knowledge that they are given different exercise treatments and the cases r studied.is it not time to remove the biases in judiciary too |
| Oct 04, 2010 06:34 PM 33 | dear rajesh if the temple is destructed is it not on gods wishes r do u say that god was defeated and now vhp/rss/bjp are avenging the defeat of god.u r making god less human.whether god moves out on his own or his place is destructed is it not becos he has disliked the place. subramaniam swamys contention of temple being a sacred place without any change is being questioned by the history of temples like adibadri where the angry god has left the place and the villagers afraid of its wrath too dont go near and it has become an haunted place and no one dares to place the idols again.its beleived that the original place of lord badrinath was near karan prayag.the temples r now under the archaeological dept and except history lovers/archaeologist...ologists/adventurous tourists no devotees visit there. the same with baleshwar where there r 1000 year old temples with no idols.once lost no one replaces the idol.the sun temple in konark is not worshipped becos of some kalang and sun is worshipped in only srikakulam.there r no pujas performed at the sun temple. where is the question of headweight of nakeerar when he is the hero of the story and lord gets him back.the moral which was told to us is (nettri kannai thiranthalum kuttram kuttrame)even if u r god/even if u open ur third eye and burn me u r at fault as what u said is without proof. |
| Oct 04, 2010 07:39 PM 34 | "lord shiv writes a poem to satisfy the question of a pandava king on wthether women have a --" Munu Your Religious postulates are irrelevant. ' |
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
