AP
Sep 30: Muslims await the Shahi Imam's speech at Jama Masjid, Delhi
muslim reaction
The Scent Of A Betrayal
Acceptance, anger, fear is what the aam Muslim feels post-verdict
Smruti Koppikar, Debarshi Dasgupta, Sugata Srinivasaraju, Prarthna Gahilote, Madhavi Tata, Saikat Datta, John Mary, Snigdha Hasan, K.S. Shaini, Sharat Pradhan--
If normalcy is the mere absence of violence, then even the most volatile parts of the country can be said to have retained their normal demeanour in the days following the Allahabad High Court judgement on the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suits. If, however, normalcy implies a socio-cultural atmosphere of mutual respect, trust and goodwill among people, underscored by the absence of subterranean tensions, then parts of India have not been normal at all.
The Ayodhya judgement, it is said, is less about justice and more about a loaded compromise. Clearly, it found favour with Hindutva groups, their supporters, and even other segments of India's majority population. The jubilation and self-congratulation were writ large on the face of many a Hindutva leader as news of the judgement trickled in; almost in concert, they reiterated the project a "bhavya Ram mandir", and desired that Muslim community representatives come forth for a "settlement". In the celebration and prevailing "normalcy", it may be possible—but not prudent—to ignore the disquiet among Muslims.
Mumbai: Hasina Khan, activist and prime force behind Awaaz-e-Niswaan: "We have no option but to accept the judgement. But it's as if it says 'You (the Muslims) have also been given something, so don't make a noise'. There's insecurity among Muslim youth." (Photograph by Apoorva Salkade)
Among them, there's an unmistakable sense of hurt and angst. Sometimes it comes across as acceptance, helpless or otherwise, of the judgement and ensuing situation; often it translates into seething anger at the one democratic institution they believed would give them justice; mixed in between is trepidation that the judgement may have paved the way for "settling" ownership issues about other disputed shrines in the country. The Ayodhya judgement, much like the demolition of December 6, 1992, marks a moment in the Muslim psyche; many in the community see the demolition as a blow and the judgement as a betrayal.
"There was no justice done at all to the Muslim community. It's very visibly a one-sided verdict; the distribution of land is all wrong, and there is no acknowledgement of the demolition at all," thunders Rehana Salamat Sheikh, principal, Anjuman-i-Islam Allana English High School in Mumbai. Adds Hasina Khan, activist and prime force behind Awaaz-e-Niswaan, an organisation to raise awareness among Muslim women: "Our community has no option but to accept the decision but it tells us that the system itself is so biased. It's as if the judgement says, 'You (the Muslims) have also been given something, so don't make a noise!' There's insecurity among Muslim youth."
Hyderabad: "If judgements are based on faith," says Mohammed Omer in Lad Bazaar, "then Charminar is mine, Mecca Masjid is mine, so is the Andhra Pradesh High Court." (Photograph by P. Anil Kumar)
In the old Hyderabad city, Syed Osman Ghani, a 28-year-old medical shop owner, dismisses the judgement as a "chaar aana-baarah aana verdict" asking if India can truly be called secular now. "What will we do with the 1/3rd land?" he asks. At Lad Bazaar, Mohammed Omer declares: "If judgements are based on faith, then Charminar is mine, Mecca Masjid is mine, so is the Andhra Pradesh High Court." Shakil Ahmed, young journalist-activist in Mumbai, puts it succinctly: "This is typical 'jiski lathi uski bhains'. If Muslims haven't protested or come out on the streets, it's because they remember '92-93 only too well; they only get the bullets."
In Bangalore, architect Mohamed A. Subhan too reflects this angst. "Those who went to court did not ask for a partition but to confirm the ownership of the land," he says. "The court has done everything else other than that. Take 50 more years, but resolve the ownership issue." Quoting historians about "more than a dozen places in Ayodhya where Ram is claimed to have been born", Subhan wonders how the court came to declare that "Ram was born below that dome". In a sense, he's putting into words sentiments that many in his community only whisper. In Benares, weaver Shafi Ali, 40, says: "In 1992, the government assured us that the Babri mosque will not be pulled down, but it was demolished. This time they promised us justice but Hindu belief was given weightage."
Hurt is mixed with anger. B.F.H.R. Bijli, 65, retired chief engineer, Kerala Water Authority, says, "The judges ruled by faith, not evidence. Just like an occupying force, the fanatics had demolished the masjid. Like in war, the occupying forces dictate terms. If you can fight against the odds, fight, or submit." That sense of submission is now taking root among many Muslims, especially the youth. "It's now clear that like in the United States and Israel, the process of marginalising Muslims is well and truly under way in India too," says Farooq Mapkar, wrongly accused in the '92-93 riots in Mumbai and acquitted after 16 years of legal battle. "On judgement eve, Muslims were being counselled to keep peace, stay indoors and not hold meetings, imams and maulanas were asked not to talk about it, but the Shiv Sena newspaper was allowed to come out with repeat articles and stories of '92, whipping up sentiment. Do you think we can't see the administration is not even-handed?"
Hyderabad's MIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi says the "prevailing peace is not to be confused with the sense of unease" that exists in the community. "How can we move on," he asks, "Muslims have been reduced to second-class citizens". Mumbai's S.M. Malik, professional translator, manager and post-graduate in Arabic, declares that post-judgement, "Muslims are living with a third-grade identity". He narrates an analogy, much cited recently in the press, that's doing the rounds in several sections of the community: a Muslim body sought the restoration of the mosque in Shahidganj, Lahore, which had been demolished in the 18th century to build a gurudwara. The matter was resolved in a court, Sikhs were given their rights and the gurudwara still stands there. "If in an Islamic nation like Pakistan a religious minority can be given its due, why is this not possible in India that calls itself the largest democracy of the world?"
Delhi: Dildar Ahmed, a nylon net seller in Old Delhi, is among those who feel their angst might be addressed if the case went to the SC. "The case has moved forward," he says, "it has somewhat blunted the urge among Muslims to fight for a mosque, but we will go the SC." (Photograph by Sanjay Rawat)
The notion of equal citizenship seems to have taken a blow. The twin themes of marginalisation and second-class citizenship are difficult to miss even among those who have apparently "accepted" the judgement. Indeed, acceptance seems to be the most honourable way out for many in the community; even those who are angry say their angst may be addressed if and when the Sunni Waqf Board appeals in the Supreme Court, but right now they will have to simply accept the situation. Dildar Ahmed, a nylon net seller in old Delhi, typifies it: "The case has moved forward, it has somewhat blunted the urge among Muslims to fight for a mosque, but this will go to the SC." Not far away, Mohammad Arif, date seller, says, "Go to the SC, but what can we expect—half of the disputed land?"
Adds J.S. Bandookwala, retired physics professor, Baroda University, and founder, Zidni Ilma Charitable Trust, which focuses on the education of Muslims, specially girls, "Given our problems, we can't go on a confrontation with the RSS. At times we may be right but can't go too far with our confrontation."
Kozhikode, Kerala: 43-year-old Abdul Razak has taken the judgement in his stride, saying "it has averted communal clashes. Just imagine what would have happened if the verdict was different". (Photograph by Ali Kovoor)
In Kozhikode, Abdul Razak, 43, has taken the judgement in his stride, saying "it has averted communal clashes. Just imagine what would have happened were the verdict different." The Muslim on the street in Lucknow accepts the verdict, because, as daily wage-earner Meraj says, it "saved us from riots". The intelligentsia find other reasons. Dr Mansoor Hasan, former head of cardiology department, King George's Medical College, says: "Our acceptance should not be misconstrued as vindication of the condemnable demolition, but we need to move ahead." Adds former high court judge and erstwhile Uttarakhand Lokayukta, S.H.A Raza, "The judges did cross certain limits, but the majority verdict could not have been better."
If there's a practical edge to the acceptance, there's also a vulnerable helplessness. As Farzana Contractor (nee Khan), Mumbai-based editor of food magazine Upper Crust, reflects: "Our dignity which was lost post the razing of the Babri Masjid has not been restored, but nobody wants a repeat of that horrendous time. So the consensus is: swallow your pride and accept what is dished out." Such resignation is true of Muslims in other cities too. In Bhopal, Shafique Khan, who works in Life Insurance Corporation, is satisfied with the judgement because it did not trigger off violence and mayhem.
Bangalore: Prof A.R. Kamruddin, a former advisor to UNESCO and director, Darul Umoor Tipu Sultan Research Centre, says, "This is not a problem between Hindus and Muslims, it's a conflict between people with narrow political interests." (Photograph by Nilotpal Baruah)
Bangalore's N.A.M. Ismail, a journalist in his 30s, too is resigned. "The only thing is that the RSS should not claim victory and act patronisingly. There is one lingering question in my mind: could the title suit have been dismissed in that fashion?" Prof A.R. Kamruddin, a former advisor to UNESCO and director of the Darul Umoor Tipu Sultan Research Centre, and now in his 70s, says, "Since the judgement satisfies the egos of some people, we can now keep that as the basis. This is not a problem between Hindus and Muslims; it's a conflict between people with narrow political interests."
|
Those Muslims who do not live in community mohallas or lead the typical Muslim life, however, harbour more genteel feelings at the outcome. Given their education, professional work, cosmopolitan lifestyles, they are perhaps more accommodating of the judgement. As Irfan Khan, former media professional and member of Muslims for Secular Democracy in Mumbai, avers, "It's a political judgement but I believe a great burden has been lifted off our shoulders. This should be over now. Now, in fact, if the Hindutva brigade doesn't build a temple or demands Kashi and Mathura, they will get exposed as troublemakers." This section of Muslim opinion is not too keen that the Sunni Waqf Board approach the Supreme Court.
Meerut: Jalis-ud-din, a maulana at the Chhoti masjid in Maliyana, says, "This was a dispute between two brothers, a Hindu and a Muslim. Where did the third party come from? That is an aspect of the judgement I don't understand." (Photograph by Jitender Gupta)
Others too see the futility of approaching the apex court. Says Shabbeer Hosarwala, trade union leader and development officer, New India Assurance Company, "There's no point in appealing to the SC. So what if it's a one-sided judgement? At least, the land's been well distributed. It is sad to get angry or disappointed over this. The common Muslim on the street does not want to waste any more time; this sentiment is more amongst those in social service and trusts." Retired colonel Fasih Uddin Ahmed in Lucknow, in fact, calls the judgement "balanced".
Yet, irrespective of their angst, relief or acceptance, there's some trepidation that the judgement will open the proverbial Pandora's box. "That's our worry now," says school principal Sheikh in Mumbai. S.M. Malik adds: "We may want to move on as a community, but it depends on the establishment. Radical Hindu groups may make a list of 3,000 more title disputes. For us, the Babri Masjid is an index case of several issues; that's why we want a just decision. The same yardstick shouldn't be replicated elsewhere." In Benares, there is an edginess to the mandir-masjid debate. Shafi Ali says what happened of the Ayodhya site "will happen here too, it's a matter of time".
The mix of dismay and trepidation about the future is not limited to other disputed sites alone; it translates into implications of living in a predominantly Hindu society. As Mumbai-based writer and independent researcher Sameera Khan points out, "This judgement seems to legitimise the whole Hindu right wing's claim and justifies their violent movement. It's the way that movement has taken root in people's minds and hearts and the venom I have seen spewed particularly on Muslims. I am today marked as a 'Muslim' and that identity seems to overshadow all my other identities. It often influences where I can live, work, study etc. I, and many other young Muslims, find this more hurtful and offensive than the judgement".
By Smruti Koppikar with Debarshi Dasgupta, Sugata Srinivisaraju, Prarthana Gahilote, Madhavi Tata, John Mary, Saikat Datta, Snigdha Hasan, K.S. Shaini and Sharat Pradhan
| Also In This Story |
| Cover Story Even a week after, a clear plan of action is yet to emerge |
| muslims The Urdu papers were universally critical of the Ayodhya decision, but praising Muslim restraint |
| kashi & mathura In Kashi and Mathura, Muslims have a nervous eye on the future |
 opinion Undercover with the kar sevaks in Ayodhya, winter 1992 |
| Oct 09, 2010 02:38 PM 1 | "Outlook" is not able to digest the judgement given by the Lucknow High Court on ShreeRam Janmabhoomi suit. Since 01 Oct, it is constantly publishing interviews and articles against the judgement. In this specific article, it has interviewed few common muslims and their reactions against the verdict. Why has "Outlook" not interviewed few common Hindus and published their reactions? Why has "Outlook" not published any articles supporting the verdict? Why is "Outlook" involved in only one-side and biased reporting? |
| Oct 09, 2010 02:40 PM 2 | The individual reactions about the judgment may have different shades; depend upon the personality and past experience. But, the main reason of appreciation (for those who appreciated)is the practicality and accommodative provisions for Mandir and Masjid.There were apprehensions in the society throughout the country that the judgment would lead to violence and communal tensions like in 1992,it is evident in the curfew like situations in various cities from 2.30 P.M on judgment day .As there was not a single case of communal tension after the judgment and for general people it is due to 'balanced judgment' so it went into the credit of judgment rather than administrative measures. Now euphoria is finished and political parties and their outfits are ready for'realpolitik' and only future will tell how long the High Court Judgment contained the 'emotions and faith'. |
| Oct 09, 2010 03:26 PM 3 | A respectful word of advice to our Muslim friends and brothers - the judgment makes the best of a very tough situation. It makes place for both the great religions of India to be represented on a small, very contentious piece of land. Let life move forward. No one wants the pain of our past to poison our collective future. |
| Oct 09, 2010 04:28 PM 4 | Initially, I was disappointed with the judgment like majority Muslims. But if the judgement bridges gap between the communities, makes the majority happy and brings peace and prosperity to our country, we must accept it. Sometimes it is not "holding on" but "letting go" that makes life comfortable. Obviously, there is no denial among Muslims that Sunni Wafk Board by itself is a corrupt body. So let's stop them from going to the Supreme Court and bring peace to the nation. Jai Hind! |
| Oct 09, 2010 04:29 PM 5 | OUTLOOK needs to really soul search. The reactions in Muslims ( and I know many) has not been negative. Everyone wants peace. Why should not the media have a more pro-active role in promoting peace? |
| Oct 09, 2010 04:35 PM 6 | The way common Indians have accepted the verdict which is no win no loss for either side is unpalatable for leaders, media and so called intellectuals. The are leaving no stone unturn to incite indians. be muslims or hindus to resort to violence to oppose the judgment so that they can be conveniently employed as immediately after the babri demolition.They want to keep live the Babri demolition but ask to foget the desecration by invaders, who per chance were the muslims. |
| Oct 09, 2010 04:43 PM 7 | Though every one is not satisfied (including me. I say when land belongs to hindus then why should i be divided), every one should accept the decision and follow the same. If OUTLOOK is saying it is seeing anger amongst muslims then OUTLOOK should try to convince them to accept them the same. Or else OUTLOOK should try to go to mecca and try to do 'namaskar' in indian style and see what happens. Those who aare not happy with this decision should leave india and go to the country designated for them i.e. Pakistan. |
| Oct 09, 2010 04:50 PM 8 | I say enough is enough.Both Hindu Muslim accept the judgement of Allahabad high court.Are both religion want to keep India preeminently unrest?Kill each other.Both do not want of progress India? New generation again clash with each other? |
| Oct 09, 2010 04:50 PM 9 | What is meant by "justice". Uphold the desecration of a temple by an invader simply because he was muslim and condemn the demolition of abondoned masjid by a a large crowd, which believed that structures was raised over a temple.Give the legitimacy to act of invader and please the followers of invader's faith. |
| Oct 09, 2010 05:08 PM 10 | That's it, we need to change our form of secularism. I would prefer an American/French model. And put those thugs responsible for Babri's demolition behind bars, you just don't reward those who break the law. |
| Oct 09, 2010 05:39 PM 11 | Outlook almost seems to be dissapointed that the "representatives" of the muslim community did not indulge in rioting and arson. Nobody commended the shiv sena, ram sena or other such hooligans for not rioting after 26/11? if hooligans realise that rioting will get them bullets, its a sign of progress. |
| Oct 09, 2010 06:16 PM 12 | feel sorry for muslims but its matter of home truths for them. instead of denying the obvious ( read :mass destructions of temples and forcible conversions to islam) they should accept the highcourt judgement with grace . |
| Oct 09, 2010 06:47 PM 13 | Either OUTLOOK has painted the Muslim community the way it has or else they really do live under perpetual sense of angst, victimhood, being under siege and being boxed in from all sides. The community as a whole is sulking, angry, disappointed, dismayed,disgusted, disillusioned, dejected and demoralised. The seculars, the left-historians, left-liberals and the pseudo intellectuals have worked ceaselessly and admirably to push them into a state of permanent antagonism with the majority community, who they have begun to perceive as the victors who have walked away with the trophy of Ayodhya. |
| Oct 09, 2010 07:18 PM 14 | OUTLOOK has no qualms about bracketing all Muslims of India together, when these Muslims from different states share nothing except a religion-ISLAM. The Muslims of Kerala UP, Bihar, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat etc etc are as diverse as HINDUS of these states in every way- linguistically, culturally, historically, food habit ways, dressing habits etc etc but OUTLOOK has "identified Muslims" with "identical ISLAMIC VIEW" to project a "united Islamic opinion" from all over India on AYODHYA. Is there anything common between a "DHOTI clad, rice eating, Malayalam speaking Kerala Muslim and "Pyjams wearing, roti eating, Urdu speaking UP Muslims except ISLAM???? If some article were to "project a UNIFORM opinion of HINDUS from all over India on AYODHYA", it would be promptly branded SANGHI PROPAGANDA. That is "secularism" India "EESHTILE". |
| Oct 09, 2010 07:22 PM 15 | Why this sense of betrayal? The site has been in dispute since before the constituion of India came into effect. It does not belong to the Sunni Waqf Board! Its not as if they had the title and it has been taken away. Both Hindus and Muslims are claimants to the title to the site. 2 factors: 1. Archeological evidence proves that there was indeed a temple structure pre dating the mosque 2. Recordings by various historians and travellers is categorical that both Hindus and Muslims prayed at the site. So given that historically both Hindus and Muslims worshipped at the site, it is only right that the site is divided between the two. Its not about correcting historical wrongs. It is about respecting the right of a community to worship at a site which was being denied in free India, but was respected even in British India and even before that! |
| Oct 09, 2010 07:23 PM 16 | I feel there is a growing trend in outlook magazines these days, and maybe Mr.Mehta is on a vacation with his dog 'Editor'(Mr.Mehta's dogs name is editor just for everyones info). Trend 1 is that outlook has become more leftist in its opinion especially its staff writers, the young bloods on journalism want to see everything with a leftist angle. Sensationalism seems to be the name of the game, its sad seeing magazines like outlook take this approach. While outlook may argue like in this article that Muslims are hurt, it has failed to show even one muslim who agrees or one non muslim historian who feels other wise, this is the low level of yellow journalism that outlook has undertaken in the last few months. So guys to fight competition be constructive and recruit from places other JNU in Delhi. |
| Oct 09, 2010 08:31 PM 17 | It's a tribute to the dignity, sense of honour, peaceable intentions & above all sense of belonging to the country of Indian muslims that they are silently hoping against hope that Indain judiciary in the form of the Supreme Court will render them justice despite the hurt of Allhabad judgment which goes into everything like dubious history, mythology , faith , religious sentiment of the majority; what the judges failed to consider is title as per Indian law. The muslim's of India are proving to be wiser than these three judges. This, despite the provocative breast- beating of fundamentalist Hindutva outfits. |
| Oct 09, 2010 08:36 PM 18 | >>>"If judgements are based on faith," says Mohammed Omer in Lad Bazaar, "then Charminar is mine, Mecca Masjid is mine, so is the Andhra Pradesh High Court." Let me add some more. Then everything belongs to the oldest faith. Extending Mohammed Omer's logic, A Hindu brother might say, "Pakistan is mine, Afghanistan is mine, Bangladesh is mine." A Jew might say, what is Medina, it is Yathtrib and it is mine. |
| Oct 09, 2010 08:41 PM 19 | "Print & Visual Media is extremely disappointed by the verdict because it was like watching Rajnikant playing Sitar in 'ROBOT' whereas they had expected him to be firing 10 Guns each simultaneously from both hands." |
| Oct 09, 2010 09:31 PM 20 | Outlook should publish a disclaimer that it is a neo communal magazine bent on disturbing communal harmony and will go to any biased lengths to do that. |
| Oct 09, 2010 10:42 PM 21 | Cool down, Muslims. You community has kept every other under its heel ruthlessly wherever and whenever you have ruled. It is not for you to whine if a disused mosque is lost. Hindus have lost INFINITELY more. Muslims should learn that India is a Hindu country. Period. Muslims have around 60 countries of their own where Islam is utterly supreme. Hindus only have India. If they create trouble over this, they will suffer the most. |
| Oct 09, 2010 10:49 PM 22 | The artickle notes: "Shakil Ahmed, young journalist-activist in Mumbai, puts it succinctly: "This is typical 'jiski lathi uski bhains'. If Muslims haven't protested or come out on the streets, it's because they remember '92-93 only too well; they only get the bullets." " Underline and study this until you have it by heart, Muslims. You don't want that to happen. |
| Oct 09, 2010 11:16 PM 23 | "Hyderabad's MIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi says the "prevailing peace is not to be confused with the sense of unease" that exists in the community. "How can we move on," he asks, "Muslims have been reduced to second-class citizens"." This chap is getting more and more dangerous day-by-day in his statements. I think its time for the Hindutva leadership to fire a few warning shots in return - just to remind the muslim youth what could happen if they get carried away by Owaisi's pronouncement of victimhood and embark on something stupid. |
| Oct 09, 2010 11:18 PM 24 | Syed Osman Ghani ""If judgements are based on faith, then Charminar is mine, Mecca Masjid is mine, so is the Andhra Pradesh High Court." " Maamu, you forgot Taj Mahal, Jama Masjid, Lal Qila. Or maybe you have never gone out of Hyderabad to visit these places to even know that they exist. |
| Oct 09, 2010 11:22 PM 25 | "The notion of equal citizenship seems to have taken a blow. The twin themes of marginalisation and second-class citizenship are difficult to miss even among those who have apparently "accepted" the judgement." So was this judgement the game changer? The mossies believed that they were treated "fairly" and "equally" all these days and suddenly are feeling that they are 2nd class citizens. Welcome to the brotherhood dudes. The only chaps laughing all the way are those who reinforced this feeling of "2nd class citizenship" - the seculars and secularists. |
| Oct 09, 2010 11:49 PM 26 | MANISH BANERJEE, >> The muslim's of India are proving to be wiser than these three judges. This, despite the provocative breast- beating of fundamentalist Hindutva outfits. Correct. This is a good conclusion on the Indian judiciary. There is little protest against the verdict because the jokers at the Allahabad bench are being taken seriously. This is not 1992 and emotion is not running high because people of India have moved forward. Communal slogans don't bring votes anymore. But nothing has changed in judiciary. People are not reacting to this verdict because the RSS influence has diminished and this Hindutwa laden verdict is not enough to revive the communal frenzy. |
| Oct 10, 2010 12:01 AM 27 | "The common Muslim on the street does not want to waste any more time." True, since his lifestyle is driven by a work ethic that is so immovable that he does not even have time to pray 5 times a day. "Our dignity which was lost post the razing of the Babri Masjid has not been restored." As opposed to the dignity of India which after being ravaged by two sets of invaders (one of which imposed "jizya" on the majority of India's citizens for not following Islam) over 800 years was finally restored by slashing the country in two parts to fulfill the whims of a paranoid Muslim lawyer. "If in an Islamic nation like Pakistan a religious minority can be given its due, why is this not possible in India that calls itself the largest democracy of the world?" This one takes the cake!! Secularism does not mean allowing a certain community (~12%..?) to be true to its faith while compromising the integrity of our nation. Playing the victim is the easy way out to get voting favours or social benefits. Let's see our Muslim brethren put India first and Islam second! Can they do that? I'm quite sure the answer is a resounding NO! Has the Indian justice system tried to sneak in Hindu Nationalist agenda under the shroud of the law? Maybe. I believe there's a country next door where Islam dictates the law, and the pathetic result lies bare for everyone to see. We've tried that experiment before. It's time to stop compromising. |
| Oct 10, 2010 12:30 AM 28 | Despite of well meaning, I think secularists cannot escape for perpetuating the feeling of injustice. The Babri Masjid is not the only injustice. There more severe injustice out there which affect people lives directly. In that sense the Ayodhya case is insignificant and fit case to be ignored and the people are doing exactly that. But Outlook is dong opposite by extending lease to this controversy. |
| Oct 10, 2010 12:42 AM 29 | I think in the given circumstances this is the best possible judgement and both parties should accept it. Neither Hindus have lost nor Muslims have won. Jholawalas are the only looser in this judgement and there pain is understandable. This article is a reflection of the pain of Jholawalas not Muslims (Title of outlook should have been "Angry and Anxious Jholawals"). An atheist Jholawala SHOULD NOT even pretend that he/she understands mind of a believer (Muslims or Hindus), therefore it is advisable for Jholawalas not to get involved and let the peace prevail. For poor people peace is the most important gift of this judgement. Think for a moment, if the judgement would have gone totally in favor of Muslims, who would have been the political gainer? certainly right wing parties. Why otherwise Lalus and Mulayam are sensing a POLITICAL advantage by projecting Muslims as looser in the present judgement? I congratulate Muslims who have shown Mulayam his place. If you look at it objectively, the judgement has punctured both the political balloons so the common man is now free to resolve the dispute without any political interference. |
| Oct 10, 2010 01:27 AM 30 | Did you ever bother to take nationwide poll for what Hindus think and respect for the 3 sacred places: Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi ? If Muslims are hurt now, the Hindus have been carrying their hurt since last five centuries. Please refrain from coloring the verdict with negative attitude. The whole nation has accepted this with great alacrity and let the good sense remain their. The media seems to be more awestruck with the verdict and could not digest the sanity displayed by all in welcoming it. |
| Oct 10, 2010 01:28 AM 31 | The authors of this article are a bunch of hatemongering lowlives...that is the only thing clear from this article. It should be clear to all Indian Citizens that Indian religious fundamentalists of all shades do not get to claim that the Quran or Bhagwad Gita or any other religious book has higher standing than the constitution. Maybe that is the case in their minds, but that is not how it works in a consitutional democracy. The constitution prevails -- so work peacefully to solve this problem and do not get provoked by all the hatemongering in the Indian English Media. |
| Oct 10, 2010 01:29 AM 32 | " He narrates an analogy, much cited recently in the press, that's doing the rounds in several sections of the community: a Muslim body sought the restoration of the mosque in Shahidganj, Lahore, which had been demolished in the 18th century to build a gurudwara. The matter was resolved in a court, Sikhs were given their rights and the gurudwara still stands there. "If in an Islamic nation like Pakistan a religious minority can be given its due, why is this not possible in India that calls itself the largest democracy of the world?"" I am pleasantly surprised at the judgement awarded by a Pakistani court. Perhaps there is still hope for Pakistan! |
| Oct 10, 2010 01:41 AM 33 | >>pleasantly surprised at the judgement >>awarded by a Pakistani court The Masjid Shahid Ganj in Lahore case was decided by the Privy Council in 1940. That is the exact point made, in fact that there are many such undisputed places in India where Hindu groups have not demanded with any passion or intentsity the restoration of their religious shrines that were desecrated or vandalised by invading conqurers. But in the case of Ayodhya the land was special. There was greater attachment which is why despite the mosque being built in 1528, the Hindus refused to give up their claim and kept praying there and fighting for their right to pray. In one of the blogs, Vir Sanghvi had stated clearly that the problem could easily have been solved 20 years ago if it was not allowed to become larger than a localised land dispute. But the fake historians moved in with their lies and the court has done very well to expose some of them as evidenced by the links discussed in this forum yesterday. |
| Oct 10, 2010 01:55 AM 34 | Thanks to Hindu cowardice, Muslims have acquired a habit of demanding this, that and the other, ceaselessly, with the threat of violence always lurking. Even if they don't indulge in this vice, there are hordes of Hindu "secular" scribblers to run to them and poke them into action with anxious inquiries: "Don't you feel hurt? Don't you feel angry? Don't you feel upset? Don't you really not want to hit out? Tell us you do, PLEASE, PL-EA-SE, P-L-E-A-S-E !!!!!!!!!!!Othrwise if you are just peaceful WE will die......." |
| Oct 10, 2010 02:14 AM 35 | anwaar:"I am pleasantly surprised at the judgement awarded by a Pakistani court. Perhaps there is still hope for Pakistan!" Wishful thinking. That little drama done just to counter the ayodhya judgement in India (there is no other reason for the bigots in Pakistan to put up this show of "religious tolerance" now) does not make up for wiping out the minorities from being 8% of the population to the current less that 1% population of minority religions in Pakistan. So, no, there is no hope for Pakistan. Maybe when the Pakistani passport reincludes Ahmedis as muslims there will be hope for Pakistan, but not now. |
| Oct 10, 2010 02:32 AM 36 | >> "Maybe when the Pakistani passport reincludes Ahmedis as muslims there will be hope for Pakistan". I agree. |
| Oct 10, 2010 02:48 AM 37 | I think Ajit has talked about the verdict of Gurudwara. It was a british judgment, the same judgment was given in the case of babri masjid in 1885 by a british judge. This judgment by Allahabad court does exactly that. If the argument is taken forward as Mr Anwaar takes it, then we have a functional temple at the spot and the judge has maintained the status quo. It is just that the demolition happened 18 years ago and not 500 years ago. No demolition can be condoned be it in 1992 or 1528. Hindus have a greater stake in the disputed site because of two reasons. 1. The disputed site is a sacred site of hindus 2. They are the original aggrieved party. It was a muslim ruler who razed a hindu temple and built a masjid on top as a symbol of islamic triumphalism. The hindus have to find a different solution to this issue. A masjid should be built alongside the temple. Hindu temple at ayodhya should not become a symbol of triumphalism. The Ram temple at ayodhya is our desire to reclaim the religious site that was taken away forcefully from hindus and they have a right to reclaim it, but it is equally important to understand the angst and pain of muslims in this entire episode. It is important to recognize their faith in this place and honor that faith. I think a Temple at Ramjanamstan and a mosque nearby that recognizes the right of common muslim and his faith would go a long way in developing a good solution. In the case of Mathura and Kashi, I think an acceptance of the fact that hindu temple was razed to build a mosque will go a long way in reducing the angst of hindus. |
| Oct 10, 2010 02:51 AM 38 | >> "The Masjid Shahid Ganj in Lahore case was decided by the Privy Council in 1940." My pleasant surprise is undone! |
| Oct 10, 2010 04:13 AM 39 | If religion would have solved all the problems, muslim countries would be an heaven. It surprises me to see the Indians celebrating God under one or other pretext,and at the same time indulging in endless corruption. hypocrissy is at their maximum level. Regarding Ayodhya court decision, I think the judgment is the best inthe prevailing circumstances. But then Indian muslims should leave this all behind and proceed for education. They should force the government for better schools and colleges in muslim areas. Muslims,no matter what Anwaar says, is still a very backward lot,whether it is in India or in the west. For those muslims who feel hurt,remember that this is the first time a mosque has been demolished in the last thousand years of Indian history.But,muslims did far worse. "I say the Muslims do not have the slightest right to complain the desecration of one mosque. From 1000 AD every Hindu temple from Kathiawar to Bihar, from the Himalayas to Vindhyas has been sacked and defiled." NIRAD C CHAUDHURY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirad_C._Chaudhuri And what happened in pakistan,a favourite of a large number of indian muslims,including our Anwaar? In 1992 as India burned and bled after the senseless demolition of the Babri Mosque by extreme Hindu groups, mandirs in Pakistan went up in flames. http://www.dawn.com/...s-from-ayodhya-ss-05 And what happened in bangladesh? Tens of temples were demolished there. Thousands migrated to india. Bangladesh: The Demolition Of Ramana Kali Temple In March 1971 http://www.asiantrib...li-temple-march-1971 Very few muslims protested,those who did like taslima nasreen,had to leave the country. Muslims are so intolerant towards any form of criticism. No wonder, the non-muslims do not have a very favourable view about the muslims. http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=21715 by TARIQ ALI The issue that comes up time and time again is terrorism. I was astonished to see how deep this had gone in this country in an opinion poll recently. This said 51 percent of people questioned said when they heard the word "Muslim" the first thought that came into their mind was "terrorist". These polls are never reliable but not completely wrong either. |
| Oct 10, 2010 04:20 AM 40 | Dear Mr. Sanjay, I highly appreicate your views about unity and positive reporting. However, don't you think any unity stands on basic laws. Very basics. This verdict has created enoromous problems for the unity of India. The people like you should stand up at this time. Think for a second, some individuals go out and demolish the structure, and the protestors got bullets and masaccre. Now the individuals who have done both demolition and masaccre are free and also got the judgement in their favour. How on earth my friend, our beautiful country can be united? You tell me. Are you going to tell millions of minorities to keep their mouth shut and move on. Then why the majority is not moving on if really Babur had built the structure upon the temple? Why the minorities did not move on when few kar sevaks got killed in the train of Godra - even though the commission had totally rejected that Muslims are behind the Godra. So, they got killed in thousands for free, and yet no official is arrested starting from Modi. Do you really think it is fair? Do you think we will be united! Tell me. |
| Oct 10, 2010 05:40 AM 41 | I think the sense of propriety somehow looses when it comes to being accountable to atrocities done by muslim majority. Muslims today talk about the injustice of babri masjid and about the pain and hurt of babri masjid. Think about the pain and hurt of a hindu and his humiliation of being deprived of a home for his lord Ram. Think about his angst and shame of Lord Ram sitting in a make shift temple without any permanent structure to honor his place of birth, because a barbarian came with his sword and destroyed his home and took away that was rightfully his. Hindu groups tried to reason their position with muslim intellectuals, but to no avail. Muslim intellectuals want to feel victimized all the time, but dont want to even acknowledge the atrocities done in the name of islam. You know what, people all over the world are no longer interested in giving a free pass. The atrocities committed by muslim rulers of the past have to become accountable. There is no way that people around the world can stay quiet. I have complete sympathy with a normal muslim today. The deeds of medieval muslim rulers are coming back to bite present day muslims. It is not fair, but nothing can be done. Those muslim rulers should have been cognizant of the fact that ruling by terror and sword is someday going to bite muslims in the back. It has come back to bite muslims and there is little sympathy on this tragic situation among hindus. The fact is that we can now provide a better solution and acknowledge that any fight based on religion is not right and that muslims should not feel humiliated and deprived (largely, as some will always do) of a respectful living in India, as most hindus used to feel during the early mughal period, Delhi Sultanate and Aurengzeb period. The only bright shining example of a benevolent muslim ruler is Akbar the Great. I have no hesitation in proclaiming the greatness of Akbar. It is Akbar who allowed the establishment of Ram Chabutra in Ayodhya. It is Akbar who strengthened the hindu believe and respected their belief that Aurengzeb brutally tried to suppress later without success. But apart from Akbar, major muslim rulers of North India destroyed all centers of knowledge, culture and religion in India and established islamic symbols of victory in the form of Qutab Minar and mosques. Islamic invaders sacked Nalanda after their arrival, imposed religious taxes such a Jaziya and destroyed hindu centers of learning. All this history will trouble communal harmony in India for centuries to come. Hindus will feel riled up about this history and about the destruction of major centers of learning by islamic invaders. Their is no getting away from this history. |
| Oct 10, 2010 05:59 AM 42 | >> OUTLOOK has no qualms about bracketing all Muslims of India together ... >> If some article were to "project a UNIFORM opinion of HINDUS from all over India on AYODHYA", it would be promptly branded SANGHI PROPAGANDA ... It depends on what specifically one is projecting/bracketing about whole community. Common/legitimate beliefs such as normal beliefs in a mosques or temples etc can be generalized in normal language usage. But to say that all hindus support a criminal demolition of Mosque is propaganda - it is actually a presumption of guilt and the legal/spiritual crime is unfairly attributed to all hindus. |
| Oct 10, 2010 06:05 AM 43 | Drolia, >> I think the sense of propriety somehow looses when it comes to being accountable to atrocities done by muslim majority. That was not brought up in the Allahbad High Court. Perhaps you should ask the lawyers of Hindu parties to bring it up in the Supreme Court. |
| Oct 10, 2010 06:07 AM 44 | >> So given that historically both Hindus and Muslims worshipped at the site, it is only right that the site is divided between the two. Munusamy in this forum made an interesting point that instead of partitioning, why cant it be taken back to the same way both hindus/muslims used to worship in the past? Something a common/interfaith place etc is a more spiritual/worthy tribute to the name of Ram than destroying of Mosque and fighting a acrimonious battle. The acrimonious battle of the RSS/VHP etc is anti-spiritual and strikes at the heart of what Hinduism always claimed to be. |
| Oct 10, 2010 06:26 AM 45 | >> Secularism does not mean allowing a certain community (~12%..?) to be true to its faith while compromising the integrity of our nation. There is a law and justice system to follow, whether 'majority' or 'minority'. You can't go and demolish a mosque as you believe that it is a birth spot of a particular deity you believe in. |
| Oct 10, 2010 06:38 AM 46 | >> For those muslims who feel hurt,remember that this is the first time a mosque has been demolished in the last thousand years of Indian history.But,muslims did far worse Even assuming that is the case, by that logic, there should be no case if dalit/lowcastes etc do any violation to higher castes? or if Buddhists vandalize a temple? That is not how it goes. We have to go by the law/justice system we adopted in our law/constitution. |
| Oct 10, 2010 06:48 AM 47 | Mosques are just prayer halls (according to the Prophet PBUH himself) but Hindu temples are places of worship.Yes there were many demolitions of temples and their replacement with mosques. Not all sites are in contention but only a few due to their extreme importance in the Hindu religion. |
| Oct 10, 2010 07:14 AM 48 | Mr Anwaar >>That was not brought up in the Allahbad High Court. Perhaps you should ask the lawyers of Hindu parties to bring it up in the Supreme Court. Will muslims accept it if the Supreme Court actually gives a verdict. When muslims are not ready to accept that Ram Mandir was destroyed to build the Babri Masjid then what hope can we have that any supreme court verdict will be accepted. If muslims wish, they can start with accepting what Allahabad High Court has said about the Ramjanamstan. Mr Kumar, >>Even assuming that is the case, by that logic, there should be no case if dalit/lowcastes etc do any violation to higher castes? or if Buddhists vandalize a temple? That is not how it goes. We have to go by the law/justice system we adopted in our law/constitution.>> You are comparing apples to oranges here. Do upper caste hindus deny that there was discrimination and atrocities against dalits and that continues even in this day and age. Hindus and upper caste dont deny this and fall in the trap of victimhood when confronted with history. Every upper caste hindu acknowledges the truth, indeed he is shameful about that history and wants to remove this now. In india we have a consensus about making sure that such discrimination does not exist. As far as this Buddhist thing. It is basically grasping at straws when nothing else exists. It is a figment of imagination that hindu rulers destroyed buddhist stupas. Mostly buddhism in India was finished not by violence, but by theological debates and reversion back to the ritualistic ways of hinduism from the purposeless buddhism. People after the advent of Adisankaracharya slowly moved away from harsh interpretation of buddhism and came back to idol worshiping and ritualistic ways of worship. Indeed hinduism adopted a lot from Buddhism. The pattern of vegetarianism has become more prominent due to the effect of buddhism. Dont throw strawman over here. The vandalism and extreme intolerance exhibited by islamic invaders cannot be compared with the natural change of history from 7th century AD till buddhism became a marginal religion in india NATURALLY. |
| Oct 10, 2010 07:16 AM 49 | >> Mosques are just prayer halls (according to the Prophet PBUH himself) but Hindu temples are places of worship ... Not all sites are in contention but only a few due to their extreme importance in the Hindu religion. Each religion has its doctrines/theology/beliefs etc. The prospect of demolishing/removing a mosque and replacing with idols is of extreme importance as per the tenets of Islamic religion as well. |
| Oct 10, 2010 07:32 AM 50 | >> Will muslims accept it if the Supreme Court actually gives a verdict. Almost every one who is claiming to be talking on behalf of "muslims" is saying that they will. They are saying that they will, even if they disagree. >> Do upper caste hindus deny that there was discrimination and atrocities against dalits ... That is not the question/issue. What I said is that the dalits/lowcastes should not seek to do to higher castes they have done - not such an action by dalits/lowcastes, if any, cannot be justified (or that of any violence/vandalism by Buddhists as some historians claim has happened to Buddhists and their places of worship - if you believe that no such thing happened, that is a different topic – here it is used as an example). This is in response to the suggestion that since some "muslim kings" are supposed to have demolished temples, the Babri masjid demolition by hindutva mobs is no big deal. |
| Oct 10, 2010 07:36 AM 51 | >> I have complete sympathy with a normal muslim today. The deeds of medieval muslim rulers are coming back to bite present day muslims. It is not fair, but nothing can be done. There is no such thing. That the supposed deeds of medieval muslim rulers should coming back to bite present day muslims, is just the wishful thinking of some hindu fanatics/extremists. Any average human being anywhere in the world is more civilized/just/lawful than that. |
| Oct 10, 2010 08:22 AM 52 | Drolia, >> When muslims are not ready to accept that Ram Mandir was destroyed to build the Babri Masjid. If the ASI digs under all the mandirs in India, how many Buddhist ruins will be found? The Babri mosque was there for 400 years. It was illegally demolished. The question of legal title is complex and remains unsettled. The Hindu belief that it is Ram Janmabhumi is strong and sincere, and I think it should be respected in an out-of-court settlement. But the kinds of specious arguments you come up with do not deserve any respect. |
| Oct 10, 2010 08:41 AM 53 | >> not such an action by dalits/lowcastes, if any, cannot be justified What BS. Slimeballs like you routinely justify offsprings of third generation IAS officers snatching benefits from their smarter, but less fortunate upper caste friends. Here's a prediction. You shall justify this too, if you care to respond. |
| Oct 10, 2010 08:44 AM 54 | >> If the ASI digs under all the mandirs in India, how many Buddhist ruins will be found? Who knows? And since we don't, why is this being discussed? This case is about a temple that was destroyed and a mosque constructed over it. This has been proven by ASI report, and accepted by courts. Talk about Buddhist ruins is stupid, particularly coming from habitual liars like you. |
| Oct 10, 2010 08:51 AM 55 | >> or that of any violence/vandalism by Buddhists as some historians claim has happened to Buddhists and their places of worship You mean the historian who have been shown to have lied about these claims? |
| Oct 10, 2010 08:53 AM 56 | >> Munusamy in this forum made an interesting point that instead of partitioning, why cant it be taken back to the same way both hindus/muslims used to worship in the past? Wonderful idea. Let's do that at the site of the Delhi Jama Masjid. |
| Oct 10, 2010 10:08 AM 57 | Outlook is trying to forment communal trouble between the Hindus and the Muslims when none exists. Time to ban Outlook. |
| Oct 10, 2010 10:15 AM 58 | "He narrates an analogy, much cited recently in the press, that's doing the rounds in several sections of the community: a Muslim body sought the restoration of the mosque in Shahidganj, Lahore, which had been demolished in the 18th century to build a gurudwara. The matter was resolved in a court, Sikhs were given their rights and the gurudwara still stands there." I doubt if a similar judgement would have been passed if a Hindu temple had been involved. Pakistan is anti-Hindu and it has tried its best to create a wedge between the Sikhs and the Hindus. I see this judgement as part of that effort. |
| Oct 10, 2010 10:39 AM 59 | "He narrates an analogy, much cited recently in the press, that's doing the rounds in several sections of the community: a Muslim body sought the restoration of the mosque in Shahidganj, Lahore, which had been demolished in the 18th century to build a gurudwara. The matter was resolved in a court, Sikhs were given their rights and the gurudwara still stands there." Very nice to know that sections of Indian Muslims see Pukistan as a model to be followed for treatment of minorities. They must surely be supporting Kashmiri Jihadis too, for driving out the Hindus from the valley. |
| Oct 10, 2010 10:40 AM 60 | >> Hyderabad's MIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi says the "prevailing peace is not to be confused with the sense of unease" that exists in the community. Surely the MIM can be counted on to keep the protests peaceful. Like they did when they attacked Taslima, right? |
| Oct 10, 2010 10:42 AM 61 | Outlook - Naxal sympathiser, communal violence supporter, anti - Indian (explains why China is better and stronger and even right at times, etc) It is indeed time to ban Outlook! Disgusting thing posing as an Indian magazine |
| Oct 10, 2010 11:37 AM 62 | Even from article it is clear that most of the muslims dont want to approach supreme court. Outlook has so edited and added head line so as to appear opposite. Just to sell your magazine inciting hatred is not good Outlook |
| Oct 10, 2010 12:20 PM 63 | The Indian judicial system is not just corrupt, anti-male and inefficient as many see it. Many see it as nothing more than a larger version of a local 'panchayat' with no rules to go by. It has now proven to be COMMUNAL as well. WAKE UP, MALES! SPEAK UP! |
| Oct 10, 2010 12:30 PM 64 | Whatever post #23) "This chap is getting more and more dangerous day-by-day in his statements". Assaduddin Owaisi, a former razakar, is only trying to lose the 'former' tag. |
| Oct 10, 2010 12:54 PM 65 | Manish Banerjee/Rajesh (phoenix), your angst at the turn the events have taken in the last few days is understandable. The fact is that seculars (this term, unless otherwise specified, includes seculars, pseudos, secular fundos, left liberals, left-historians, Jholawalas, Muslims including the Owaisi& Shahabuddin kind, atheists and rationalists who only love Islam and Christianity)everywhere are in shock, in denial, disoriented, disjointed, discouraged, disillusioned and disparaged. Their very belief system has been shaken to the foundation by three Judges who dared to give a verdict apparently favouring Hindus, which also recognised the Hindus' belief that Lord Rama is a worshipful, worshipped-since-time-immemorial as a God. All of you seculars have my sympathy. Let us hope a bunch of judges in the SC help you regain your lost secular manhood with a judgement favouring the Muslims and remove the existing Ram temple in Ayodhya. |
| Oct 10, 2010 01:13 PM 66 | Shenoy, >> three Judges who dared to give a verdict ... recognised the Hindus' belief that Lord Rama is a worshipful, worshipped-since-time-immemorial as a God. Why do you need recognition from the judges on Lord Rama's worshipfulness? They have no expertise on the matter. |
| Oct 10, 2010 02:24 PM 67 | When will Outlook do a cover story on the plight of Hindus in Kashmir and Pakistan from where they have been decimated and the remaining have to live under "Islamic Republic"? |
| Oct 10, 2010 02:43 PM 68 | It is a shame that Outlook did not do any research on the period of Islamic invasions. The Turk/Mughal invaders, driven by religious Islamic zeal, destroyed many Hindu temples and built mosques instead. Qutb-ud Din destroyed largest Hindu temple in Delhi and built Qutb Minar - a Victory tower- instead. Remind anyone of what is happening with ground zero mosque in New York? |
| Oct 10, 2010 04:08 PM 69 | Outlook was one time my favourite magazine. I even have a five year subscription. But now.... Unfortunately OUTLOOK now confuses debate with opposing everything. If I have to go to my bathroom to pee urgently, the staff of OUTLOOK is capable of building a huge story of why no why never, why it is wrong and even get Arundhati to do a tearful peace :) THis is somehow static pralysis. Never move forward. Just complain, shout and scream. That is why you guys are bound to oppose a solution to Ayodhaya. C'mon Mr Mehta... You and your staff are capable of much better things.... |
| Oct 10, 2010 04:30 PM 70 | kindly read http://www.telegraph...n/story_13037587.jsp hope there r rath yatras and the high courts order excavation in these disputed sites. |
| Oct 10, 2010 04:50 PM 71 | ""All of you seculars have my sympathy. Let us hope a bunch of judges in the SC help you regain your lost secular manhood with a judgement favouring the Muslims and remove the existing Ram temple in Ayodhya. bvshenoy Bangalore, India""""" No one can bury the Truth forever. That is impossible. |
| Oct 10, 2010 05:54 PM 72 | Muslims, including anwaar,claim thenselves of the follower of a peaceful religion, with hatred towards none. Forget what kashmiri muslims have done to their hindu neighbours. In bangladesh, muslims are doing this everyday. "Hindus in Bangladesh are so terror-stricken that ethnic cleansing is largely bloodless, brought about by various ways of intimidation, threat of force and non-homicidal assaults/torture. Fear psychosis is so deep among Hindus that some of them leave Bangladesh even before they themselves become victims of some sufferings, because such sufferings have been already inflicted upon their relatives and neighbors." http://www.mukto-mon...sing_Bangladesh2.htm |
| Oct 10, 2010 06:23 PM 73 | I cannot understand how the recorded, documented demolition of the mosque in 1992 and the probable but inconclusively proved demolition of a temple in the 16th century can be treated at par legally. It is not at all relevant judicially whether or not a temple was destroyed to build the mosque, for the simple reason that any act which may have taken place before the modern 'secular' Indian nation-state (and its Constitution) came into being, are not matters for this court to legislate upon because that act fell outside the purview of current laws (which were not yet in existence)laws according to which the court passes judgement. The demolition of the mosque in 1992, by contrast, takes place in independent India, violates independent India's laws and Constitution and is therefore relevant. |
| Oct 10, 2010 06:47 PM 74 | Many Muslims agree with the view that while Rama's birth place in Ayodhya is sacred for Hindus, but the Babri mosque was just another mosque, having no special feature attached to it. many seculars too concur with this view. But, according to OUTLOOK, the Muslims of Varanasi believe otherwise. " "Babri was not just a mosque. It was a symbol of the Muslims in India, 'says Ramzan Ali'" It is not important to Ramzan Ali or our secular OUTLOOK to explain why and how the Babri masjid was a 'symbol of muslims in India'. Amulya Ganguly, the most secular among all journalists, in one of his recent artciles says that Baber and Mir Baqi were a couple of psychos, but to Ramzan Ali they have become heroes of Islam. |
| Oct 10, 2010 07:15 PM 75 | A profoundly significant piece of judgement was given by Justice Sharma. And it is NOT based on any myth, belief or faith of Hindus, but God's own truth, as written down by the prophet in Koran, which is historic enough for the whole Muslim Ummah to follow it to the letter. Koran says, and Justice Sharma quotes, "A mosque cannot be built by destroying another place of worship. If built, it is illegal, it cannot be called a mosque". Why are our seculars silent on this historic truth? Why don't Muslims admit that the Babri masjid was an illegal harami construction from the day one? |
| Oct 10, 2010 07:52 PM 76 | >> >> such an action by dalits/lowcastes, if any, cannot be justified >> What BS. Slimeballs like you routinely justify offsprings of third generation IAS officers snatching benefits from their smarter, but less fortunate upper caste friends. There is a very thin creamy layer in dalits, if any. Many of the posts even reserved for dalits don't even get filled for lack of qualification (in an otherwise cut throat competition). Creamy layer is allowed in case of dalits due to such a desperate situation, so that there are at least a few dalits who are empowered, which will facilitate a further upliftment/empowerment. |
| Oct 10, 2010 07:56 PM 77 | >> >> Munusamy in this forum made an interesting point that instead of partitioning, why cant it be taken back to the same way both hindus/muslims used to worship in the past? >> Wonderful idea. Let's do that at the site of the Delhi Jama Masjid There is a context to this. If there is a scenario where the court gives a verdict that Delhi Jama Masjid area has to be partitioned and that is was a place where both hindus and muslims worshipped, then a suggestion to have both hindus/muslims worship together as it was, is a saner/wiser verdict. |
| Oct 10, 2010 07:59 PM 78 | >> Outlook is trying to forment communal trouble between the Hindus and the Muslims when none exists. If you already have such an inclination/desire towards Hindu-Muslim conflict (what else can explain your comment that you are sensing communal trouble when none exists), I don't think outlook can help change that. |
| Oct 10, 2010 08:05 PM 79 | >> three Judges who dared to give a verdict ... recognised the Hindus' belief that Lord Rama is a worshipful, worshipped-since-time-immemorial as a God. That you need such a "verdict" (which is not even what the judges actually said - looks like you are in some desperation!) only shows that your faith is weak in the first place. Did you ever hear any muslim say that court should endorse his/her belief in Quran/Allah etc? >> All of you seculars have my sympathy. Let us hope a bunch of judges in the SC help you regain your lost secular manhood with a judgement favouring the Muslims and remove the existing Ram temple in Ayodhya The SC should rectify the objectionable precedent and pronouncements on matters of faith/theology etc. |
| Oct 10, 2010 08:08 PM 80 | >> A profoundly significant piece of judgement was given by Justice Sharma. And it is NOT based on any myth, belief or faith of Hindus, but God's own truth, as written down by the prophet in Koran, which is historic enough for the whole Muslim Ummah to follow it to the letter. Koran says, and Justice Sharma quotes, "A mosque cannot be built by destroying another place of worship. If built, it is illegal, it cannot be called a mosque". If it is Shariah that Justice Sharma is talking about, he should consult Shariah experts on what kind of evidence, what extent of evidence, what level of certainty etc is required to come to such a conclusion. Either way, it is outside the scope of court to comment on it. |
| Oct 10, 2010 09:39 PM 81 | Kumar: "Did you ever hear any muslim say that court should endorse his/her belief in Quran/Allah etc? " That is because the holy place of their faith is not Ayodhya but Mecca. We would only be having that discussion if Hindus tore down a mosque at some point in the distant past (like Ayodhya)...given that your comment above is a lesson in abject stupidity. If you are going to draw analogies and ask the hindus to behave, at least draw the right ones. |
| Oct 10, 2010 10:48 PM 82 | Kumar:"There is a very thin creamy layer in dalits, if any. Many of the posts even reserved for dalits don't even get filled for lack of qualification (in an otherwise cut throat competition). Creamy layer is allowed in case of dalits due to such a desperate situation, so that there are at least a few dalits who are empowered, which will facilitate a further upliftment/empowerment." Good joke, Kumar. Can you also explain how "thin" the creamy layer is instead of just making some random "up-in-the-air" motherhood statement like you always do? |
| Oct 10, 2010 11:04 PM 83 | dear friends who r antireservationwallahs firstly reservation is representation and not some poor upliftment scheme/correction of historical wrongs. we have reservation in the name of state.imagine 1000 keralites becoming engrs/doctors in uttarkhand and very few localites getting seats though on merit of marks/exam keralites may get it. there is reservation based on jobs like exservicemen and kindly check how many sepoys children use it in comparison with generals/brigadiers children the fight for the creamy layer should come from within like the madiga protests/arundhatithiyar separate reservation in tamilnadu etc and upper castes crying for creamy layer is like wolf crying that the sheep is getting drenched in rain. our independence movement was basically a reservation movement fought by the upper castes who where no match for the british and fought against them |
| Oct 10, 2010 11:18 PM 84 | Munnu saamy:"firstly reservation is representation and not some poor upliftment scheme/correction of historical wrongs." Wow....that's totally new from this dope-sniffing casteist. Representation of/in what Munnu? The keralites / localites logic you just used is similar to what Thackeray uses - marathi manus and all that. And the wolf is entitled that the sheep are getting wet in the rain....makes it harder to eat wet sheep with all that drenched wool. And frankly, we don't give a damn. We were always and are always better-off - reservations or not. "our independence movement was basically a reservation movement fought by the upper castes who where no match for the british and fought against them" So essentially, Munnu, you are enjoying the freedom that ancestors fought for, eh? |
| Oct 10, 2010 11:27 PM 85 | Munusamy, There are many disabilities that Indian nationals suffer from. Gender, religion, urban/rural, caste, and income all play a part. To say that reservations should be based exclusively on caste is usually advocated by beneficiaries of current policies whose progenies clearly do not need such benefits. There are practical implementations of a comprehensive reservations policy taking into account all factors (Jawaharlal Nehru University). Reservations policy should gradually shift towards such proven best practices, and should have quantitative metrics introduced into them to verify their effectiveness and plan their withdrawal. Right now, we have a situation where no caste has been lifted out of backwardness in 60 odd years, and yet there is a clamor for indefite continuation of existing policies. Such an argument makes no sense, has no basis in reason or logic, and is driven entirely be sectarian interests which are inimical to the long term health and even viability of India as a nation. Before this argument becomes personal, I want to make it clear that a comprehensive reservations policy will have no benefit for me (I am upper class, upper caste, urban male). |
| Oct 10, 2010 11:38 PM 86 | The INdian state was not established to correct the historical wrongs of 11th century islamic invasions. It was established to further the best interests of all its residents in 1947. This implies a commitment to honor all titles that were deemed valid as of 1947. The court should have kept its brief to a question of title. I am not sure why the court thought "Hindus" were a party to this dispute? Are they talking about me? I incline to the Karunanidhi school of thought on this one ("Who is Ram and Which Engineering College did he go to?"). |
| Oct 10, 2010 11:50 PM 87 | The story about Shahidganj is mosque is just like the mail which was circulated to justify godhara carnage about karsevaks misbehaving with a bearded vendor and his daughter. First of all one has to differentiate between a normal temple/mosque and something of momentous importance like ayodhya or kashi. RSS has said from the beginning if kashi, mathura & ayodhya are returned to Hindus , they will take back claim from all other places in India. As for those people asking whether Ram was born below dome, can they trace their ancestors of more than four generation? Does any one ask if virgin Mary legend is true? or how the book was revealed to prophet? It is only in India that people can ask such questions and get away with them. |
| Oct 11, 2010 01:24 AM 88 | George, >> Muslims, including anwaar,claim thenselves of the follower of a peaceful religion.... Forget what kashmiri muslims have done to their hindu neighbours. Neither Islam nor Hinduism can be blamed for the egregious acts of Muslims and Hindus. |
| Oct 11, 2010 01:35 AM 89 | Shenoy, >> Koran says, and Justice Sharma quotes, "A mosque cannot be built by destroying another place of worship. If built, it is illegal, it cannot be called a mosque". It is not in the Quran. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that a mandir was destroyed in order to build the mosque. The mandir may have been destroyed and lying in ruins for centuries before the mosque was built. |
| Oct 11, 2010 02:08 AM 90 | The uneasy relationship between the Hindus and Muslims in India is mostly based on the historical experience of the country together with the cynical manipulation of the two communities by the political parties for electoral advantage.The Ayodhya verdict and its fallout are only marginal to this larger problem. |
| Oct 11, 2010 03:34 AM 91 | Ganapathy:"we have reservation in the name of state.imagine 1000 keralites becoming engrs/doctors in uttarkhand" people don't become engineers just because they have a piece of paper that claims so. Anyone who cannot build or fix things using their knowledge and skills to stake the claim to an engineer is just another warm body with a sticker saying "engineer". Idiots of your ilk confuse the concept of an "engineering degree" isn not just a "piece of paper to get you a good job and three hot meals a day", which is why you bring in the irrelevant point of "representation".. There is nothing says that there needs to be equal representation of all communities in engineers and doctors and other professions that are based on skills and brains, except for third rate losers who think that it is more important to bias and destroy the educational system in search of some non-existent "social justice", which remains firmly in the realm of electoral promises. It has been 60+ years since Independence and the socialists running the country have not even made a dent on social justice, and yet they insist that India is a "Socialist Republic" much like the former soviet union, which has moved away from socialism nowadays. |
| Oct 11, 2010 04:00 AM 92 | "Why do you need recognition from the judges on Lord Rama's worshipfulness? They have no expertise on the matter." - anwaar Are you idiot? Judges have no expertise in riot control mechanisms. So, they should not be involved in Gujarat riot case. Judges have no expertise in medical science. So, should they dump all cases on doctor's negligence? Judges take the opinion, affidavits or validations from known experts in any such area where they need so. In this case, it was the ASI. ASI submitted its findings and that became one of the basis for the judgement. Simple as that. |
| Oct 11, 2010 04:00 AM 93 | anwaar:"The mandir may have been destroyed and lying in ruins for centuries before the mosque was built." There is recorded history of Babur destroying a temple at that very location, so what you claim above is false. It was also reported that the believers of Rama stayed and prayed in the same location even after it was converted into a mosque. If supposedly secular people are going to ask hindus provide a rational basis for their faith, then they are going to have to open up christianity and Islam to similar standards. Anything less is barefaced hypocrisy, and there is no reason for hindus to play along. |
| Oct 11, 2010 04:28 AM 94 | The fake secular media is carrying on an incendiary campaign, based on gutter lies and thugisg propoganda, to provoke the Muslim comminity. |
| Oct 11, 2010 04:45 AM 95 | "The INdian state was not established to correct the historical wrongs of 11th century islamic invasions. It was established to further the best interests of all its residents in 1947. This implies a commitment to honor all titles that were deemed valid as of 1947. The court should have kept its brief to a question of title." Mr Vijay, the people living in the state of India did not come to existence after 1947. They have been living here since time immemorial so as much as the Indian Constitution is sacred for the people living in India, it does not bar the people of India from raising issues of faith that they deeply believe in and so any injustice that the people of india feel deeply about and have been striving to correct cannot be brushed aside by stating that the Indian Law cannot go back and fix a problem that it got as a legacy. The problems of legacy have to be sorted out even if it is outside the purview of present law. The ayodhya problem is a legacy problem and that is why it is a unique judicial problem that needs to be looked at as a special problem, but that will also set certain historical precedents for the future. Those precedents are that faith is non-negotiable. Hindus had a faith in that land that was usurped by muslim invaders forcefully, and hindus continued to fight for that land ever since and a modern secular India cannot brush aside this dispute by stating that what has happened has happened and nothing can be done about it. Hindus have a rightful claim over the sacred land of Ramjanamstan and it is the right precedent that the court has recognized hindu right over ramjanamstan |
| Oct 11, 2010 04:55 AM 96 | The argument that the seculars present has been thoroughly destroyed and now they are squealing about what the High Court has done. The legacy problem of Ayodhya needs to be resolved in a just manner that respects the hindu sentiment around the place and the tragedy for muslims. It is a question of faith for hindus and of justice for muslims and both the questions need to be answered. The sense of justice can be delivered by acknowledging the pain that muslims have gone through in the last 2 decades on the issue and about the illegality of the mosque demolition and the needs to compensate for the demolition. The hindu faith can be upheld by acknowledging the historical wrong done on hindus on this spot and their continued struggle to recapture their sacred place of worship and also by allowing them to build an appropriate temple that befits the faith of hindus for ayodhya and ramjanamstan. I think the High Court verdict has kept these factors in its mind and given a verdict accordingly and acknowledged the faith of hindus and the right of muslims over this land. A temple and a mosque if constructed as some distance from each other, but that acknowledges the history of the place will go a long way in bringing a closure on this issue and giving a vital lesson to the people of India that any act of vandalism or religious extremism directed against another religion is harmful and will come back to harm the community later. |
| Oct 11, 2010 04:55 AM 97 | This may be a good practical judgement but Hindu majority need not be satisfied as a huge doubt is cast upon judiciary favouring against minority Muslims.Instead,what Outlook has pointed out may be picked up to reach out. Better still,Muslims need to ponder why they are in such a situation.If the bigger question is why they r being 'marked',then let me tell another different story of Muslims in Assam state.Illegal Bangladeshi Muslims is continually pouring primarily through Indian/Assamese Muslims and from here to different parts of the country.Ppl are angry for many decades.But the bond of brotherhood between Muslims is stronger than the true anger of Assamese ppl against this.Unofficially,they constitute about 30-50% population of Assam state now.Poor,waiting for right census and Muslim govt In Assam.In NE,if the Muslims can stop helping infiltration from Bangladesh,things r cool.But can Muslims do that? |
| Oct 11, 2010 05:11 AM 98 | >> firstly reservation is representation And what makes caste based representation right? |
| Oct 11, 2010 05:17 AM 99 | >> If there is a scenario where the court gives a verdict that Delhi Jama Masjid area has to be partitioned and that is was a place where both hindus and muslims worshipped, then a suggestion to have both hindus/muslims worship together as it was, is a saner/wiser verdict. So, let's examine all 3000 cases the Hindus (or Hindutva advocates, to be PC) claim. While at it, let's also examine similar claims by Buddhists, Jains, or anyone else. In all such instances where the courts so decide, let's put faith centers based on the religions of the contending parties. |
| Oct 11, 2010 05:22 AM 100 | >> There is a very thin creamy layer in dalits, if any. Irrelevant to the point. It's like saying that out of 3000 cases, Hindus are demanding only one, so no one should grudge it. >> Many of the posts even reserved for dalits don't even get filled for lack of qualification See above. >> (in an otherwise cut throat competition). All the more reason that the privileged, lazy, rich Dalits should not get it, but the smarter ones, but less privileged ones should get it, irrespective of caste. >> Creamy layer is allowed in case of dalits due to such a desperate situation, so that there are at least a few dalits who are empowered, which will facilitate a further upliftment/empowerment. This is like saying that only Brahmins can take care of Brahmins, Baniyas of Baniyas, Muslims of Muslims, Yadavs of Yadavs, etc. With such views, you are amongst the elite of seculars. |
| Oct 11, 2010 07:25 AM 101 | Buddhu Babloo, >> Judges have no expertise in riot control mechanisms. So, they should not be involved in Gujarat riot case. They can learn about riot contrtol mechanisms. But how does a judge learn about Ram's worshipfulness? It is something that one believes or does not believe. And a judge's belief in Ram is neither more nor less authoritative than the belief of anyone else. But why am I wasting my time with an imbecile like you? |
| Oct 11, 2010 07:37 AM 102 | Peria, >> There is recorded history of Babur destroying a temple at that very location. None of the judges mentioned it in their judgements. >> If supposedly secular people are going to ask hindus provide a rational basis for their faith... I don't. I never try to show one religion to be better than another. Whether the mandir was destroyed by Babar or whether it was lying in ruins long before Babar built the mosque is not important to the basis of Hindu faith. |
| Oct 11, 2010 07:51 AM 103 | Drolia, >> The argument that the seculars present has been thoroughly destroyed. Not true. All that the court has tried to do is to bring about a comromise solution, and I applaud them for that. >> It is a question of faith for hindus and of justice for muslims and both the questions need to be answered. The sense of justice can be delivered by acknowledging the pain that muslims have gone through in the last 2 decades on the issue and about the illegality of the mosque demolition and the needs to compensate for the demolition. I agree with you. The sacredness of the place to Hindus must be acknowledged. The egregiousness and unlawfulness of demolishing a mosque too must be acknowledged. |
| Oct 11, 2010 08:03 AM 104 | And frankly, we don't give a damn. We were always and are always better-off - reservations or not. whatever dear friend so why this fuss against reservations.can i know what/whom u mean by we what is demands for nagaland/kukiland/telengana/bundelkhand etc.if there was no reservation we would have had malanadu madigaland,yadav pradesh and so on.why r the ladkahis angry against kahsmiris.kindly talk with any jammu hindu and he is not having affection towards kashmiri pandits who r living their like refugees but anger for cornering most of the jobs/seats. dear vijay i am also against caste only reservation and all for JNU type/affirmative action.the decision of the tamilnadu govt to grant additional marks for children of nongraduates was struck off by the courts(it benefitted students across the caste barriers though majority of the beneficiaries where from dalits/tribals and real obcs.again the decision of the tamilnadu govt to reserve seats for students in govt schools was struck off by the courts.the attempts by the govts to ward off creamy layer is struck off by the elite as they want to paint reservation as a useless failure while in reality its the best to have happened for the poor.i am all for reserving the entire seats in govt institutions for poor with separate reservation for dalits/obcs etc its a fact that dalits look after dalits,obcs after obcs.kindly see the state of yadavs before the arrival of the lalus,mulayams,vanniars before ramadosses,nadars before kamaraj,paswans before ram vilas and u will know the difference.the presence of a dalit member in the assessment board leads to all seats reserved for them getting filled while their absence makes most unfilled.kindly go and see the doctors,engrs,lawyers who r treating the dalits,building houses for them,arguing cases for them and most will be from among them. most of the unreserved occupations like masons/farm labourers,auto drivers,plumbers,electricians,car mechanics r from the dalits and obcs. |
| Oct 11, 2010 08:25 AM 105 | ANWAAR: "They can learn about riot contrtol mechanisms." >>They have not done so yet. Neither has CBI. So going by your stupid logic, they seem to be inordinate haste to nail a government that a pseudo-secs don't like. "But how does a judge learn about Ram's worshipfulness? It is something that one believes or does not believe." >>Exactly. Now, if you don't believe in Ram's worshipfulness, that does not entitle you to throw muck on those who believe. "And a judge's belief in Ram is neither more nor less authoritative than the belief of anyone else." >>The case had nothing to do with 'belief in Ram'. It was a title suit. The issue was whether a temple to build the mosque. "But why am I wasting my time with an imbecile like you?" >>Because we 'connect'!! Because we are the Siamese twins who got estranged at Kumbh ka Mela. But, don't worry brother, I will avenge the culprits who separated us and deprived you of the wisdom you could have (otherwise) gotten by being in my company. |
| Oct 11, 2010 09:04 AM 106 | Buddhu Babloo, >> if you don't believe in Ram's worshipfulness, that does not entitle you to throw muck on those who believe. If you think I was throwing muck, your head must be full of muck. >> The case had nothing to do with 'belief in Ram'. It was a title suit. That's what I have been saying. I have been raising questions for those who think it is about Ram. Are you a total dope? |
| Oct 11, 2010 10:49 AM 107 | munusamy ganapathy "dear friends who r antireservationwallahs firstly reservation is representation and not some poor upliftment scheme/correction of historical wrongs. " Can you show where in constitution this kind of representation is sanctioned. |
| Oct 11, 2010 10:59 AM 108 | Anwaar, "If supposedly secular people are going to ask hindus provide a rational basis for their faith... I don't. I never try to show one religion to be better than another". Actually, you do worse than that. You say there is only one religion, Islam and there is only one god, Allah. "There is recorded history of Babur destroying a temple at that very location. None of the judges mentioned it in their judgements". If that is the case how come the judges, all the judges mind you, accepted the ASI findings about there being a non-Muslim temple under the demolished, disputed structure? |
| Oct 11, 2010 11:29 AM 109 | The funny part of the whole rigmarole was the dismissal of the so called experts who gave thier deostion on heresay. All three judges found them to be shallow and ill informed... :) |
| Oct 11, 2010 11:53 AM 110 | Trust Outlook to muddy waters and create an atmosphere of hatred. It's trying to instigate muslims, just like that MIM baboon Owaisi. As for the seculars, mainstream non-sanghi columnists too have started to look through them, which is a good sign. This is what Santosh Desai has to say for the secus: "The truth is that the secular minded find it very difficult to acknowledge the legitimacy of any demand couched in terms of religion when it comes to the Hindu view but extremely easy to do so when it is framed through other faiths. Part of the reason for the same is the responsibility felt by the majority community to go out of its way to protect the interests of the minority and this is a noble instinct. "But it does lead to many instances where the arguments start bordering on the intellectually dishonest and where we can see double standards being blatantly employed. At a fundamental the idea of secularism has come to mean a deep anxiety about anything that smacks of majoritarianism rather than a focus on separating religion from actions of the state. As a result, the secularist often ends up defending that which is not secular in an attempt to provide balance and prevent the majority from overwhelming the less powerful minority. Take the case of the Kashmiri Pandits, for instance. Here is another minority group that has visibly been uprooted from their homeland, but the instinct to protect the minority seems strangely lukewarm in this case. For that matter, can we imagine a secular championship of the cause of the Hindu minority in Pakistan? Anyone doing so would be instantly labelled a right wing extremist. The inconsistencies are many; we rail at gender inequality issues but carefully skip those related to the Muslim community. The moral police too gets differential reactions; few defended the lecturer who could not teach in Bengal without a veil and Taslima Nasrin has found it difficult to find refuge even among the Communist-run government. Read the whole article here: http://blogs.timesof...other-reconciliation |
| Oct 11, 2010 12:14 PM 111 | And THIS has appeared the day before in TOI, a secular paper. How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause The role played by "independent experts" — historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim — has come in for criticism by one of the Allahabad High Court judges in the Ayodhya verdict. Most of these experts deposed twice. Before the ASI excavations, they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and, after the site had been dug up, they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa. To the court's astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, found themselves withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displaying an "ostrich-like attitude" to facts. He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were all connected — one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness! Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal deposed "whatever knowledge I gained with respect to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told" (other experts). She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute "after reading newspaper reports and on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department." Supriya Verma, another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation. She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar. "Normally, courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not, but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements..." the judge has noted. Justice Agarwal referred to signed statements issued by experts and noted that "instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tends to create more complications, conflict and controversy." How true!! full article: http://timesofindia....icleshow/6716643.cms |
| Oct 11, 2010 12:18 PM 112 | Link to the article (How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause) http://timesofindia....icleshow/6716643.cms |
| Oct 11, 2010 12:32 PM 113 | Shenoy, >> You say there is only one religion, Islam and there is only one god, Allah. You lie again! Show me where I said there is only one religion. And are you sure there are many Gods? An argument over "one God" or "many Gods" would be simply stupid. >> how come the judges, all the judges mind you, accepted the ASI findings about there being a non-Muslim temple under the demolished, disputed structure. That was not the subject of discussion. The subject was whether a mandir was destroyed in order to build a mosque, or whether the mandir had been destroyed earlier and the mosque was built on the ruins. |
| Oct 11, 2010 12:34 PM 114 | """The demolition of the mosque in 1992, by contrast, takes place in independent India, violates independent India's laws and Constitution and is therefore relevant. meera sagar delhi, India"""" Your post #73 , your opinion expressed therein is not correct. According to Indian Law , any demolition in India,if proved can be restored even by demolishing the present structure if required , and Govt. can issue the orders for demolition of Masjid or Temple or church and restoration of the earlier structure. It happened in history, A Masjid that was standing on the ruins of Somanath Temple was demolished by the orders of Vallabhai Patel as Union Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and the Masjid was reloacted to a place , one or two kilometers away from the temple. Many people in the forum were asking as to what could have happened if Babri Masjid was not demilished in 1992. It would have been demolished by court orders now ! That is law. Law of the land should prevail over every electoral politics. Tha sanctity attached to places of religion was assuming an importance above the law in India. But Chandrababu naidu was the first one I think. He odered once, police force in to the Masjid to rush in while hunting down criminals who ran in to Masjid. And police force went inside , taking along police dogs !! In Kashmir, P.V.Narsimha Rao, the Prime Minister, dealyed,wavered for a very long time just to order police to go inside Masjid. Even Indira Gandhi had delayed a decision to order Army to enter Golden Temple so long that a time had come for USA and Pakistan together to get ready to declare Punjab as a separate country !! Mrs.Gandhi sent in the army only in the last minute , when she learned the plan of Pakistan and its big brother USA . She ordered Army to vacate the temple of all of it's terrorists in just 12 hours time. Due Lt.Gen.Sundeji's faulty planning , nearly 500 soldiers died which was bigger casualty than Kargil war casualty !! The sanctity that has been attached to minority places of worship should go and rule of law should prevail. But this is what finally happens in any case. At least two more times police entered Amirthsar golden temple complex and one time even CRPF chased the criminals inside complex, during Rebeiro as DGP. Many people can not even imagine a Babri Masjid demolition by law ,by a court order, had it been standing now. The question is why not? If this is the judgement ,it has to be demolished by Municipality ,even if it was not demloshed earlier. |
| Oct 11, 2010 12:43 PM 115 | Here is a good summary of the secular or non-Hindutva argument: http://www.sacw.net/article1609.html |
| Oct 11, 2010 12:53 PM 116 | Rohini Hensman doing a review of Schindler's list ... [The Nazis exterminated not only Jews but also minorities such as gypsies. But the obsession with eliminating deviance goes much further. Communists were high on their list of those to be eliminated, as they are also on the RSS list.] What a cartoon this woman is - no mention of the genocidal traits inherent in Muslamaan societies or any other society - but she manages to pull in the RSS...LoL!! And our resident namak haraaam thinks that she represents a secular view?? |
| Oct 11, 2010 01:18 PM 117 | so much blood-sheding, so many families ruined, looting, arsoning, rapes because of one Ramjanmbhoomi movement. So shameful. never happened anywhere in the present day world. one pattern i have noticed here that some readers always dig past memories. Past is past. You cannot justify present days atrocities by citing past. By this yardstick there will be only anarchy and chaos everywhere. |
| Oct 11, 2010 01:36 PM 118 | >>Not true. All that the court has tried to do is to bring about a comromise solution, and I applaud them for that. >> Court has tried to bring a compromise but has thoroughly dismissed the claims made by eminent historians and archealogist that no temple was present below the babri masjid. I was refering to the truth brought out by the court with regards to the eminence of our eminent historians and archealogists. I will not even touch their informed opinion with a barge pole, let aside give any credence to what they say after such a sound trashing by the High Court of India |
| Oct 11, 2010 01:41 PM 119 | >> dismissed the claims made by eminent historians and archealogist that no temple was present below the babri masjid. That claim is not crucial in the title issue. |
| Oct 11, 2010 02:03 PM 120 | That claim is not crucial in the title issue. It is! |
| Oct 11, 2010 02:33 PM 121 | Mr.Anwar your post #115 I read the link. I can say that this ROHINI HENSMAN's opinion is that of "more smoke and no fire" type. You can not give opnions perticularly on such a sensitive issue simply based on emotions,like an extempore lecture by some public speaker. The court had taken 16 years to give a judgement. This judgement if accepted by parties have to be filed in the court to get a decree for the land. But beofre awarding a decree , the judge concerned would do a perusal of the actual suit filed for the purpose. The suit of Sunni Wakf Board was Dismissed. The suit of Nirmohan Akara was also dismissed !! So the only one who gets a decree would be Rama Lalla , by the person whoever represented him in the court. In effect only Ram lalla gets the land. The Judgment only makes it clear that there is a possibility of sharing the land, and if Ram lalla agrees, I think there would be a possibility for even Sunni Board to get a decree for 1/3 of land.( I am not sure about this). The judgment is not matter of faith but a matter of Hindu Law. Rohini's argument about suit's dismissal (Sunni Board's suit was dismissed ) as an injustice is simple non-sense,considering that Nirmohan Akara's suit was also dismissed and also most important aspect is that a suit can not dismissed that easily based on faith etc., It only shows her ignorance of law and ignorance of law is not an excuse. You can not express your personal idea of acceptance of a suit and superimpose it every everything else. Rohini also tried to go off the target subject of discussion and tried to portray that VHP as run by people like Adolf Hitler etc., The fallacy in such argument does not cut ice when you talk about a court judgement. And onther reaction could be that they (VHP) can also level serious arguments against Muslims ,SIMI,Kashmir issue, Indian Mujahedden and so on. This is nonsense because Muslims are not behaving like Jews in Germany before WW I. Against normal belief, Muslims in India are very much integreted to the main stream of India's life so much so that you can not imagine India without Musilms. So, these ignorant ,selfish, most superficial ,hypocractic ,psedo-secular's arguments only spoil the atmosphere further. A real harmony is based upon truth and honesty. A fake would fade away , it can not stand test of time. |
| Oct 11, 2010 03:07 PM 122 | >>That claim is not crucial in the title issue.>> I dont understand what u want to say. These eminent historian in 1989 boldly said that it is a political agenda of RSS-VHP-BJP to spread a canard about the destruction of a Ram Temple by Babar to incite communal violence in the nation and create division in the society. They summarily dismissed the faith of hindus as fanatism and fascism and boldly proclaimed that the babri masjid was built on virgin land without any proof. Indeed several historical evidences existed in 1989 to show the interest of hindus in this site as early as 1725 if not earlier and that Ram Chabotra existed at this site by 1855. Today all these lies perpetuated by the eminent historians and secular modernists stands exposed, further they in the process made muslims of the country vulnerable to attacks by the majority community leading to the demolition of the mosque. What I am trying to say is that if these secular modernists in their great wisdom would not have choosen to fight the hindu faith but instead created a more amicable situation and a better dialogue instead of stonewalling the hindu faith then a better result could have been achieved. There claim that Ram is a mythological figure, their questioning about the existence of Ram, their laughing of the belief of hindus did not help matters with the faithful. These worthies asked the hindu group to give birth certificate of lord Ram and said that Ram was born on Afghanistan and that their was not fight with Ravan across Lanka. This is the kind of venom that these worthies perpetuated during the dialogue process. I hope that atleast after the the eminence of these eminent historians has been exposed, the country will not fall in the same trap again. |
| Oct 11, 2010 03:55 PM 123 | Actually this whole dam issue should have not taken by Courts for a hearing in First place. No next generation country should take such issue is a very critical issue of a nation and will give such importance for such issue and lead whole citizens to give important on that issue. No clever people will think for taking revenge for history when only wars and invasion are prime factors for a country's / kingdom's growth and demolitions were part of wars in all around the world. In this manner, to dig into history or for balancing acts, shall we go ahead and demolish 'Taj Mahal', A great monument of India and One of the world wonders and search for any old temple, masjid, churche or any sikhs shrine, etc. and bring it to the court and wait for another 60 years to get the judgment?. How foolish will be this? In Same manner, shall we go ahead and demolish all monuments of India including great temples, masjids and churches and search for any old structure and claim for part of it. Shall we go ahead and demolish our Parliament and Red Fort and search for any archeological proof of any existing structure. ? |
| Oct 11, 2010 04:04 PM 124 | >>Link to the article (How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause) http://timesofindia....icleshow/6716643.cms Since the verdict, all kinds of lies and subterfuge were being employed by the Indian visual and print media. None of them covered now the commie experts were shamed by the HC. But to my pleasant surprise, Maha posted the above link on the 9th (the Elst thread) though I couldn't find the article in the print edition. However on the 10th I realized by surprise was short lived. The TOI was back to its shoddy journalism. The above article was included in the print Sunday edition on page 11 right at the bottom. Most of all it was cut short and didn't have any mention of archaeologist Shereen Ratnagar or Professor D. Mandal. The last line in the printed version was "Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal deposed "whatever knowledge I gained with respect to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told" (other experts)". It becomes clear once you read the feature article on page 6 (top article) of the same paper why half of the web article was edited out. The feature article by one Pronoti Datta talks about a book published by these two titled Ayodhya: Archaeology After Excavation which apparently 'tears through' the ASI report. The article says "Mandal and Ratnagar have criticised both the ASIs methods of working and the conclusions it has drawn. The authors have found fault blah blah….. http://lite.epaper.t...Ar00601&publabel=TOI The so called feature article would seem like a joke if TOI had printed the entire web version including the statement "Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the "introduction" to the book of another expert who deposed, Professor Mandal. She admitted she had no field experience." TOI believes in freedom of expression i.e. the freedom to express SELECTIVELY. |
| Oct 11, 2010 04:06 PM 125 | ASI report only claims that there was a existing non-islamic structure. No evidence of demolition of a existing structure. Based on this, Justice S.U. Khan, concluded that "no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque" and the "mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins for a very long time". Just for sake of argument, Even if we assume that there was a demolition of existing structure, That is the history and all such acts are very common and part of wars and invasions in all around the world. Even before Moghals & British arrival to india, Fights between 'Saivas' and 'Vaishnavas' demolished lot of temples of each other. The history teaches this. You can also witness this in the very first seen of Kamal Hasan's film 'Dasavatharam'. |
| Oct 11, 2010 04:13 PM 126 | "In this manner, to dig into history or for balancing acts, shall we go ahead and demolish 'Taj Mahal', A great monument of India and One of the world wonders and search for any old temple, masjid, churche or any sikhs shrine, etc. and bring it to the court and wait for another 60 years to get the judgment?. How foolish will be this? In Same manner, shall we go ahead and demolish all monuments of India including great temples, masjids and churches and search for any old structure and claim for part of it. Shall we go ahead and demolish our Parliament and Red Fort and search for any archeological proof of any existing structure" Can you compare Babri Masjid with Taj Mahal. Taj Mahal is not controversial. Maharaja Shah Jahan built it in the memory of Mumtaz mahal. It is and will always remain a symbol of love not of religious triumphalism. Babri masjid was a symbol of religious triumphalism. A symbol that showed that the victor could impose his will on the vanquished. Further, the sanctity of the land was way too important. It is not about correcting the wrongs of history, it is about reclaiming the land that we consider sacred and honoring the memory of lord ram. It is not about revenge or correcting the wrong of history it is about taking back what is rightfully your and honoring lord ram, the way he has been since time immemorial |
| Oct 11, 2010 04:19 PM 127 | >>You can also witness this in the very first seen of Kamal Hasan's film 'Dasavatharam' Finally the evidence of Hindus destroying their own temples. |
| Oct 11, 2010 05:19 PM 128 | (Even before Moghals & British arrival to india, Fights between 'Saivas' and 'Vaishnavas' demolished lot of temples of each other.) NEW REVELATIONS INDEED It seems fighing is inherent in human being. Prevously it was between the sects of the same religion. Now is it between different religions. (It is not about correcting the wrongs of history, it is about reclaiming the land that we consider sacred and honoring the memory of lord ram.) Good. Honouring the memory of lord Ram which are sacred. But I, as an indian citizen, wonder y so much politics and hate politics over the issue. It could have been resolved through court or mutual understanding. Y resorted to criminal acts??? |
| Oct 11, 2010 05:24 PM 129 | anwaar:"None of the judges mentioned it in their judgements. " Don't lie about verifiable facts like a stupid jihadi fool does, you are smarter than that. There are documents released that show with absolute certainty the existence of a non muslim structure under the Masjid. No amount of lying by vested interests on this score will help them -- the "Secular experts" have all proven to be barefaced liars without a shred of credibility or intellectual honesty. Veritable scum of the earth, these "secular intellectuals" from JNU. |
| Oct 11, 2010 06:43 PM 130 | It's interesting that we have so many "Sympathisers of Muslims " (Believe me , most muslims are happy with the verdict or couldn't care less) are talking about "Faith Over law" Remember the time when Supreme Court based a judgement completely on law and was overturned by faithful zealots in Parliament , lead by none other than new hope for youth of India's(Rahul Gandhi) youthful father, the youngest Prime Minister India had....Have people forgotten Shah Bano case? These are nothing but secular double standards, the same gang of historians and ultra secularists who even went to the extent of discrditing ASI are now out to get another institution of India |
| Oct 11, 2010 07:10 PM 131 | Isn't this a totally one-sided, slanderous and malicious story? Irrespective of the voluminous depositions and mountainous evidence you would simply like the LB-AHC to award the suit to the Muslims? And you want the lengthy 8000+ page judgment simply to be trashed because it does not fit into your concept of pseudo-secularism? According to you, 'everyone should respect the court judgment' and the 'country has moved on' only if the judgement is in favour of a Masjid and Muslims. It's a fantastic definition of 'secularism'! |
| Oct 11, 2010 07:47 PM 132 | if muslims felt at home in india and were part of the mainstream people like outlook, congress, mulayam will be out of business they will have no place in this society...it is in their interest that large part of the muslim community feel alinated and as 2nd class. These people thrive on unhappy muslims they will not let them be in peace! |
| Oct 11, 2010 07:54 PM 133 | Even if muslims accept the verdict, it seems the succus in Outlook and other media will make them insecure. That is the impression I got from reading this article. Totally irresponsible. |
| Oct 11, 2010 08:35 PM 134 | "That is the impression I got from reading this article. Totally irresponsible." The story script was already ready. They just needed few muslims to agree with the story and I do not think it is not that difficult to find. |
| Oct 11, 2010 08:36 PM 135 | "I do not think it is not that difficult to find." Sorry. I meant 'I do not think it is that difficult to find." |
| Oct 11, 2010 11:08 PM 136 | bowenpalle venuraja gopal rao, your post # 114: "According to Indian Law , any demolition in India,if proved can be restored even by demolishing the present structure if required , and Govt. can issue the orders for demolition of Masjid or Temple or church and restoration of the earlier structure." Even in this case, "IF proved" -- there is NO conclusive proof that a temple was demolished to build the mosque, nor has the ASI proved that, they have only said that the remains of a structure (which could have as well have been a palace as a temple) lay underneath. An ancient Indian temple could very well already have been in ruins by the 16th century. Buildings were often built over existing ruins which provided a firmer foundation. However, even if a temple was demolished in the 16th century, the idea that a mosque can be demolished by the Govt in the twentieth century is very problematic, because it clashes with another part of the Constitution which requires the Government to protect historical monuments. Finally, why was the structure demolished in 1992, relevant only as a mosque...even if you believe that "sanctity attached to minority places of worship should go" (and why should sanctity of majority places of worship remain?? they are no different!) even then, that building was a HISTORICAL MONUMENT, part of every Indian's history, and yes, every Hindu's history too (denial cannot undo that)and was worthy of protection in that capacity. |
| Oct 12, 2010 01:02 AM 137 | >> i am also against caste only reservation and all for JNU type/affirmative action. Dear Munusamy, I see that we do have some degree of agreement. You agree that caste only reservation is bad. We disagree on whether what we have right now is better than nothing. Instead of getting philosophical or emotional, please address the following questions: 1. What quantitative criterion is being used to measure the success of current policies? 2. Has a single caste been lifted out of "backwardness" by current policies? 3. What is the criterion for sunsetting this policy? 4. What impact does the moral hazard introduced by this policy (that of backward castes not working hard because the bar is lower for them) have on the advancement of these individuals? My answers are the following: #1 None. #2 Zero. #3 None. it will continue forever since in Tamil Nadu we have the rediculous situation of 86% of the population being classified as "backward". That is a huge electoral majority. #4 I have lived long enough to see the insidious impact of reservations on otherwise bright kids. Thanks Vijay |
| Oct 12, 2010 01:19 AM 138 | All the seculars keep talking about the demolition. What about the proof that a pre-existing temple existed and that islamic invaders brutally sacked it and built a religious structure as a symbol of triumphalism. Demolition as condemnable as it is is a part of sequence of events not an event in isolation. The event started in 1528 and the sequence has still not ended |
| Oct 12, 2010 01:57 AM 139 | >> the people living in the state of India did not come to existence after 1947 No nation state in the history of time was conceived by people who spontaneously come into existence. There were "people" everywhere there are nations now. India was constituted on the basis of its post 1947 constitution. If one of the ideals of the nation was to "protect the sentiments of Hindus", then I missed it in the constitution. Can you point out the relevant article please? >> it does not bar the people of India from raising issues of faith that they deeply believe in True. It is perfectly legal for RSS or VHP to represent a particular faith, but it is not organizations, but the state that we are talking about here. The constitution bars the state from using religion as a basis of its actions. >> striving to correct cannot be brushed aside by stating that the Indian Law cannot go back and fix a problem that it got as a legacy. It is a widely held faith in Tamil Nadu that Dravidians were pushed down from North India by invading Aryans. Do you think the state should "fix" this legacy problem? How about dividing North India into 3 parts and giving two parts for Tamilians to settle in? Seems fair to me based on my faith. >> Those precedents are that faith is non-negotiable See above comments. >> Hindus have a rightful claim over the sacred land of Ramjanamstan and it is the right precedent that the court has recognized hindu right over ramjanamstan See above. The court should use the same logic to first restore Ramjanamstan to "Hindus", then to "Buddhists", then to pre-Hindu Dravidians and finally to whoever preceded them in the prehistoric era. There are several amicable solutions possible to the dispute, the best being to build a national museum, preferrably to Gandhi. Ataturk did something similar and it worked out for them. Less than perfect solution would be to build both a temple and a mosque. However, the import point here is that the Wakf board, as title holders should accent to any such scheme. Anything less is merely an exploitation of the Wakf Board's political weakness. The law is supposed to protect against precisely such exploitation. |
| Oct 12, 2010 02:20 AM 140 | Bowenpalle, >> In effect only Ram lalla gets the land. You are the only one who interprets the verdict that way. The court ruled in a majority judgment 2:1, that there be a three-way division of the disputed land - one-third for the Sunni Waqf Board, one-third for the Nirmohi Akhara and one-third to the party for 'Ram Lalla'. >> psedo-secular's arguments only spoil the atmosphere further. She rails against Hindutvadi extremists, not against the larger Hindu community. |
| Oct 12, 2010 02:33 AM 141 | >> interest of hindus in this site as early as 1725 if not earlier and that Ram Chabotra existed at this site by 1855. Such evidence would carry weight in out-of-court negotiations, but a title suit in a court has its own rules. I think a negotiated settlement would be preferable. |
| Oct 12, 2010 02:40 AM 142 | >> How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause. The testimony of many "expert" witnesses on both sides was of poor quality, but the TOI correspondent was on a one-sided slander expedition. |
| Oct 12, 2010 02:44 AM 143 | Peria, >> There are documents released that show with absolute certainty the existence of a non muslim structure under the Masjid. The discussion was about whether there is historical evidence of Babar demolishing a temple in that locality around that time. You have completely changed the subject. |
| Oct 12, 2010 02:55 AM 144 | "The testimony of many "expert" witnesses on both sides was of poor quality, " Do you have proof of this or just commenting a useless comment like Kumar ? If you read what judge has noted the reason for this, ""Normally, courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not, but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements..." the judge has noted." |
| Oct 12, 2010 03:09 AM 145 | "The testimony of many "expert" witnesses on both sides was of poor quality, but the TOI correspondent was on a one-sided slander expedition." Correction: The testimony of many "expert" witnesses on both sides was of poor quality, but Justice Sudhir Agarwal was on a one-sided slander expedition. |
| Oct 12, 2010 03:17 AM 146 | >> The testimony of many "expert" witnesses on both sides was of poor quality, but the TOI correspondent was on a one-sided slander expedition. Could it be that only one side was whining about the judgement, the process followed, ASI report etc. In effect, they were publicly berating the courts and the judges. Do you want the judges to remain silent when their judgement is publicly berated by dim witted, conniving, lying hypocrites? |
| Oct 12, 2010 03:30 AM 147 | "The testimony of many "expert" witnesses on both sides was of poor quality, but Justice Sudhir Agarwal was on a one-sided slander expedition." Give us some examples of poor quality of witnesses on the other side. |
| Oct 12, 2010 04:47 AM 148 | >>If one of the ideals of the nation was to "protect the sentiments of Hindus", then I missed it in the constitution. Can you point out the relevant article please?>> Article 25 of the constitution go and read it. Your naivete is not even laughable. Every state has the responsibility of protecting religion and respecting the faith of the residents of that religion. Go and read Article 25 of Indian Constitution and then come back. >>The constitution bars the state from using religion as a basis of its action>> Oh the state that funds muslim religious education. Are you talking about that state. Liberals cannot profess secularism over here when they have themselves trampled it at the alter of electoral politics. The Indian state has discriminated based on religion and indeed in several indian state religion is the basis for reservation, discriminatory state funding and special funding to religious schools. So dont bring your crocodile tears here. >>> See above. The court should use the same logic to first restore Ramjanamstan to "Hindus", then to "Buddhists", then to pre-Hindu Dravidians and finally to whoever preceded them in the prehistoric era. >>> Ok go and put a case in the High Court and then we will look at the idea of your. Be ready to give all the proof that the Hindu side has given to show the veracity of its claim. Start finding the proof and goto the court of law. Dont fulminate on outlook. >>>There are several amicable solutions possible to the dispute, the best being to build a national museum, preferrably to Gandhi. Ataturk did something similar and it worked out for them. >>> I am sorry we can destroy Tanjavur temple and build your preferred monument their. If you like it lets start from there. There are several other temples in the South we can destroy them also and these preferred monuments of yours there, leave ramjanamstan for us. To pontificate from sitting in Tamil Nadu is easy. To understand the angst of a hindu who has bore the pain of seeing one of the most revered god without a home is something else. Mr Vijay it is better that you take your liberal rant somewhere else |
| Oct 12, 2010 04:59 AM 149 | Mr Anwaar just throws the towel very quickly and start lieing, seeing all his ideas falling apart. His following statement just shows that >>Such evidence would carry weight in out-of-court negotiations, but a title suit in a court has its own rules. I think a negotiated settlement would be preferable.>> Ya title suit. When nobody has any clear title suit then the only method available for the court to decide on title suit is possession. The court has rightly pronounced that nobody had a clear title to this land and their was no possession of outer courtyard of the land by muslims for last more than 150 years. In the inner courtyard, Sita ki Rasoi was their and idol worshipping was going on for a long time even before the 1949 incident. The court ruled that just the movement of Ram lalla from one point of the land to inside the center of the dome does not change the possession dramatically. Mr Anwaar, take the time and read the judgment. Read the basis for the judge to give the suit to Ram Lalla and of dismissing the suit against Sunni Wafk Board. Go and read that muslims were never in complete control of the land and the structure. Idol worship happened even before the 1949 incident, indeed until 1949 only friday prayers used to happen in the structure and after that it was locked out and in 1985 on the order of the court prayers inside the dome started happening regularly, that continues till now. Understand the history, archealogy and the pattern of use before talking about title suit. Sunni Wafq board had no clear title over this land. So based on possession it was equally divided. Go get some knowledge first |
| Oct 12, 2010 06:20 AM 150 | Abhishekh ***** Ya the subterfuge of secularists. First make a law dependent on faith that serves the purpose of muslims, but when the same law serves the purpose of hindus then start squealing. Sorry you cannot have your cake and eat it also. According to hindu laws, a deity is a juristic person and can file a lawsuit as an infant. This is law is based on faith and this is how Indian constitution is written. The secularists have been continously saying that any attempt to bring Uniform Civil Code is communal, well the same secular law is now helping the communal forces immensely and you cannot do anything about it. Bad luck. Ha Ha Ha ****** Lovely.. he..he.. I wonder if the 'secular buffoons' are really this dumb or they pretend to be that way. I think they pretend to be dumb when they claim "Oh, faith has won over law" fully knowing that "Faith" / "Belief" has been part of the Indian law forever. |
| Oct 12, 2010 06:28 AM 151 | Vijay, **** It is a widely held faith in Tamil Nadu that Dravidians were pushed down from North India by invading Aryans. ***** he..he.. Just like "Hindus" believe Rama was born at that particular place, "Dravidians" beleive they were pushed down by 'Aryans". "Hindu" beliefs are probably old dating back to hundreds of years. But you would be surprised to know that "Dravidian" beliefs are pretty recent. Christian missionary Robert Caldwell cooked up the story and introduced the word "Dravidian" or "Dravida" which funnily is a "vada mozhi" Sanskrit word to Tamil in 1856. It is true that this story about "Dravidians being pushed down by Aryans" is widely believed in Tamilnadu. Shows how much "brainwashing" can work. |
| Oct 12, 2010 08:13 AM 152 | Drolia, >> only method available for the court to decide on title suit is possession. Illegal occupation cannot be a deciding factor. The placement of idols in the mosque in 1949 was illegal, as was demolishing it in 1992. I am all for building a Ram Mandir there, but I want to see it done outside the courts, as a brotherly act between the two communities. To you triumphalism is more important. Let us leave it there. |
| Oct 12, 2010 08:22 AM 153 | he..he..selvan, >> The secularists have been continously saying that any attempt to bring Uniform Civil Code is communal... Muslims following the Muslim Personal Law (although I have problems with it) does not deprive Hindus of any of their rights. There is no Hindu vs. Muslims in the area of Personal law. The Ayodhya case on the other hand is between three litigants. Too hard for you? |
| Oct 12, 2010 09:13 AM 154 | Mr Anwaar, This is the hypocrisy of muslims. When laws based on faith have been implemented in India then law has to follow faith not the other way around. I guess you dont get this basic point. It is another matter that here two faiths are colliding, but the High Court by upholding the faith of hindus have not done anything against the law in India or against constitution. This judgment has clearly shown why muslim title suit was dismissed. The muslims could not prove a title over the land and based on pattern of possession the title suit was decided. Ask the Sunni Wakq board to show the title suit to this place. As far as illegal occupation. Hindus have been claiming that muslims have illegal occupation of the land since 1528 and they need possession of the land back. So in the situation of no clear title and join possession and in the light of hindu faith in that place, it is perfectly ok for a court of law to say that the court will preserve the faith of hindus by giving the janamsthan to hindus and divide the land into 3 contending parties to provide for the joint possession for the last 400 years. It is a simple and clear cut judgment that has again been misrepresented by the sickular media and muslims are again falling in the trap of these sickular people. Indian constitution upholds and allows laws to be framed based on faith, muslim personal law is one example. Hindu law allows a deity to be a juristic person and so it can rightfully claim its land that was illegally occupied after destruction of the temple and according to that hindu law the title suit was decided. It is a different matter that it is in direct conflict with the muslims in a different way, but the court is just upholding the hindu law. Simple As far as triumphalism is concerned. This situation is nothing but tragic whether hindus and muslims are fighting among each other for a piece of land for worship. If for a moment I think that ramjanamstan is not important, I think that this is a useless issue, not worthy of discussion in 21st century India. There are bigger and better issues to solve. But the reality is that hindu history will be wiped out by these "Eminent Historians". They will not only remove the belief of Ram among hindus, but make Ram a mythological figure and most importantly whitewash the religious persecution that hindus went through in the medieval period. It is way too important and this fight has to be fought. There is nothing triumphant about this situation. It is only tragic. I have never felt triumphant about this situation. I believe that muslims have been wronged in the modern times on this issue. The mosque should not have been demolished whatever the provocation and that a mosque should be built close to the temple. It is very important to provide justice to muslims in this entire situation. |
| Oct 12, 2010 10:50 AM 155 | One simple fact i would like to mention here is that in Ayodya itself it is non-issue since Ayodya is dotted with several ram mandirs. It is not about building ram mandir it is more about the dirty and bloody politics played upon it. No one is against ram mandir. "Demolition as condemnable as it is is a part of sequence of events not an event in isolation. The event started in 1528 and the sequence has still not ended" I am curious to know now that how many sequences are going to be repeated in this modern day world. |
| Oct 12, 2010 11:13 AM 156 | "The nation needs to know -- without ifs and buts -- whether the belief and faith of any section of the citizenry merits a place in our jurisprudence. This is all the more urgent because in the thousands of pages of the verdict there is, from all accounts, not even a passing mention of the vandalism witnessed in Ayodhya in December 1992. No reference to the death and destruction it left in its trail. No appeal to the perpetrators of that heinous act to express remorse. No call for atonement. And not a word of empathy for the victims of the violence." http://timesofindia....icleshow/6721635.cms |
| Oct 12, 2010 11:29 AM 157 | Droila, >> When laws based on faith have been implemented in India then law has to follow faith not the other way around. In land disputes or title disputes you can't have religion based laws. The dispute is between two parties. If each of them advances their religious belief to claim the same piece of land, we shall have chaos. India does have separate codes of personal law for Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Parsees etc. They do not create conflict with each other, and are all perfectly legal. A UCC too would be legal if adopted. |
| Oct 12, 2010 11:31 AM 158 | This is all the more urgent because in the thousands of pages of the verdict there is, from all accounts, not even a passing mention of the vandalism witnessed in Ayodhya in December 1992. No reference to the death and destruction it left in its trail. No appeal to the perpetrators of that heinous act to express remorse. No call for atonement. And not a word of empathy for the victims of the violence." Wah anwar now at last u came to the point. u know sometime you need to be straight forward not just goodie-goodie |
| Oct 12, 2010 11:34 AM 159 | Actually i am very much missing that party (with difference) in this whole episode. Ohh how much i am missing that great personality called Advaniji. sadly they are conspicuous by thier absence. |
| Oct 12, 2010 11:49 AM 160 | >> In land disputes or title disputes you can't have religion based laws. Actually, you can. In fact, you usually do. Inheritance laws for example, are community specific. So, any title disputes there shall invoke religion based laws. And things shall get even more complicated in case of inter-community marriages, and inheritance issues arising from such, or one or more offsprings converting to a different religion. So to claim that religion based laws are not applicable in title disputes is plainly wrong. |
| Oct 12, 2010 12:05 PM 161 | "A group of moderates has approached Dwarka Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati to mediate for a negotiated settlement of the issue. Swaroopanand is no stranger to the Ayodhya affairs as he held talks with moderate Muslim groups in the past. Another reason for his acceptability among the moderates is his distance from the Sangh Parivar. Muslim activists opposing an appeal to the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court decision have made it clear that they will negotiate only with those Hindu outfits which have no affiliations to the VHP or RSS." http://timesofindia....icleshow/6731769.cms |
| Oct 12, 2010 12:11 PM 162 | >>In land disputes or title disputes you can't have religion based laws.>> I guess you dont understand or u dont want to understand. In Hindu law which is for hindu deity, a deity is a juristic person. So in this particular case, even if a temple was vandalised and taken possession, the right of deity is eternal in that land. This is a Hindu Law. It directly relates to a title suit. You cannot segregate such laws as you wish. The law is perfectly applicable in this case. The deity is a juristic person and can claim compensation and title. It is as simple as that. As the evidence of an existing temple has been proved further the historical evidence along with the faith of hindus that ramjanamstan is the exact place where the Mosque was has proved the title of the juristic person Ram Lalla Virajman(The defendant in the suit, a juristic person as per hindu laws). The kind of religious laws implemented in India has made such as interpretation of law possible. I guess I dont have to bang my head any further in explaining the logic of the court behind the judgment. It is very logical and based on Indian law and Indian constitution. There is nothing extra constitutional about this issue or extending the limitations of law here |
| Oct 12, 2010 12:17 PM 163 | >>This is all the more urgent because in the thousands of pages of the verdict there is, from all accounts, not even a passing mention of the vandalism witnessed in Ayodhya in December 1992. No reference to the death and destruction it left in its trail. No appeal to the perpetrators of that heinous act to express remorse. No call for atonement. And not a word of empathy for the victims of the violence.">> This case was subjudice when the demolition happened. Why do you want to bring demolition of the mosque in this case, when nothing new is going to be proven. Demolition of the mosque is a known fact. The court would have not added any value to its judgment by mentioning it. Another criminal case is going on about the demolition. That case should be brought to close and culprits sentenced. I am sure the organizational link of RSS and BJP will come under scrutiny in these criminal cases. But as again the indian criminal court cannot ban these organizations. As these is no evidence to sustain a ban on these organizations |
| Oct 12, 2010 12:37 PM 164 | >> In Hindu law which is for hindu deity, a deity is a juristic person. But the dispute is between Hindus and Muslims. So should we apply Hindu law or Muslim law? It is okay to accept the deity as a juristic person. But the deity cannot testify. The testimony that this very spot is Ram Janmabhumi is based on religious belief. It has no legal validity, but it can be respected in a setting of negotiations outside the court. >> Why do you want to bring demolition of the mosque in this case. The article in TOI was written by Dileep Padgaonkar, not by me. This thread is becoming repetitive. Good night! |
| Oct 12, 2010 05:01 PM 165 | Kapil Sibal gave one important suggestion that "posession" would be the issue once the case goes to Supreme court. In a place of worship you can pray along with another thousand people and yet you can not and will not become the title owner of the land, in other words it would not be under legal posession of those who pray there. What Kapil Sibal says (in an interview to Hindu sometime back) that Supreme Court had to look in to 15th century circumstances or 11th century circumstances to know as to who would be a legal title owner or who had "possession" of the disputed site. This would be a compex issue he says. In the recent judgment Justice Khan made it clear that Sunni Wakf Board could not establish or prove that the Mosque was constructed by Emperor Babar. Defendants argued that it was not constructed by Babar and it was constructed by Mir Baqui. But Mir Baqi , in that case,must have a title in his name or there should be records that he had purchased the land. According to Indian Law you can not stop anyone from entering a place of worship if he comes there to worship or pray as the case may be. And just because you come there and go (to pray) ,even for centuries, it would not become yours. The possession would still be with the people who have a title to the land. The dispute of RamJanma Bhoomi is precisely for claiming a title,because no one including the one who represented Lord Ram Lalla (baby Ram )has a ttitle in his name. But as far as I know, an emperor need not have a ttitle for land , I think even for a place of worship, to claim such a land as belonging to the Monarch. In which case, if Sunni Wakf Board proves that it was indeed built by Shahanshah Baber , it would be his,perticularly when you invoke the laws that governed medeaval Hindustan. Even this would be complicated because , the temple that was unearthed in ruins, under the disputed Masjid , belonged to Lord Rama during a period of 11th century. It was conclusively proved that temples were constructed successively throughout history starting from 1,500 years B.C. The one plaque that was found by ASI exacavations under Babri Masjid says that temple of Vishnu Hari who killed Dashanan (Ravan) was constructed by King Megasutha of Govinda Chandra dynasty in 1114-1155 CE. That is why you can see a suit filed on this disputed was first time in 1885. It was very old dispute. If Lord Ram Lalla owned a temple in 1114 CE at least according to the inscription found by ASI, then Lord Ram suit wins the case because Lord Ram was the emperor of India,capital Ayodhya or you can say Meghasuta who constructed it was emperor and hence he need not produce a title deed. Now who will win the case ? |
| Oct 12, 2010 05:16 PM 166 | Muslims in India thru out their history have always had "Jiski lathi uski Bhains" ... wasn't Jinnah's direct action in marginal Muslim majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal not the same ... so why cry foul now ? They should gracefully accept Hindu's claim on Ram Janma Bhumi in Ayodhya ... the Hindu organisations like VHP on their part should renounce any more militant action against mosques in Varanasi and Mathura as Muslims fear could now happen ... Also, it becomes the responsibilty of Muslim organizations and clergies at the local Mohalla levels to ensure that they do not play on these fears ... All political parties have a major stake in this too and it was not very wise for Rahul Gandhi to draw comparisons between RSS and banned SIMI which is clearly in cahoot with terrorists and ISI across the border ... |
| Oct 12, 2010 07:52 PM 167 | Abhishek Drolia: "In Hindu law which is for hindu deity, a deity is a juristic person" Please take the time to read this article: "The argument about the juridical character of Hindu deities is not unknown. Nor is the idea that as juridical entities they may possess property rights (through gifts, sales, mortgages or leases). However, what is worth considering is that in most instances where the deity has been treated as a legal person (with a trustee, a juridical person, representing the deity) the issue at stake appears to have dealt with "devasthana" property, of "gifts" to the deity, or to the temple. The significant issue here is that in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, the decision was meant to be made on "janmasthana" and not "devasthana". Moreover, the decision was to be made on determining a "birthplace" and not simply proprietary rights, both of which are clearly distinct in a legal sense... The juridical character of the deity, enabled within Hindu law in order to deal with temple property, is now neatly displaced onto an argument about legally determining "birthplace"." http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/15252.pdf |
| Oct 12, 2010 08:46 PM 168 | It's pretty easy to write such articles. Talk to several aggrieved Muslims around the country and extrapolate the anecdotal evidence to establish Mehta's biases against the court ruling. Controversies and biased sensationalized reports and polemics sell magazines. Why do you think Mehta gives dozens of pages to Arundhati? I think BJP will get more votes by keeping quiet if the secular foot soldiers from the media continue to keep the antagonism toward the court judgment alive. Even Congress is keeping quiet for the time being. But the morons who have no idea of the Hindu law have overnight become legal experts and are criticizing the judge for acknowledging religion in the title suit argument. The same set of morons who initially refused to acknowledge existence of any temple predating the mosque is now questioning the archaeological evidence of temple ruins beneath the mosque structure. How do you know it was a temple? It must have been a palace or a buddhist stupa. Otherwise for making the foundation of the mosque materials must have been brought from temple ruins from some other locations. Brilliant points!!! If these morons continue to make frivolous arguments against the archaeological evidence, hurl more criticism of ASI questioning its competence, more idiotic comments about the legality of the judge's reliance on Hindu religion in title suit dispute(that is perfectly valid in Indian law) and more stories on Muslim grievances they will simply harden the attitude of a large number of mainstream Indians who did not hold any strong political stance left or right. In our tirade against Hindutwa, are you not strengthening the Hindutwa politics Mehta through your biased reporting? Go slow if you really want to protect the secular political machinery. |
| Oct 12, 2010 10:04 PM 169 | Anwaar "not even a passing mention of the vandalism witnessed in Ayodhya in December 1992. No reference to the death and destruction it left in its trail. No appeal to the perpetrators of that heinous act to express remorse. No call for atonement. And not a word of empathy for the victims of the violence" a) How relevant is that to this case? b) If the demolition criminal trial is already underway, how appropriate would it be for this court to comment on a case in the criminal court c) to use your favourite word "IRRELEVANT" !!!! |
| Oct 12, 2010 10:09 PM 170 | Muslims are angry, says the article. That is fun. They are afraid? Hindus have far better reason to be afraid of Muslims than Muslims of them, a generally peace loving and tolerant people unless EXTREMELY provoked. Muslims accept? Good. Very wise. Secularism in India s endangered? There has NEVER been secularism in Independent India, only a determined pro-mullahism by governments since Nehru. This is now occasionally challenged by Hindus. That is the only difference. |
| Oct 12, 2010 10:16 PM 171 | Anwaar is quite right that it would have been very good if Hindus had expressed remorse for the trail of destruction after the fall of the Babur false mosque. Many innocents of both communities were killed. But it should equally be noted that Muslims have NEVER expressed the smallest remorse for their massive destruction of the Indian cultural heritage in terms of thousands of irrep[lsceable Hindu temples, their ruthless killings of Hindus in uncounted numbers over the centuries, their massive oppression all over the world. |
| Oct 12, 2010 10:25 PM 172 | Interestingly, it is now established in Indian law that mosques built against the tenets of Islam - like the Babur structure - are FALSE mosques and without validity. |
| Oct 12, 2010 11:38 PM 173 | -------------------------------- The Good news.. -------------------------------- Nirmohi Akhara, a main plaintiff in Ayodhya title suits, wants mediation of former President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband and Jamiat Ulema Hind along with Hindu religious leaders like Baba Ramdev and Shri Shri Ravi Shankar and Murari Bapu. Pujari Ram Das, special emissary of the ailing chief of Nirmohi Akara Mahant Bhaskar Das, said "we have lighted a candle of peace from Ayodhya and now it is also the responsibility of those people who command respect in their communities and general society of India to protect it and to spread it". Naming Abdul Kalam, Darul Uloom of Deoband, national organization of Muslim Ulemas Jamiat Ulema Hind, Pujari Ram Das said "it is our joint responsibility to establish peace in India. So, people from Muslim society and Hindu saints like Baba Ramdev, Shri Shri Ravi Shankar and Murai Bapu, who have great following among the masses, must join hands to resolve the Ayodhya dispute". Asked what is the proposed formula of negotiations, Pujari Ram Das replied that it is yet to be discussed and planned. "When great brains unite, the formula that will be worked out will also be great and will play a crucial role in establishing peace and Hindu-Muslim brotherhood in India", said Pujari Ram Das. -------------------------------- The Bad news .. ------------------------------- The criminhally and falsely secular mnedia personalities in India like Kuldip Nayar, V Mehta atec are out there to provoke the minorities as they fear if Hindu-Muslims were closer , the fake secularists become irrelevent. |
| Oct 13, 2010 12:04 AM 174 | >> it is now established in Indian law that mosques built against the tenets of Islam - like the Babur structure - are FALSE mosques. No such canard has been established in Indian law. |
| Oct 13, 2010 10:39 AM 175 | "Why do you want to bring demolition of the mosque in this case. What Anwaar miyan says: The article in TOI was written by Dileep Padgaonkar, not by me. What Anwaar miyan means: I'll hold the baby (agree with the articles) till it cries (ppl pick big holes in it. the minute the baby starts crying, i'll hand it back over to the mother (Dilip Padgaonkar). I know ppl call this turning tail and running away! but i dont have an option as i can see the holes too but will pretend as usual that they are not there! |
| Oct 13, 2010 11:26 AM 176 | Taking revenge or balancing history's mistakes is not an act of human beings living in 2010. Such acts will only move the world backward than forward and those issues only can be rasied for doing politics and for popularity by creating tensions between innocents. On the basis of the report of the Archeological Survey of India massive structure of religious nature is required to be maintained as national monument under the Ancient Monument Archeological Site and Remains Act, 1958. The Apex court directed the Government of India to maintain such national monuments. Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Central Government to comply with the provisions of Act No. 24 of 1958 and ensure to maintain the dignity and cultural heritage of this country. This excerpt is taken from Alahabad Court Judgement copy of Ayodhya verdict released on Sept. 28, 2010. |
| Oct 13, 2010 11:27 AM 177 | Actually this whole dam issue should have not taken by Courts for a hearing in First place. No next generation country should take such issue is a very critical issue of a nation and will give such importance for such issue and lead whole citizens to give important on that issue. No clever people will think for taking revenge for history when only wars and invasion are prime factors for a country's / kingdom's growth and demolitions were part of wars in all around the world. In this manner, to dig into history or for balancing acts, shall we go ahead and demolish 'Taj Mahal', A great monument of India and One of the world wonders and search for any old temple, masjid, churche or any sikhs shrine, etc. and bring it to the court and wait for another 60 years to get the judgment?. How foolish will be this? In Same manner, shall we go ahead and demolish all monuments of India including great temples, masjids and churches and search for any old structure and claim for part of it. Shall we go ahead and demolish our Parliament and Red Fort and search for any archeological proof of any existing structure. ? |
| Oct 13, 2010 11:39 AM 178 | Interview with Professor D.N. Jha. "I cannot understand how the courts have gone into the issues of faith. They have asserted that the site where the idols were placed was actually the birthplace of Ram. The judgment, therefore, is based on faith and theology, and certainly not on history. Historical evidence does not support the assertion that Ram was born where the idols were kept. I don't know what kind of evidence the court has relied on. Someone should have pointed out in court that the belief that the place was the birthplace of Ram was first clearly mentioned by a French Jesuit priest, Tiffenthaler, in 1788. Subsequently, many people propagated the opinion that Ram was born where the mosque stood and the mosque itself was built after destroying the temple. "But a Scottish physician, Francis Buchanan, who served in the Bengal Medical Service, visited Ayodhya in 1810, and wrote clearly that the temple destruction theory was ill-founded." http://www.frontline...0101022272113200.htm |
| Oct 13, 2010 11:57 AM 179 | Chang I love chinese foods |
| Oct 13, 2010 12:22 PM 180 | Mohamed Kuwait. Mr.Mohammed ,Kuwait. Your posts at #176 & #177 . Ayodhya Rama janma bhumi dispute is very old one. The case was first filed during British Raj in 1885. Then judgement by a District judge ( Englih man)accepted that it was indeed a Ramjanma Bhumi and it was also very tragic that such a land held very sacred by Hindus was occupied and a Mosque was built over it. But the judge at the time (in 1885) said that it was tool old to correct the injustice done to the place. Again there were attempts by Rajiv Gandhi in 1986 to convince Muslims to forego their claim and move to a different place for a Masjid. But Muslims wanted at least deep in their collective consciousness, a resolute action or violent solution and that was what exactly they got. Don't think that I am supporting what had happened in 1992. What I am trying to tell is that Muslim leadership is at fault. You can not say that Muslims also consider this spot as very sacred because Lord Ram was born there !! The last and final namaz held in this place was on 16th decmeber 1949. You should also note that Muslims ALONG WITH HINDUS offered prayers in the inner courtyard , of Babrimasjid area, until 1860 (pl.read the court judgement of Justic Khan(issue #6, suit #1 ). That means while Hindus worshipped in a temple, in that court yard Muslims also offered prayers from 1860 to 1949 december. Note the wording of Justice Khan "at least from 1860" The first case to possess the land was filed by Hindus in the year 1885. And at last in december 1949 ,idols of Rama were placed under the central dome of the Masjid. Baber did not build the Mosque or Sunni Wakf Board could not prove the point. It is not the only great culture. If a temple in ruins which was belonging to 11th century was found there , then ASI should protect that site and not the Masjid built over it by completely vandalizing a temple. |
| Oct 13, 2010 12:51 PM 181 | Professor D.N. Jha must be an "eminent historian" as he is trying to spread a canard if he says that "They have asserted that the site where the idols were placed was actually the birthplace of Ram." Who says that? Which judge said that? They said that hindus "BEIEVE" it to be the birthplace of Ram. They are NOT saying it is THE BIRTH PLACE! But no. All "eminent" historians and secus HAVE TO lie through their teeth, tell half truths, muddy waters, and do so ceaselessly! And the "liberal" and conservative muslims are lapping it up. People like Anwaar just don't want to recognize this lie, though I am sure he is smart enough to see it. |
| Oct 13, 2010 02:27 PM 182 | Pseudosecularists are stoking the dying communal fire. Their livelihood is at stake. |
| Oct 13, 2010 02:53 PM 183 | Part 1 >>Interview with Professor D.N. Jha. Every word uttered by these eminent bluffers stinks of lies and distortion. They just have no shame! He says "But a Scottish physician, Francis Buchanan, who served in the Bengal Medical Service, visited Ayodhya in 1810, and wrote clearly that the temple destruction theory was ill-founded." Excerpts from the judgment: Shrin Musvi testimony: "Buchanan visited Ayodhya in 1810 and described about the same in his accounts. He has said that it is alleged that Aurangzeb demolished a temple in Ram Kot and constructed a mosque but he said that the mosque has an inscription of the period of Babar, therefore, the aforesaid view is ill founded." (page-4) See how this impudent Jha distorts the above fact to conclude 'temple destruction theory was ill-founded". Continuing from the judgment: The judgment says: "She (Musvi) further said that Buchanan in his account in 1810 has mentioned about three inscriptions (page 136-137) but we do not find any such publication or book written by Buchanan mentioning the same. On the contrary we find that Dr. Francis Buchanan though made certain survey for about seven years starting from 1807 but could not get himself published any material in this regard and later on his material was processed and a report was published in 1838 by "Robert Montgomery Martin"." "In any case despite so many reasons some of which we have already discussed, we find that the statement of the above mentioned Expert witnesses suffer serious flaws and make it extremely delicate situation for this Court to rely on their opinion. The only thing which consistently emerges is that the statement about the period of the construction and the person who got the disputed building constructed is solely founded upon the text of the inscriptions fixed on the disputed building. There is no other material either to corroborate or to support it." |
| Oct 13, 2010 02:55 PM 184 | Part 2 The fraud also states: "I wish they had taken historical evidence into consideration. Several archaeologists and historians like the late Suraj Bhan, Shireen Ratnagar, R.C. Thakran and Suvira Jaiswal were called to depose before the court. What happened to all the evidence presented by them? History should have played a role. When something is decided on the basis of faith, then history takes a back seat." Each and every one of these eminences was shamed during the trail for their disgraceful conduct not on basis of faith but on cross examination! Jha who doesn't have any scruples assumes the readers are all lazy enough not to read the judgment. Another gem from the Jha interview: "Richard Eaton, an American historian who has written on the desecration of temples, says that the total number does not exceed 80" I seem to know more history than the above conman! Eaton never claims that 80 is an exhaustive list. But by sleight of hand, Jha concludes it 'does not exceed 80'. Yet Eaton's first example of Ghurid army 1094 lists destruction of nearly one thousand temples. These quacks have been stripped naked during the trials. Every day we are privy to excerpts from the judgment lambasting these worthies - yet Anwaar finds it necessary to post links to their interviews. What is he trying to latch on too? |
| Oct 13, 2010 03:26 PM 185 | Correction: latch on to? |
| Oct 13, 2010 03:32 PM 186 | I know Anwaar miyan's answer: Professor D.N. Jha said so. I didn't! |
| Oct 13, 2010 04:06 PM 187 | >>I know Anwaar miyan's answer: >>Professor D.N. Jha said so. I didn't! :). Actually the answer most likely would be one more link to another historian interview repeating the same canard. |
| Oct 13, 2010 05:07 PM 188 | "But it should equally be noted that Muslims have NEVER expressed the smallest remorse for their massive destruction of the Indian cultural heritage in terms of thousands of irrep[lsceable Hindu temples, their ruthless killings of Hindus in uncounted numbers over the centuries, Chang Yehching Couldn't be more true and accurate. Moslems actually glorify violence and conquest, and boast of those heinous crimes they commit. But when a fraction of the vandalism and violence is then committed against them, and that too in vastly different circumstances, they act as the victimised, innocent, aggrieved community. And this even while they are violently retaliating for one or two acts of desecration, by over 100 incidents of vandalism of their own! |
| Oct 13, 2010 06:06 PM 189 | Mr. Bowenpalle Venuraja Gopal Rao from Warangal, Reg. Your post at #180: The judgment you mentioned is not the first, even before there was a appeal and was a judgement. In fact, the claim to the mosque itself is recent. Originally only chabutra was claimed. This becomes all too clear from the records to the litigation a century ago. On 29 Jan 1885, Raghubar Das, who claimed to be the Mahant of the Janam Asthan Ayodhya, filed a suit against the secretary of state for India in Council for 'a decree for awarding permission to construct a temple over the Chabutra and restraining the defendant (ie. secretary of state) from prohibiting or obstructing the plaintiff in the contruction of the temple'. The dimensions of the chabutra were specified. The suit was keenly contested. The mahant aruged that 'If a temple is constructed no harm is done to any one and the worship which is done at present will continue in the same manner in future also'. The sub judge of Faizabad, Pandid Hari Kishan Singh (A Hindu Judge), however dismissed the suit by a judgement dated 24 Dec 1885 with reasons saying that request to contstruct a temple at such place where there is only one passage for the temple as well as for the mosque. Though ownership of Chabutra belong to hindus due to thier possession from of old, If a temple is constructed on the chabutra at such a place then there will be sound of bells of the temple and sankh when both hindus and muslims pass from the same way and if a permission is given for constructing a temple then one day or other a criminal case will be started and thousands of people will be killed.'. A centry later the message came true in 1992, although for other reasons. Also, Mr. Rao fro Warangal, you have have not completed the statements of Judgement in 1885 by a british judge.. so let me complete.. "... but as that event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo. In such a case as the present one any innovation would cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit." and the appeal was dismissed. And another appeal on 25 May 1886 to the highest court also dismissed by Judicial commissionar. These judgements also concluded in the same manner what I have mentioned in my previous comment. We cannot go back and do balancing acts for each incident of history when no democracy was in place at all. |
| Oct 13, 2010 06:21 PM 190 | ASI report only claims that there was a existing non-islamic structure. No evidence of demolition of a existing structure. Based on this, Justice S.U. Khan, concluded that "no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque" and the "mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins for a very long time". Just for sake of argument, Even if we assume that there was a demolition of existing structure, That is the history and all such acts are very common and part of wars and invasions in all around the world. Even before Moghals & British arrival to india, Fights between 'Saivas' and 'Vaishnavas' kings demolished lot of temples of each other. The history tells this. You can also see this in the very first seen of Kamal Hasan's film 'Dasavatharam'. Here I am not supporting demolition of relgious structure to build another religious structure. But only what I am saying is balancing act for history's incidents is not a job of people at this period. That will be very dangerous to world and entire humanity. How can we do a balance for Hitlar's crime ? |
| Oct 13, 2010 07:01 PM 191 | Mohamed Kuwait, Kuwait Even Justice Khan has mentioned about Mecca in his judgment why he has to write about it when we are not fighting for it? Hope you have read it almost all news paper has published it. Now prove to Hindus of India how Mecca is sacred for Indian Muslims that crores of rupees are gives as subsidy each year? |
| Oct 13, 2010 07:06 PM 192 | RSM, ">>Interview with Professor D.N. Jha. Every word uttered by these eminent bluffers stinks of lies and distortion. They just have no shame! He says "But a Scottish physician, Francis Buchanan, who served in the Bengal Medical Service, visited Ayodhya in 1810, and wrote clearly that the temple destruction theory was ill-founded." Excerpts from the judgment: Shrin Musvi testimony: "Buchanan visited Ayodhya in 1810 and described about the same in his accounts. He has said that it is alleged that Aurangzeb demolished a temple in Ram Kot and constructed a mosque but he said that the mosque has an inscription of the period of Babar, therefore, the aforesaid view is ill founded." (page-4) See how this impudent Jha distorts the above fact to conclude 'temple destruction theory was ill-founded". " Wow. Appalling. These people have no shame in distorting the facts. But their days are now numbered. Great work RSM. Keep it up. |
| Oct 13, 2010 07:27 PM 193 | "I know Anwaar miyan's answer: Professor D.N. Jha said so. I didn't!" LOL. well said. But give him some credit. He does not use this to defend himself only. He uses the same logic for others also ( 2circles.net) who publishes out atrocious one sided propaganda news/articles. As per him, they are just reporting it. |
| Oct 13, 2010 07:36 PM 194 | >> He (Dr.Jha) says, "says "But a Scottish physician, Francis Buchanan, who served in the Bengal Medical Service, visited Ayodhya in 1810, and wrote clearly that the temple destruction theory was ill-founded." >> " we find that the statement of the above mentioned Expert witnesses (Musvi et al) suffer serious flaws and make it extremely delicate situation for this Court to rely on their opinion." Anything that does not suit the theory of temple destruction is "flawed"! |
| Oct 13, 2010 07:48 PM 195 | Excerpt from Jha's interview in frontline "I wish they had taken historical evidence into consideration. Several archaeologists and historians like the late Suraj Bhan, Shireen Ratnagar, R.C. Thakran and Suvira Jaiswal were called to depose before the court. What happened to all the evidence presented by them? " Ha ha. Well frontline and Mr. Jha can be excused for this as it was done prior to HC court's expose about these historians. But Anwar knew it before posting it here. Well again, he is just reporting it. "History should have played a role. When something is decided on the basis of faith, then history takes a back seat." May be it is time for for him to appear for court with his knowledge about history. |
| Oct 13, 2010 08:11 PM 196 | >>May be it is time for for him to appear for court with his knowledge about history. He may be a fraud but he is not an idiot. Why would be want to commit suicide? |
| Oct 13, 2010 08:19 PM 197 | Kiran Bagachi: "Who says that? Which judge said that? They said that hindus "BEIEVE" it to be the birthplace of Ram. They are NOT saying it is THE BIRTH PLACE!" If you read all three judges judgement's carefully --as you have clearly not done-- you will discover that Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan have said that Hindus believe it to be the birthplace of Ram, but Justice Sharma (clearly the most right wing of the three judges, he's probably angling for a BJP ticket)states quite clearly in his jdgement that it IS the birthplace of Ram. Excerpt from Sharma's judgement: " ISSUES FOR BRIEFING ...1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram? The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. " http://www.rjbm.nic.in/dv2.pdf I think Prof. Jha has historicized this belief for us; it has not existed forever, but came up only from the late 19th century onwards. Hindus have always believed (and local Muslims too) that Rama was born in Ayodhya, but not until very recently has the stupidly unverifiable claim been made that he was born at that exact spot under the central dome of the mosque. It is a sad comment on many Hindus that they have allowed the saffron goons to determine for them where their god was born. |
| Oct 13, 2010 08:25 PM 198 | Meera Sagar, Excellent post. Thanks! |
| Oct 13, 2010 08:51 PM 199 | >> Pseudosecularists are stoking the dying communal fire. If communalism and religion based politics is what you believe in, say so openly. You don't have to use the excuse of a 'Pseudosecularist' doing it for you. |
| Oct 13, 2010 09:03 PM 200 | Meera Sagar says what she does about Justice Aggarwal as if it was some big secret. What he says about the birth place of Ram is being picked up from Issues for Briefing which is not a secret and was prominently posted on this sie itself on the very first day http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267309 Since then I have only been reading the judgments and even Sharma, while closest to the VHP position on the Ayodhya issue needs to be read in full before being dismissed out of hand. Besides, what he says is hardly of relevance as the majority judgment of Khan and Aggarwal should be seen in perspective. The critics have not read the judgements themselves as yet and holding forth as experts on law. They would be advised to go and help the lawyers for the Sunni Waqf Board which apparently was doing such a bad job that even a buffoon Ravi Shankar Prasad was enough to defeat their case which should have been argued more seriously, if there was merit in it. It is a sad comment on many pseudo-seculars that they have allowed the Eminent Historians of no credibility to determine for them whether or not Hindu temples were destroyed by Muslim conquerors. |
| Oct 13, 2010 09:07 PM 201 | It is clear that Meera Sagar who glibly accuses others of not having read the judgments has not read them herself which is why she is quoting from Issues for Briefing where all nuance is lost. What Sharma actually says is this: "there is voluminous evidence available on record both documentary and oral which substantially establish that Lord Ram was born at the place which the Hindus believe to be the Rama Janmasthan since times immemorial. The worship, divine character and sacred status has been recognized not only be the classical literature, tradition but also by series of travel records of foreigners, gazetteers as also foreign authorities." p. 105, Vol. 4, O.S. No.4/1989 It is clear that Meera Sagar who accuses others of not having read the judgments has not read them herself which is why she is quoting from Issues for Briefing where all nuance is lost. What Sharma actually says is this: "there is voluminous evidence available on record both documentary and oral which substantially establish that Lord Ram was born at the place which the Hindus believe to be the Rama Janmasthan since times immemorial. The worship, divine character and sacred status has been recognized not only be the classical literature, tradition but also by series of travel records of foreigners, gazetteers as also foreign authorities." p. 105, Vol. 4, O.S. No.4/1989 http://elegalix2.all...oos-4-1989-vol-4.pdf |
| Oct 13, 2010 09:09 PM 202 | >> Excerpt from Sharma's judgement ... The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child There are several things said in this particular judgment which do not set an appropriate precedent. Issues that should be best left to theological/religious debates as well as those which ought to be left for debates among historians/archeologists etc (for the debates to play out to its logical conclusion) are commented upon. Kapil Sibal gave the right suggestion to Mr. Advani to not jump the gun (an advice appropriate for some people in this forum too). Not just because there is a SC verdict to be awaited, but also because things that are outside the scope of a court are spoken about in this particular case. |
| Oct 13, 2010 09:16 PM 203 | Sharma's "findings" such as they are can be and should be challenged, but they would be irrelvant if what needs to be challenged in court is the majority judgments of Khan and Aggarwal. So we should avoid the psuedo-secular trap of quoting and discussing Sharma ad nauseum, and that too selectively. I have no respect for Sharma, but have even less for dishonest/sloppy/careless commentators in denial. |
| Oct 13, 2010 09:18 PM 204 | And retarded people like Ram Puniyani and Kumar (if they are not the same, though the level of intellect seems to be the same) will be well-advised to stay out of this discussion for grown-up adults. |
| Oct 13, 2010 09:32 PM 205 | ok so for the question of place of birth of ram, sharma and aggrwal would have to be countered in supreme court as those are in agreement and khan is not. that should be done by lawyers who understand the ramifications of what they are arguing. but it is dishonest to blame a judge of being a sanghi or vhp or bjp only if he gives a decision that goes counter to one's cherished belief. would we want to call khan a congressi or a samajwadi or a jehadi? no! khan too should be judged for what he displays as his judicial acumen or lack thereof |
| Oct 13, 2010 09:36 PM 206 | rsm has done well to show dn jha to be the clown that he is. these eminences are essentially medicre-level people whose incompetence and deceit is getting exposed thanks to the allhabad hc judgments becoming public |
| Oct 14, 2010 03:02 AM 207 | The time has come yo call it a day on this issue. Hindus must definitely express regret for the destruction and lives lost in this whole episode. It happened due to many Indian governments' foolish policies of mullah-appeasing. So the Hindus overeacted. They also saw the site as of great religious importance. But the whole thing has been very costly. India cannot carry on in this way. |
| Oct 14, 2010 04:09 AM 208 | >> What Sharma actually says is this: "there is voluminous evidence available on record both documentary and oral which substantially establish that Lord Ram was born at the place which the Hindus believe to be the Rama Janmasthan since times immemorial." This is a stupid assertion for any judge to make, especially so soon after the ASI's original affidavit in the Ram Setu case said that there was no evidence to prove the existence of Hindu god Ram. >> The worship, divine character and sacred status has been recognized not only by the classical literature, tradition but also by series of travel records of foreigners, gazetteers as also foreign authorities. This comment, from the same judge, is slightly more reasonable, although the tendency to overstate the case is still palpable. |
| Oct 14, 2010 06:28 AM 209 | "things that are outside the scope of a court are spoken about in this particular case" KUMAR When the claim before the court included the "strong belief of HINDUS that RAMJANAMBHOOMI is the birth place of RAM", the court is well within its rights to decide on the claim- the court has decided only on the "faith of Hindus" and NOT on the "factual nature of the claim". ANWAARS contention that "no evidence to prove the existence of Hindu god Ram" is immeterial as "the belief of the HINDUS" is the basis of the judgement of the court- HINDUS overwhelmingly believ that RAM existed and was born at the JANAMBHOOMI- which has been accepted by the court. Muslim belief that Muhammad "flew on horse back" from Madina to heaven via Jerusalem" is the reason for claim on Al Aqusa which has NO PROOF- can anyone fly on horse back- more importantly why did MUHAMMAD have to fly all the way to Jerusalem when he could have taken off to heaven from Macca which is much closer to Madina. The Christian belief that Jesus carried the cross himself enroute to crucifixion inspite of Mathew, Luke and Mark stating in Bible that somebody else carried the cross (the man who carried the cross has been named in the BIBLE- only John states in Bible that Jesus carried the cross)is also does not have proof. So FAITH begins where reasons and proof ends- IN EVERY RELIGION. So why the heart burns about only HINDU FAITH and a judicial ruling based on it???????? |
| Oct 14, 2010 07:26 AM 210 | Dear Akil, it is incorrect that Muslims believe that Prophet Mohammad flew on horse. The Glorious Qur'an has not said such a thing. What Glorious Qur'an states that Allah the Almighty has carried his slave from Makkah to Jerusalem to show the signs. Nevertheless, that incident is not causing any problems as far as courts are concerned. Can you take Muslims to the court that "Prophet of Islam has flown on horse". There is no contention. Here, in the case of Babri Mosque, the land is in dispute. Let us not confuse the issue on the basis of beliefs please. |
| Oct 14, 2010 07:37 AM 211 | The Christian belief that Jesus carried the cross himself enroute to crucifixion inspite of Mathew, Luke and Mark stating in Bible that somebody else carried the cross (the man who carried the cross has been named in the BIBLE- only John states in Bible that Jesus carried the cross)is also does not have proof. Dear Akil, you are again referring non-contentious issues. I don't care what Christians believe. It is up to them. If they say, that Jesus took that Cross to Banaras and therefore all the temples belongs to Christians, then it is a problem of the belief. Let them believe what they want as long as those beleives shuld not impress the judges. Their believes are not becoming an issue in the land dispute. Please refrain from mixing up the things. When beleives becomes court issues, then it is a problem. Court should not give verdicts on the bases of beleives. |
| Oct 14, 2010 07:54 AM 212 | Akil, >> "the belief of the HINDUS" is the basis of the judgement of the court. Hindus have every right to have that belief, but it cannot be the basis of a court judgement. The belief however can carry weight in a negotiated settlement. >> Muhammad "flew on horse back" from Madina to heaven via Jerusalem" is the reason for claim on Al Aqusa. It may be the basis of what some Muslims believe, but it is not the basis of any claim, and there is no court case about it. The site is holy because it is where the story of Abraham's readiness for supreme sacrifice is supposed to have taken place. It is holy to both Muslims and Jews. >> why the heart burns about only HINDU FAITH and a judicial ruling based on it? You are entitled to your faith, but courts cannot make title decisions based on faith. |
| Oct 14, 2010 08:24 AM 213 | >> "the belief of the HINDUS" is the basis of the judgement of the court. Is it? The courts have commented on it, but is it the basis of the judgement, or is it the ASI report? |
| Oct 14, 2010 09:01 AM 214 | They said that hindus "BEIEVE" it to be the birthplace of Ram. They are NOT saying it is THE BIRTH PLACE!" Two judges have stated that. |
| Oct 14, 2010 09:20 AM 215 | I surprised that people, especially in this forum, actually believe that it is a religious issue of national importance. The issue was local till Congress and BJP hijacked it for political purpose in 1980s and 1990s. It was BJP's response to Mandal commission and OBC empowerment. Kamandal vs. Mandal, that's what Vajpayee had said. Now that Mandal has decidedly won, the Babri Masjid issue ceased to exist. Today the Hindu heartland is ruled by Mayawati. Next in line is Mulayam Singh Yadav. Brahmanical parties like Congress and BJP are nowhere in radar. Why it is so hard to understand? |
| Oct 14, 2010 09:53 AM 216 | >>Is it? >>The courts have commented on it, but is it the basis of the judgement, or is it the ASI report?\ The basis of judgment is the sum total of findings of ASI report (not refuted during cross examinations), fictional accounts of eminent frauds of ICHR, debunked testimonies of eminent commie archaeologists who have not even visited the site, historic contemporary records, British gazetteer records, historic travelers' testimony, and longstanding belief of the Hindus of the sacredness of the place. Yet almost the entire secular media claim it is a verdict based on 'faith' and not one has analyzed the shameful conduct of expert con artists during the court case. |
| Oct 14, 2010 10:04 AM 217 | >> Yet almost the entire secular media claim it is a verdict based on 'faith' and not one has analyzed the shameful conduct of expert con artists during the court case. They're incapable of it. It shall require honesty, which can't be expected of habitual liars. |
| Oct 14, 2010 10:33 AM 218 | >> He (Dr.Jha) says, "says "But a Scottish physician, Francis Buchanan, who served in the Bengal Medical Service, visited Ayodhya in 1810, and wrote clearly that the temple destruction theory was ill-founded." >> " we find that the statement of the above mentioned Expert witnesses (Musvi et al) suffer serious flaws and make it extremely delicate situation for this Court to rely on their opinion." >>Anything that does not suit the theory of temple destruction is "flawed"! The fact that eminent clown Jha was lying was proved by Shrin Musvi's testimony itself. Second, the court went to lengthy details why the statement of expert witness suffers from flaws. Anwaar does not bother to read the judges rationale let alone refute it but comes up with the above sarcastic statement insinuating prejudice on the part of the Judge. And I thought Al was being harsh when he called Anwaar dishonest. |
| Oct 14, 2010 10:56 AM 219 | so much intellectual debate on this subject. Simple reasoning i could ferret out from the judgement is that hon'ble judges wanted to paper over and get over this tragic episod which has been hounting our country, that is why though it is a title suit they partitioned the propoerty. Most of the people have welcome this verdict. But at the same time it must be ensured that it is delinked from all politics and political parties and organisations. As i said earlier please let our past be behind us and live our present lives peacufuly. I expect all the media people to get this message across. Whether it is medieval era or present day it is the helpless and poor people who suffer the most (strangely political class has never suffered). I always held that it is not hindu or muslim but it is humanity which suffers. Amen |
| Oct 14, 2010 11:21 AM 220 | I was asked to read Article 25 and just did. I don't see this article establishing a state religion. It only mandates the state to make sure ALL Hindus (reference to Harijans) have a right to enter temples. Either I am stupid or mian from Raipur is lying. You can read the full article reproduced below and decide for yourself. ------------------- Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion - (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law - (a) regulating or restricting any economic, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Explanation I - The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II - In sub-Clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. |
| Oct 14, 2010 11:48 AM 221 | Can you take Muslims to the court that "Prophet of Islam has flown on horse". SHUJA, I can not. I am not be concerned about conflict amongst the ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS. But the JEWS can go to the court re-claiming Al Aqusa Mosque site. "You are entitled to your faith, but courts cannot make title decisions based on faith". ANWAAR, You are entitled to your OPINION, but YOU CAN NOT DICTATE what "Indian courts" can do. "It is holy to both Muslims and Jews". If so why have MUSLIMS usurped it by building a MOSQUE on the site??? Why are JEWS and Christians prevented from worshiping their??? |
| Oct 14, 2010 11:59 AM 222 | "Court should not give verdicts on the bases of beleives". SHUJA, If some one points a pistol at me "which I believe it be real capable of killing me" and takes action in self-defence and if the pistol later turns out to be a "toy pistol", the court will take congnisance of my "belief" while arriving at the decision. So "believes" can also impact court verdict. The fact that ASI proved in the court of the existance of a Mandir at the Mosque site would have stregthened the "belief". |
| Oct 14, 2010 12:19 PM 223 | >> The fact that eminent clown Jha was lying was proved by Shrin Musvi's testimony itself. "A Scottish physician, Francis Buchanan, who served in the Bengal Medical Service, visited Ayodhya in 1810, and wrote clearly that the temple destruction theory was ill-founded." Assuming that Dr Buchanan was wrong, what positive evidence the court had in favor of the theory that the temple was in fact demolished? |
| Oct 14, 2010 12:32 PM 224 | Akil, >> YOU CAN NOT DICTATE what "Indian courts" can do. Anyone can comment on the subject. An aware populace is the best guarantor of democracy. >> why have MUSLIMS usurped it by building a MOSQUE on the site (Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem). There are two Jewish shrines at the same site. |
| Oct 14, 2010 12:56 PM 225 | Shuja, " They said that hindus "BEIEVE" it to be the birthplace of Ram. They are NOT saying it is THE BIRTH PLACE!" Two judges have stated that. " You really still have not analyzed the judgement. Here we go again: - India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the law (personal/communal part of civil code) permits individual Right to worship and practice of one's religious beliefs. - The court was asked if such a belief can be upheld as per Right to religious worship. Court agreed and said Hindu Ram belief is majoritarian and exists significantly. They did NOT state if God existed or if God will exist now but not in future or if God is mono or poly theistic. That is religion and they did not take actions on beliefs. They took judgement on RIGHT TO BELIEF. GET IT..ATLEAST NOW!! |
| Oct 14, 2010 01:03 PM 226 | Rajesh Ramachandran (Daily Mail) "THE Ayodhya verdict is the finest feather in the Sangh Parivar's crown of communal conquests. The victory of faith over law is how the Allahabad High Court's verdict in the Ramjanmabhoomi- Babri Masjid title suit is being simplistically interpreted. But it is much more than that. It is essentially the victory of majoritarianism; the triumph of the faith of the vocal, brute majority in the cow belt over all tenets of the law. It is the judicial stamp of approval of the militant mobilisation of the masses in the name of faith, fashioned by a political agenda that reeks of riots. "One mosque won or lost is not important, but the faith in judiciary is. The Supreme Court should restore the nation's faith in law and not in the folklores of a community propagated by a political party that has used it specifically to gain power. The Supreme Court should also review the propriety of the Parivar representing Ram. If at all anyone deserves to be called a ' sakha' or true and close friend of Ram, it was the man who was brutally murdered by Nathuram Godse, a former RSS activist. And he would not have approved of this verdict." http://communalism.b...r-sangh-parivar.html |
| Oct 14, 2010 01:13 PM 227 | " It is essentially the victory of majoritarianism; the triumph of the faith of the vocal, brute majority in the cow belt over all tenets of the law. " Simplistic. Unimaginative. Political theory dictates that a 5% election vote counts as a majoritarian quorum. Why is it called proportional representation then? Atleast 5% of Indian population is Hindu Ramism worshippers. Now those have never studied political theory, social choice theory, rational choice theory and legal systems in life and I mean EVER, will write that this is faith over law. Should the High Court derecognize the Ram religion and disenfranchise the millions of devote Hindu Ram worshippers and make them second-class citizens of India? It looks like that is how the contempt of these writers shows out as. And this fraudulent and unqualified opinion is lapped by zealous Muslims who cannot carry a card in Western European or American cities for the same opinion speaks miles for the bankruptcy of Indian journalism. But pride always comes before a fall. The pseudo-secularists and their writer brethren will be the first line of defense as well as guinea or slaughter pigs for Islamic terrorism when it occurs which it always does. Peace be to them as they say. Someone here apparently has not read about Islamo-fascism yet. And to point out another glare - "brute majority in the cow belt". The writer is a textbook racist. Period. |
| Oct 14, 2010 01:23 PM 228 | >>Assuming that Dr Buchanan was wrong,.... Issue was Jha was lying because as per the testimony Buchanan himself never claimed that temple destruction theory was ill-founded. >>what positive evidence the court had in favor of the theory that the temple was in fact demolished? You claimed there was no evidence. The burden of proof is on you! I can give you a hint though – start reading the judgment! |
| Oct 14, 2010 01:24 PM 229 | Shuja, "Court should not give verdicts on the bases of beleives" But Courts can give verdicts on basis of Rights to beliefs. Please keep it coming. I really love your statements. |
| Oct 14, 2010 01:27 PM 230 | >> Now those have never studied political theory, social choice theory, rational choice theory and legal systems in life and I mean EVER, will write that this is faith over law. What a pompous ass! >> Should the High Court derecognize the Ram religion and disenfranchise the millions of devote Hindu Ram worshippers and make them second-class citizens of India? Totally irrelevant. Nobody suggested that. >> this fraudulent and unqualified opinion is lapped by zealous Muslims who cannot carry a card in Western European or American cities for the same opinion. Sheer rubbish! |
| Oct 14, 2010 01:27 PM 231 | >>One mosque won or lost is not important, but the faith in judiciary is. The Supreme Court should restore the nation's faith in law and not in the folklores of a community propagated by a political party that has used it specifically to gain power. Translated: We have highest regard for the judiciary but we demand Supreme Court reverse the verdict! |
| Oct 14, 2010 01:30 PM 232 | >>If at all anyone deserves to be called a ' sakha' or true and close friend of Ram, it was the man who was brutally murdered by Nathuram Godse, a former RSS activist. And he would not have approved of this verdict." I think we should reverse the verdict after asking Gandhi's spirit. |
| Oct 14, 2010 01:31 PM 233 | >>Godse, a former RSS activist Also a former Congress activist. |
| Oct 14, 2010 01:32 PM 234 | RSM, >> You claimed there was no evidence. The burden of proof is on you! The shoe is on the other foot. If I see no evidence, there is nothing for me to show. If you saw positive evidence that the temple was demolished, show it. The burden of proof is on you. |
| Oct 14, 2010 01:37 PM 235 | >> Translated: We have highest regard for the judiciary but we demand Supreme Court reverse the verdict! That is how the judiciary works. Although I do not favor an appeal, the appeal process is absolutely a crucial part of the judicial system. |
| Oct 14, 2010 01:53 PM 236 | " But a Scottish physician, Francis Buchanan, who served in the Bengal Medical Service, visited Ayodhya in 1810, and wrote clearly that the temple destruction theory was ill-founded. " That was his opinion. Wait a minute. But isn't he a doctor? So does not that make his opinion LESS-QUALIFIED or ZERO-QUALIFIED? But ASI said, per another poster here that: " An ancient Indian temple could very well already have been in ruins by the 16th century. Buildings were often built over existing ruins which provided a firmer foundation. " Perfect. We are in agreement here. Court was only asked if temple was destructed. Answer judged was yes by all three. Let us assume temple#1 for Ram existed from 11th to 13th centuries AD. Then this was destructed by the Turkish invaders of the 13th century AD. Now Babur comes along in the 15th century AD looking for grapes in India and surprisingly finds a destroyed temple and uses its bricks to build his mosque. Whatever happened to his sense of justice? Cannot he have realized that a destructed temple has to be reconstructed to fulfill long-standing belief (Ayodhya is mentioned as existent belief per Vishnu Puranas dated to 8th century AD)? Or cannot he leave it alone? Well that is my opinion. But ASI did its job. it said that destroyed temple remains were used for mosque. Exactly. How does it matter which Muslim invader destroys it? " we find that the statement of the above mentioned Expert witnesses (Musvi et al) suffer serious flaws and make it extremely delicate situation for this Court to rely on their opinion. " Perfect. We are in agreement. Buchanan = Musvi. End of discussion on this one. "No reference to the death and destruction it left in its trail." The only sane statement that came out so far from the other side. Perfect again. We are in agreement. Death and destruction is never needed. I feel refreshed. " Hindus have every right to have that belief, but it cannot be the basis of a court judgement. The belief however can carry weight in a negotiated settlement. " Unqualified opinion again. Please check Indian law. You may need a revision, nay actually a correction. Your statement contradicts Part III of the Indian Constitution that mentions Right to worship at religious places and Part XII of the same document that mentions Right to Property. Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28 guarantee Right to worship. Do Muslim opinion leaders including Hindus that are part of them want Ram Janmastan removed from Hindu worship? Do they understand that if Ram Janmastan is removed, then Hindus are denied Ram worship which is in violation of the Right to worship? Can Makkah (where their Prophet was consecrated) and Madina (where he was born) be taken away from them? Will they worship Islamic Allah if there is no Makkah? The same answer exists to both questions and by extension Right to Property derived from Right to Worship. |
| Oct 14, 2010 01:57 PM 237 | " If you saw positive evidence that the temple was demolished, show it. " ASI saw it. What is your problem? |
| Oct 14, 2010 02:14 PM 238 | Anwaar, " The shoe is on the other foot. If I see no evidence, there is nothing for me to show. If you saw positive evidence that the temple was demolished, show it. The burden of proof is on you. " Shoes are on both feet. ASI proved temple existed before mosque. So please prove why it was demolished. |
| Oct 14, 2010 02:19 PM 239 | Mr.Mohammed ,Kuwait. Your post #189. Hindus were destroyers of temples (divided between Shiva and Vishnava sects) is a myth propagated by liers who call themselves as Historians. You mention an actor Kamal Hassan who is poor in education who did not even complete his upper primary school. Historian mention about Kalhana's (King HARSHA)"Raja Tharangini" for which even a telugu version is available. Harsha of KASHMIR was different from the great writer,poet ,emperor Harsha of KANOUJ. Kalhana's account is about destroying Buddhist as well as Hindu temples or any other place where there was wealth. Harsha of Kashmir(he was a Buddhist) employed mercinary muslim armies and his idea of destroying everything was about making money. There was no other instance of Hindus(Kings or his army) breaking temples, and what they did to vanquished king was to take way the idol of that ruling diety and install it in their temples. It was also a myth that Buddhist temples, Viharas or Chaityas were destroyed by Hindus. There was not even a single incident. Two emperors both of whom were Buddists ordered an attack on Buddist Sanghas when they did not obey their Govt.orders ,and those were Ashoka the Great and emperor Harsha of Kanouj. Ashoka the great was a Buddhist much before the war of Kalinga ,the only war he fought and the only place in entire India which took up fight with him. Hindus were never destroyers. Buddists were destroyers on a great scale, (ex. Kalhana's Rajatharangini). Swami Vivekananda said in one of his interviews that Buddhists were the only largest destroyers in India and hence they were thrown out of India. In the history of all the countries in the world, Swami Vivekananda said , there were always been destroyers ,English were the biggest of all, and they(Britishers) achieved nothing either(in spritualism). Muslim invaders destroyed and plundered the country only in the begining , and you must note that most of the Islamic concentration of destruction was of Buddhist structures and because their "ism" (Buddhism)is centred around Buddhist Sanghas and viharas ,Chaitayas , it was easy for the barbarian forces to drive away and destroy Buddhism . You can see the result of this in the present day Pakistan and Afghanistan , here Hinduism was left without a trace because, the converted Buddhists (and their "ism")under Ashoka,Kanishka and Harsha had no strength and resilience of Hinduism. Islamic destruction of India or Hindustan was only at the begining and which was offcourse included many Hindu temples because temples had lot of wealth. But as we can easily observe , later on Islam in India , took on an Indian way of life ,settled life,family system,and even Hindu philosophical approach to life,and that is why they had survived and stayed in India,otherwise Islam could have been thrown out of India,like that of Buddhism. Remember , in history we can read that present day A.P was the largest practitioners of Buddhism in the south. At one point of time, there were 98% Buddhists in India. Swami Vivekananda said, "Anyone who came to conquor India ,had to finally kneel down on Indian soil and pray and became an Indian himself". The present Ayodhya court case,itself shows how many Hindus are supporting the Mosque and for this purpose how many Hindu historians are deliberately telling how many lies !!!. Hinduism , its unity or pluralism ,its spritualism,its philosophy is a case study for all countries of the world. Hinduism's greatest strength is that it never destroys,it tolerates and it assimilates. Thus Buddha became 10th avathar of Vishnu, and Buddhism was absorbed by Hinduism. Swami Vivakananda said that Hinduism did not destroy any old order, it obsorbs and regenerates itself. It never tried to destroy an order like Buddhist,Jain,Islam or Zerostriansism or any one else,indeed that is its strength. So, the theory that Hindus on a large scale , Or by and large , destroyed Budhhist structures to build temples is an excellent imagination and product of liers and fake historians. Your argument of balancing historical wrongs etc., is acceptable only if it is a violent attempt to take away the Mosque or any persistance of such an act by majority people. In that way 1992 demolition is the only one that qualifies for argument. But not the present court case or its judgment. Neither approaching the court nor it's judegement after 16 years are wrong per se. According to Indian Law, anyone can file a case for restoring a place of worship if a structure is built over it ,it does not if it were a Mosque and it does not matter if it was 100's of years ago, because a Mosque does not enjoy any special privilege in Indian Law. |
| Oct 14, 2010 02:20 PM 240 | |
| Oct 14, 2010 02:25 PM 241 | Calahas UNK, United States, I did not say that the ASI said a temple could have been there already in ruins before the 16th century. That was MY opinion, and also the opinion of one of the judges, Justice Khan. The ASI only said there was a structure under the mosque...I'm saying that based on that we cannot jump to the conclusion (as the other two judges did) that the temple was destroyed to build the mosque. That is simply faulty reasoning without proof. |
| Oct 14, 2010 02:26 PM 242 | Meera, Posing reactionary leftist literature from Communalism Combat, Counter Currents etc. does not count. Stating ASI has problems is like stating India has corruption. Both are known to exist. In fact, Indian institutions are in a state of decay and in perpetuity for the last six decades. That includes the legal system. ASI was asked to perform excavations and they did so. They were asked to identify retrieved stones, artifacts, pillars, motifs etc. Approaches can differ based on methodology. But they used some methodology to boot with. If a lotus motif looks like a lotus motif, is it the problem of the lotus motif or that of the excavating archeologist's eye? What crime did he do to call a spade a spade when it is a spade? By the way I am curious on what you call a duck. Is it a duck or do you have your own name for it? |
| Oct 14, 2010 02:37 PM 243 | >>The shoe is on the other foot. If I see no evidence, there is nothing for me to show. You are trying to be too clever by half. The majority verdict is that there is temple destruction. If you deliberately choose not read the judgment, obviously you wouldn't see the evidence. But if you are accusing the judges of prejudice, the burden of proof is on you! It's ironical that we are playing the same game that AIBMAC/ICHR historians played with the VHP 20 yrs ago. AIBMAC wanted evidence but every time evidence was provided, they didn't find it good enough and kept on shifting goal posts. All this while, they didn't come up with a single evidence of an alternate scenario. Then they stopped attending meetings. 20 years later, even the court ruling doesn't satisfy Anwaar. All this for a land that is extremely sacred only for Hindus and has no value to Muslims. Muslims keep on whining that they should not be held responsible for temple destructions in the past. But its people like Anwaar who choose to cling on to Babar and his legacy. I really hope people like him are not in majority within the Muslim community. |
| Oct 14, 2010 02:43 PM 244 | Rajesh Ramachandran (Daily Mail) Post #226 This stupid directs Supreme Court as to what judgement it should give. !! |
| Oct 14, 2010 02:48 PM 245 | Ajit Tendulkar, cn you read English or not? Sharma says "there is voluminous evidence available on record both documentary and oral which substantially establish that Lord Ram was born at the place..." BEFORE Sharma says anything about Hindu belief, he claims that it is 'established' Ram was born at that place, ie established as a fact based on evidence, not an article of belief. I rest my case. |
| Oct 14, 2010 02:49 PM 246 | Meera, From ASI report dated 2003: " Excavated distinctive features associated with temples of north India. Excavations yielded stones and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of a divine couple and carved architectural features, including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali, doorjamb with semi-circular shrine pilaster, broke octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranjala (watershute) in the north and 50 pillar bases in association with a huge structure". I quote from Wikipedia and I saw another online article with same report. It will be good exact original ASI report's copy. No proof can ever emerge from a destroyed buildings mutilations that it was destroyed. In essence, forensic science is always probabilistic. So asking ASI to prove a temple existed without complete excavation is another problem. How many pillars do really exist? Is it 50 or 400 as claimed in another report using laser scan techniques or something like that? That is a moot point. I can post as much as I want for a non-expert's opinion that temple existed beneath mosque. Point really is ASI concluded with excavation techniques that some big Hindu structure exists beneath mosque. To claim it is not a temple because no idol was found is like saying WTC towers were not brought down with aeroplanes but were imploded internally since no planes were found. Obviously the destruction has a cost of damaging what is there to create something else. There will be obviously no idol and the exact sanctum santorum as well will never be exactly found unless more excavation is done probably. But again that is speculation. They may never be found. They were obviously vaporized by the invaders or whoever built the mosque structure. How do I know that? Because a mosque exists on top of the Hindu structure. But has ASI proved some sort of Hindu structure existed beneath mosque? The answer is yes. Has recorded belief shown Hindu worshippers at the place or around the place from annals? The answer is yes, atleast from the 16th century AD. Has a particular community shown continuous belief in the same place for well over hundreds of years and even today? The answer is yes. So let the Ram Janmastan be recognized and the temple or any structure that they want be built. So says the court. |
| Oct 14, 2010 03:03 PM 247 | Let us be fair about perceptions. Before the British came to India, many Hindu's believed that the then disputed structure was the birthplace of Lord Ram. The British recorded, that in certain areas of the then disputed structure, worship was being carried out, by Hindu's, apart from the main Mosque, which had stood there. Before Babur, was there a temple which had stood there? How did Babur build a mosque, above the ruins of a temple? If the previous temple was a ruin, and if Babur had not broken down the temple, fair enough, but who did the site belong to, before Babur erected the Mosque? The site was still a Hindu holy site. How can the site be called the birthplace of Lord Ram, only after Babur, erected a Mosque there? It may be possible, but highly unlikely. Could a Hindu be made to believe, that any site was the birthplace of Lord Ram, all of a sudden, today? If there is a dispute, then there is a give and take. No person only gains in a dispute. The problem must have started, when one of the communities had been prevented from worshiping at the site. I believe, the British recorded, that Hindu's and Muslim's, were busy with their own worship, at the site, and no one prevented the other from worshiping. |
| Oct 14, 2010 03:13 PM 248 | Meera, Your statement: " BEFORE Sharma says anything about Hindu belief, he claims that it is 'established' Ram was born at that place, ie established as a fact based on evidence, not an article of belief. I rest my case. " And you will lose the case too. Check this logic: He never uttered the word 'ESTABLISHED'. He used the word 'IS'. The semantic and pragmatic meaning of such a word comes from the lexical paradigm of the word set 'to be'. In essence, he is talking about the word 'be' which implies 'to exist' or 'to live'. In this case, it is existence that matters obviously. Any question on why he added the next graph on the explanation for the 'spirit of divine' and 'its shapelessness and formlessness'. Perfect. Meets the definition of semantic 'is', does not it? So the judge Sharma or whatever name he has says that 'the disputed site is the place of birth...', that is, 'the disputed site EXISTS as the place of birth..' and in the next statement he mentions 'is personified as the spirit of divine ..' which he again defines in the next graph. Please remember: He never talked about evidence. He said it is based on 'personification' and the word 'being/is'. Where is evidence here? Uhhh...I cannot find it yet. All I can find is acceptance of right to belief. More copy of the judgement from that judge: " ISSUES FOR BRIEFING 1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram? The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. " |
| Oct 14, 2010 03:23 PM 249 | Aditya Mukherjee, " Could a Hindu be made to believe, that any site was the birthplace of Lord Ram, all of a sudden, today? " Absolutely not. Belief is eternal. Formation of myths and beliefs takes generations in count and sometimes millenia like for God Ram. How can people who have never understood self belief understand or ponder over a social belief? When I look at Meera, Shuja, Kumar and 'you know who', I hear the word 'miles to go' in my head. |
| Oct 14, 2010 03:35 PM 250 | Meera, " did not say that the ASI said a temple could have been there already in ruins before the 16th century. That was MY opinion, and also the opinion of one of the judges, Justice Khan. The ASI only said there was a structure under the mosque...I'm saying that based on that we cannot jump to the conclusion (as the other two judges did) that the temple was destroyed to build the mosque. That is simply faulty reasoning without proof. " And I proved your assumption of faulty reasoning was faulty. Care to rejoinder? |
| Oct 14, 2010 04:20 PM 251 | bowenpalle venuraja gopal rao. warangal, india "Hindus were never destroyers. Buddists were destroyers on a great scale, (ex. Kalhana's Rajatharangini). Swami Vivekananda said in one of his interviews that Buddhists were the only largest destroyers in India and hence they were thrown out of India. " Surprised to read this can you provide from where you got this information? |
| Oct 14, 2010 04:24 PM 252 | Calahas UNK, United States Mr.Calahas There was a court case filed in supreme court some time back by a Muslim to appealed to the court to stop excavations by ASI !! No civilized world can accept this and Supreme court rejected the appeal. There is indeed a need to do excavations on a large scale at this site. A very valuable information on early Vedic period may be found. Entire site including, the present Ram lalla area and make shift temple (central dome area) exacavations by ASI must be ordered by Govt. immediately. |
| Oct 14, 2010 04:50 PM 253 | Dear Mr.Jay Hyderabad. As for Swami Vivekananda's sentences, you can read "Complete works of Swami Vivekananda" ,in this book there is an interview which he had given to "The Hindu" newspaper reporter. About Kalhana's "Raja Tharangini" an english translation is available in book shops. Some theorists put forward the theory that Hindu Kings learned to build temples from Buddhists and hence the theory that they destroyed Buddhist stupas,viharas etc., to build temples. Whis is not true. Their theory emanate( probably ) from Indus valley civilization excavations ,fortunately ,during British period. In Indus Valley, they had "Pashupathinatha"(Lord Shiva sitting in meditation) terracota figures(burnt clay idols) but there were no temples ,except open "yagna vatikas"(6500 years ago). But anyone can read Valmiki Ramayana where Valmiki described a huge stone made,temple whose gopurams touched the sky,in Ashoka gardens of Lanka. In front of this temple valimiki describes Sita as sitting there. Even a copy (of Ramayana )written by Bhavabuti is 2000 years old. We can not definitely say , VALMIKI period of life but definitely very old to Buddhist period. Buddhist destruction did not confine to physical structures alone (by Buddhist Kings , I mean to say) but also to the culture,caste,political structure (republics during ancient times !!) social structure based on professions, social order based heirarchical authority and even punshments. Though Ashoka the Great implemented very crude barbarous punshments like cutting hands, frying in boiling oil (capital punishment) , once a criminal enters a Buddhist Sangha, he was generally accpeted inside , and then King ,even Monarch had no authority to arrest the criminal. Buddhism vitiated entire political atmosphere and brought down Brahminical Hindu society but as Swami Vivakananda said in a lecture on Buddhism "Buddha himself greately contributed to Hinduism, enriched Hinduism" by his philosophy,thought,preachings etc., I can add even through Buddha's own meditation techniques which were actually borrowed from Vedic writings and Upanishads. |
| Oct 14, 2010 04:59 PM 254 | "There are two Jewish shrines at the same site(Al Aqusa Mosque site)". ANWAAR "There is ONE HINDU shrines at the same (Janambhoomi) site- the IDOL of RAM was worshipped on the court yard of Babri for more than 300 years. But the Mosque occupies the "specific site considered holy by JEWS at Al Aqusa and by Hindus at Janambhhomi". "An aware populace is the best guarantor of democracy". ANWAAR As per the same "democratic principles" the WILL of the majority prevails in democracy. The MAJORITY believe that a "Ram was born at the Janambhoomi site" and ASI has proved in the court that a "temple existed below the Mosque site". |
| Oct 14, 2010 05:03 PM 255 | >>Ajit Tendulkar, cn you read English or not? Meera Sagar, it is clear you cn not write it. As for me, you see meddum http://video.google....4573454453318691268# |
| Oct 14, 2010 05:15 PM 256 | "If you saw positive evidence that the temple was demolished, show it". ASI has shown it to the court and the court is convinced. ANWAAR can go and see it if in doubt. Obviously ANWAAR MIYA will only believe "positive evidence" given by AFPK TALIBANI MULLAH SURVEY. |
| Oct 14, 2010 06:55 PM 257 | >> You claimed there was no evidence. The burden of proof is on you! That's correct. But a Jihadi mind can't understand that. It thinks that everyone is obliged to humor it and obey its commands. |
| Oct 14, 2010 06:57 PM 258 | "ASI is the handmaiden of Hindutva http://countercurrents.org/khalidi021010.htm" You don't have to post this link, Meera. Outlook has also posted his trash. You can read it with its comments. BTW thanks for posting countercurrents article. We all now know where you are coming from. |
| Oct 14, 2010 11:23 PM 259 | >> When the claim before the court included the "strong belief of HINDUS that RAMJANAMBHOOMI is the birth place of RAM", the court is well within its rights to decide on the claim- the court has decided only on the "faith of Hindus" and NOT on the "factual nature of the claim". There is also a 'strong belief' in some muslims that as per Islam/Sharia it should remain a Mosque. If it is about faith, why is this faith ignored? >> HINDUS overwhelmingly believ that RAM existed and was born at the JANAMBHOOMI- which has been accepted by the court There are as many Muslims who also may believe that it is a violation of their belief in Islam/Shariah. The text of the verdict commented on things which ought to be outside the scope of court in a secular democracy. |
| Oct 14, 2010 11:55 PM 260 | " There is also a 'strong belief' in some muslims that as per Islam/Sharia it should remain a Mosque. If it is about faith, why is this faith ignored? " Agreed. They have a claim. I do not think even the supposedly radical Nirmohi Ankar or whatever it is trashed the Muslim claim. The Muslims have a right to belief. But can one place of belief stand the test of religious temporality from two belief systems? If so, which one should the court choose? And the court finally chose one - based on excavations. The field is called archeology. Now you can dispute ASI's methods but you cannot dispute some of their conclusions based on what you will see from their photographs, pictures and actual artifacts stored somewhere now. This is unless you will claim that their excavation is a farce in which case there is no discussion here and you come from Mars then. |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:23 AM 261 | " When the claim before the court included the "strong belief of HINDUS that RAMJANAMBHOOMI is the birth place of RAM", the court is well within its rights to decide on the claim- the court has decided only on the "faith of Hindus" and NOT on the "factual nature of the claim " This is a logically and factually wrong argument coming from the supporter of the temple position. None of the three judges and I really mean NONE (Most mosque supporters quote Sharma as an example of supporter of faith. That is wrong.) have supported religion or faith or trust itself. They have actually supported 'right to worship'. Here are some snippets from the briefing: " It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also. " Any questions on the words 'worshipped' and 'personified'? Personification is abstraction of a thing to be a person. So where did he say that Ram existed. When he actually claims that Ram is abstract. And follow this now: " Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial. " I could be wrong but Charan may refer to baby God Ram. Has anyone missed the words that clearly look like 'RIGHT TO WORSHIP' to me? The problem is Sharma was a smart judge much like the other two judges but he never explained why he arrived at his logical conclusion in more detail. It would be hilarious to see an Indian lawyer try to argue this is acceptance of faith when it is actually acceptance of right to faith and trust. Philosophically this would still form part of logical positivism since faith is not used for conclusions but the legality of faith is used. So fideism is still not there in the judgment as claimed. |
| Oct 15, 2010 01:06 AM 262 | A very pertinent eye opener for Indians: " As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness: United States — Muslim 1.0% Australia — Muslim 1.5% Canada — Muslim 1.9% China — Muslim 1%-2% Italy — Muslim 1.5% Norway — Muslim 1.8% At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails. Denmark — Muslim 2% Germany — Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7% Spain — Muslim 4% Thailand — Muslim 4.6% From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ). France — Muslim 8% Philippines — Muslim 5% Sweden — Muslim 5% Switzerland — Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8% At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons). Guyana — Muslim 10% India — Muslim 13.4% Israel — Muslim 16% Kenya — Muslim 10% Russia — Muslim 10-15% After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning: Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8% At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare: Bosnia — Muslim 40% Chad — Muslim 53.1% Lebanon — Muslim 59.7% From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels: Albania — Muslim 70% Malaysia — Muslim 60.4% Qatar — Muslim 77.5% Sudan — Muslim 70% After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide: Bangladesh — Muslim 83% Egypt — Muslim 90% Gaza — Muslim 98.7% Indonesia — Muslim 86.1% Iran — Muslim 98% Iraq — Muslim 97% Jordan — Muslim 92% Morocco — Muslim 98.7% Pakistan — Muslim 97% Palestine — Muslim 99% Syria — Muslim 90% Tajikistan — Muslim 90% Turkey — Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96% 100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' — the Islamic House of Peace — there's (supposed) to be peace because everybody is a Muslim: we know however that this isnt true is it...? Afghanistan — Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100% Somalia — Muslim 100% Yemen — Muslim 99.9% Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons...and they are coming to a neighborhood near you...so keep thinking they are not going to harm you and they "accept" you. ??? " |
| Oct 15, 2010 01:20 AM 263 | >> >> There is also a 'strong belief' in some muslims that as per Islam/Sharia it should remain a Mosque. If it is about faith, why is this faith ignored? >> Agreed. They have a claim. I do not think even the supposedly radical Nirmohi Ankar or whatever it is trashed the Muslim claim. The Muslims have a right to belief. I was responding to your point that is it a matter of 'right of hindu faith' as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc. There is no need to state that, as no one here said that there is no right of religious belief. The belief in some sections about Islam/Sharia is as important as belief in some sections about Ram (and the beliefs of tribals etc about trees/forests and gods they worship). >> But can one place of belief stand the test of religious temporality from two belief systems? If so, which one should the court choose? And the court finally chose one - based on excavations..The field is called archeology. Now you can dispute ASI's methods but you cannot dispute some of their conclusions ... Firstly, as others have point out, the ASI findings and the level of certainty it could produce etc ought to be irrelevant. So what if there is a temple on a Mosque or a mosque on a temple or a church on a mosque or a buddhist shrine over a temple or what ever? The court order of 1991 is the most logical and sensible one. If any, Ayodhya issue should not be excluded. In any case, as for history/archeology, they are ongoing debates for a different forum - not for the court to ascertain faith or to decide for one faith over the other etc. |
| Oct 15, 2010 01:43 AM 264 | Calahas, >> Your statement contradicts Part III of the Indian Constitution that mentions Right to worship at religious places. Wrong! The dispute is about the title to the religious place. >> Part XII of the same document that mentions Right to Property. Since Allahbad High Court did not give a clear ruling as to title, it may be determined by the Supreme Court, although I would like Muslims to let Hindus have it. >> Do Muslim opinion leaders including Hindus that are part of them want Ram Janmastan removed from Hindu worship? No proof was presented to the court indicating that the site is Janmastan. The main crticism of the verdict by jurists is that faith triumphed over law. In an out-of-court settlement however the religious belief of Hindus would be respected. >> Do they understand that if Ram Janmastan is removed, then Hindus are denied Ram worship which is in violation of the Right to worship? Melodramatic, but Hindus were never denied right to Ram worship. Even the flawed court verdict is a lot better than your self-serving pseudo-legal arguments. Hindu should be allowed to have the site, but let us leave pseudo-legal arguments out of it. >> Will they worship Islamic Allah if there is no Makkah? Yes. >>>> If you saw positive evidence that the temple was demolished, show it. >> ASI saw it. ASI found the ruins of a mandir, but, as Justice Khan said, no evidence that it was demolished. |
| Oct 15, 2010 01:44 AM 265 | " the ASI findings and the level of certainty it could produce etc ought to be irrelevant. So what if there is a temple on a Mosque or a mosque on a temple or a church on a mosque or a buddhist shrine over a temple or what ever? " ASI evidence should be excluded, huh! ASI is the official archeological organization of the Indian government. If the court does not use archeological evidence, what do you think the court will use to determine the nature of the structure underneath the mosque structure? It surely cannot use journalistic opinion and editorialism, can it? How does it matter if it is 'temple over mosque' or 'mosque over temple' right? Exactly. Except for something known as 'property rights'. Otherwise if one follows your opinion, then India will no longer be a fully democratic country. Property rights and access to certain resources - markets, elections, governance, education, natural resources - legally defines a free democratic and free market country. India is not a free market country yet but it wants to be there atleast economically. But it claims it is a politically free country which implies property rights have to be guaranteed. Both to Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists and forests and elephants. To whatever existed on the day Republic of India came into existence in 1950. The problem is you and others among the millions are thoroughly confused on the definition of the terms 'belief', 'faith', 'trust', 'property', 'law', 'justice', 'ethic', 'morality', 'philosophy' and other terms not included in the list. You confuse the professional definition of 'property laws' with the definition of 'political secularism'. Further, your definition (and others') of 'secularism' does not even match the legal definition of secularism from say the country that originated secularism - France. If you ask Voltaire and Rousseau on what they thought of secularism and what Karl Marx, the philosopher, thought of secularism and told them what you thought, they will turn in their graves on what you have told them. They will cry and wring at the prospects of the mutilation of their political concept. But their writings inspired millions to uplift their lives and to understand social processes and override them with better ones. Clearly the new processes were better as European society became enlightened in all forms of thought. Can the same ever happen in India? On the contrary, what has the Indian form of secularism achieved? If I have to answer your question, it will be this pattern: negotiation, non-negotiation, business growth, riots, bomb blasts, no conclusion, and again negotiation, non-negotiation, business growth, riots, bomb blasts, etc. The pattern will continue with temple or no temple. That is the nature of the society there in India and a solution has to be found to implement REAL SECULARISM to solve that natural problem. Not the fake one you or others talk about. |
| Oct 15, 2010 01:49 AM 266 | RSM, >> The majority verdict is that there is temple destruction. I know that. But my question was, "On what evidence?" |
| Oct 15, 2010 01:57 AM 267 | Rajesh Ramachandran says: An article of faith for the cow belt could be a cause for benign humour in beef- eating Kerala or Tamil Nadu. M Karunanidhi, the shrewd chief minister of Tamil Nadu perceived the Sethusamudram dredging project more important to his electorate than the mythical bridge that Ram's monkey army built across Palk Strait, or else the sensible old man would not have let out a loud chuckle and asked for Ram's engineering degree to prove the antiquity of the Adam's bridge between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. So even the ' faith', the great mythology of Ram, is not an all pervasive, all encompassing, monolithic, pan Indian phenomenon. Sure, the genesis of the present title suit between the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Wakf Board can be traced back to a case in 1885. But nobody can contest that the ' faith or belief' of the birth place of Ram was reaffirmed by the Sangh Parivar's mass movements launched after the Rajiv Gandhi government let the locks of the Masjid be opened in 1986. Interestingly, the greatest Ramayana of the Hindi- speaking people, Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas, believed to be written after the Babri Masjid was built is silent on the issue of the ' belief ' of a grand Ramjanmabhoomi temple getting razed by Babur's general Mir Baqi or his soldiers to build the Masjid. Tulsidas never sang about liberating his dear Ram Lalla nor did he sanctify the exact spot where the baby god was born and nursed by queen mother Kausalya. The ' belief' about the place of Ram's birth was first asserted when some unknown persons illegally ' placed' the Ram Lalla's idol under the central dome of the Masjid in December 1949. It cannot be a mere coincidence that the then deputy commissioner KK Nayar who let the act of illegality happen, and refused to remove the idol despite a letter from the then Prime Minister Nehru, after retirement, joined the Jan Sangh and was elected to the Lok Sabha from a Parivar ticket in 1967. http://communalism.b...r-sangh-parivar.html |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:00 AM 268 | Anwaar, Welcome back! " Wrong! The dispute is about the title to the religious place. " Please refer to the question list in the following briefing. That makes you only partially correct and actually wrong on this statement assertion. From Justice Sharma's brief summary, page #4: " Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 28 2. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in suit upto 1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949 as alleged in the plaint? 4. Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Ram in particular have perfected right of prayers at the site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for more than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as alleged by the defendants? 10. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse possession as alleged in the plaint? 15. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit from 1528 A.D. Continuously, openly and to the knowledge of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its effect? 28. "Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of the disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its possession?" These issues are decided against the plaintiffs. " Did you see it wrote 'right to prayers' and 'a question on adverse possession by means of right to prayers'? Am I the only one making the connection between 'Right to worship/prayer' and 'Right to property' that is so explicit in question 4 from the Justice. From Justice Agarwal's summary, page#2: " Issue 1-B(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that building in question was not exclusively used by the members of muslim community. After 1856-57 outer courtyard exclusively used by Hindu and inner courtyard had been visited for the purpose of worship by the members of both the communities. " From Justice Khan's summary, page#1: " That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated. " He reported this as a finding but I am sure he answered the same question #4 as answered by the other judges. In essence, determination of right to worship and adverse possession by means of right to worship was one of the questions that they had to judge on. |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:08 AM 269 | >> ASI evidence should be excluded, huh! Are the courts going to employ ASI to dig which god is worshipped where/when/why/who etc? Why is there a 1991 court directive for status quo is such 'evidences' about gods/temples etc is releavant? >> How does it matter if it is 'temple over mosque' or 'mosque over temple' right? Exactly. Except for something known as 'property rights'. >> property rights have to be guaranteed. Both to Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists and forests and elephants If it is only about 'property rights', why bring issues related to who believes in what? Property rights are for individuals or organizations or speciifc parties/litigants - not to some vague grouping of communities/people as "hindus", "muslims", "Buddhists" etc. |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:11 AM 270 | Calahas, >> From Justice Sharma's brief summary... That is a minority opinion. As you know Justice Sharma has been widely ridiculed. >> " after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram." We do not know exactly when such identification was first made. Many articles say it was relatively recent, spurred by sangh activists. |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:11 AM 271 | " nterestingly, the greatest Ramayana of the Hindi- speaking people, Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas, believed to be written after the Babri Masjid was built is silent on the issue of the ' belief ' of a grand Ramjanmabhoomi temple getting razed by Babur's general Mir Baqi or his soldiers to build the Masjid. Tulsidas never sang about liberating his dear Ram Lalla nor did he sanctify the exact spot where the baby god was born and nursed by queen mother Kausalya. " This is like saying Harold Pinter was in London in 2005 and wrote a novel called Sleuth or whatever about events in London but never mentions London's bomb attacks in 2005. Duh! |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:20 AM 272 | Akil, >> the WILL of the majority prevails in democracy. If we did not have a Constitution and courts, we would have majoritarian dictatorship. |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:22 AM 273 | Kumar, " If it is only about 'property rights', why bring issues related to who believes in what? Property rights are for individuals or organizations or speciifc parties/litigants - not to some vague grouping of communities/people as "hindus", "muslims", "Buddhists" etc. " Please go talk to an Indian lawyer for more information on this statement list. Did you just mention that Indian communities have no communal property rights? And you mentioned Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc!! Do you really mean it? Do you know your statement is considered religious discrimination as per any Common law system in the entire world? And please read Max Weber as well, the sociologist and constitutionalist, before you post here and the Indian Civil Code and the Indian Constitution and all of its parts and schedules. Max Weber is the recognized giant of socio legalism whose methogologies are still followed around the world for forming law questions and answers. Though he has been dead for 80 years. Opinion wise, I personally condemn the extreme practices of a Muslim or even Hindu or Buddhist communities. But even I do not deny a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Protestant or Catholic right to worship, right to belief, right to property etc. What I want is more regulation of this practice to enforce separation of Religion and State. Nothing more. Nothing else. It can always be done. Like I said you are from an alien strange world with feet never been on ground. |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:24 AM 274 | >> This is like saying Harold Pinter was in London in 2005 and wrote a novel called Sleuth or whatever about events in London but never mentions London's bomb attacks in 2005. Duh! Tulsidas vis-a-vis Lord Ram is a different equation than Pinter vis-avis London's bomb attacks, don't you think? |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:30 AM 275 | " >> Will they worship Islamic Allah if there is no Makkah? Yes. " Yes, they will but will they not want to get it back by one means or another so long as their belief exists? Are you implying that the Kaaba is irrelevant to Muslims? I sense that you do not understand Islam either. May be you have not heard of the Haj and the definition of a Haji. |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:32 AM 276 | " Tulsidas vis-a-vis Lord Ram is a different equation than Pinter vis-avis London's bomb attacks, don't you think? " You have a point either. I am slightly tired now and need to restart my stomach engine so I can come back and do this better. |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:35 AM 277 | Anwaar, " If we did not have a Constitution and courts, we would have majoritarian dictatorship. " Finally someone is thinking. Please read Arrow for Arrow's impossibility theorem which mathematically proves even democratic systems will always be dictatorial. Field is political economics or political theory. |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:47 AM 278 | " >> From Justice Sharma's brief summary... That is a minority opinion. As you know Justice Sharma has been widely ridiculed. >> " after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram." We do not know exactly when such identification was first made. Many articles say it was relatively recent, spurred by sangh activists. " Justice Sharma, Aggarwal and Khan are on unianimous agreement that Hindu right to worship at site existed and they voted for keeping it that way. Justice Sharma judged that Babar brought down the mosque. This was very clear from him. Justice Aggarwal judged that there was failure on behalf of defendants to prove that demolition took place for mosque to come up in 1528 AD though he agreed that temple was demolished and then came the mosque implying not necessarily right away. This implies that per him, Babar did not destruct mosque conclusively but he possibly could have done it and so could have someone else. Now if the question is that a Hindu demolished the temple to let Babar construct the mosque, that is speculation. But what matters is that a temple was destroyed sometime, then after a while which is either right away or not, a mosque was constructed. Justice Khan gave a judgement that looks the same as that of Justice Aggarwal's. I think that that is the best legal opinion on this question of Babar's demolition act - that it is unproven. But all three agree that temple existed before and mosque came on top. The actors per them are inconclusive and so is the time. |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:49 AM 279 | Calahas, >> need to restart my stomach engine so I can come back and do this better. The argument is becoming circular and could go on for ever. I would much rather end here with the suggestion that we re-read the posts of Mukul Kesavan and Sundeep Dougal under "Ayodhya: The Ball Is In Our Court". |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:50 AM 280 | >> I know that. But my question was, "On what evidence?" Ask the judges. |
| Oct 15, 2010 05:54 AM 281 | "There are as many Muslims who also may believe that it is a violation of their belief in Islam/Shariah. The text of the verdict commented on things which ought to be outside the scope of court in a secular democracy. " Ya a secular democracy that discriminates based on religion and funds religious tours and religious education. I dont think liberals can stand on any foot on the plea that secular democracy needs to be impartial among religions, as the liberals have never done that |
| Oct 15, 2010 06:23 AM 282 | >> "Interestingly, the greatest Ramayana of the Hindi- speaking people, Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas, believed to be written after the Babri Masjid was built is silent on the issue of the ' belief ' of a grand Ramjanmabhoomi temple getting razed by Babur's general Mir Baqi or his soldiers to build the Masjid. Tulsidas never sang about liberating his dear Ram Lalla nor did he sanctify the exact spot where the baby god was born and nursed by queen mother Kausalya." Interesting point. Regardless of whether there was an existing belief about the exact site/spot at Ayodhya, clearly Tulsidas was interested in the spiritual rather than the political. Today's hindutva politicians need some lessons in spirituality! |
| Oct 15, 2010 06:30 AM 283 | >>"I was asked to read Article 25 and just did. I don't see this article establishing a state religion. It only mandates the state to make sure ALL Hindus (reference to Harijans) have a right to enter temples. Either I am stupid or mian from Raipur is lying. You can read the full article reproduced below and decide for yourself. >> Sickular mind playing sickular tricks. Wow. Article 25 is the basic article that protects religion in India. It is the right to propogate, profess and spread the religion that you want. Now a sickular mind will look at it in a sickular way and say protection of dalits, minorities blah blah, but law is neutral it means protection and propogation. The Hindu belief that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya at the particular place can definitely be protected under Article 25. If not for Article 25, a tyrant ruler could wipe out religion from India or persecute any particular religion of its choice. Now how does it relate to this case. It is simple, as it has been proven that hindus have a belief that Ramjanambhoomi is where the mosque stood and that belief is not a manufactured belief, but that has been existent since time immemorial so Article 25 can come into play and the Indian State and Indian Law will have to protect that belief. But the sickular mind and its tricks will not accept that interpretation. But Mr Vijay, just for the benefit of your slow mind. Law is like a transparent water, you put purple ink in it, it will become purple and you put a red ink in it, it will become red. In this case the interpretation that the Indian state has to protect the belief of crores of hindu that has been existent since time immemorial has to be respected, further the has been compounded by the history of this site along with evidence of a pre-existent temple makes the case very simple and straight forward that the belief has to be protected. But the sickular mind cannot accept it, so good luck with this reality, but you know realities are always difficult to accept |
| Oct 15, 2010 06:43 AM 284 | >> Your statement contradicts Part III of the Indian Constitution that mentions Right to worship at religious places. Wrong! The dispute is about the title to the religious place.>> Mr Anwaar keeps talking about the title of the place. Who has the title of the place. Neither the hindus nor the muslims. If somebody had a clear title this case would have been dismissed long long time ago. Mr Anwaar is just confusing everybody. Muslims or hindus nobody had a clear title to this place. It is dishonest to suggest that it is just a title dispute. Looking at it from a title dispute point of view, the court will have to take the land and give it either to the government or do a partition and the court did a partition. The heart burn that liberals have is that their lie has been caught in full glare and they cannot stomach it. Their utopian muslim rule of medieval india has been shred to pieces in front of the entire nation and their version of history has been challenged. If it is just about the title then this verdict should have actually been entirely in the favour of hindus as per indian law, but due to the history of the site and the prior presence of mosque, muslims have got 1/3 land. |
| Oct 15, 2010 06:44 AM 285 | >> Please go talk to an Indian lawyer for more information on this statement list. Did you just mention that Indian communities have no communal property rights? So is the Ayodhya dispute about "communal property rights". Why are there two parties representing "hindu community" then? And did the court ascertain if those two parties jointly or separately represent "hindu community" appropriately and agreeably? Are the various hindu sections like dalits, tribals, tamilians, Bengalis etc in agreement to be represented by those two organizations? The same question for the litigant who is supposedly representing "Muslim community". |
| Oct 15, 2010 06:48 AM 286 | There were, as far as I know, TWO parties to the dispute over the Ramjanam Bhoomi site. What about the comments/reactions of the other party (Hindus)? Or maybe their sentiments/faith does not matter for media in this country run by pseudo-secularists. |
| Oct 15, 2010 06:52 AM 287 | The photograph on the top of this webpage is so ironical as Imam Bukhari was involved in a attack on a journalist yesterday in Lucknow. Of course, he would not be arrested for stooping to such pathetic levels. |
| Oct 15, 2010 07:14 AM 288 | >>The ' belief' about the place of Ram's birth was first asserted when some unknown persons illegally ' placed' the Ram Lalla's idol under the central dome of the Masjid in December 1949. It cannot be a mere coincidence that the then deputy commissioner KK Nayar who let the act of illegality happen, and refused to remove the idol despite a letter from the then Prime Minister Nehru, after retirement, joined the Jan Sangh and was elected to the Lok Sabha from a Parivar ticket in 1967. >> Ya the assertion of belief and the existence of belief. I guess their is not difference in the sickular mind in these two things. The belief existed and was asserted for a longtime but was never acknowledged except by travellers and historians, then the sickulars took over and then they started denying this important history as it did not fit their sickular idealogy, but fortunately truth always prevails as it has done 60 years after first it started getting denied starting from Jawaharlal Nehru |
| Oct 15, 2010 08:27 AM 289 | Drolia, >> Mr Anwaar keeps talking about the title of the place. It is. The dispute is about whom the site belongs to. >> The heart burn that liberals have is that their lie has been caught in full glare and they cannot stomach it. That's how sanghi zealots like you see it. The mosque has been demolished. The "liberals" do not want India's judicial systerm demolished too. But that will never enter your head. |
| Oct 15, 2010 08:49 AM 290 | >> The Hindu belief that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya at the particular place can definitely be protected under Article 25 So is the belief that a Mosque should not be demolished/replaced. >> further the has been compounded by the history of this site along with evidence of a pre-existent temple makes the case very simple and straight forward that the belief has to be protected. Again, you are forgetting that there are two beliefs that needs to be protected. There is a right against a Mosque being demolished by use of muzzle/money power by lawless mobs (more so in the post-independent India where there is a collective commitment/pledge towards law and the Republic). |
| Oct 15, 2010 09:16 AM 291 | >> Who has the title of the place. Neither the hindus nor the muslims. If it is between "hindus" and "muslims", why are there three litigants? And who gave authority to the groups to be representing "hindus" and "muslims"? If none of the contending parties have proper title, all the three should be refused ownership - and deal it as a case of a Mosque existing on a land without title which has been demolished in violation of the IPC, bu people who are subject to the law. >> Looking at it from a title dispute point of view, the court will have to take the land and give it either to the government or do a partition and the court did a partition. Even if it decided to partition, why should it be divided to those three parties? >> If it is just about the title then this verdict should have actually been entirely in the favour of hindus as per indian law You just said that no one has the title? In any case, who represents the "hindus"? Who has the right to represent "hindus" and take control of the land (assuming your interpretation of the judgment as partition between "hindus" and "muslims", which it is not)? Does that representative body has representation from all sections of hindus? |
| Oct 15, 2010 09:37 AM 292 | >>I know that. But my question was, "On what evidence?" My answer is on evidence presented in the 8000 page judgment |
| Oct 15, 2010 10:24 AM 293 | "If we did not have a Constitution and courts, we would have majoritarian dictatorship" ANWAAR, MAJORITY DICTATORSHIP exactly the way it is being followed in ISLAMIC MAJORITY Countries. Why are MUSLIMS impossing "majority dictatorship" whereever they are in majority while demanding "minority rights" where they are in minority??? Why don't ANWAAR and the CAIR JEHADIS like him shift to the GULF ISLAMIC countries and fight for "minority rights of non-Muslim in Gulf Countries" rather than protecting Muslims in USA??? OR why don't they shift to AFPAK and take on the ISLAMIC FANATICS- TALIBAN???? IT all a hidden agenda of ISLAMIST who consider ISLAM to be 100% correct while all others are 100% wrong. |
| Oct 15, 2010 10:31 AM 294 | >>>> Mr Anwaar keeps talking about the title of the place.>> It is. The dispute is about whom the site belongs to. (Are you talking about Title) >> So very clever Mr Anwaar. You a piece of work. As already said and I will again say. Please ask Sunni Waqk board to show the title to that place. If it is a title dispute as claimed by you then muslims have no right over this land. They have no clear title to this land. Simple. I guess you dont get this. In legal terms as being defined by you, the structure does not automatically convert to a title for muslims. But you will never listen isn't. Dumboos like you will never understand. If it is treated as a title suit then also muslims have no claim over this land, just by the mere existence of a structure that is believed to be a mosque. The fact is that hindus have consistently used this structure for worship and so any claim has to be settled on the basis of possession and the honorable court has done just that. You dumboo go and read the judgement instead of motivated opinion by "Eminent Liar Incompetent Historian" |
| Oct 15, 2010 10:31 AM 295 | "There is also a 'strong belief' in some muslims that as per Islam/Sharia it should remain a Mosque" KUMAR, The Janambhoomi is a belief of HINDUS which is linked to a specific place and can NOT be shifted. Can the place which Christians believe to be the place of birth of Jesus be shifted?? But Mosque can be shifted- it has been done in SAUDI ARABIA for even widdening roads. In AFPAK Muslims have even blasted Mosques while "OTHER MUSLIMS" were offering friday prayers- that is the reverance MUSLIMS have for Mosque!!!!! |
| Oct 15, 2010 10:39 AM 296 | >>Are the courts going to employ ASI to dig which god is worshipped where/when/why/who etc? The court did not employ ASI for the above. You need to stop depending on straw man arguments. >>Why is there a 1991 court directive for status quo is such 'evidences' about gods/temples etc is releavant? There was no court directive in 1991 for status quo. >>If it is only about 'property rights', why bring issues related to who believes in what? Because that was a consideration for deciding usage. >> Property rights are for individuals or organizations or speciifc parties/litigants - not to some vague grouping of communities/people as "hindus", "muslims", "Buddhists" etc. And the judgment was for the parties to the dispute. |
| Oct 15, 2010 10:42 AM 297 | >> further the has been compounded by the history of this site along with evidence of a pre-existent temple makes the case very simple and straight forward that the belief has to be protected. Again, you are forgetting that there are two beliefs that needs to be protected. There is a right against a Mosque being demolished by use of muzzle/money power by lawless mobs (more so in the post-independent India where there is a collective commitment/pledge towards law and the Republic). Collective commitment/pledge and other stuff. Ya hindus have no believe in this so called collective commitment. This collective commitment vanishes at the first sight of trouble. I dont want to go further, but this collective commitment is only towards a particular community. Other majority community can suffer in silence as it happened in kashmir in the great liberal SECULAR INDIA in 1989 and the collective commitment did not do anything. Those 4 lakh hapless people are not part of the collective commitment because they are hindus. So lets not go there. First hold your end of the bargain. Protect hindus and their belief. We are not cannon fodders to be put on the altar of secularism You sickulars have used it for vote back politics for minortism and for every sundry thing except for upholding of the principle of secularism. People like me have lost faith in that concept. |
| Oct 15, 2010 10:51 AM 298 | >> The Janambhoomi is a belief of HINDUS which is linked to a specific place and can NOT be shifted ... But Mosque can be shifted- it has been done in SAUDI ARABIA for even widdening roads So did the judges check with Shariah experts to find out if as per Islamic beliefs the mosque in this case can be removed and replaced with a temple? (like how they tried to ascertain if there is a belief in Rams birth place etc)? >> In AFPAK Muslims have even blasted Mosques while "OTHER MUSLIMS" were offering friday prayers- that is the reverance MUSLIMS have for Mosque!!!!! The extremists do not care about places of worship nor for human life. Those who demolished the babri mosque are not too far away from that. |
| Oct 15, 2010 10:56 AM 299 | >>If it is between "hindus" and "muslims", why are there three litigants? And who gave authority to the groups to be representing "hindus" and "muslims"? If none of the contending parties have proper title, all the three should be refused ownership - and deal it as a case of a Mosque existing on a land without title which has been demolished in violation of the IPC, bu people who are subject to the law. >> Mr Kumar very clever. Who told you that the structure that existed was a mosque in the true sense. I guess you are blabbering without knowing the whole facts. I will educate you anyways. This so called mosque was used by hindus for idol worship. Hindus used to celebrate Ramnavmi as and when the political situation permitted. Hindus have always claimed this land. So by what stretch of imagination does it exclusively become a mosque. Just because a barbaric invader decided to build a mosque over there. What sense of justice is this. Your sickular mind will not understand the sense of injustice that hindus have on this issue. Hindus have always claimed a right over this land and the existence of a structure that was used as a mosque occasionally does not give any right to muslims over this place. As far as the demolition, please prosecute everybody who was involved in the demolition. Ban RSS, BJP, VHP, BD. I dont care, but your sickular govt is so incompetent that it cannot do that also. >>Even if it decided to partition, why should it be divided to those three parties? >> Dont pontificate, go and read the judgment and the history behind the debate. I am not here to educate you. >>You just said that no one has the title? In any case, who represents the "hindus"? Who has the right to represent "hindus" and take control of the land (assuming your interpretation of the judgment as partition between "hindus" and "muslims", which it is not)? Does that representative body has representation from all sections of hindus? >> A typical pseudo secular question. Hindus who are religious want the site back, their is no question about it and the events of 80's and 90's have shown that further the large scale support for the building of Ram Mandir at the site is further proof. For the sickular, well they dont have any religion and cannot represent hindu belief even if they are born as hindus and so dont represent hindu religious belief. |
| Oct 15, 2010 11:06 AM 300 | >>So did the judges check with Shariah experts to find out if as per Islamic beliefs the mosque in this case can be removed and replaced with a temple? (like how they tried to ascertain if there is a belief in Rams birth place etc)?>> A mosque can be replaced. The shariah does not say anything about a mosque.It is done all the time. It has happened in my home town Raipur for road widening and also in Saudi Arabia. So dont throw strawman over here. If the muslims were serious about the issue and understood the hindu sentiment (rather than as a manufactured issue) in the 1990 dialogue and shown some inclination of negotiating the issue we would not have a demolition of the mosque in our hand. VHP and AIBAC had extensive dialogue that resulted in just stonewalling. Though this does not justify the demolition, but overall the sickular, left wing intellectuals and muslim leadership should have understood the hindu demand. They have started to understand it now after a lot of water has flown down the Saryu river and that is why the reaction to the verdict is muted. The demolition was a criminal act and the people who hatched the conspiracy to demolish the mosque should be exposed and publicly tried, but the sickular government cannot do that also. They were never able to prove any conspiracy. The commission report was a sham. The commission could not prove any conspiracy even though there was definitely a conspiracy to destroy the mosque |
| Oct 15, 2010 11:38 AM 301 | >> A mosque can be replaced. The shariah does not say anything about a mosque.It is done all the time. Then why can't the Shariah experts be called upon to testify that? Or at least the court try to find it out from Shariah experts etc about the Babri mosque? (like how they tried to find about faith in Janmabhoomi)? >> If the muslims were serious about the issue and understood the hindu sentiment ... It is a standing mosque that is demolished and it is fair to assume that the general concern is about Islamic tenets or Sharia and not just a fight for the heck of it. I am sure, if the Islamic experts come out and say that moving the Babri mosque is not a violation of Islamic tenets and Sharia, I am sure, there will be hardly any more debate/issue on the matter. |
| Oct 15, 2010 11:55 AM 302 | >>Then why can't the Shariah experts be called upon to testify that? Or at least the court try to find it out from Shariah experts etc about the Babri mosque? (like how they tried to find about faith in Janmabhoomi)? >> Well the muslim side could have argued that way. I am afraid you will have to take that question to the AIBAC lawyer and argue with him about the approach he took on the case. Muslims could have tried to connect their faith to the site. They chose not to do that, instead make it a legal fight about Title that they did not have. As tenuous as the muslim faith may have been it may have made the court more lenient. But the AIBMAC approach was that this is a muslim mosque forcefully taken away by the hindus without any reason, give our mosque back. Then hindus said good luck with this approach. Well once the muslim side denied the hindus their right to preach and pray their and also denied the history of the site they were in no position to bring their personal faith in the equation. I believe that if muslim lawyers would have made the issue between the faith of two communities and acknowledged the history behind the site, the mosque would have been standing along with a temple with the understanding that Ramjanambhumi is a sacred place for hindus. The denial about the existence of Ram and the denial about the existence of faith certainly did not help the muslim case. |
| Oct 15, 2010 11:59 AM 303 | >> What sense of justice is this. Your sickular mind will not understand the sense of injustice that hindus have on this issue I am not denying that there may be some people who are really particular about idol to be placed at the exact spot right under the dome, solely for spiritual/religious reasons. But I can't imagine a truly spiritual person in this day/age, to take up the act of desecration/demolition what some believe to be a Mosque or a scared place. At the same time, please also understand that there are also some others, who for solely spiritual/religious reasons do not agree that the Mosque in this case can be removed (and not just for the heck of it). Though the adverse act of illegality/aggression is done against the Mosque, one should appreciate the consistent stand about abiding by the SC verdict (even if in disagreement). |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:06 PM 304 | >>It is a standing mosque that is demolished and it is fair to assume that the general concern is about Islamic tenets or Sharia and not just a fight for the heck of it. I am sure, if the Islamic experts come out and say that moving the Babri mosque is not a violation of Islamic tenets and Sharia, I am sure, there will be hardly any more debate/issue on the matter. >> I am not sure where you are going with this, but moving a mosque is not against the islamic tenet or islamic faith. It is done all the time in islamic and non-islamic countries. The testimony of some mullah is not required to know that fact. As I have already said mosques have been removed, replaced or shifted all the time and babri mosque had no specific attachment for the muslims. Ramjanambhumi is deeply attached to the hindu faith. The position is very reasonable and simple. When hindus made their case with AIBMAC in the 1990's they did not listen and stopped the dialogue arbitrarily and then stated their position with the use of "Eminent Lying Incompetent Historians" through a booklet titled "Report to the Nation" on the ayodhya issue. Muslims continuously stonewalled the issue and never accepted the hindu position. They still dont accept it. We cannot wait forever for muslims to accept our position. We can argue and wait for a reasonable time if we see light at the end of the tunnel, but even after more than 100 years of litigation and several attempts to make muslims understand the hindu faith did not bring fruit, then unfortunately extremists take control of the process. This is what happened in Ayodhya. I am idealogically against the demolition of the mosque so I will always oppose the demolition come what may. There were better ways of pressing the issue. The ramjanambhumi waited for 500 years it could have waited more, but the muslims never gave an inch on the issue and hence extremist took control of the entire process. |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:13 PM 305 | TULSIDAS also wrote some other books in addition to Rama charitha manas. In these books Saint Tulsidas mentioned in detail the destruction of Rama's temple in Ayodhya by Mir Baqui and this fact is sited by Justice Sharma. But Justice Khan who seems to be well read in Ramayan searched only in Ramchairtha Manas and quoted that it was not mentioned eventhough Tulsidas never had any attachment to wealth ,hence he should not have been afraid at all. Tulsidas need not mention in Ramacharithamanas in the first place because he did not consider Sri Rama's story as epic but only as devotees account of his God Rama. But he mentioned the destruction of temple in one his "kritis" (songs). |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:15 PM 306 | RSM, >>>> But my question was, "On what evidence?" >> My answer is on evidence presented in the 8000 page judgment. So you don't have an answer! |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:18 PM 307 | >>I am not denying that there may be some people who are really particular about idol to be placed at the exact spot right under the dome, solely for spiritual/religious reasons. But I can't imagine a truly spiritual person in this day/age, to take up the act of desecration/demolition what some believe to be a Mosque or a scared place. At the same time, please also understand that there are also some others, who for solely spiritual/religious reasons do not agree that the Mosque in this case can be removed (and not just for the heck of it). Though the adverse act of illegality/aggression is done against the Mosque, one should appreciate the consistent stand about abiding by the SC verdict (even if in disagreement). >> See personal believes can vary. As far as spirituality is concerned, Ram is everywhere and his existence does not require the certificate of a temple at the perceived place of his birth. Hindus fortunately have a more open sense about their belief, even for a highly aggrieved person such as me about the Ramjanambhumi issue. The question is about giving the lord ram his rightful place that was forcefully taken away from him by the sheer act of aggression. Just the recognition of such an aggression and the fact that Babar destroyed the Ram Temple would have been enough to justify our faith. The statement that these sickular gave during the debate in 80's is mind boggling. 1. Show the birth certificate of Ram 2. Ram is a mythological figure 3. Ram was born in Afghanistan 4. Ram was born in Nepal 5. Ayodhya was not a pilgrimage for hindus until 18th century (when it is expressing known that this is not the case) 6. Ram is being used for political purpose (though in some sense that is true, but hindus are not fools like muslims who will allow their religious believes to be exploited by political groups) All these arguments by uber secular modernist and islamist radicals did not do any good to the hindu belief. The radicals are doing this again. They are misrepresenting the judgment and calling it a judgment between "Faith and Fact". The uber seculars are not seeing the fact and equating fact with faith. The fact is that hindus have a faith that Ramjanambhumi is in ayodhya and the fact is that the temple that marked that janambhumi was destroyed by Babar upon the invasion in 1526. This fact has been denied consistently and distorted and the result is in front of you. |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:19 PM 308 | Akil, >>>> "If we did not have a Constitution and courts, we would have majoritarian dictatorship" >> MAJORITY DICTATORSHIP exactly the way it is being followed in ISLAMIC MAJORITY Countries. Do you want India to be like the dictatorships in Muslim majority countries? |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:25 PM 309 | >> But my question was, "On what evidence?" >> My answer is on evidence presented in the 8000 page judgment. So you don't have an answer! >> The 8000 pages is not enough evidence for you then what can we mere human beings do to convince you. We cannot convince you, we can only argue with you that's it. You have already decided that you dont want to consider any evidence contrary to your belief. If you are interested then you would have first read the judgment with an open mind to understand it and then provided informed critique on the judgment and not motivated third person columns. Go read the judgment and then tell us what part of the judgment you do not agree with |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:27 PM 310 | "So did the judges check with Shariah experts to find out if as per Islamic beliefs the mosque in this case can be removed and replaced with a temple" KUMAR, Courts can take cognizance of known and established facts while adjudicating and it is a widely known fact that Mosques have been shifted to widden roads in Saudi Arabia. It is also known fact that in TURKEY, Hegia Sophia, a church converted to Mosque in 1453 was made a meuseum in 1935- effectively undoing it as a MOSQUE. KUMAR has the right to insist on calling Sharia experts from India and if they don't stisfy him he can demand form AFPAK too but Janambhoomi will have a MANDIR and only a MANDIR. |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:31 PM 311 | Droila, >> If it is a title dispute as claimed by you ... What else is it about? Hindus have been worshipping there for a long time. Muslims had a mosque there for over 400 years. They both claim the site. The court has to decide the issue one way or the other. So it is a title issue. But it will not get through that thick head of yours. My last post in this thread. |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:35 PM 312 | Do you want India to be like the dictatorships in Muslim majority countries? ANWAAR, Typical ISLAMIST comment. "We are like that only" and so will "subjugate" all non-Muslims whereever MUSLIMS are in majority. But since the rest claim to be "democratic, human rights abiding, progressive society" non-Muslims must not do to Muslims what the Muslims are doing to non-Muslims!!!! Corollary to your contention is that "if and when" Muslims become majority in any part of the world they will impose "Islamic dictatorship" on non-Muslims and so Muslims must be prevented from becoming majority in anymore place. |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:47 PM 313 | >> Courts can take cognizance of known and established facts while adjudicating and it is a widely known fact that Mosques have been shifted to widden roads in Saudi Arabia So why then none of the Islamic experts said that it can be applied in this case? (everyone said to the contrary – may be that argument becomes valid if the SC decides that the Mosque should be moved, as the SC is a legitimate authority). And BTW many temples also get displaced (tribal gods and places of worship etc simply gets trampled upon and bulldozed etc, that is a different matter). And is there a Hindu tenet that there must be an idol placed and worshiped at the exact supposed spot of birth of each hindu deity/god? As some one pointed out, Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas itself did not see to bother about it. |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:49 PM 314 | >> The 8000 pages is not enough evidence for you ... If someone asks you a question, answer it, instead of referring him to the 8,000 pages. Stop using evasive techniques. |
| Oct 15, 2010 12:51 PM 315 | >> If someone asks you a question, answer it, instead of referring him to the 8,000 pages. Ah, how the worm turns. When asked as to what "new" evidence Kapur commission had that was not available to Atma Charan court, based on which he arrived at his conclusion that Savarkar was guilty, you claimed you didn't know, and you were not bothered. Were those evasive techniques? |
| Oct 15, 2010 01:02 PM 316 | Akil, >>>> Do you want India to be like the dictatorships in Muslim majority countries? >> Typical ISLAMIST comment. "We are like that only" What an idiotic comment! Am I a Pakistani or a Saudi that you can taunt me about what is going on in those countries? If you want to bring in Muslim dictatorships in this argument, I can only surmise that you admire them and want a similar dictatorship in India. But you want to make a big point about my being a Muslim, as if my being a Muslim has tainted me with the behavior of Pakistanis and Saudis. Are all shakha graduates total morons? |
| Oct 15, 2010 01:06 PM 317 | >> As far as spirituality is concerned, Ram is everywhere and his existence does not require the certificate of a temple at the perceived place of his birth. >> The question is about giving the lord ram his rightful place that was forcefully taken away A rightful place of God cannot be taken away by anyone. I don't think you need to worry about place of God. It is offensive to the very spiritual notion of God to suggest that you are trying to get a rightful place for God. And doing unlawful deeds/demolition etc is against God, if any. >> The statement that these sickular gave during the debate in 80's is mind boggling. You have your faith. Why are you bothered? Is a Christian necessarily bothered if someone asks to produce a medical certificate to prove that Jesus was born of a virgin? If you bother to refute in a forum of religious debate, you can do so. Otherwise, your faith is yours. Why bother? >> Ram is being used for political purpose (though in some sense that is true, but hindus are not fools like muslims who will allow their religious believes to be exploited by political groups) Now, don't tell me that all the hindutva folks have done it truly believing that it is for spiritual reasons! It is a deadly concoction of politics and religion – it has a deadly attraction like offering power, money and fame all at once – it has an appeal for the non-spiritually inclined people. I am not saying that you are like that or that all hindutva people are like that, but it holds good to a great many. |
| Oct 15, 2010 01:07 PM 318 | >> What an idiotic comment! Am I a Pakistani or a Saudi that you can taunt me about what is going on in those countries? If you want to bring in Muslim dictatorships in this argument, I can only surmise that you admire them and want a similar dictatorship in India. But you want to make a big point about my being a Muslim, as if my being a Muslim has tainted me with the behavior of Pakistanis and Saudis. Are all shakha graduates total morons? >> Mr Anwaar you are an indian ok. What did you do to stop the ethnic cleansing of hindus from Kashmir. Nothing. So stop crying now. Hindus have nowhere to go. The sickulars did not do anything to stop it and hindus have to fend for themselves against a rampaging islamist fascism in muslim majority areas. Liberals such as you are of no importance in fighting this fight against islamofascism, so will just side step or probably join them. Dont act as cry babies when it comes back to hurt you |
| Oct 15, 2010 01:13 PM 319 | >> You have your faith. Why are you bothered? The snob again. People have a right to be bothered or angry, and express these emotions, as long as there is no violence. Weren't Muslims bothered when cartoons were drawn in Denmark, or recently, when Koran burning was reported in US? Weren't Christians bothered when Da Vinci code was released, forcing some succu govts to ban it? |
| Oct 15, 2010 01:31 PM 320 | Droila, >> Mr Anwaar you are an indian ok. What did you do to stop the ethnic cleansing of hindus from Kashmir. Another idiotic comment! What was I supposed to do to stop the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir? What did you do for them, or for hundreds of victims of Naxal violence? You were asking the same stupid questions six years ago! Do you think at all before you write your obnoxious posts? |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:35 PM 321 | "Am I a Pakistani or a Saudi that you can taunt me" ANWAAR You defend everything ISLAMIC and certainly is an ISLAMIC FUNDOO. So how does your nationality matter. ANWAAR is not responsible for anything what ISLAMIC FUNDOOS do from Kashmir, AFPAK, SAUDI etc but abuses anyone who accuse Muslims of any wrong doing. |
| Oct 15, 2010 02:52 PM 322 | So why then none of the Islamic experts said that it can be applied in this case? KUMAR Many Muslims come out with the SHARIA LAW on Mosque in many forums. But do any "Islamic experts" agree on anything. The WAHABIS, SUNNIS, DEOBANDIS, BARELVIS, SUFIS, SHIAS, AHAMMADIYAS etc etc all disagree on everything, even accussing each other of being non-Muslims. "Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas itself did not see to bother about it". He lived between 1500's to early 1600's when ISLAMIC RULE was at its peak. Had TULSIDAS said anything about AYODYA MANDIR in Ramcharithamanas he would have been a dead man the moment he said it. Those in doubt only need to recall what happened in "progressive present day India" when Sulman Rushdie "wrote a book in England"/ a DANISH NEWSPAPER published some cartoons/ the latest incident of a PASTOR threatening to burn QUR'AN in USA etc etc. |
| Oct 15, 2010 03:30 PM 323 | >>>> But my question was, "On what evidence?" >> My answer is on evidence presented in the 8000 page judgment. >>So you don't have an answer! You can lead the horse to the water but you can't make it drink. |
| Oct 15, 2010 03:34 PM 324 | >>If someone asks you a question, answer it, instead of referring him to the 8,000 pages. This from someone who when given specific instances of deceit and distortion by historians from the 8000 page judgment claimed the Judge was one sided! |
| Oct 15, 2010 07:49 PM 325 | 'Anwaar' and 'Kumar' have been posting links from Counter Current "intellectuals" triumphantly questioning why Tulsi Das does not talk about the demolition of the temple if it was so sacred. they clearly, like our own meera sagar, have not read the judgment. http://www.rjbm.nic....0RJB-BM%20vol-04.pdf Page 783 onwards in particular. Because Tulsidas is quoted at some length. |
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
Posts
