The politics of Lord Ram got some divine sanction from the law. A movement that had been spent, an issue that had collectively exhausted the nation, a politics that had been virtually abandoned, was given a new lease of life by the three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court. They were all quite magnanimous about matters of faith. They gave primacy to the "belief" that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram. In doing so, they also gave respectability to the movement led by the VHP and BJP leader L.K. Advani that culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, seen by many as a criminal act for which cases still continue.
|
As for the janmabhoomi votaries, it was their judgement day all the way. Consider the views of the three honourable members of the bench. Justice Sudhir Agarwal concluded that "the area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure was the birthplace of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus". He also said that "the building in dispute was constructed after demolition of a non-Islamic religious structure, i.e., a Hindu temple". Justice S.U. Khan, meanwhile, 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" and that "after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram".
End Of Yatra: Lawyers representing Hindu groups flash the victory sign outside the high court. (Photograph by Nirala Tripathi)
|
These are remarkable judgements because, in a manner of speaking, they comment on whether God exists, or more specifically that Lord Ram did, and was born at a particular site! Most observers expected the judgement to be based on cold facts and not be a claim of faith. Legal experts say these are matters on which high court judges are not expected to comment. Indeed, the question that may be asked is, now that the legitimacy of the claim has been established in a court of law, do we therefore judge the Ramjanmabhoomi movement as a legitimate agitation and end all the criminal cases?
VHP leaders Praveen Togadia and Acharya Giriraj Kishore celebrate with laddoos in New Delhi. (Photograph by Tribhuvan Tiwari)
|
More shocking twists and turns to the traumatic Ayodhya issue could be awaiting the community. For one, the BJP—which had been expecting a legal defeat—is hugely relieved. The party will use the verdict to embrace even greater respectability. Sources say a section of the party will even be pressing for what will be called a "magnanimous gesture" towards Muslims. In other words, they'll suggest that Muslims should be allowed to build a mosque on the one-third land they have been given as long as a temple too is built. The attempt, therefore, will be to project the Muslims as the churlish party unwilling to give in to Hindu generosity. The argument and the secular-communal divide would actually have been turned on its head.
Stunned: Shahi Imam addresses Muslims at Jama Masjid in Delhi. (Photograph by Reuters, From Outlook, October 11, 2010)
|
Smug in its "victory", the usually lumpen VHP too was a picture of calm and composure after the verdict. Dholakwalas were brought in to launch festivities at their press office in Delhi but then sent away after some senior functionaries decided it would be against the restrained mood. Sweets, though, were distributed widely. Praveen Togadia, with a big grin on his face, said, "We have appealed to all Hindus for restraint in their celebrations. We will collaborate with the police to maintain calm. Celebrations for us will take the form of distributing sweets and singing hymns to Ram in our homes and temples."
|
In the prelude to his order, Justice S.U. Khan writes: "Here is a small piece of land (1,500 sq yards) where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable land mines. We are required to clear it. Some very sane elements advised us not to attempt that. We do not propose to rush in like fools lest we are blown. However we have to take risk. It is said the greatest risk in life is not daring to take risk when occasion for the same arises. Once angels were made to bow before man. Sometimes he has to justify the said honour. This is one of those occasions. We have succeeded or failed? No one can be a judge in his own case." The three good men have therefore left it to Lord Ram.
By Saba Naqvi with Debarshi Dasgupta, Sharat Pradhan and Smruti Koppikar
| Also In This Story |
 ayodhya verdict The wisdom, the calls to put india above all, it seemed all deceit had left our shores. |
| in ayodhya Ayodhya, under siege for so long, heaves a sigh of relief |
 opinion The RSS has kept the BJP 'in reserve' for Ayodhya and more |
Filed In:
Authors: Saba Naqvi|Debarshi Dasgupta|Sharat Pradhan|Smruti Koppikar
Tags: Ayodhya : Babri Masjid - Ramjanmabhoomi|Judiciary
Section: National
Subsection: Cover Stories
Places: Uttar Pradesh|Ayodhya
Authors: Saba Naqvi|Debarshi Dasgupta|Sharat Pradhan|Smruti Koppikar
Tags: Ayodhya : Babri Masjid - Ramjanmabhoomi|Judiciary
Section: National
Subsection: Cover Stories
Places: Uttar Pradesh|Ayodhya
Oct 01, 2010 10:11 PM 1 | What kind of judgement these so called self appointed thinker want from Judges?Are judges given verdict that Ram was not born ed on same place ?If judges given verdict in favour of Muslim can that judgement bring peace in India?What these self appointed thinkers want from judges?They donot want to solve this problem?They want constant unrest in India?I think judges given balances judgement we Indian must accept it and finish hate,murder, violences of Hindu and Muslim. |
| Oct 01, 2010 10:25 PM 2 | This is what I have been saying again and again. In this country, there 4 types of people: 1. Minority Bigots (Saba Naqvis, ARoy, Teesta Setlvad types) - They hide under liberal leftist propaganda spewing hatred on Hindus, Hinduism, India, Nation or any thing that can increase the idea of India as one nation. Underneath, they are Minority Bigots who would like to insult Hindu faith at every opportunity. 2. Hindu Biots - We all know who they are. Thackreys, Tagodias, Shivsena types, Ramasena types. Very small brains that has only one feeling inside - Hate 3. Leftist COMMIES - They are ashamed of India, its history, culture. They would like like to denigrate every thing Indian or Hindu. They dare not say a single word against Minority fundamentalism, Minority Bigotry and even support them. No respect for faith if it is Hindu. Mulyams, Laloos, Paswans all come into this category. (1) and (3) work co-cooperatively. 4. Real Moderates - Could care less about faith. Whether you personally believe or not, you respect others' view. Unfortunately, this is a diminishing group and is not vocal as (1) or (2) or (3). If they say anything, the crocodiles of (1) and (3) or (2) are ready to tear them apart as it happens here so often. You are labeled as Hindutvadi or saffronite or Islamist etc to scare them into saying anything moderate. In this shitty piece of article, whatever the judges was twisted. They never condoned 1992 violence. They have not dismissed criminal cases against them. But Saba Naqvi, the Bigot and other Type (3) have stretched and twisted the judgment as condoning violence. This case is about the rights of different groups who have been worshiping at that site for hundreds of years. The place had Muslim and Hindu worship since 1700s according to all information available. The judges simply gave the rights to all groups using this site for several centuries. The place was closed for worship in 1949 when idols were placed but before that both Muslims and Hindus worshiped. Obviously, the bigoted can't see past the fact that Muslims did not get 100%; Hindus haven't been humiliated; Hindus have faith just like any other religion Christianity, Judaism, Islam. They want total denial of Hindu faith and ultimate humiliation. Only then this group can be happy. |
| Oct 01, 2010 10:33 PM 3 | the real loss is to the majority of hindus who r pseudosecular.the muslims were parroting/shouting since several years that they will obey the court verdict while the hindu fanatics where dead against any court intervention. this is becos of the fact that both the parties knew and thought that the hindu judges place their karma above their religion(no practising muslim can ever question the god/shariat/anything remotely connected with god unless he is an atheist while devout hindus do.theres the story of nakkeerar in tamil where he says lord shiv is wrong to say that womens hair has natural odour and even on the god displaying himself stresses that even if u show me the third eye and burn me there is no proof and u r wrong)and its the backbone of india.india exists becos of this group of pseudosecular hindus as one. if u read the judgement of dharamveer sharma its a hanuman bhakt singing hymns for lord ram (i can understand why he gave a dissenting verdict on the issue of compromise10 days back as his guilt consciousness made him feel ashamed of his judgement )and the bania judge in connivance with the mullah goes for new creation of partitioning(whats the need to partition if they feel that hindus and muslims coworshipped for centuries.they could have gone for the same). kindly remember the judgement of the neutral british judge in 1886 and it justifies the point why neutral umpires r needed not only in cricket but all disputes.hope the case lingers in the supreme court for a long time till there r adequate obc/sc/st judges to get an impartial judgement or atleast have more parsi/christian/southindian hindu judges to get a real judgement * |
| Oct 01, 2010 10:35 PM 4 | **** They want total denial of Hindu faith and ultimate humiliation. Only then this group can be happy **** I have to agree with this. The caption in the cover says it 'belief beats law'. The TRUTH is that law specially Indian law never dis-respected 'belief' / 'faith'. If the 'secular buffoons' are angry that courts start respecting 'belief' they should not be just selectively angry against 'Hindu beliefs'. If Hindus believing that Lord Rama is born in that particular place is ridiculous, the same holds true for the pedophile prophet talking thru an angel to God or God giving birth to another son-prophet. You can't just selectively diss 'Hindu beliefs'. |
| Oct 01, 2010 10:39 PM 5 | "Extremist elements who maintain that the Indian state, police and judiciary can never deliver justice to minorities will find one more reason to tell moderates 'we told you so'." Absolute pathetic article. Instead of spending your time on Sanghies and talking about muslim victim hood, refute the verdict legally point by point. We do not need divisive articles anymore. |
| Oct 01, 2010 10:43 PM 6 | In short, Saba will agree to an unbiased non-political verdict as long as it gives muslims full access to the disputed land. |
| Oct 01, 2010 10:52 PM 7 | I think editor of this story should SHUT UP!!!! What he is trying to say is Hindu faith has no meaning. To appease Muslims all judgments should be done to make them happy. Please stop using word "minorities", Muslims are 15-20% of population and can not/ should not be called minorities. These baseless articles are responsible for Hindu/ Muslim divide. When whole country is talking of harmony and goodwill people like Saba Naqvi are talking to divide communities. Shame on you "Saba Naqvi" |
| Oct 01, 2010 10:56 PM 8 | >> If Hindus believing that Lord Rama is born in that particular place is ridiculous, the same holds true for the pedophile prophet talking thru an angel to God or God giving birth to another son-prophet. You are free to call all (or any) of that as ridiculous. Who is stopping you? The issue is about court judgement - not a religious debate. The question of who/what/when/why of worship should be irrelevant to the court. |
| Oct 01, 2010 10:57 PM 9 | " Hope the case lingers in the supreme court for a long time till there r adequate obc/sc/st judges to get an impartial judgement or atleast have more parsi/christian/southindian hindu judges to get a real judgement " This racist and ignorant comment deserves a response. The so-called North Indians as Munuswamy calls them went through 600 years of Turkic and Afghan and Perso Islamic persecution unless what you so-called South Indians had seen in your ancestors lifetimes. Case in point. Not a single temple of the size, architecture and area like in those grand temples in Karnataka (Badami temples) or Tamilnadu (Brihadesswara) or Andhra (Srisailam) exist beyond the South-central region of India or let us say geographically the Karnataka-Andhra region. The ravages of the Islamic invasions was borne by the people of the North-West/North and the West/East of India and they alone have seen what it is like to live under oppression - losing economy, losing marriages, losing people. Why should so-called South Indians with no idea of political and historical processes and who are heavily Christianized (Andhra and Kerala and Tamil populations have close to 30% Christian populations or even more with no census on caste or religion) judge the experiences of people who are unlike you? These three provinces have not provided any succor to Indian governance with their unimaginable debt and corruption in politics and social life. Nor is there any semblance of improvements in science and technology. Most Indian tax revenue comes from the Central and West Indian provinces including Delhi and they have most of the best and big industries in India except for Bangalore/Karnataka which is an exception. In other words, no contribution comes from these three regions much like the North-East states of India or Kashmir. What a burden! |
| Oct 01, 2010 11:05 PM 10 | --""The disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram," he states decisively, because "place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of the divine worshipped as birthplace of Lord Rama as a child"" Only in India can a 'Judge' glibly mix Faith with Law and pretend its an elixir !! We are still a Nation of snake-charmers. |
| Oct 01, 2010 11:14 PM 11 | --"Not a single temple of the size, architecture and area like in those grand temples in Karnataka (Badami temples) or Tamilnadu (Brihadesswara) or Andhra (Srisailam) exist beyond the South-central region of India or let us say geographically the Karnataka-Andhra region." The Deccan Sultanate, the Nizams, the Mysore Sultans (Haidar and Tipu) never razed temples to the ground. --"Why should so-called South Indians with no idea of political and historical processes and who are heavily Christianized (Andhra and Kerala and Tamil populations have close to 30% Christian populations or even more with no census on caste or religion) judge the experiences of people who are unlike you?" This is a grotesque misrepresentation of South Indians and characteristically racist North Indian jibe. Not surprising. North Indians are invariably the biggest bigots. --"In other words, no contribution comes from these three regions much like the North-East states of India or Kashmir. What a burden!" Which is precisely why the South should secede from the North. We will be free of North Indian Hindu racism and bigotry. If North Indian chimps keep this up, a final solution to all problems may just be at hand. Cowbelt Hindustan may become a friggin reality. |
| Oct 01, 2010 11:16 PM 12 | dear calahas so u agree to my point that the persecution suffered by the hindus(i heard yesterday from shekhasr gupta that thousands of uppercaste hindus went to bahadur shah and requested him to become king and overthrow the british in 1857 and if its true i am confused)in the north has influenced the judgement.i am sorry if my comment sounded racial but iwhat i meant by southindian hindus was nonfanatics whether its babri/rjm dispute or same gothra marriages and had nevr considered them superior human beings. |
| Oct 01, 2010 11:33 PM 13 | The judgments appears to be divorced from the law of the land in property matters. Is the law of adverse possession dead now? |
| Oct 01, 2010 11:45 PM 14 | A billion people, a million mutinies. The Court has done a splendid job in helping the nation to be at peace with itself. |
| Oct 01, 2010 11:50 PM 15 | SABA NAQVI, DEBARSHI DASGUPTA, SHARAT PRADHAN, SMRUTI KOPPIKAR - What crap of an article is this? Why should muslims feel bad about the verdict? This brings closure - hopefully - to the long drawn fight. Muslims need to move on and focus on economic growth and prosperity. Same for the hindus too. Mandir or Masjid are irrelevant distractions on this path. This is the best possible solution - compromise or not. Let us move on. |
| Oct 01, 2010 11:54 PM 16 | >> "the Mysore Sultans (Haidar and Tipu) never razed temples..." "According to the Malabar Manual of William Logan who was the District Collector for some time, Thrichambaram and Thalipparampu temples in Chirackal Taluqa, Thiruvangatu Temple (Brass Pagoda) in Tellicherry, and Ponmeri Temple near Badakara were all destroyed by Tipu Sultan" |
| Oct 01, 2010 11:56 PM 17 | --"Muslims need to move on and focus on economic growth and prosperity. Same for the hindus too. Mandir or Masjid are irrelevant distractions on this path." If economic growth alone is the prime driver why not just give the land to the Muslims and continue on our path of economic self-sufficiency. How would Hindus react if the judgement came entirely in favor of the Muslims ? The coverage would be focussing on riots and killing, which would have already been unleashed by now. |
| Oct 02, 2010 12:22 AM 18 | >> The judgments appears to be divorced from the law of the land in property matters. Is the law of adverse possession dead now? Au contraire, |
| Oct 02, 2010 12:25 AM 19 | >> The judgments appears to be divorced from the law of the land in property matters. Is the law of adverse possession dead now? Au contraire, it is based on the law. The structure has been used by both worshipers for long long time without any clear title. Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan, however, joined to rule that since the disputed area had been used by both Hindus and Muslims for centuries, it would be divided into three parts, a third going to the Muslim parties to the dispute and a third each going to the two Hindu parties, namely the Nirmohi Akhara and the people who had filed suit on behalf of the infant Ram. |
| Oct 02, 2010 12:32 AM 20 | >> The structure has been used by both worshipers for long long time without any clear title. The litigants are not the "worshipers". If someone worshipped somewhere, it does not become his property either. The fundamental flaw is to look at it as hindus vs muslims issue. |
| Oct 02, 2010 12:52 AM 21 | >> If someone worshipped somewhere, it does not become his property either. Whom did the property belong to when it was a temple? Is there any evidence to show that the property was transferred to Babar or someone else, or if the owner of the property gave permission to build a mosque there? If no, then on what basis is the claim of BAMC or Waqf Board, or any other person representing the "Muslim side" valid? All judges have agreed that a temple stood at the site earlier, though, based on I don't know what evidence, justice Khan declared that it was already in ruins, and was not destroyed. |
| Oct 02, 2010 12:57 AM 22 | I would knock the temple and mosque down and build something more useful, such as a school or hospital. |
| Oct 02, 2010 01:07 AM 23 | CATA MARAN You should show greater respect for the religion which creates the possibility of India - Hinduism. Even I, a Chinese, can see this. In case you still doubt that I am Chinese - as does Muslim Anwaar) see what I wrote in the reader's string in response to the Outlook report on India's rejection of Pakistani charges of exporting terrorism: "I am bound to point out that India did arm and train the lethal killers called the Tamil Tigers against Sri Lanka. That is a fact. No wonder Sri Lanka has become great buddies with China! India stabbed it in the back in the foulest way." See? |
| Oct 02, 2010 01:20 AM 24 | >> Whom did the property belong to when it was a temple? Is there any evidence to show that the property was transferred to Babar or someone else, or if the owner of the property gave permission to build a mosque there? Well, who owned what/when and who is the rightful current legal owner etc is for the court to decide. I am commenting on the vague suggestion that "hindu" and "muslims" worshipped there and hence it is given to "hindus" and "muslims". |
| Oct 02, 2010 01:27 AM 25 | >> The litigants are not the "worshipers". If someone worshipped somewhere, it does not become his property either. The fundamental flaw is to look at it as hindus vs muslims issue. Check the common law. When a common corridor or room or driveway are used by 2 parties, both parties will have the rights to use it even in cases of where one party exclusively owned it but allowed the usage out of generosity or for any other reason. In this case parties are Hindus and Muslims and both were using it for centuries: "From at least the 19th century, if not earlier, we know that both Hindus and Muslims worshipped within the 2.77 acre site, the latter within the Babri Masjid building and the former at the Ram Chhabutra built within the mosque compound. " |
| Oct 02, 2010 01:44 AM 26 | >> When a common corridor or room or driveway are used by 2 parties ... >> In this case parties are Hindus and Muslims This is where I am disagreeing. The parties are not "Hindus" and "Muslims". |
| Oct 02, 2010 01:50 AM 27 | Cata Maran, Your statement: "Only in India can a 'Judge' glibly mix Faith with Law and pretend its an elixir !! We are still a Nation of snake-charmers." I am not North Indian to satisy your clause of 'North Indian bigot'. One need not belong to one region to understand its geography or society or institutions. And casteism as seen with the 70% affirmative action programs in South like Tamil Nadu is unadulterated racism and bigotry in all of its forms. How can privilege bestowed based on birth be not racism? Can children of certain communities except Dalits or Muslims from the North use mobility to move to South like Tamil Nadu and live to move up in social status? Impossible. The affirmative action programs and those regions' casteist ethno-genesis will prevent this. Much as you say that the North mixes cows with Hindi and with Hindu temples so does the South show unbridled enthusiasm to wreck institutions using caste as a discriminator. The North has had higher upper caste populations in certain regions in terms of percentage and they still have influence and this only reflects their vote for some relevance for upper-caste Hindu thought in socio-politics. The judgement does not concern money transfers or assignment of privilege based on caste which is even worse and more detrimental to society as you have not noted. What does such an innocuous judgement have to do with villifying entire Indian judicial system and North Indian people? In America, the motto of the US administration is 'In God we trust'. In Britain, the motto of the British state is 'dieu et mon droit'. The English common law used to be dispensed by Church Bishops and is derived from Canon law. So there is nothing wrong with the Indian legal system presiding over a religious land issue (not religion) and so determining right to worship. |
| Oct 02, 2010 01:57 AM 28 | Lookoutnow, "According to the Malabar Manual of William Logan who was the District Collector for some time, Thrichambaram and Thalipparampu temples in Chirackal Taluqa, Thiruvangatu Temple (Brass Pagoda) in Tellicherry, and Ponmeri Temple near Badakara were all destroyed by Tipu Sultan. " Detail always helps. Thanks for posting. |
| Oct 02, 2010 02:14 AM 29 | This article is calling upon readers to view the judgement from a communal angle and encouraging the grieving and a sense of loss among muslims. The strategic usage of imagery is further evidence of the intent of this article to rouse emotions. It wouldnt have passed the editorial cut in a secular/non-judgemental/ethical journal. |
| Oct 02, 2010 02:22 AM 30 | >> "I am bound to point out that India did arm and train the lethal killers called the Tamil Tigers against Sri Lanka. That is a fact. No wonder Sri Lanka has become great buddies with China! India stabbed it in the back in the foulest way." You are talking about spreading terrorism? You scums are involved in spread of nuclear proliferation to every rogue state: Pakistan, N. Korea. You supported terrorism in whole of North east India. You are biggest supporter of Pol Pot regime when the scums murdered 2 million people. You are biggest supporter of Paki sh1theads when they are raping, murdering millions of Bengalis in B'Desh 1971 by supplying the scums with weapons. Your history in Xankiang and Tibet need no introduction. Your history and hands have the blood of millions of victims all over Asia. |
| Oct 02, 2010 02:32 AM 31 | >> Well, who owned what/when and who is the rightful current legal owner etc is for the court to decide. Based on available evidence, it could not decide. So what is to be done? >> I am commenting on the vague suggestion that "hindu" and "muslims" worshipped there and hence it is given to "hindus" and "muslims". It's not vague that Hindus and Muslims worshipped there. It is a fact. And it has not been given to Hindus and Muslims. It has been given to three specific parties. |
| Oct 02, 2010 02:37 AM 32 | >> This is where I am disagreeing. The parties are not "Hindus" and "Muslims". Too bad that you have no understanding. Can't help you there. There is structure. Both parties wanted to build the temple or mosque exclusively based on their claim that they are worshiping there for long time. The court and Govt. accepted their accepted the litigants as representatives of their respective communities. There are several other parties who wanted to be the party to the dispute including Sunni Wakf Board claiming that they are the true owners of the land (title) because they own all unclaimed muslim mosques. If there was an entity or person who was holding the title of the land, the judges would have rules in their favor. The sunni wakf board claim was unanimously rejected. |
| Oct 02, 2010 02:46 AM 33 | If a court decides that this piece of land is exactly the spot where Lord Ram was born, it would seem like a page out of a Lewis Carroll book. It is better to see the court as saying that it is the faith and the belief of Hindus rather than seeing it as certification by the court. The faith and belief of Hindus would naturally enter into a compromise formula that the court tried to frame. The fact that some Hindu ruins were found during archaeological diggings and the fact that the exact location of a mosque is of no significance in Muslim theology are additional factors that a compromise attempt would take into account. The legal title of the Waqf to the mosque is of course a fact that a compromise formula would respect. Some people may object and say that it is not the court's mandate to fashion a compromise and that it should decide the matter strictly as a matter of law. But if the court had decided that one party was right and the other party was wrong, would that have been good for India? Even if one does not fully agree with all aspects of the compromise wrought by the court, the court has shown that a compromise solution is the way to go. If the compromise formula needs adjustment, the parties should go for arbitration. Going to the Supreme Court would only produce a legal decision which will not solve the problem. |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:13 AM 34 | "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 |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:15 AM 35 | Anwaar, " If a court decides that this piece of land is exactly the spot where Lord Ram was born, it would seem like a page out of a Lewis Carroll book. " Actually you can say that the Court behaved more like Humpty Dumpty. They were philosophical and used language to arrive at truth which was semantically correct as per their sentences. It is more funny when some lawyer calls this Panchayati justice. Funny because Panchayat justice was supposed to be judicious and fairer than even the Indian legal system. |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:18 AM 36 | The more I think about it, the real reason for the frustration of so-called liberals becomes apparent. The so-called liberals are afraid that no violence after the verdict may point to the maturity of India. As much as Hindu-Muslim violence helps consolidation to right-wing parties, it is essential for the DIENASTY to survive. This is why all these DIENASTY bhakts who benefit enormously from this CORRUPT regime are worried. The last thing they want is people not divided on caste/religious basis and think of only Governance. That is why they are really trying to provoke Muslims. See! The Hindus are gloating. See ! BJP is gloating. If you have seen Burkha Dutt, now Saba Naqvi, they are really disappointed. They are afraid that 1/3 award to Muslims might calm them. They would have preferred it to go either Hindu or Muslim way. Mr. Owaisi on NDTV said so. Why? If it had gone Hindu way, they would hope the hardliners in Muslims would take over and more bomb blasts. If it had gone Muslim way, their hope was VHP/Bajrang Dal would riot on the streets. This verdict scares the shit out of them. May be BJP can make them pee in their pants/kurtas by saying that they would help the Muslims build a Grand Masjid next to Grand Mandir. Burkha Dutt, Sab Naqvi will shit in their pants. In the last article "The Trickledown Revolution", I noticed that slimy Ms. Roy was on defensive defending the DIE-NASTY and launching blistering attack on MMS. These scums are really scared that people are perceiving this incompetent UPA as a bunch of use less retards fighting with each other, looting crores and helplessly watching like idiots unable to being any order to Naxalism or Kashmir or Prices or CMG or corruption. Now this communal harmony. Suddenly it looks like their sponsors might lose power and money will dry up. All those Padma Sris, Padma Bhushans, Bharat Ratnas, Advertisement crores in their TV/Magazines. Oh no! May be people can't be duped for ever. The wise sense may prevail! |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:19 AM 37 | George, I was waiting to see who will quote Nirad C Chowdary and of course Sir Vidiya Naipaul. 'India - a million mutinies' echoes from time to time in the real India. What a pity! |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:24 AM 38 | Vivek, Do you really think the DIENASTY people, err...dynasty people from Delhi has a hand in all of this? That would point to a conspiracy. I am also interested in your connotation of the word - is it that they want others to die nasty or are you wanting them to be marked for a nasty 'you know what'? I am typically a sceptic and I see no hand of the HAND. I see their knee-jerk reaction to all of this from their dungeon in Delhi saying: 'talk to the HAND'. It is more like disinterest or passive interest with an eye on how to use the judgement for votes. |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:29 AM 39 | If the 'verdict' (not judgement) had come in favor of Muslims, you can rest assured there would be mayhem. The RSS-Sangh fanatics would have unleashed their regressive violence on all Indians and especially Muslims. Thats the only reason we are seeing a 'matured' and 'muted' reaction. Imagine the violence if this goes to the S.C. and the ruling favors Muslims ?!! |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:45 AM 40 | I never said the DIENASTY had a hand in the verdict. I said that the anti-Hindu bigots, left-wing anti-Hindu crowd are all in a tizzy. They wanted riots. They wanted blood spilled on the roads so that they can start a vituperative campaign to bring their sponsors. They want vote-bank politics as much as VHP wants. They want polarization as much as VHP/Bajrang Dal wants. They want divisions as much as Shiv Sena wants. The last thing they want is peace, harmony, lack of hatred, divisions, and people thinking about and vote on the basis of Governance agenda. I picked up this word DIE-NASTY on the net when a user who said that India would DIE NASTY if we rely on DYNASTY not rule of law, accountability and independent institutions. I don't see the light at the end of tunnel of India. Instead of reforming our constitution continuously, these scums build this anti-Hindu, anti-BJP rhetoric to justify/promote DIE-NASTY errr... DYNASTY rule. Have you ever seen the loonies on the left arguing for real reforms to make independent legislature or executive or judiciary? Have you ever seen them make a case against discrimination against Muslim women in Muslim Personnel law? Have you ever take a stand against communal hatemongers/criminals whether it is the group chopping the hands of a lecturer or attacking Taslima Nasrin? They are least interested in the progress of poor people. They want to pit them against Upper Caste Hindus or Rich Hindus. |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:57 AM 41 | The interesting things is ... http://news.rediff.c...irthplace-of-ram.htm A Sanghi read the judgment properly than the dumbest journos. May be they read it right. But they want to stir the pot and create mayhem/violence. 1. There are critical comments about the issue of giving legal endorsement to the precise place where Ram was supposedly born thousands of years ago. How will an educated and scientific mind accept it? I hope you are not saying that judges are not educated or do not have a scientific mind. Of course not! This comment is for sake of argument and understanding. Let me answer your question. I think you have not read the judgement. The judges have not said anything to that effect. They have said that one of the references before the court was that if Hindus always revered that place as the birthplace of Ram. The judges said, yes, historically Hindus believed that it's the birthplace of Ram. The judges never said that the court is saying it's the birthplace of Ram. That is the historical fact. The judges are projecting it as an historical record. |
| Oct 02, 2010 05:31 AM 42 | Vivek, " They want vote-bank politics as much as VHP wants. They want polarization as much as VHP/Bajrang Dal wants. " It looks like that to me too. I do not follow the Indian TV like you do but apparently the reactions of most of the journalists including Outlook veers towards outright outrage and disappointment for the Muslim side losing the case. I think the real issue in India is demographics - both quality and quantity. The quality of Hindu demographics has plateaued in some form though I cannot quantify it. While the numbers have probably reached a plateau too atleast the upper-caste/upper-class population. Increase in Muslim demographics will lead to an increase in everything else for them - prosperity share, influence, political share. This is inevitable and right for them. But this comes at the expense of real Hindu political thought which is struggling for an existence. The Congress party never gave Hindu leadership a chance after Purshottam Das Tandon in 1950s. The Jan Sangh/BJP are doing something all the time but it may never be good enough except when being defensive like in the case of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Even without the legal judgement, it should be clear to any junior archeaologist that this was a mosque using temple remnants like the Qutub Minar where one sees Jain pillars or the Kashi temple where one sees Aurangzeb mosque right next to it using the older Kashi temple remnants. This case is actually a no-brainer and a straightforward one but just look at the amount of time it took the Hindu side to win it, that too, at the provincial court level - 60 years. If it takes 60 years to prove a rightful temple exists as per simple facts, then this points to the fact that Hindu independent thought will not survive in India. I really think India should be classified as a Muslim/other minority country with a Hindu minority being one among them. The dominant culture is not Hindu as many people think. It is Muslim in most places and Christian in a few places like the North-East and South. It is never dominant Hindu anywhere except Gujarat. It is just not possible. |
| Oct 02, 2010 05:56 AM 43 | Vivek, Your post: " Have you ever seen the loonies on the left arguing for real reforms to make independent legislature or executive or judiciary? Have you ever seen them make a case against discrimination against Muslim women in Muslim Personnel law? Have you ever take a stand against communal hatemongers/criminals whether it is the group chopping the hands of a lecturer or attacking Taslima Nasrin? " The answer is an obvious no but all of these are tied to vote-banks. A solid 20% of the vote is something no one will ever want to lose. They all have their eye on it but only one gets it at one time but the winning guy keeps changing. Some times it is Congress party while some times it is Samajwadi Party or some times it is IUML or MIM in Hyderabad or some times it is Communists. They are all the same. Even BJP wants their vote too. Have you never heard their pronouncements that they want to get Muslim vote though I doubt it if they get more than 10 muslim votes in each MP constitutency. |
| Oct 02, 2010 06:00 AM 44 | >> And casteism as seen with the 70% affirmative action programs in South like Tamil Nadu is unadulterated racism and bigotry in all of its forms. How can privilege bestowed based on birth be not racism? If it is about enabling adequate/just representation to a section that is disadvantaged, that cannot be called racism/casteism. Racism is when an existing advantage/privilege is misused to exploit the weak and the disadvantaged. So for example, to take some measures to enable some dalits to enter higher education, is not racism. But if a currently privileged section misuses the privilege/power to crush the disadvantaged dalits that is racism/casteism. The weak and the disadvantaged cannot be racist. |
| Oct 02, 2010 06:39 AM 45 | >> apparently the reactions of most of the journalists including Outlook veers towards outright outrage and disappointment for the Muslim side losing the case. Outrage if any, is not about anyone loosing/winning, but the manner in which the language used, seemed to give legitimacy/respectability to a condemnable fight of the bigots. It is not as if the whole nation is fighting and coming to blows over who can worship where and in what form etc. And then, it ventured into aspects like calling it a birth place of Ram, and whether theologically it is a Mosque or not etc – it made statements possibly unheard of in the history of law in any secular democracy in the world. |
| Oct 02, 2010 06:41 AM 46 | Calahas, >> Actually you can say that the Court behaved more like Humpty Dumpty. Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." Is that what you are referring to? |
| Oct 02, 2010 06:57 AM 47 | I'm amused by the reaction of the 'secular buffoons'. Suddenly they seem to realise that law is using 'faith'. Hello.... Indian law contains sections on Muslim, Hindu, Christian personal laws. Don't you think they are not based on 'faith' and used to divide properties and belongings?. he..he.. :-) If you go for rational arguments, go the whole hog. If Rama is a myth, so is Allah . |
| Oct 02, 2010 06:59 AM 48 | in addition, if the 'secular buffoons' do think that Rama is a myth but Allah is not a myth, please say so.. That will help the 'Hindutva' cause.. :-) |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:07 AM 49 | >> Suddenly they seem to realise that law is using 'faith'. Hello.... Indian law contains sections on Muslim, Hindu, Christian personal laws. Don't you think they are not based on 'faith' and used to divide properties and belongings?. There is a difference between allowing a practice of faith (in limits/parameters set by law/constitution) as opposed to declaring/proclaiming a religious belief or articulating a theological view point by a court. >> If you go for rational arguments, go the whole hog. If Rama is a myth, so is Allah . You are free to believe that both are myths, but one does not automatically follow from the other. |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:12 AM 50 | >> in addition, if the 'secular buffoons' do think that Rama is a myth but Allah is not a myth, please say so.. One is absolutely free to believe that Ram is a myth, but Allah is not, or vice versa, or that both are a myth. Whats the problem? >> That will help the 'Hindutva' cause.. :-) Looks like anything irrational and stupid serves the 'Hindutva' cause. |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:21 AM 51 | **** as opposed to declaring/proclaiming a religious belief or articulating a theological view point by a court. ***** he..he.. How do you think the court decides the property disputes?. For example when a court decides how much a Muslim daughter gets from the share of her ancestral property it articulates a theological view point. BTW, what do you think about the following ?. Do you think Rama is a myth?. (yes/no) Do you think Allah is a myth?. (yes/no). That will help us understand where you stand. :-) |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:37 AM 52 | "Only in India can a 'Judge' glibly mix Faith with Law and pretend its an elixir !!" CATA MARAN, If that be so why doesn't the Muslims hand over the AL-AQUSA mosque at Jerusalem to the JEWS??? Or do CATA MARAN, ANWAAR and all the other MUSLIMS believe that MUHAMMAD "flying on a winged horse- BARAQ" to Jerusalem and tying the horse at the site of AL-AQUSA MOSQUE while on his visit to "ALLAH in heaven" is factually correct and NOT a "page out of a Lewis Carroll book"???? All that the judges have stated is that most HINDUS believe that RAM was born at the site where the MOSQUE stood. It is exactly similar to what the MUSLIMS believe regarding MUHAMMAD "flying on winged horse" to visit ALLAH in heaven "via Jerusalem". |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:38 AM 53 | This is a very trashy piece. The outrage is borrowed to egg on Muslims to go and attack, riot and tell them that those guys won. They are celebrating. They are vindicated. The fact is the judges never said "This is the birth place of Rama." All they said was most of the Hindus believe that it is the birth place of Hindus. In fact the judges said: Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan, however, joined to rule that since the disputed area had been used by both Hindus and Muslims for centuries, it would be divided into three parts, a third going to the Muslim parties to the dispute and a third each going to the two Hindu parties, namely the Nirmohi Akhara and the people who had filed suit on behalf of the infant Ram. But leftist bigots who want to see riots on the street want to keep repeating the lie that this is not based on law but faith. Most of the Muslims are buying it. http://timesofindia....icleshow/6667975.cms While the Shahi Imam in Delhi's Jama Masjid termed the verdict a joke, the clergy in Kolkata tried lifting the sagged spirit of namazis. Shahi Imam Barkati of Tipu Sultan Masjid said, "Aapko is faisle se raasta mil raha. Aap bhi kamiyab hain. Shart ye hai ki Supreme Court me ye maamla theek se rakkha jaye; natija achha aayega (the verdict shows us the way. You've also gained something. Now we need to fight our case properly in the Supreme Court and we'll get good result)." Imam Barkati further said that the verdict was based on faith, not law, and that he believed that law would prevail in the SC. He expressed happiness that certain sections of the Hindu community, too, had taken exception to the verdict. |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:46 AM 54 | >> How do you think the court decides the property disputes?. For example when a court decides how much a Muslim daughter gets from the share of her ancestral property it articulates a theological view point. No. The court does not declare/proclaim that a message on this came to Muhammad from Allah. It was constitutionally agreed that in this particular matter a section of people can be legally allowed to practice a certain specific method/process. >> BTW, what do you think about the following ?. >> Do you think Rama is a myth?. (yes/no) >> Do you think Allah is a myth?. (yes/no). Does not matter and irrelevant. |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:50 AM 55 | **** No. The court does not declare/proclaim that a message on this came to Muhammad from Allah. It was constitutionally agreed that in this particular matter a section of people can be legally allowed to practice a certain specific method/process. **** he..he.. what BS?. The court reiterates the theological point of view on how much a Muslim daughter gets because apparently Allah told Muhammad so.. I can understand why you fail to answer my simple Qs. The questions are totally relevant though. :-) |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:53 AM 56 | >> The fact is the judges never said "This is the birth place of Rama." All they said was most of the Hindus believe that it is the birth place of Hindus. How is it relevant or how does it matter? (as far as the title suit is concerned). >> rule that since the disputed area had been used by both Hindus and Muslims for centuries, it would be divided into three parts, a third going to the Muslim parties to the dispute and a third each going to the two Hindu parties, namely the Nirmohi Akhara and the people who had filed suit on behalf of the infant Ram. The court should not refer or treat them as "hindu" party and "muslim" party. It should just decide on the title suit |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:58 AM 57 | >> The court reiterates the theological point of view on how much a Muslim daughter gets because apparently Allah told Muhammad so No. The court does not bring in Muhammad or Allah. It allows a specific practice/process of a section that is constitutionally agreed upon. |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:06 AM 58 | **** No. The court does not bring in Muhammad or Allah. It allows a specific practice/process of a section that is constitutionally agreed upon. **** he..he.. You are quite amusing. Even after being exposed, you keep repeating the same thing like a broken record. If you are not aware of this, the specific practice / process comes from Quran dictated by Allah to Muhammad as believed by Muslims. This is accepted by the court on the reasoning it is believed by Muslims. This is totally in line with the Ayodhya judgement where the court accepted that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Rama because Hindus believe so. The 'secular buffoons' cannot suddenly come and claim courts are behaving weird just because they gave a judgement respecting Hindu beliefs. |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:25 AM 59 | >> If you are not aware of this, the specific practice / process comes from Quran dictated by Allah to Muhammad as believed by Muslims. This is accepted by the court on the reasoning it is believed by Muslims. The court never commented or discussed on whether something is really as per the Quran/Shariah or whether something is a theologically correct interpretation of Islam etc. There are some prevailing practices of different sections of the people and the constitution/law has agreed that some of those prevailing practices can be allowed to be followed. >> This is totally in line with the Ayodhya judgement where the court accepted that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Rama because Hindus believe so. That is irrelevant to the title suit. |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:33 AM 60 | >> court accepted that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Rama because Hindus believe so. By the same token, it should then say that the place is a Mosque because "Muslims" belive so? Either way, it should be irrelevant to the title suit. |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:57 AM 61 | @KUMAR >> How is it relevant or how does it matter? (as far as the title suit is concerned). Man! You just don't get it. Do you? It was one of questions in the suit. Their ruling was that it is infact true that most Hindus believe that this is Rama Janabhoomi. It did not have any material impact on their ruling on how it was divided. >> The court should not refer or treat them as "hindu" party and "muslim" party. It should just decide on the title suit There is no title with any party. Don't you get it! I think you either are acting dumb or have not read any judgment details or you just don't get it. No body has a clear title. The muslims used it as a place of worship and Hindus did it too. No person or entity owned the land. The Sunni wakf board claimed ownership based on the fact that all Muslim religious institution automatically owned by it whenever there is no real owner. The judges unanimously rejected it. The reason they allotted them 1/3 was because Muslims has been using it. |
| Oct 02, 2010 09:21 AM 62 | All that the judges have stated is that most HINDUS believe that RAM was born at the site where the MOSQUE stood. It is exactly similar to what the MUSLIMS believe regarding MUHAMMAD "flying on winged horse" to visit ALLAH in heaven "via Jerusalem". Akil Akil, there are many disparities and horrendously ridiculous beliefs in Hindu mythology. Some Hindus believe there are 2-3 crores of devis and devatas. Some believe that there are more than 32 crores. Hanuman, the monkey god, had to build the boulder-bridge enroute to Sri Lanka, and while returning back, Ram and Sita had a special 'yaan'. Ram does not have faith in Sita's fidelity and hence orders the fire-ordeal for her. If Ram had been God, he should be having awareness of all that is happening in the Universe. The ilk of you and Selvan have become pests unto this forum. |
| Oct 02, 2010 09:34 AM 63 | **** there are many disparities and horrendously ridiculous beliefs in Hindu mythology **** Right.. And there are no disparities and ALL beliefs are rational and scientific in Muslim and Christian mythology. :-) |
| Oct 02, 2010 09:35 AM 64 | >> All that the judges have stated is that most HINDUS believe that RAM was born at the site where the MOSQUE stood. It is exactly similar to what the MUSLIMS believe regarding MUHAMMAD "flying on winged horse" to visit ALLAH in heaven "via Jerusalem". To say that "hindus" believe that it is a birth place of Ram is similar to saying that "Muslims" believe that the place is a Mosque. Interestingly the judgment commented that it is not a Mosque as per the tenets of Islam! It would have been more relevant, if the judge invoked tenets of Hinduism, where all religions are supposed to be the same and worship the same God in different forms etc (hence a mandir vs masjid question itself is against the tenets of Hinduism) |
| Oct 02, 2010 09:45 AM 65 | --"Imam Barkati further said that the verdict was based on faith, not law, " Imam Barkati is absolutely right. This verdict is based on faith. It assumes Ram was a historical figure, a real life human being who was born exactly where the mosque stood. Even judges apparently have flights of fancy. |
| Oct 02, 2010 10:04 AM 66 | >> It was one of questions in the suit. Their ruling was that it is infact true that most Hindus believe that this is Rama Janabhoomi My question is, why should the court accept it as a question that the court should answer or deliberate upon? It should reject the question as irrelevant to the mandate of a court. The question of whether theologically, it is a Mosque as per tenets of Islam etc is also equally irrelevant to the court (which again, it commented on). >> No body has a clear title. >> The reason they allotted them 1/3 was because Muslims has been using it. If two people go to court for ownership of land, the court has to rule in favor of either one of them, or to neither of them, or distribute. If it is a property dispute and none of the parties have a legal right, then the court will clearly say that none of the contending parties can claim a right over the place. What is the legal basis to treat all the contending parties as equal owners? (given that the faith in Mosque as well as a faith in Ram among the contending parties are supposed to be irrelevant to title suit). The court can just say that while it may be true that some believe in Ram, and some believe in Mosque etc, as far as the legal process is concerned, the land does not belong to any of the contending parties in question. |
| Oct 02, 2010 10:47 AM 67 | kindly read dharamvir sharmas judgement in which he has stood as the counsel for vhp.all this compromise comedies r attempted by agrawal and khan. will a soli sorabjee/nariman/barucha/george/krishna iyer/ahmadi(he finds the judgement strange)/george/palkiwala/balakrishnan/jeevan reddy write the same.on seeing the list of judges who r going to adjudicate in the supreme court i can say whether this judgement will be quashed or not. kindly read the judgement of dharamveer sharma to understand why the rule/ethics of getting recused from a case when ones relatives r involved is so important for fair play.dharamveer sharma is a devout ram bhakt and it has influenced the judgement. |
| Oct 02, 2010 11:07 AM 68 | Out Look and Vinod Mehta and his patron reporters are the actual culprits of the divide between communities. |
| Oct 02, 2010 11:40 AM 69 | "Imam Barkati is absolutely right. This verdict is based on faith." - Cata Imam Bukhari should have said the same on the Shah Bano controversy as well. At the position he is, he should not be cribbing selectively. |
| Oct 02, 2010 12:39 PM 70 | 'Well, who owned what/when and who is the rightful current legal owner etc is for the court to decide ' kUMAR AND OTHERS Judges are unanimous that Masjid was built on ruins of the Hindu Temple. Hence the Mosque was built upon the Land belonged to Hindu Temple . There is no proof that whosoever built the Mosque had purchased the Land from the Hindus whose Temple Ruins were occupied . So MOSQUE WAS ILLEGALLY BUILT UPON THE LAND WHICH BELONGED TO HINDUS. If the Babri Mosque was demolished illegally in 1992 then the Mosque itself was illegally built in 1528 upon the Land whose owners were Hindus and not Muslims. Hence all the Land should be given back to Hindus !!! Forget claims of Sunni Board.Also if you want to examine Legal positions then legally hundreds of other structures have no legal sanctity . Go on digging our graves. Lage Raho Munna Bhais if you don't want to re conciliate.But surely you want hate fires are not extinguished. RACES DO SAMJOHTA if hatchet has to be buried. Mahabharat had one Mama Shakuni but we have hundreds . |
| Oct 02, 2010 12:48 PM 71 | Imam Bukhari should have said the same on the Shah Bano controversy as well. At the position he is, he should not be cribbing selectively. The Irreverent Indian evryone knows that muslims place religion above faith/law/constitution while pseudosecular hindus do not.that difference is lost with this judgement and thats the tragedy. will the muslim and hindu fanatics agree to court verdict on gay judgement. its not becos of the beleif in law/constitution the muslims were parrotting that they will abide by the verdict.it was becos of their beleif in pseudoseculars(no muslim or christian can be pseudosecular unless he is an atheist) who consider law and facts above religion and will not hesitate to deliver the truth even if its against their religion which made them parrot the we will abide by the court verdict. the muslims shuld be happy with this judgement as now they have no trouble in answering why muslim majority countries insist on supremacy of islam over evrything and there r no minority rights as its with evry religious majority.this judgement is victory for religion over rationality. abortion/family planning/gay rights all will be quashed by this bench has since time immemorial these r against faith and beleif of beleivers.bukharis and baba ramdevs shud both be happy with this judgement. |
| Oct 02, 2010 12:59 PM 72 | By the way Owasi and his Board also want to take over Taj Mahal because that too is Muslims' property . |
| Oct 02, 2010 01:10 PM 73 | "Yet all criticism and questioning (of the verdict) has been tempered with a maturity that surprised all of us, and the world. There were no motives imputed to the judiciary, nobody said it was fixed by the government, and nobody said he had lost his faith in the system. Of course, the angriest of all were the "ultra-secularists" of the intelligentsia. But they also criticised the court for giving a "panchayati" solution rather than a judicial verdict and expected the Supreme Court to "rectify" it. Nobody said it was fixed, nobody said the judicial approach was not going to work, and the fact that this class that came up with the most articulate criticism of the judgment seemed overwhelmingly inclined towards the Muslim argument, in spite of having been (at least) born Hindu, spoke well for our society and the system." _ Shekhar Gupta. |
| Oct 02, 2010 01:14 PM 74 | "How is it relevant or how does it matter? (as far as the title suit is concerned)". KUMAR needs to re-visit the history as relevant to that part of India to understand the "title suit" claim. 1-- From the time the Mandir was destroyed in 1528, the area was under "oppressive" Muslims rule. Hindus feared massacre if efforts were made to re-capture the site. 2-- By 1720 the Muslim rule had weakened and so the Muslims ruler of FAIZABAD- the nawab of OUDH, allowed Hindus to pray outside the dome. 3-- The first violent efforts on the part of Hindus to re-claim the site was between 1853-55 by a "violent upsurge" and coincides with the absolute weakening of Islamic Rule. The NAWAB of OUDH, who had by that time shifted to Lucknow has become a absolute puppet of the British and was "thrown out by 1856". 4-- In 1886 again HINDUS filed a case before the BRITISH. The BRITISH did not give it back to the Hindus, even though the belief that the Masjid existed on the Mandir site has been recorded in the judgment. 5-- The rest is history. Hence the "title suit" goes back to 1528AD. 6-- Such old "title suites" are valid, especially when the area under contention was under "oppressive occupation" . How else does the CHRISTIANS justify getting the JEWS back to ISRAEL, after massacring them for centuries culminating in the HOLOCAUST perpetrated by a "practicing Christian- HITLER"????? |
| Oct 02, 2010 01:42 PM 75 | The above article is prejudicial in nature. It dwells more on the consequences of the judgement, its psychological impact on the muslim community and more worried about the political mileage accumulating to a particular party. The judgement was never intended to satisfy the above intentions. It was rather intended to put the facts in place. Just because the facts tend to benefit any specific political group cannot change the facts. Judges were not asked whether Lord Ram was born on the specific place; there was no specific question of faith. They were asked to opine whether:-- "Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri Ram Janam Bhumi or Janam Asthan and have been visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times immemorial" (i.e whether this contention of the Sacred place for Hindus being artificially cooked up for political purpose in recent past OR present since time immerorial ?) Historical facts have proved that Hindus have considered this as sacred place since time immemorial. There has been recorded riots as early as 1853 on this dispute. In fact before 1940, the mosque was called Masjid-i-Janmasthan. And learned judges have unanimously opined that yes since time immemorial Hindus have regarded it as sacred place. Much has been said regarding the partial awarding of the land to Sunni Waqf Board; it has been claimed that it crossed its mandate by doing so. Well in the findings of the court, it was concluded that both Hindus and Muslims were in joint possession of the said property since time immemorial. Hence the division of property becomes inevitable in absence of mutual settlement. As it was jointly owned/used it cannot be awarded to any single party. The judgement has been criticised without it been thoroughly read. The learned judges have spent years, knowing fully well the importance, must have considered thoroughly before deciding on any issue. It is unfair to draw conclusions even before reading the judgement in full. Further the sensitivity of the matter has to be appreciated. Given the explosive nature of the subject, such hurried analysis from reputed publication is irresponsible to the core. If the extremism has to be permanently buried in the country, then tolerance and acceptance has to be universal. Prejudices will only thwart the possible solutions to this vexed problem. |
| Oct 02, 2010 01:55 PM 76 | Excellent and A Correct Judgement by Outlook ! All points mentioned in this Article is a exact reflection of thoughts, anger and view of neutral citizens which is majority of this country and all minorities. We don't need a judgement on faith from courts. Any group of people can have any faith in the world and can claim anything by that faith in that matter. If a judgement of most critical and a century long issue of a nation is given just by faith means, then WHY DO WE NEED COURTS, JUDGES, LAW AND JUDICIARY SYSTEM ??? and Why the hell whole country went to the court to resolve such issue and waited for such a judgement for 60 Years ? |
| Oct 02, 2010 02:00 PM 77 | Army is doing its duty let us do ours. India expects at least this much from us. [ J-K: 42 militants killed by Army in September ' http://www.indianexp...in-september/691504/ ] We don't have the time to enter into hair splittings.Country is facing very serious challenges from out side and within.History offers chances to every Nation to rectify the mistakes committed by its people.Even Advani has now said that the demolishing of the Mosques he does not justify.It was a mistake.Courts examining that case separately. We have the Historical and Golden opportunity to bury the past once for all .Let us not split hair. HISTORY IS EXTREMELY CRUEL . IT RARELY OFFERS ANOTHER CHANCE . |
| Oct 02, 2010 02:23 PM 78 | If the "faith" upheld by the court had been Islam, how much the "secular" fellows like Anwaar and Cata Maran would jave cried and screamed with joy! From the Chinese point of view it is cleaR that the Muslims in India need to do much much more to respect Hinduism, since it is this religion which makes India possible. To the Chinese Muslims are useful for making trouble, but when we are honest we admit that they lack any respect for any way of life but their own. They should forget about making a fuss about one disused mosque. Let the Hindus have an area that means so much to them. But we Chinese also know that India is often wrong. Why did it export terror of the most savage kind to Sri Lanka? |
| Oct 02, 2010 03:03 PM 79 | century long issue of a nation is given just by faith means MOHAMED What about the occupation of the site considered holy by JEWS because of the ISLAMIC FAITH that "Mohammed flew on a horse back" from Medina to heaven via Jerusalem and tied the horse at Al Aqusa Mosque??? Isn't "mohammad flying on horse back" a matter of faith??? |
| Oct 02, 2010 03:38 PM 80 | Vivek and Kumar, " The court should not refer or treat them as "hindu" party and "muslim" party. It should just decide on the title suit >> There is no title with any party. Don't you get it! I think you either are acting dumb or have not read any judgment details or you just don't get it. No body has a clear title. " As Vivek points out, this is what the court did: #1 5 title suits were filed starting in 1889. They all coallesce into 3 - one from Wakf Board in 1989(one from an Islamic individual in 1949), one from Nirmohi Akhara (in 1885 and again in 1949) and one from Ramchandraji (the God) (obviously someone filed on behalf of him) in 1989. The court dismissed the first two title suits as time-barred implying that they are outdated. #2 The original title suits are cancelled and instead a compromise solution was shown where the three parties - Muslims as represented by the Wakf board+AIMPLB, the Hindus who represent God Sri Ram and the Nirmohi Akhara (probably since they have a history of titles to some of the area for a very long time - from 1885 while the Wakf board entered the scene only in 1989) will share the area by a third each - 1/3 for each party. Effectively Hindus get 2/3 of the whole area including the main dome/chabootara/sita ki rasoi while Muslims get the remaining 1/3 area. This is actually an arbitrated solution and not a biased assignment to one party. Hence the general opinion that it cannot get better than this. Probably a better solution is 1/2 to each but the original dome structure and the layout of the mosque prevent this if one looks at the maps. If the main dome + sita ka rasoi + some other area are taken out, that is 2/3 of the sanctum santorum taken out. |
| Oct 02, 2010 03:46 PM 81 | Chiang, Nee ho mah! Your post: " But we Chinese also know that India is often wrong. Why did it export terror of the most savage kind to Sri Lanka? " Because an ugly duckling called Rajiv Gandhi and his ugly mother called Indira Gandhi saw a super-power status in India ala USA when none existed and assumed CIA tactics applied to India's neighbors will boost their international profile and hence their regimes. Both were spectacularly wrong on all counts - except for helping Bangladeshi Hindus and Muslims win freedom, every thing else from Indira Kaul was wrong. She was killed for her follies and so was Rajiv. They probably paid too much of a price for what their motive really was. They did not mean harm but a concerted lack of understanding of India's geo-strategics is no substitute for passive aggression. Put it simply, India luckily or unluckily had no Mao - no terror, no glory and no massive deaths - not yet. |
| Oct 02, 2010 03:59 PM 82 | "Javed Anand of Muslims for Secular Democracy (MSD) argued that even if the SC endorsed the HC verdict and Muslims got their share in the disputed land, it was almost impossible that Muslims would ever be able to rebuild a mosque on the same site. "The best option is that they gift the land to the Hindus and set an example of magnanimity. It will open a new chapter of Hindu-Muslim unity," said Anand. "The Sunni Waqf Board and All India Muslim Personal Law Board should show a gesture and vacate the land the court has allotted them. It should not be seen as surrender," said Islamic scholar Zeenat Shaukat Ali. Ali added that there are precedents in Muslim history where Muslims had showed generosity and given up their places of worship once they found that these were built on places of worship of other religions. She further said, "In the 8th century, the Ummayid caliph Ummavi Waleed surrendered the land of a mosque to Christians which his predecessors had grabbed. ' http://economictimes...icleshow/6669459.cms |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:02 PM 83 | Mohamad, " We don't need a judgement on faith from courts. Any group of people can have any faith in the world and can claim anything by that faith in that matter. If a judgement of most critical and a century long issue of a nation is given just by faith means, then WHY DO WE NEED COURTS, JUDGES, LAW AND JUDICIARY SYSTEM ??? and Why the hell whole country went to the court to resolve such issue and waited for such a judgement for 60 Years ? " Are you talking about Sharia? I am all ready for abolishing the Sharia and disbelieving in every personal law, community law, criminal law, marital law, property law, religious worship law, tax law. Much as you, I want to stop believing in Gabriel's word to my Prophet and the Hadith that derived from it. Please let know which Madarasa or Jumhuriah that you study at or do research. I intend to unshackle my bonded existence and serfdom to the odeous book known as 'That book whose title shall not be spoken'. Please reply soon since my shackles are waiting for an answer for the last 1372 years to be precise (using the Al-Quran's lunar calendar). |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:17 PM 84 | Munuswamy Ganapathy, Your post: "the muslims shuld be happy with this judgement as now they have no trouble in answering why muslim majority countries insist on supremacy of islam over evrything and there r no minority rights as its with evry religious majority.this judgement is victory for religion over rationality. abortion/family planning/gay rights all will be quashed by this bench has since time immemorial these r against faith and beleif of beleivers.bukharis and baba ramdevs shud both be happy with this judgement." I thought the three judges gave almost-unanimous judgements. And that they were actually using archeological evidence. Including epigraphical evidence. It looks like I was looking at the wrong judgement. Apparently the three judges drank the kool-aid and forget their irrational selves for a couple of days and delivered a judgement based on facts and logic. It is unfortunate thay they were very rational and logical. It is apparent that their religion - reasoning - overcame their mental faculties and they lost their faith to logic. I agree with you that we need a judgement based on sound faith and belief. And the judgement should forget the word Hindu and instead start with an atheistic problem statement saying 'Who is Ram? Never met him.' and end with a sentence stating that we should all turn our heads west and build a structure where all of the meeting heads turn west all at one go. No questions should be asked as to why we should turn west and not east. Or turn north. Or turn south. Wait a minute.. this is very confusing. The last sentence should simply say 'let us finish the what the Mughals did not finish'. That is better faith and better reasoning from faith than reasoning from logic. Ah...I am getting dizzy now. |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:22 PM 85 | A K Ghai, Your post: " HISTORY IS EXTREMELY CRUEL . IT RARELY OFFERS ANOTHER CHANCE . " Well. You did not expect history to be Madhuri Dixit, did you? |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:23 PM 86 | The "Journalists" who wrote this article seem more "extremist" than the extremists in the minority community. Never seen such hate for the majority. |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:42 PM 87 | Mr. Shantilal Verma, Your post: " Some Hindus believe there are 2-3 crores of devis and devatas. Some believe that there are more than 32 crores. Hanuman, the monkey god, had to build the boulder-bridge enroute to Sri Lanka, and while returning back, Ram and Sita had a special 'yaan'. Ram does not have faith in Sita's fidelity and hence orders the fire-ordeal for her. If Ram had been God, he should be having awareness of all that is happening in the Universe. The ilk of you and Selvan have become pests unto this forum. " I have always heard this magic number of 32 crore devas and devis. Well...as a curious uninitiated into Hinduism, I digged deep into some of the important English translations of the foundations of the different Hindu sub-religions and this is what I find: Vedas - especially the primus Rik-Veda - gives a pantheon of 33 Gods. 33 very specifically. So either you are acting like Goebbels and adding a lot more number of zeroes at the end to make the number 33 crore because it ain't 33 crores. It is only 33 with Indra (God of lightning) being the super-God ala Zeus in Greek or Odin in German/Norse mythology. Next, the Puranas including Maha-Bharatha and Ramayana and the other Shiva/Visnu/Shakti/Ganesha puranas record no more than 10 to 20 forms of each God or Goddess as Avatars. Dattatreya for instance is an incarnation of Siva. Venkateswara is an incarnation of Visnu. Lastly, the local Gods such as tribal goddess Yellamma for Yerakula tribes or some such tribe or Gondi gods are outside the purview of Vedic and Puranic God pantheon. Shirdi Sai and Sathya Sai consider themselves Gods but are recent humans elevated to Gods instead of being saints. However I look at it, the count does not exceed 100. Why the Gobbelsian propaganda about 33 crores then? " If Ram had been God, he should be having awareness of all that is happening in the Universe. " Please forgive Ram. He is a God but unfortunately he took human limitations at the time to show his mortality. It takes an all-encompassing human super-power ala Shantilal Verma to know everything unlike what God Ram has shown us. Forgive us for we know not what we do. " The ilk of you and Selvan have become pests unto this forum. " Please specify my next incarnation so I can come out of pest form. |
| Oct 02, 2010 04:51 PM 88 | Akil, " What about the occupation of the site considered holy by JEWS because of the ISLAMIC FAITH that "Mohammed flew on a horse back" from Medina to heaven via Jerusalem and tied the horse at Al Aqusa Mosque??? Isn't "mohammad flying on horse back" a matter of faith??? " How dare you question the existent past technology available at the time? The aerodynamic nature of the vehicle known as 'horse' in common parlance was propelled by wings on either side that took in air on one side and created vaccum on the other end. This was a combination of Newtonian dynamics and Bernouli's law. The resulting action was that of a helicopter. The technology used by the horse beat that of the vehicle called eagle used by Rama to travel to Sri Lanka. Superior technology implies better reasoning and rationality. I am sorry but the horse flight is rational but the eagle flight is not. |
| Oct 02, 2010 05:11 PM 89 | >> If two people go to court for ownership of land, the court has to rule in favor of either one of them, or to neither of them, or distribute. If it is a property dispute and none of the parties have a legal right, then the court will clearly say that none of the contending parties can claim a right over the place. What is the legal basis to treat all the contending parties as equal owners? Hmmmm... I don't think your brain will ever get it. If 2 parties use a property with no clear ownership, both will get rights. Even in the case of common corridor, people acquire rights over the common corridor. It is the common law. Too bad your brain can't seem to comprehend. |
| Oct 02, 2010 05:32 PM 90 | Vivek, Kumar has a point: " If two people go to court for ownership of land, the court has to rule in favor of either one of them, or to neither of them, or distribute. If it is a property dispute and none of the parties have a legal right, then the court will clearly say that none of the contending parties can claim a right over the place. What is the legal basis to treat all the contending parties as equal owners? " Property rights law can be interpreted in different ways. If it is deemed an emergency, then land can be acquired for security purposes and held for indefinite time. State property rights trumpet community and group and personal property rights depending on circumstance. The problem is with precedence actually. Indian judicial law follows precedence as in if a similar judgement was given earlier. It is similar to English common law or Scottish common law. That makes it less dependent on a documental rule compliance and more dependent on what earlier judicial activity thought of the issue. Applying different strategies, we get different pay-offs for each scenario for each party. It can be seen that in a single instance scenario that no one party will get anything and that the fourth party - State - will get all. But this will fail if the decision is applied in succession. That is, if this judgement is squashed based on precedence (like the 1949 judgement or the 1885 judgement - none of which were giving anything to State and kept matter in procrastination untill judgement) or pushed to higher court for re-evaluation based on precedence again, then one party may gain something at the expense of the other party and the State. The best strategy for equilibrium - temporally - finally becomes the one that gives one party some thing at the expense of the other party. Otherwise, there is always a chance to revisit the judgement sometime later. Hopefully the judges thought it right. |
| Oct 02, 2010 05:35 PM 91 | Judgement has its strange ways. On one hand it rejoiced the 'Ram Laala's' and the 'Nirmohi Akhara's' but brought the 'Muslims' to their nemesis. Fighting over the issue of the demolition of the mosque over decades, without having a clue of the premises, is a shame on the part of the three adjudicators. Moreover, many of the people grappling for the Masjid or the Ramjanambhumi are having the glimmest of the idea apropos the historical events of the 15th century or so when the mosque was built. Discernibly, we are fighting with our fraternity cluelessly. May be even the Almighty might be laughing on our petty accomplishments per se revanche. No sooner we learn to respect each others traditions and beliefs, than we can build OUR INDIA liveable. |
| Oct 02, 2010 05:41 PM 92 | Vivek, Actually the precedence is like this: 1989 judgement allowed a make-shift temple but delayed the conclusion until final judgement; 1949 judgement delayed judgement indefinitely; 1885 judgement gave the muslims the right to worship and use of land space and structure space while giving benefit of doubt to hindus based on historicity; Applying precedence, it can be seen that it will be either similar to 1885 judgement or it will confirm the benefit of doubt of hindus to give them more control. The 2nd case is what has happened with minor control delivered to muslims again due to historicity (a mosque resided there for 500 years). The alternate is to give muslims more control while allowing hindus some small space (the existing status). The solution cannot be that the State gets everything while the muslims and hindus get nothing. |
| Oct 02, 2010 05:45 PM 93 | Today, India is far from united. Actually, the verdict has further divided us. This is what happens when politicians use religion to their advantage. The actual case is to publicly hang those criminals and hooligans who have taken the law into their hands and demolished a structure in 1992 - that structure could have been a temple or church or anything. Does not matter. Instead, the courts stupidly and politically sided with criminals and hooligans and awarded them their crimes. Muslims got humiliated in 1992, then they lost thousands of their lives after that, then they lost again today. And we are talking of founding a progressive society. Garbage. Forget about Ram or Rahim or this or that. The structure should have been restored to 1992 level while Hindus could go to the court and file the case. That is a justice. Now, you confiscate the property, create terror in the hearts of minorities, masaccre them on the streets, demolish their structure and legalize that crime to appease the majority and to the international audiences that we are matured now is just non-sense. The judges are the greater hooligans in the whole matter. I bet, even our sanths and saudhus do not believe that is a birth place of Lord Rama. Ram was never a historical figure like Jesus, Moses or Buddha or Ashok or Gandhi. The whole isssue is to take revenge of a community - how dare you ruled us for 1000 years! That is a cheap shot. We have gone back ages, instead of moving forward. At one end, we get the lessons and slogans of moving forward, develop economically, but our whole mindset is several hundred years ago. We are not threatened by Chinese or some Jihadis or this or that, but we are threatened by us only. 40% below poverty rate is not created by Chinese, but us only. 50 million court cases are pending not because of some Chinese conspiracy. 1 million humans carry the toilet luggage of other humans is not a comedy. It is a shame on the society. No other country can boast such a shameful record in the world. Our social and economical disorder is worst than African-Sub-Sahara. Go and see the mirror. Don't break the mirror please. Canada has seen the recent debacle of Commonwealth repeatedly on the TV channels. Dirty roads, filthy toilets, incomplete projects, fallen bridges - what next? |
| Oct 02, 2010 06:13 PM 94 | AYODYA and AL AQUSA are not the only instances of important religious place of other religions being "converted to Mosque".In 1453, Constantinople was conquered by the OTTOMAN TURKS and Sultan Mehmed II ordered HAGIA SOPHIA, Christian Orthodox patriarchal Basilica, to be converted into a mosque. It remained as a mosque until 1935, when it was converted into a museum (NOT back into a Church) by the Republic of Turkey. |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:04 PM 95 | Ram murti//1 million humans carry the toilet luggage of other humans is not a comedy. It is a shame on the society. No other country can boast such a shameful record in the world. // why dont you do something about it? sitting pretty in Toranto and writing loads of crap dont solve problems. come stay in India, crib and then be a part of the solution instead of doing thoughtless rants that is of absolutely no use to us locals. I would say start paying your income tax in India and contribute to the exchequer which probably would be the simplest way to show your intentions and words |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:15 PM 96 | Catamaran //Imam Barkati further said that the verdict was based on faith, not law, " Imam Barkati is absolutely right. This verdict is based on faith. It assumes Ram was a historical figure, a real life human being who was born exactly where the mosque stood. Even judges apparently have flights of fancy// Unfortunate that pissoffs stay pretty in their safe dens and pass irresponsible lousy comments too often and in all forums possible. These shitpiles dont realise the catastrophe that we residents of this highly diverse, developing country will need to go through if the judges had given a black and white verdict. The judgement laced with faith was the best possible outcome. Thank God intelligent NRI's werent part of the judge panel! |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:16 PM 97 | "They want total denial of Hindu faith and ultimate humiliation. Only then this group can be happy " Very incisive statement. It shows the depths to which Indian 'secularism' has sunk, that making Hindus feel inferior, superstitious or obstinate, is a badge of liberalism and secularism. Some posters in this thread don't even sound Indian in spirit, with their aggressive questioning of the Ram/Ayodhya link, and their denunciation of North India/ so called 'cow belt'. It shows a lack of respect and knowledge. |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:24 PM 98 | I agree Varun. These 'secularists' are not even doing the right secular dance. Doing dandiya in the name of salsa. Jokers. No logic, no sensible flow of discussions just shit flying all over |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:26 PM 99 | Muslims will be further humiliated If the authors attitude is what muslims will reflect I think you are right that they will be humiliated. The court delivered a fair verdict. The issue involves faith: after all if Ram and Allah don't exist then the whole thing is a humbug. Can you prove Allah exists or Lord Ram doesn't? If it were just a piece of land court will not base its judgment on faith. But since the dispute involves two faiths, the judges are bound to accept both faiths as legitimate and decide on the case based on facts at hand and popular perception. Perception is not without a legal precedent! Besides, you may write a hundred things about ASI survey but for the court that is an expert witness just like the clean shits congress makes CBI distribute. So stop cribbing and be happy that it was a fair judgment. Both parties will anyway go to Supreme Court and you will have atleast another 10-20 years to spew venom on Hindus and to serve the Congress Agenda! |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:39 PM 100 | When Akshardham happened, the onus of peace was on the Hindus. When Mumbai trains blast occurred, the onus of peace was on the Hindus. When 26/11 happened, the onus of peace was on the Hindus. When Varanasi Blasts occurred, the onus of peace was on Hindus. When Delhi blasts during Diwali happened, the onus of peace was on Hindus. And we all know that peace was held after these incidents. Now let's see how the "other side" behaves? Or would these hand-wringing secularists now justify violence (when it occurs) by saying the Muslims were hurt by the verdict and some elements revolted? |
| Oct 02, 2010 07:47 PM 101 | When the poor judges decided the Shah Bano case on the basis of "law" a few eons ago, they were castigated that they should not hurt the faith of the minorities. Now that they decided base their decision on faith, they are castigated again. The common parties - Muslims. Aah..... its always Heads I win Tails you lose for them. No wonder they are getting a thrashing everywhere - France, Switzerland, Holland, even US. Par kutte ke dum hai....kabhi seedhe nahi honge. |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:05 PM 102 | Are we going to believe other myths about Rama, his birth, his parentage, the stories about Kunti and Pandu? |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:08 PM 103 | Ahmad Pasha.... why dont you concentrate on the building of the Ground Zero Mosque in New York (if you are really in the US) and leave matters of believing in Kunti and Pandu and Ram to us? |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:10 PM 104 | If Muslims can go on a rampage when a cartoon is published or when their holy book is allegedly burnt or celebrate when the twin towers fell, why can't a few hindu sants (especially those affiliated to the sangh parivaar) eat a few laddoos after getting this verdict? |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:10 PM 105 | During this weekend the Ram-bhagats should search for their Ram in the 'Understanding Mahabharata', especailly the chapter on Kunti and Pandu. |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:19 PM 106 | >> If the Babri Mosque was demolished illegally in 1992 then the Mosque itself was illegally built in 1528 upon the Land whose owners were Hindus and not Muslims. >> Hence all the Land should be given back to Hindus !!! The litigants today are not "hindus", but specific individuals/organizations. >> Also if you want to examine Legal positions then legally hundreds of other structures have no legal sanctity So what do you suggest? |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:34 PM 107 | "Also if you want to examine Legal positions then legally hundreds of other structures have no legal sanctity:GHAI So what do you suggest?" Kumar I have said time and again that let us stop 'Baal ki Khal Nikalna'-stop hair splitting and blame game If Muslims are not happy let Hindus and Muslims sit together and sort out this problem as the iron is hot and proper time to resolve the issue. Going to SC will linger on the issue .India has no time for this luxury.Who ,when ,how both meet ? This can be sorted out . |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:45 PM 108 | >> If Muslims are not happy let Hindus and Muslims sit together ... To begin with, the ordinary people of this country have no time to worry about where/how/why/what/who of religious worship. I do not care as well. It hardly matters who prays what/where. My concern is the language used by the court, kind of giving legitimacy and respectability to a fight of the religious bigots, fighting over mandir/masjid. >> Going to SC will linger on the issue It is extremely important that the SC put in a course correction. Or better still, to refer back to HC to do its homework better. |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:47 PM 109 | "Are we going to believe other myths about Rama, his birth, his parentage, the stories about Kunti and Pandu"? AHAMAD PASHA, YES, all the above myths will be believed as long as the "MYTH" about ALLAH (GOD) speaking to Muhammad is believed and MUHAMMAD "flying on winged horse" via Jerusalem to heaven is also believed. Since AHAMAD PASHA has been extremely sarcastic in the above comment about HINDU GODS a question may please be answered by him. Did MUHAMMAD opt to fly from Madina to heaven via Jerusalem in preference to Mecca (which is closer to Madina) because Mecca does NOT offer a "window to heaven"???? |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:51 PM 110 | " It is extremely important that the SC put in a course correction" Kumar For petty fight ? Jaieye SC and fightiye . |
| Oct 02, 2010 08:57 PM 111 | >> >> It is extremely important that the SC put in a course correction >> For petty fight ? The SC should treat it as a petty fight, and word its judgment accordingly. |
| Oct 02, 2010 09:18 PM 112 | It is always pledged that Mandir wahi Banayege. |
| Oct 02, 2010 09:25 PM 113 | Why every one is indulging in this discussion.we should forget the topic and do our daily duty and leave it to Sadhu and sant to construct a decent Ram Temple and if anyone want can give donation for the construction voluntary. These media want to sensationalize it to increase thir sale advertisement revenue . |
| Oct 02, 2010 09:34 PM 114 | Is Judiciary in India become Communal ? Justice S.U. Khan saying there were no demolition of a temple before Masjid was constructed. Judge Sudhir Agarwal saying there was a demolition of tmple. In the same manner, they have commented in other issues too by all 3 judges. How come all 3 judges hearing for a case and hearing same time, and in same place, examining same proofs (if really something happened like that) and finally gave 3 different verdict on many issues of this case..? But there is one Good News here. There was No CHRISTIAN Judge in the panel as 3rd or 4th one, otherwise he might have claimed for a CHURCH before Masjid was contructed, and ordered for a part for Christians too. What a Shame ! |
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
