Allahabad Court's Ayodhya Verdict is Unjust and Unwise

[RiazHaq]

The long awaited ruling of the Allahabad High Court on the disputed Ayodhya site was announced today.

Here's a brief excerpt of how the BBC has reported the Ayodhya verdict:

In a majority verdict, judges gave control of the main disputed section, where a mosque was torn down in 1992, to Hindus.

Other parts of the site will be controlled by Muslims and a Hindu sect.

Allahabad High Court is trying to create a false appearance of Solomon's wisdom by ordering what is being advertised as "split-the-baby" verdict.

In reality, though, the court has wrongly sided with the violent Hindutva outfits in practice by giving the main site where Babri masjid stood to Hindus.

L.K. Advani and other major Hindutva leaders, including Gujarat Chief Minister Narebdra Modi, have welcomed it and vowed to build "Ram Temple" on two-thirds of the disputed land awarded by an extremely unwise and politically motivated decision of the Allahabad Court.

Here's the Breaking News report:

Breaking News! Veteran BJP Leader LK Advani, who spearheaded the Ram Mandir (Ram Temple) movement in the 1990s, welcomed the Allahabad High Court's verdict on Ayodhya land. Advani hailed the High Court for acknowledging the disputed site as Lord Ram (Ram Lalla)'s birth place.....Meanwhile, Gujarat CM Narendra Modi has welcomed the Ayodhya Verdict and said that decks have been cleared for the construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya.

With mass murderers like Modi welcoming the Allahabad court verdict, it brings nothing but shame to India's judiciary and its much-hyped secular democracy.

Let's hope and pray that this latest verdict does not lead to more innocent blood being shed because of an unwise and unjust court ruling favoring the Hindu provocateurs and perpetrators of the crime of demolishing Babri mosque in 1992 and subsequent massacres of Muslim minority. Let's also hope that the Indian Supreme Court eventually reverses the Allahabad court verdict on appeal.

Haq's Musings: Ayodhya Verdict Belongs in the Hall of Shame of Indian Judiciary

 

[RamGorur]

Once again, here is the summary of Justice S.U.Khan's observation:


1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.

2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.

3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.

4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque.

5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.

6. 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.

7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.

8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.

9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.

10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.

11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.

12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.

13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ayodhyabench2.html

Which part is 'unjust' and 'unwise'?

 

[Game is loading]

If people find it unjust and unwise,the road to Supreme Court is always available

 

[xenon]

Read this in Hindu .
Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case

Siddharth Varadarajan

If left unamended by the Supreme Court, the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgment are likely to be extremely damaging

New Delhi: The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has made judicial history by deciding a long pending legal dispute over a piece of property in Ayodhya on the basis of an unverified and unsubstantiated reference to the “faith and belief of Hindus.”

The irony is that in doing so, the court has inadvertently provided a shot in the arm for a political movement that cited the very same “faith” and “belief” to justify its open defiance of the law and the Indian Constitution. That defiance reached its apogee in 1992, when a 500-year-old mosque which stood at the disputed site was destroyed. The legal and political system in India stood silent witness to that crime of trespass, vandalism and expropriation. Eighteen years later, the country has compounded that sin by legitimising the “faith” and “belief” of those who took the law into their own hands.

The three learned judges of the Allahabad High Court may have rendered separate judgments on the title suit in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi case but Justices Sudhir Agarwal, S.U. Khan and Dharam Veer Sharma all seem to agree on one central point: that the Hindu plaintiffs in the case have a claim to the disputed site because “as per [the] faith and belief of the Hindus” the place under the central dome of the Babri Masjid where the idols of Ram Lalla were placed surreptitiously in 1949 is indeed the “birthplace” of Lord Ram.

For every Hindu who believes the spot under the central dome of the Babri Masjid is the precise spot where Lord Ram was born there is another who believes something else. But leaving aside the question of who “the Hindus” referred to by the court really are and how their actual faith and belief was ascertained and measured, it is odd that a court of law should give such weight to theological considerations and constructs rather than legal reasoning and facts. Tulsidas wrote his Ramcharitmanas in 16th century Ayodhya but made no reference to the birthplace of Lord Rama that the court has now identified with such exacting precision five centuries later.

The “faith and belief” that the court speaks about today acquired salience only after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bharatiya Janata Party launched a political campaign in the 1980s to “liberate” the “janmasthan.”

Collectives in India have faith in all sorts of things but “faith” cannot become the arbiter of what is right and wrong in law. Nor can the righting of supposed historical wrongs become the basis for dispensing justice today. In 1993, the Supreme Court wisely refused to answer a Presidential Reference made to it by the Narasimha Rao government seeking its opinion on whether a Hindu temple once existed at the Babri Masjid site. Yet, the High Court saw fit to frame a number of questions that ought to have had absolutely no bearing on the title suit which was before it.

One of the questions the court framed was “whether the building has been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same.” Pursuant to this question, it asked the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a dig at the site. This was done in 2003, during the time when the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government was in power at the Centre. Not surprisingly, the ASI concluded that there was a “massive Hindu religious structure” below, a finding that was disputed by many archaeologists and historians.

The territory of India — as of many countries with a settled civilisation as old as ours — is full of buildings that were constructed after pre-existing structures were demolished to make way for them. Buddhist shrines made way for Hindu temples. Temples have made way for mosques. Mosques have made way for temples. So even if a temple was demolished in the 16th century to make way for the Babri Masjid, what legal relevance can that have in the 21st century? And if such demolition is to serve as the basis for settling property disputes today, where do we draw the line? On the walls of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi can be seen the remnants of a Hindu temple, perhaps even of the original Vishwanath mandir. Certainly many “Hindus” believe the mosque is built on land that is especially sacred to them. The denouement of the Babri case from agitation and demolition to possession might easily serve as a precedent for politicians looking to come to power on the basis of heightening religious tensions.

Even assuming the tainted ASI report is correct in its assessment that a Hindu temple lay below the ruins of the Babri Masjid, neither the ASI nor any other expert has any scientific basis for claiming the architects of the mosque were the ones who did the demolishing. And yet two of the three High Court judges have concluded that the mosque was built after a temple was demolished.

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. This practice came to an end in 1949 when politically motivated individuals broke into the mosque and placed idols of Ram Lalla within. After 1949, both communities were denied access though Hindus have been allowed to offer darshan since 1986. In suggesting a three way partition of the site, the High Court has taken a small step towards the restoration of the religious status quo ante which prevailed before politicians got into the act. But its reasoning is flawed and even dangerous. If left unamended by the Supreme Court, the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgment are likely to be extremely damaging.
The Hindu : Front Page : Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case

 

[arihant]

I think Court's verdict can only be justified if the culprits of Babri Demolition is punished. I hope each get at least jail of 1 year who were party to that.

 

[Novice09]

Allahabad Court's Ayodhya Verdict is Unjust and Unwise

and if it was in favor of minorities aka Muslims than

 

[arihant]

I think there is more protest in Pakistan than in India. So this way we can prove that there is real difference between Indians and Pakistanis rather Hindus and Muslims.

Protests in Pakistan after Ayodhya judgement

Islamabad: After the Allahabad High Court gave its judgement in the Ayodhya case on Thursday, sporadic protests were reported from some Pakistani cities as Religious Affairs Minister Hamid Saeed Kazmi claimed the ruling favoured the Hindu community.

A traders' union organised a protest in the central city of Multan against the judgement to split the disputed site between Hindus and Muslims.

The members of the union shouted slogans against the court's ruling. The Sunni Tehrik organised a protest at Hyder Chowk in the southern city of Hyderabad.

Dozens of protesters shouted slogans and burnt tyres. Members of the Sunni Tehrik rejected the court's verdict, saying it went against the wishes of Muslims.

They said they would organize more protests if the Pakistan government accepts the court's ruling. They also called on the government to sever diplomatic and economic ties with India.

At both Multan and Hyderabad, the protestors burnt effigies and posters of Indian leaders.

In Islamabad, Religious Affairs Minister Kazmi said the Indian court had issued a "political verdict" on the Babri mosque issue that was "totally in favour of the Hindu community".

Muslims in India have been deprived of their rights due to the one-sided decision on the Mosque, Kazmi told state-run PTV.

"The court cited Babri mosque as the birthplace of (Lord) Ram and recommended a little piece of land for Muslims like a donation," he said.

The decision to distribute the land among Muslims and Hindus is complicated and will create problems for the faithful in offering prayers, he claimed. He asked Indian Muslims to file an appeal in the Supreme Court and to make more efforts to protect their rights.

"In Pakistan, we have always raised our voice against any injustice with the minority communities, while in India, the state is not showing solidarity with the Muslims," he alleged.

Kazmi asked people from all walks of life to raise their voice against the "unjust decision".

Some religious leaders condemned the court's verdict, saying it disclosed the real face of India.

"We condemn this verdict. We reject it as well. This will create resentment on an international level," said Sahibzada Fazle Karim, a senior member of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference should take serious steps on the issue, he contended. Noted cleric Allama Abbas Kumaili described the decision as unjustified.

"We condemn the court's verdict," he said. He claimed the court was under the "influence of the majority Hindus. It is a diplomatic decision," said Ruet-e-Hilal Committee chief Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman. He said Indian Muslims should keep the peace.

"I appeal to Indian Muslims not to take to violence. The way of protests should be peaceful," he added.

 

[RiazHaq]

Gist of Judgments - Ram Janm Bhumi Babri Masjid Ayodhya Bench

Which part is 'unjust' and 'unwise'?

It has been established that no one destroyed an temple to build Babri masjid, but the masjid was destroyed by Hindu hooligans to build a temple in its place.

This verdict amounts to endorsing and setting a bad precedent of destruction of an ancient mosque to build a temple in its place...it's sowing the seeds of permanent discord between Hindu and Muslim communities in India. It does not augur well for communal harmony in Indian society.

 

[arihant]

I think first thing is that Protest is in Pakistan rather that India.

Pakistani ministers are suggesting Muslims in India to go SC. While in India they well ahead declare that they will go to SC including Sunni Waqf Board and Ram Lalla Board.

India is not a member of OIC and therefore they can't take any step on this issue.

He says it was under influence of Hindus then why Justice Khan also declared same as Ram Janam Bhoomi.

One third land was given to Sunni Waqf board because of the 2/3rd land both use to worship at same place. Thus joint ownership was proved. This was agreed by two judges including Khan and Agarwal while Sharma favor that it was totally Hindus placed.

He says they have raised voice in Pakistan for minority, then they don't know the same belief exist in Hindus whether Pakistani or Hindus.

First of Pakistan Govt. doesn't have to accept verdict. It is Indians who have to accept the verdict or challenge the same in SC.

 

[arihant]

It has been established that no one destroyed an temple to build Babri masjid, but the masjid was destroyed by Hindu hooligans to build a temple in its place.

This verdict amounts to endorsing and setting a bad precedent of destruction of an ancient mosque to build a temple in its place...it's sowing the seeds of permanent discord between Hindu and Muslim communities in India. It does not augur well for communal harmony in Indian society.

No on was able to prove that it was constructed on the Temple because proof which were given only pointed that it use the temple pillars whether it was demolished or not is not proved.

Moreover, all judges agreed that Rama was born somewhere in the disputed land only because the belief is continued to believed since Babur time at least. Same is attested by writings of Foreign Tourist who visited Ayodhya in 16-17 Century.

A interesting point here is that Court accepted that Muslims also use to worship here but at outer court yard (in the third dome), hence it should be ensure they must also get the share in the land.

Actually verdict is 1/2 rather 1/3, because Nirmohi Akhara was holding the rest of the land since Akbar's time which was not disputed any party. But since land has boundary, Sunni Waqf board file claim on whole Land which was actually rejected in preview of time barred act. Same claim of Nirmohi Akhara was rejected.

Judges didn't said that Rama was born here but they said that Hindus believed at least as early as from 18 century that he was born here. And in the subsequent years, there is enough records in the British Papers that both community use to worship at same place. (in the dome itself)

 

[RamGorur]

It has been established that no one destroyed an temple to build Babri masjid, but the masjid was destroyed by Hindu hooligans to build a temple in its place.

This verdict amounts to endorsing and setting a bad precedent of destruction of an ancient mosque to build a temple in its place...it's sowing the seeds of permanent discord between Hindu and Muslim communities in India. It does not augur well for communal harmony in Indian society.

Either this is an attempt at spreading deliberate misinformation or you are confused just like any other Pakistani. Given your track record, the former is more likely.

This was a Civil case regarding title to property. What you are referring to is an entirely separate case - a Criminal case - against the demolition of the mosque and it is still pending.

This ruling has no connection with the demolition of the mosque and will have no impact on criminal proceedings.

 

[Game is loading]

The biggest good news was that,there were no riots!!
YOOHOO!

 

[RamGorur]

How the three judges ruled

How the three judges — Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal — ruled on some of the issues relating to the Ayodhya title suit:

Was the disputed site the birthplace of Ram?

Sharma: Yes.

Agarwal & Khan: (They did not give a direct answer, but see their answers to the next question.)

Have the Hindus been worshipping the disputed site as Ram’s birthplace from time immemorial?

Sharma: Yes.

Khan: For a very long time till the mosque was built, it was treated/believed by Hindus that Ram’s birthplace was situated somewhere in a very large area, of which the disputed premises are a very small part. The belief did not relate to any specified small area — specifically, the premises in dispute — within that bigger area.

But sometime after the mosque was built, Hindus started identifying the disputed premises as Ram’s exact birthplace, or a place wherein the exact birthplace was situated.

Agarwal: The birthplace, as believed and worshipped by Hindus, is the area covered under the central dome of the three-domed disputed structure in the inner courtyard on the disputed premises.

Was the disputed (demolished) building a mosque?

Sharma: It was built against the tenets of Islam, so it cannot have the character of a mosque.

Khan: It was built as a mosque by or under orders of Babar. There is no direct evidence that the disputed premises, including the constructed portion, belonged to Babar or the person who built the mosque.

Agarwal: Disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly.

When was the disputed structure built and by whom?

Sharma: It was built by Babar, but the year is not certain.

Khan: (See Khan’s answer to previous question.)

Agarwal: It has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar in 1528. In the absence of any otherwise pleadings and material, it is difficult to hold when and by whom the disputed structure was constructed. This much is clear that it was built before the visit by Joseph Tieffenthaler to Oudh between 1766 and 1771.

Was the disputed structure built on the site of a Hindu temple after demolishing it?

Sharma: Disputed structure built on site of older structure after demolishing it. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved the older building was a massive Hindu religious structure.

Khan: No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples. These temples were lying in utter ruins for a very long time before the mosque was built, and some of their material was used in building the mosque.

Agarwal: The disputed building was constructed after demolition of a non-Islamic religious structure, that is, a Hindu temple.

Were the idols placed in the building on the night of December 22-23, 1949, or were they there since before?

Sharma, Khan and Agrawal: They were placed there on the night of December 22-23, 1949.

Were the title suits time-barred?

Sharma: Suits of the Sunni Central Wakf Board, Gopal Singh Visharad and Nirmohi Akhara are all time-barred. Only the suit filed on behalf of Ram Lalla Virajman by (the late) Deoki Nandan Agarwal is not time-barred.

Khan: (Does not answer this.)

Agarwal: Only Sunni Central Wakf Board’s suit is time-barred; the others’ suits are well within the limitation period.

What is the status of the disputed site — the inner and outer courtyard?

Sharma: Hindus in general had (sic) the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship (that) existed on the property in suit. It is proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus, and they were worshipping there throughout. They were also doing worship in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure), which cannot be treated as a mosque.

Khan: Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi came into existence much before 1855, and Hindus were worshipping there. It was very, very unique and absolutely unprecedented that inside the mosque’s boundary wall and compound, Hindu religious places existed and that worship went on there along with offerings of namaz by Muslims in the mosque.

Even though Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the disputed premises for the sake of convenience, it still did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.

Both parties have failed to prove commencement of their title. Hence by virtue of Section 110 of the Evidence Act, both are held to be joint title-holders on the basis of joint possession.

Agarwal: The disputed building was not used by Muslims exclusively. After 1856-57, the outer courtyard was used exclusively by Hindus and the inner courtyard was visited for the purpose of worship by members of both the communities.

 

[RiazHaq]

Here's a news story about Ayodhya verdict published in The Hindu today:

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan was critical of the judgment delivered in the Ayodhya title suits on Thursday, saying: “This is panchayati justice which takes away the legal rights of Muslims and converts the moral sentimental entitlements of Hindus into legal rights.”

Mr. Dhavan said the destruction of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, had taken place on a Muslim site, and this fact could not be disputed and rendered invisible by pretending that Muslims were not entitled to the site in any way.

“If this panchayati solution is to be endured, the degree of Muslim entitlement should have been left intact so that the site belonged to them,” he said.

Mr. Dhavan said the destruction of the Masjid was akin to the demolition of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan, and people would say that India's secular justice was majoritarian in nature without lending dignity to India's minority.

Endorsing Mr. Dhavan's views, senior advocate P.P. Rao said: “It is difficult to appreciate how the property can be divided by the court while dismissing the suits. This is nothing but a panchayati type of justice.

“If the court accepts that the Waqf Board is entitled to one-third of the land, it can't dismiss the suit. If the court dismisses the suits, it can't give only a portion of the land. The court has gone beyond the prayers in the suits. When no one had asked for division of the land, how can the court divide the land into three portions? There are prima facie grounds for the parties to go for appeal to the Supreme Court as all of them are aggrieved over the division of the property.”

Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, however, wanted time to go through the full judgment and said: “It is a statesmanship-like judgment and it is good for the country.”

Senior lawyer Harish Salve said: “Going by the gist of the judgment which is available, two of the judges constituting the majority have come to the conclusion that the Hindus and Muslims were in joint possession and have been declared to be joint owners. On that basis, on account of the cross suits, they have ordered a partition — on a one-third each basis.

“It has used the judicial discretion available to a court to recognise the significance of the existing de facto temple on the disputed spot and held that that must go to the Hindus. There is no legal principle preventing judges to exercise statesmanship as long as it is within the framework of the law. A full comment is possible only after analysing the judgment.”

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi expressed satisfaction over the judgment and said: “I think it is a political kind of solution. It has given something to everybody. This seems to be the just possible solution in respecting the sentiments of all parties. We should be progressive on these issues and accept the judgment.”

Senior advocate M.N. Krishnamani expressed happiness over the verdict on the grounds that it recognised the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India that there was a Hindu religious structure under the site.

Mr. Krishnamani appealed to Muslims not to go to the Supreme Court, and to give up the one-third land that had been given to them so that a temple for Lord Ram could be built.

President of the All-India Bar Association Adish Aggarwala said: “By this judgment everybody has won. No one has lost. This judgment can be practically implemented. Although it is a religious matter and somebody will go to the Supreme Court, I am certain that the Supreme Court will affirm the judgment as it is in the interest of every citizen of India. This will reflect the spirit of religious tolerance.”

Director of the International Council of Jurists S. Prabakaran welcomed the judgment, saying that it would ensure communal harmony in the country.

Mr. Prabakaran wanted both religious communities to accept the verdict in a spirit of give and take and implement the directions to pave the way for the construction of a full-fledged temple for Lord Ram and a mosque on the one-third area of land to be allocated to Muslims.

Advocate Wasim Qadri, while welcoming the judgment, said: “It shows the respect and faith in the judiciary and democracy in this country. This is a victory of governance as per rule of law and constitutional scheme. Though I am not a party, being a like-minded person, this is one way of settling the dispute. This is a good signal for India.”

The Hindu : News / National : Panchayati justice that takes away legal rights of Muslims: Rajeev Dhavan

 

[pmukherjee]

This was only one of the thousands of sites where temples and churches or other places of worship were destroyed world wide to facilitate the construction of a mosque at the same place. This trend of Muslim invaders destroying indigenous places of worship and building mosques over them is a universal phenomenon and has been condemned worldwide.

The proposal for construction of mosque near the 9/11 ground zero in New York is just another ill disguised attempt to continue with the same disgusting tradition and that is exactly the reason for the popular opposition to it.

It is high time Pakistanis started paying more attention to the affairs of their own country rather than worrying about what is happening in other countries. It will do them a world of good. All one hears of on this forum is what is happening in India or Afghanistan or Iran or Chechnya or Europe or Palestine. First get your own country in order then worry about others. Who the hell appointed you the international adjudicators? Is anyone really interested in your world view?

If there was a place in Pakistan popularly believed to be the birthplace of Muhammad, would you guys have waited for 600 years after it was defiled, desecrated and destroyed by outsider invaders to stake a legal claim to it though the law of the land?

You don't have a leg to stand on. Don't teach us about judicial impartiality and propriety. Your courts are a bloody farce. Successive military dictators have ensured that. And anyway, it is none of your d@mned business.