Babri Masjid Case Ruling Today

[arihant]

Actually almost all Arab countries support India's view. I don't think they dare to speak against us. Even Saudi Arabia wanted India to be in OIC but because conflicting policy, India was barred as even any members opposition would not entitle other to get in.

 

[SpArK]

Ayodhya: then and now

2 October 2010 Eighteen years ago, as I watched the live-telecast of Babri Masjid’s demolition from Madison (USA), yes I did feel hurt, sad, angry and of course tensed as well as concerned about my close relatives in India.

A few phone-calls with family members assured me that they were safe and fine. But I did remain angry and hurt at India’s secularism and security-services being put to shame as a few hundred thousand extremists took law in their own hands by demolishing the mosque and communally targeting Muslims in most parts of the country.

The headlines in print media and television-news blamed Hindu terrorism for the demolition and accompanying riots. My immediate priority was to raise my voice as an Indian Muslim and question those allegations. So I did. How could the entire Hindu community and religion be blamed for what some percentage of extremists adhering to this faith had indulged in? A terrorist is a terrorist and cannot be linked with any religion. Defending India’s multi-religious secularism, I questioned the ease with which Islam and Hinduism were linked with terrorism.

Now, when Ayodhya issue is in news again, the Indian secular fervor has overshadowed the communal frenzy. Understandably, against the backdrop of nation-wide riots witnessed during the late 1980s and early 1990s over the Ayodhya crisis, the Indian leaders and people have a legitimate reason to fear rioters taking to streets again.

Communication revolution and political developments over the past two decades have played a major role in preventing the communal violence today. The new generation of voters was not even born or were just mere toddlers when the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992. The youngsters then had access to just one government-controlled television channel, the Doordarshan. The likes of BJP leader L.K. Advani certainly were able to organise “rath-yatras” (chariot processions) to propagandise their stand towards the Ayodhya issue. Though there has been tension in the air about reaction to “verdict,” nobody has even talked of repeating those “yatras.” The answer is simple, even if they did; today’s generation is least likely to join them. Besides, in the present multi-party coalition-era, even the BJP is fearful of losing secular allies and Muslim votes by turning “communal.”

There was a phase when a riot in one corner of country could provoke riots in other parts too. Indian secularism faced a major litmus test when Gujarat carnage occurred. The riots remained primarily confined to Gujarat as people across the country witnessed the carnage on the small screen. Yes, communication revolution played its part in prompting them to remain inside their houses and take their own decisions. The recent Ayodhya verdict may be regarded as another litmus test. Irrespective of their reactions to the verdict, by defying apprehensions and defeating threats of 1992-riotious phase being repeated, the people have played a crucial role in displaying their secular spirit to the world at large.

Ayodhya: then and now

 

[KS]

Actually almost all Arab countries support India's view. I don't think they dare to speak against us. Even Saudi Arabia wanted India to be in OIC but because conflicting policy, India was barred as even any members opposition would not entitle other to get in.

Luckily we were not admitted into it..Thinking logically isnt it a bit baffling..?

 

[arihant]

Luckily we were not admitted into it..Thinking logically isnt it a bit baffling..?

India being outside the IOC is a proof that organisation itself is non existence. If they were so concern admitting India would have made them force or pressure on J&K issue at least.

 

[KS]

India being outside the IOC is a proof that organisation itself is non existence. If they were so concern admitting India would have made them force or pressure on J&K issue at least.

Though you are partially correct,my contention is why should India even contemplate joining OIC.?

And I would have opposed this move tooth and nail for obvious reason of India is either a Secualr country by virtue of our innate tolerance(which I prefer) or a Hindu country after the Two Nation theory.Not anything else.

 

[arihant]

Though you are partially correct,my contention is why should India even contemplate joining OIC.?

And I would have opposed this move tooth and nail for obvious reason of India is either a Secualr country by virtue of our innate tolerance(which I prefer) or a Hindu country after the Two Nation theory.Not anything else.

Since India has lot of muslim population, India can join it. India has seperate laws of muslim and therefore India does have Islamic laws and therefore it can join it.

 

[arun]

I think one needs to read the charter of the OIC to find out what it means to be a member and who can join it. Since the Indian Govt has been trying to join it, I think it should be assumed that it can join the organization without compromising on any of its secular tenets, unless proven otherwise.

 

[ice_man]

i think hindus should ask tomorrow that before anything Kabaa was a hindu worship place!

because hey babri masjid case claims that before our time & their time & everyone's time it was a hindu worship place!

or "the promised land" of jews should according to this ruling should also be given to them because of it being "promised"!

so whoever can go back in history & bring anything absurd should be accepted to have a valid point!


so basically this case sets the precedent that if someone can lay a claim from a 1000 or more years ago that it is their land it should be handed over to them!

 

[Bhairava]

i think hindus should ask tomorrow that before anything Kabaa was a hindu worship place!

Nice attempt at trolling....But FAIL

because hey babri masjid case claims that before our time & their time & everyone's time it was a hindu worship place!

or "the promised land" of jews should according to this ruling should also be given to them because of it being "promised"!

so whoever can go back in history & bring anything absurd should be accepted to have a valid point!

A simple question - By your logic shouldn the Palestinians give up their claim to the land of modern day Israel since it has been occupied by Israel for 60 years now.?

 

[k_n]

i think hindus should ask tomorrow that before anything Kabaa was a hindu worship place!

because hey babri masjid case claims that before our time & their time & everyone's time it was a hindu worship place!

or "the promised land" of jews should according to this ruling should also be given to them because of it being "promised"!

so whoever can go back in history & bring anything absurd should be accepted to have a valid point!


so basically this case sets the precedent that if someone can lay a claim from a 1000 or more years ago that it is their land it should be handed over to them!

The Indian Muslims have genuine grievance . What makes Pakistanis agitated is out of my comprehension since Pakistanis here and in every corner of the world claim that they have 'moved on' since Partition .

Anyhow , what I would like to share is that Faith , Beliefs , etc have no say/weight in a constitutional judgement .
The land had been sacred to Hindus ( even Jains ) is proved from ASI ' s report to the Lucknow bench of Allahbad HC .
The oldest structure dated to somewhere in 3rd century BC and the most recent to 10th century AD . Hence , Hon S U Khan states and I quote

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.

Thus , arises the question in my mind , why would a Muslim Ruler decide to construct a mosque over some ruins . I would ask the Muslim ( preferably Indian ) members here to highlight any such construction done in the History .
We have no record ( inscription , memoirs , etc ) claiming any place of worship was destroyed unlike in the case of Quwat-ul-Islam Mosque in Delhi . Same can be said of structures in Mathura and Kashi Vishwanath in Varanasi .

I have always insisted on this forum that Hindu Mahasabha and later the Sangh have exploited the belief that Ayodhya is the birth place of Lord Rama and that the place where Babri masjid stood is the 'Janmsthan' . As a Hindu , I dnt believe in their version . The judiciary however should have delivered a judgement keeping beliefs and faith aside . the AIMPL and Sunni Waqk Board are doing the correct thing by planning to appeal in the SC .

At a personal level , being a Hindu , any evidence of a place of worship underneath would signal at least for me that the Waqf shouldnt be given the title of 100 % of the disputed land and I would personally look forward to SC judgement .

 

[brahmastra]

Chronology of Ramjanmabhoomi movement

Let us take a look at the significant dates related to the 60-year-old dispute over title suit- the ownership of the land - where the Babri mosque was built in the 16th century. The mosque was demolished on Dec 6, 1992, triggering the worst communal riots in the country post-Independence.

• 
  Some Hindu mythological texts suggest existence of Lord Ram temple in 12th Century. Hiuen Tsang, the Chinese monk recorded many Hindu temples in Ayodhya in 7th Century CE. Ayodhya is mentioned as the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama in the epic Ramayana, as Lord Vishnu's seventh incarnation.

• Mughal Emperor Babar invades India in 1527 and defeats many Hindu kings and takes over their territories. He appoints his General Mir Banki as Viceroy. Mir Banki visits Ayodhya in 1528 and builds the Mosque after destroying the temple. He christens it as Babri Masjid after his master Babar.

• In 1853, first incidents of religious violence at the site are recorded. Hindus and Muslims clash over possession of the Mosque. There are claims that Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabootara were built around this time.

• According to British sources, Hindus and Muslims are recorded to worship together in the Babri Mosque complex in the 19th century until about 1855.

• In 1859, British colonial rulers annex the Mosque site and create separate Muslim and Hindu places of worship. British colonial administration erects a fence to separate the places of worship, allowing the inner court to be used by Muslims and the outer court by Hindus.

• In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das files a suit seeking permission to build a canopy on Ram Chabootra.

• On March 18, 1886, the Faizabad District Judge passes an order which says that though it is unfortunate to build a Mosque on a land held sacred by Hindus, it is too late to address the grievances since the event occurred 356 years ago.

• During mid 20th century, Hindus claim that the Mosque had not been used by Muslims since 1936, and so they take over it in 1949.

• In 1949, icons of Lord Ram are placed in the Babri Mosque. At that time, an Indian Muslim Trust Waqf Board owned the land. Both Hindu and Muslim parties file civil suits. The Indian government locks the gates of the Mosque declaring the site "disputed".

• In 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad and Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das file suits in Faizabad, asking for permission to offer prayers to the idols installed at Asthan Janmabhoomi. Inner courtyard gates are locked, but puja is allowed.

• In 1959, Nirmohi Akhara and Mahant Raghunath file a case, claiming to be the sect responsible for conducting puja.

• In 1961, Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP, files a case claiming the Mosque and the surrounding land was a graveyard.

• In 1984 the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), an international Hindu organization, launches a massive movement for opening the locks of the Mosque. This activity involved demonstrations, petitions and litigation. It claimed that the Mosque was built after destruction of the temple at the birthplace of Ram. It also claimed that the Mosque was in a rundown condition for not being used for any religious activity by the city's Muslims.

• On 1st February 1986, on a petition of one Hari Shanker Dubey, Faizabad Session Judge allows Hindus to worship at the site and the locks are re-opened. Muslims set up Babri Mosque Action Committee in protest.

• In the late 1980s, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) brings the temple issue to the centerstage of national politics. It along with VHP repeatedly organises larger protests in Ayodhya and around the country.

 

[brahmastra]

• In 1989, VHP steps up campaign, laying the foundations of a Rama temple on the land adjacent to the disputed Mosque. Former VHP vice-president Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwal files a case, seeking the Mosque to be shifted elsewhere.

• On 9th November, 1989, the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, allows ‘shilanyas’ or ground-breaking ceremony, at an undisputed site.

• In 1990, VHP volunteers partially damage the Mosque. Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar tries to resolve the dispute through negotiations, which fail the next year.

• In 1991, BJP comes to power in Uttar Pradesh state, where Ayodhya is located.

• In 1992, a large group of Hindus activists including VHP members camp on the site of the Babri Mosque.

• On 25th Sept 1990, the then BJP president L.K. Advani launches a Rath Yatra - an ancient Hindu warrior-style campaign on a chariot that was actually a converted Toyota van - from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh.

• In November 1990, Advani is arrested on the way in Samastipur in Bihar, following which the V.P. Singh-led coalition government, supported by the Left and the BJP, falls after the BJP withdraws support.

• On 6th Dec 1992, thousands of karsevaks, who had massed at Ayodhya from all over the country in what was a well-planned operation, demolish the disputed structure. The incident sparks nation-wide communal riots leading to the loss of thousands of lives.

• On 16th Dec 1992, M.S. Liberhan Commission headed by Justice Liberhan is constituted by the former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao to investigate the circumstances that led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid. This order was to ward off criticism against his government for having failed to protect the Mosque.It was stipulated that the Commission complete the inquiry in six months. A large number of VHP workers were testified before the commission.

• In1998, BJP forms coalition government under Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

• In 2001, tensions rise on the anniversary of the demolition of the Mosque. VHP pledges again to build Hindu temple at the site.

• In 2002, the Allahabad High Court directs the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate the site to determine if a temple lay underneath.

• In January 2002, Mr Vajpayee sets up an Ayodhya cell in his office and appoints a senior official, Shatrughna Singh, to hold talks with Hindu and Muslim leaders.

• In February 2002, BJP rules out committing itself to the construction of a temple in its election manifesto for Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. VHP confirms deadline of March 15 to begin construction. Hundreds of volunteers converge on site. At least 58 people are killed in an attack on a train in Godhra which is carrying Hindu activists returning from Ayodhya.

• In March 2002, between 1,000 and 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, die in riots in Gujarat following the train attack.

• In April 2002, three High Court judges begin hearings on determining who owns the religious site.

• On 12th March 2003, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) begins excavation in Ayodhya on the directions of the Allahabad High Court to ascertain whether a temple existed at the place where the Babri Masjid was built.

• In August 2003, the survey says there is evidence of a temple beneath the Mosque, but Muslims dispute the findings. Vajpayee says at the funeral of Hindu activist Ramchandra Das Paramhans that he will fulfill the dying man's wishes and build a temple at Ayodhya. However, he hoped that the courts and negotiations will solve the issue.

• In September, 2003, a court rules that seven Hindu leaders should stand trial for inciting the destruction of the Babri Mosque, but no charges are brought against Advani, who was also at the site in 1992.

• In October 2004, Advani says his party still has "unwavering" commitment to building a temple at Ayodhya, which he said was "inevitable".

• In November 2004, a court in Uttar Pradesh rules that an earlier order which exonerated Advani for his role in the destruction of the Mosque should be reviewed.

• In July 2005, suspected Islamic militants attack the disputed site, using a jeep laden with explosives to blow a hole in the wall of the complex. Security forces kill five people they say are militants, and a sixth who was not immediately identified.

• On 30th June 2009, the Liberhan Commission submits its report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after 17 years of its formation. Its contents are not made public. It has been longest running commission in India's history with 48 extensions granted by various governments. Politicians like L.K.Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi were alleged to be influential in the demolition.

• The one-man panel cost the government Rs.8 crore (80 million rupees). In 16 years of its proceedings, the commission recorded statements of several politicians, bureaucrats and police officials including Kalyan Singh, late Narasimha Rao, former deputy prime minister L.K. Advani and his colleagues Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati as well as Mulayam Singh Yadav.

• On 23rd November, 2009, the Liberhan commission report is leaked to the media. The leaked report concluded that the demolition was planned by top leaders of the BJP.

• On 27th July, 2010, a retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi filed a petition before Allahabad High Court asking it to defer the verdict on the Ayodhya title suits and let all parties resolve the issue through mediation and reconciliation in view of reports in the media that the pronouncement might disturb communal harmony and lead to violence.
  

---------- Post added at 01:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

• The court takes the initiative for an amicable solution to the dispute and calls on counsel for the contending parties to go into the possibility. But no headway is made.

• On 17th September, 2010, the Special Bench, at its Bench of Judicature, comprising Justices S.U. Khan, D.V. Sharma and Sudhir Agarwal, say that Tripathi's application lacked merit. It also imposed “exemplary costs” of Rs. 50,000, terming his effort for an out-of-court settlement as a “mischievous attempt”.

• Tripathi's plea is opposed by the Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Mahasabha and the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, which submitted separate replies to the OSD on September 16. Stating that an amicable solution was not possible, they alleged that the application was maligned.

• Allahabad High Court on September 30 ruled by a majority verdict that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided equally into three parts among Hindus and Muslims and that the place where the makeshift temple of Lord Ram exists belongs to Hindus. Status quo to be mantained till three months.

 

[brahmastra]

Ayodhya verdict: Judges and their orders



Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan


After the elevation of Justice SR Alam as the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court, on December 11, 2009, Justice S U Khan was nominated on the special bench of Allahabad High Court, handling the Ayodhya title suits. He sat on the bench for the first time on January 11, 2010.

Justice Khan, who graduated in law in 1975 from the Aligarh Muslim University, is known for his expertise in civil, service and revenue matters. He is also known to be a tough judge who remains firm in his approach.

Justice Khan also did a graduation in science from the AMU in 1971 and after being enrolled as an advocate in the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council in 1975, worked as a lawyer at the Aligarh civil court for two years and then at the Allahabad High court for 25 years. Born on January 31, 1952, Justice Khan was elevated as a permanent Judge of the High Court on December 21, 2002. He is due to retire on January 30, 2014.

Justice Khan’s order: "Here is a small piece of land (1,500 square yards) where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable landmines. 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 that the greatest risk in life is not daring to take risk when the occasion for the same arises," he wrote in a prelude to his judgement.

Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute… it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.

It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.

It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.

The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months.

Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui (1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months.


Justice Sudhir Agarwal


Justice Sudhir Agarwal was nominated as a judge on the special bench of Allahabad High Court handling the Ayodhya title suits on September 18, 2008, following the retirement of Justice OP Srivastava.

A law graduate from Meerut University, he is known to be a sharp and strict Judge. Justice Agarwal began his career as a lawyer after having enrolled as an advocate on October 5, 1980. Initially, he practiced tax matters, but soon shifted to service. Exactly 25 years after being enrolled as an advocate, he was elevated as additional judge on October 5, 2005. He took oath as permanent judge on August 8, 2007.

Before his elevation as additional judge, he was additional advocate general of UP since 2003. As per the information available on the site of the Allahabad High Court, he was appointed as additional advocate general on September 19, 2003. In his 25-year-long career, he has worked as standing counsel for UP Power Corporation, UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, Allahabad University.

Born on April 24, 1958, Justice Agarwal’s retirement is due on April 23, 2020. He graduated in science from Agra University in 1977.

Justice Agarwal’s order: It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants.

The area within the inner courtyard… belong to members of both the communities, i.e., Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries.

The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi Akhara.

The share of Muslim parties shall not be less than one third (1/3) of the total area of the premises and if necessary it may be given some area of outer courtyard.


Justice Dharam Veer Sharma



Justice Dharam Veer Sharma was nominated as a Judge of the three-member bench on February 12, 2007, after the retirement of Justice Bhanwar Singh.

Born on October 2, 1948, Justice Sharma, who graduated in law in 1970, was appointed in the Provincial Civil Services (Judicial) in 1972. Subsequently, he was promoted in the Higher Judicial Services in 1985. In 2002, he was promoted as district and sessions judge. Then he was elevated to the post of additional judge in the High Court on October 20, 2005. He took oath as permanent judge on September 17, 2009.

In the meantime, he served the UP Financial Corporation, Kanpur Nagar, as its Chief Law Officer from July 1989 to October 1991. He was Joint secretary and Joint L R, UP government from September 1994 to 1997. He served the UP government as special secretary and additional LR from 1997 to February 2002. Thereafter, he was elevated as secretary (Judicial) and LR. He became principal secretary, Parliamentary Affairs, UP government, in August 2004. Before his elevation as high court Judge, he was principal secretary (Judicial) and LR.

His is due to retire on October 1, 2010.

Justice Sharma's order: Holding that the disputed site in Ayodhya is the birth place of Lord Ram, Justice Dharam Veer Sharma today said the structure constructed by Babar was against the tenets of Islam and cannot have the character of a mosque.

"The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque," the judge said in his judgement on the Ayodhya title suits.

He said the disputed structure was constructed on the site of the old structure after its demolition. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that it was a massive Hindu religious structure, he said.

The judge said the disputed site "is the birth place of Lord Ram" and that a "place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity."

"The spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for anyone to invoke in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless," Justice Sharma said.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

You are expecting justice from a country which is enslaving millions of people ?

You dont know anything about India. Its easy for me to say things like that about Pakistan or China.

 

[KSRaj]

The ones to be most offended by the verdict has to be a bunch of Pakistanis on this forum.

Probably hoping that the court did not give an inch of land to the Waqf board! And then they could have proudly said: "Gee... we are so lucky to be in Pakistan!" Anyways, even 2/3 of land in one of the holiest of Hindu sites seem to have been too much for our friends over here to feel insulted/aggrieved/hurt/blah blah.....

Maybe you all should join the bunch of gentlemen in your country who have asked the 'Government of Pakistan' not to accept the judgement of the Allahabad High court!