Babri Masjid Case Ruling Today

[Peshwa]

^^ Since we are going that far back in history, if a law suit was filed that pointed to historical evidence that Aryans came into what is now the subcontinent and displaced the native people from their abodes, would the court rule that Aryans should be kicked out?

The fact that the court is revisiting hundreds of years of history is in itself a bloody joke. And that it is being done at the expense of an already under-the-gun minority is the fungus ridden cherry on an inedible cake.

Weak case when you bring in Aryans in the picture.....

First find the Aryans, (whoever the hell they are in the subcontinent).....find Dravidians who feel they have been slighted by the invasion theory who would like to file a plea against them and then we shall go from there...

But until you do that, the point remains that Muslims and Hindus who do exist have lodged a case of land ownership.....and there is evidence of a temple's presence at the site of the Masjid....and that Babri Mosque was located on this site....a case for which has been lodged in Indian courts.... pre-dating the barbaric act of desecration of a holy place by a good 30+ years
The archeological survey of India and the Indian courts + Judges including a minority representative tend to think so....

The ruling is based on the evidence provided to these judges....so im not clear on what exactly you're trying to prove here?

No one is questioning the fact that the act of destroying the Mosque was wrong....the case is not about that.....But now that it has been destroyed....how do we amicably settle this case without hurting the religious sensitivity of either group....

Certainly the vandals that destroyed this should be punished.....but you can comment on that verdict when the case goes to trial....until then, only the ownership of land should be discussed....

So...how do you prove ownership?

PS: dont most Pakistanis consider themselves Aryan and indians Dravidian?
I know at least one person on this thread does!

 

[Jackdaws]

The same 6th sense which tells me that you are a troll!

Pehle paanch sense ka toh thikhana nahin....

 

[brahmastra]

Originally Posted by TechLahore
^^ Since we are going that far back in history, if a law suit was filed that pointed to historical evidence that Aryans came into what is now the subcontinent and displaced the native people from their abodes, would the court rule that Aryans should be kicked out?

you still believe that false story british made to make dispute among native Indians.

 

[TechLahore]

Kindly speak only for yourself. I consider all of India's heritage as mine and unlike you, have no wish to part with any of the monuments in question.

Thanks for your comment. But as I pointed out to the poster, this sort of attitude will only alienate muslims. After a thousand years of being in the sub continent and contributing very positively to the sub continent, if this is the sort of thing that will be thrown in their face, you can hardly blame them for thinking of themselves as the "other".

 

[TechLahore]

Yes indeed they are foreign invaders who came from Afghanistan/Central Asia to strip India of its wealth and as I said no amount of eloquency can deny that.

And also Just because I say Babar is a foreign invader does not mean All the Muslims are also Foreign.What a ridiculous logic is that.

99% of the present day Muslims in India are the natives of this land who were converted either by the Sufi saints or under the sword of these invaders.

Look, I think your position has been well established. You want the Mughal monuments in India to be shipped back from whence they came. And I specifically brought up the Taj, which was built by Shahjahan, and you said "take it back".

You say Babar came to loot India and you disregard the fact that he layed the basis for an empire *IN* India. His family stays on in the sub continent till today. What sort of looter does that?

"99% of the present day muslims in India are the natives of this land"; this is factually not correct, though irrelevant to the discussion. And if they were converted "under the swords of these invaders" that means that you think of generations of Mughal rulers as invaders, even those who were born in India.

That tells everyone here just how bigoted you are. You are disowning people born on Indian soil, whose fathers and grandfathers were born on Indian soil, and calling them a "foreign invader". So what does it take for someone to be Indian? Why aren't all decendents of Aryans to this day, "foreign invaders"? I think we all know the answer, and you have given it to us with no ambiguity. You consider muslims in India "foreign invaders" and you would have Shah Jahan's glorious Taj disassembled and shipped off Indian soil. I think I have shown the readership what I wanted to. No need for me to further engage with a bigot.

 

[TechLahore]

you still believe that false story british made to make dispute among native Indians.

Gandhi wrote extensively about the Aryan invasion of India. Was Gandhi a British agent or stooge?

 

[brahmastra]

Gandhi wrote extensively about the Aryan invasion of India. Was Gandhi a British agent or stooge?

Wow, you judge to early.
Gandhi believing in that doesn't made him 'stooge'.

 

[Ganga]

I am glad that the people of India have accepted the verdict in the right spirits.There has not been a single clash since the verdict was given out.I feel that going to the supreme court is not going to change the verdict .

 

[brahmastra]

Gandhi wrote extensively about the Aryan invasion of India. Was Gandhi a British agent or stooge?

watch/listen from 2:30.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

A question to all Pakistani members here:

Had the Babri Masjid not been demolished ,would you"ve agreed with the verdict?

 

[Peshwa]

Gandhi wrote extensively about the Aryan invasion of India. Was Gandhi a British agent or stooge?

The question is....Was Gandhi a historian or an archeologist that you use his "interest" in a certain theory to supplant your argument?

Why should Gandhi's opinion on Aryan invasion have any effect on its credibility? Positive or negative!

 

[TechLahore]

I dont want to sermon you on how you should perform your job, but u need a lesson on religious sensitivity, especially when you're supposed to be "neutral".....

I apologize in advance to my Indian Muslim brothers and Muslims in general for throwing this line of argument.....

Since you question the "Birth of Ram" or his place of birth....let me ask you....
"What evidence exists that the Prophet was truly a prophet? That he spoke to god or the fact that he was a messenger of god? Is there any photographic or documented evidence? Maybe a video recording of god speaking with the Prophet?"....yet millions worldwide follow his principles and more continue to convert as each year passes...

Religion is an element of faith.....It has never been based on "facts" but more on faith and following....
The Prophet' teachings were popular and created faith.....which resulted in the large following of Islam....but no evidence proves otherwise of the Prophets teachings being directed by god himself....in fact I would have to ask you next to prove the existance of god itself through "Photographic evidence" as you so insensitively put....

Similarly....the fact that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Lord Rama is a matter of faith to the Hindus.....a faith that no one has the right to question..as no one has the right to question islamic faith and practices......Whether Lord Rama existed or born in Ayodhya shouldnt be the line of argument since you're treading on lines of religious insensitivity.....
Even the courts ruling in this case has been about the existance of the temple, NOT about the "existance of Lord Rama"

Please learn to be vary of Hindu sentiments as well when crafting your arguments.....I know you want to "stick it" to some members here but that does not require you to ridicule Hindu faith....

Very unfortunate, and very disingenious. If you think by asking about the proof of birth which is the basis for a case currently being decided in court, that I am insulting a religion, then you have run out of arguments and are now perched way, way out on a limb. Please also note the context in which I responded to the original poster - he was arguing a point of view which is offensive to others and is not 100% proven scientifically. Was the one dissenting judgement (by a muslim judge, I believe) not indicative of the fact that it is *not* conclusively proven that Babar destroyed an existing temple to build this mosque? That is the whole basis of the argument which Advani used to inflame sentiments and start communal riots in which 900 people were killed. So it's ok to call into question 700 years of history, present your own version and then kill 900 people. But when someone asks you about proof for whether there is any basis in fact behind the insinuation that caused all the violence, you call it insulting a religion? Wonderful.

Regardless of your swipe, in this entire discussion, nowhere have I taken a tone which denegrates hinduism. I have no desire to do that. I respect all faiths. If you look at my interaction on this forum, 99.9% of all my criticism is directed at people of my own faith, mullahs etc.

Now, coming to the issue at hand, the point is that in matters concerning ancient history, there is usually no 100% definitive scientific proof on the basis of which courts can make decisions. This is all a farce. To revisit the "ownership deed" 700 years after the fact is a bloody farce. Let me say it again. A bloody farce. And it is being done *only* because of the involvement of a particularly virulent strain of right-winger. The same type that took pickaxes, crowbars and shovels and destroyed not only a cherished heritage site, but one that was holy to 1.5B people, one hundred and fifty million of whom, reside in India.

Now I am hearing all sorts of apologist excuses... "oh there are two cases, the case regarding the demolition is still pending". Yeah, right. The court has grabbed 2/3rds of the land of the mosque which was demolished and they are still debating whether the demolition was "legal"? Does it take 18 years to determine whether a mob destroying a place of worship is "legal" or "illegal"? How is there any hope of fairplay now that it is IMPOSSIBLE to remedy the damage to the mosque since 2/3rd of the property on which it was built has been forcibly grabbed and GIVEN AWAY? There is no sense or logic, and yet apologists cling to this ridiculous argument.

Anyway, apparently the courts in India believe they need to undo 700 years of history... let's see what the future holds.

 

[Ganga]

I am glad that the people of India have accepted the verdict in the right spirits.There has not been even a minor clash anywhere in the country.I also feel that the supreme court will not change the verdict.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Very unfortunate, and very disingenious. If you think by asking about the proof of birth which is the basis for a case currently being decided in court, that I am insulting a religion, then you have run out of arguments and are now perched way, way out on a limb. Please also note the context in which I responded to the original poster - he was arguing a point of view which is offensive to others and is not 100% proven scientifically. Was the one dissenting judgement (by a muslim judge, I believe) not indicative of the fact that it is *not* conclusively proven that Babar destroyed an existing temple to build this mosque? That is the whole basis of the argument which Advani used to inflame sentiments and start communal riots in which 900 people were killed. So it's ok to call into question 700 years of history, present your own version and then kill 900 people. But when someone asks you about proof for whether there is any basis in fact behind the insinuation that caused all the violence, you call it insulting a religion? Wonderful.

Regardless of your swipe, in this entire discussion, nowhere have I taken a tone which denegrates hinduism. I have no desire to do that. I respect all faiths. If you look at my interaction on this forum, 99.9% of all my criticism is directed at people of my own faith, mullahs etc.

Now, coming to the issue at hand, the point is that in matters concerning ancient history, there is usually no 100% definitive scientific proof on the basis of which courts can make decisions. This is all a farce. To revisit the "ownership deed" 700 years after the fact is a bloody farce. Let me say it again. A bloody farce. And it is being done *only* because of the involvement of a particularly virulent strain of right-winger. The same type that took pickaxes, crowbars and shovels and destroyed not only a cherished heritage site, but one that was holy to 1.5B people, one hundred and fifty million of whom, reside in India.

Now I am hearing all sorts of apologist excuses... "oh there are two cases, the case regarding the demolition is still pending". Yeah, right. The court has grabbed 2/3rds of the land of the mosque which was demolished and they are still debating whether the demolition was "legal"? Does it take 18 years to determine whether a mob destroying a place of worship is "legal" or "illegal"? How is there any hope of fairplay now that it is IMPOSSIBLE to remedy the damage to the mosque since 2/3rd of the property on which it was built has been forcibly grabbed and GIVEN AWAY? There is no sense or logic, and yet apologists cling to this ridiculous argument.

Anyway, apparently the courts in India believe they need to undo 700 years of history... let's see what the future holds.

Court never needed the proof that Ram was born there, court needed the proof that Hindus believe the said place was the birth place of Ram and a temple stood there before the mosque, which was proven in the court of law. In the last 60 years over 50,000 people have testified and tons of arguments and counter arguments have been made

The place was disputed since the last 150+ years and Hindus prayers have been going on there since, no nawaz was being offered there

 

[TechLahore]

The question is....Was Gandhi a historian or an archeologist that you use his "interest" in a certain theory to supplant your argument?

Why should Gandhi's opinion on Aryan invasion have any effect on its credibility? Positive or negative!

Oh I don't know... maybe because Gandhi was almost universally followed by the hindu community in India, was revered as "Baapu" and the vast, vast majority did not contest his views, and based on these views, circumstances were created that resulted in a bloody partition in which 2-5M people were killed. Maybe just because of that...

As I have already said, going back in history - especially ancient history - and formulating arguments which are used to undo 700 year old ownership deeds is, at best, treading on shaky , dangerous ground. And at worst, playing to extremism. The fact that Gandhi presented a view to an adoring populace which cemented beliefs (embedded at the heart of the Aryan invasion theory, is the belief concerning Aryan supremacy) that resulted in a very ugly radicalization and a chain of events which convinced an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity such as Jinnah, that it was now impossible to coexist, is entirely relevant when you consider the long backstory that leads up to this court decision.