What's new

Babri Mosque verdict and it's repurcussions

You are welcomed to disapprove all Abrahamic religions as wrong which btw are followed by people of more than one faith.

I see no apparent point here. Just trying to make it all a question of faith while it stays a question of legal ownership afa topic is concerned. I personally have no faith in any supernatural being - but my upbringing has taught me enough to not to disrespect other's feelings and to respect their faith.

If nothing else there are a bunch of people on either side who feel an emotional attachment to the issue - which btw has nothing at all to do with Pakistan. So you people can quit being Islam ke thekedar.

But here the onus is on Indian Hindus and here the reference to mythological ram and his birth is very much related to this entire story of Babri Mosque and ram mandir.

Birth of Ram or his existence for that matter has nothing to do with the issue. And if you quote this as a journalist - then i pity the publications you work for. This is a clear cut title suit which is to decide the ownership of land.

Indian Hindus claim that ram was born here which BTW had been proven wrong my your own people.

It is not to be proven by my people and your people .. and whatever has been proven will be declared by the court in the judgement not by some fanatic internet warriors to settle scores and troll on internet forums.

The court has received details by ASI after digging the area - One party claims that the proof is insufficient - while the other says it is.

We do not have access to all the details to pass judgement - better leave it to people who are better informed.
 
.
I see no apparent point here. Just trying to make it all a question of faith while it stays a question of legal ownership afa topic is concerned. I personally have no faith in any supernatural being - but my upbringing has taught me enough to not to disrespect other's feelings and to respect their faith.
Attacks on Hinduism proves how the Hindus in Pakistan are looked down upon. That's probably taught right from the childhood. Faulty upbringing, i must say. Hypocrites question other religions but when questions being asked about their own they shy away and say lets not go that way...

Birth of Ram or his existence for that matter has nothing to do with the issue. And if you quote this as a journalist - then i pity the publications you work for. This is a clear cut title suit which is to decide the ownership of land.
It is not to be proven by my people and your people .. and whatever has been proven will be declared by the court in the judgement not by some fanatic internet warriors to settle scores and troll on internet forums.

The court has received details by ASI after digging the area - One party claims that the proof is insufficient - while the other says it is.

We do not have access to all the details to pass judgement - better leave it to people who are better informed

Thats tough very difficult for Miss Journo to understand. You will see her posting the same comment again trying to flame and bake another conspiracy theory.
 
.
The verdict is supposed to be announced by a team comprising of two Hindus and one Muslim.

I really wonder what they would decide upon.
 
. .
@Asim ... Why are you bringing in religion into our Judicial system?... The Judicial system operates independent of religion in India....and the verdict will be based on facts and not as a means of appeasement to the hindus or muslims...
 
.
India Bans Bulk Text Messages Before Mosque Verdict

NEW DELHI, Sept 23 (Reuters) - India has banned bulk mobile text messaging for three days to prevent the spreading of rumours and religious extremism as authorities prepare for a potentially explosive court verdict between Muslims and Hindus.

A high court will rule on Friday whether Hindus or Muslims own land around a demolished mosque in northern India, a judgment haunted by memories of 1992 riots, when some 2000 were killed.

It was one of the worst outbreaks communal violence since the partition in 1947.

The government statement gave no reasons for the order, but a senior security official with knowledge of the order cited security reasons before the court verdict.

The case over the 16th century Babri mosque in Uttar Pradesh state is one of the biggest security challenges in India this year, along with a Maoist insurgency and a Kashmiri separatist rebellion, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said.

Hindu mobs demolished the mosque in the town of Ayodhya in 1992, claiming it was built on the birthplace of their god-king Rama. The demolition triggered religious riots.
 
.
Why are you bringing in religion into our Judicial system?... The Judicial system operates independent of religion in India....and the verdict will be based on facts and not as a means of appeasement to the hindus or muslims...

In an ideal world, sure - but this is India we are talking about - Had religion not been the very fabric of society in India, you protest would carry a measure of merit - Indian Prime Minister, Home and even Modi have been requesting elements to not instigate violence and remain calm -- Shouldn't your question be posed at them??? Or is that these Indian ministers do not know something about the the judicial syatem in India, that you do?
 
.
In an ideal world, sure - but this is India we are talking about - Had religion not been the very fabric of society in India, you protest would carry a measure of merit - Indian Prime Minister, Home and even Modi have been requesting elements to not instigate violence and remain calm -- Shouldn't your question be posed at them??? Or is that these Indian ministers do not know something about the the judicial syatem in India, that you do?

You are mixing everything.
The guy, whom you replied had so say that what ever decision will come is not depending on the religion of Judges. The decision will remain same even if all three judge were Hindu or all 3 were muslims. Decision has nothing to do with religion of Judges.
 
. .
SC defers verdict on Ayodhya title suit till Sept 29

New Delhi:

F

The Supreme Court has pushed back the Ayodhya verdict by a week to September 29.

The verdict by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court was to be delivered tomorrow.

The matter was heard by a Bench headed by Justice R

V Raveendran.

The apex court had on Wednesday declined to hear urgently the plea to postpone the Ayodhya title suit verdict by the Allahabad High Court on Friday.

A Bench of the court, while refusing to hear the petition filed by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi, said that it did not have the "determination" to take up the issue and added that it will be listed before another Bench.

The demand to defer the verdict was admitted under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Tripathi said the verdict could flare up communal tension and that both the central and state governments were ill-equipped to handle a law-and-order situation because of the pressures of the Commonwealth Games, the Bihar elections, the floods and violence in Kashmir and Naxal-hit areas.
 
.
Originally Posted by Asim Aquil View Post
"The verdict is supposed to be announced by a team comprising of two Hindus and one Muslim.
I really wonder what they would decide upon."


And by the (very small) way, a team comprising of three Indians Jurists.
Or is that idea a little difficult to comprehend?
 
.
The verdict is supposed to be announced by a team comprising of two Hindus and one Muslim.

I really wonder what they would decide upon.

Out of these three a Muslim and a Hindu Judge opposed deferment plea earlier but the second Hindu Judge was pressing for hearing the plea and he was supporting settling the issue out of the court.

and Today we all seen that the Announcment has been postponed/delayed till Sep28 and the excuse has been given that the court will like to see the issue resolved out of the court till Sept 28. :angel:


NOW tell me an issue which could not have been solved since 93 how can a weaker party (Muslims) be given a fair deal by a stronger party (Hindus) in India over Babri Mosque if the issue is going to be resolved by these two parties out of court ??


Mockery of Justice by India :tdown:
 
.
India bans bulk text messages before mosque verdict

Thursday, 23 Sep, 2010


NEW DELHI: India has banned bulk mobile text messaging for three days to prevent the spreading of rumours and religious extremism as authorities prepare for a potentially explosive court verdict between Muslims and Hindus.

A high court will rule on Friday whether Hindus or Muslims own land around a demolished mosque in northern India, a judgment haunted by memories of 1992 riots, when some 2000 were killed.

It was one of the worst outbreaks communal violence since the partition in 1947.

The government statement gave no reasons for the order, but a senior security official with knowledge of the order cited security reasons before the court verdict.

The case over the 16th century Babri mosque in Uttar Pradesh state is one of the biggest security challenges in India this year, along with a Maoist insurgency and a Kashmiri separatist rebellion, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said.

Hindu mobs demolished the mosque in the town of Ayodhya in 1992, claiming it was built on the birthplace of their god-king Rama. The demolition triggered religious riots. – Reuters
 
.
I do not understand what is the point of a weeks delay in judgement!
An out of court settlement is next to impossible in a week seeing how it was not achieved in nearly 20 years.

But if there is an out of court settlement that may be a better solution to the problem. And guys please cut the crap about how the deferment of the judgment is nonjudicial, mockery, conspiracy, etc, etc. The people making these judgements (aka SC and HC judges) are far more experienced and possess superior knowledge then you do. So let them pass the judgement. ;)
 
.
Court verdict or No verdict here you got the verdict already Might is Right.

Indian Muslims should forget if they can have any justice or fair trial in this case as well.


Ayodhya’s verdict: This is Ramjanmabhoomi


AYODHYA: While the Supreme Court has postponed until September 28 its hearing on a plea to defer the Allahabad high court's verdict in the Ayodhya title suit, in the pilgrim town itself, there's no dispute: The place was, and is, Ramjanmabhoomi for its Hindus.



Nowhere in Ayodhya, not in shop addresses or official signages, in the directions yelled out to lost visitors from teashops or police chowkies, or anywhere close to the disputed area, is the "spot" referred to as anything else but Ramjanmabhoomi. Even the official parlance refers to it as Janmabhoomi. For a disputed structure, there is remarkably little dispute.

"The point isn't that everyone calls it Ramjanmabhoomi; the point is, it is Ramjanmabhoomi," says Purshottam Kumar, owner of Shri Ram Chandra ki Sarvottam Samagri, a shop in the main market that sells religious paraphernalia: from headbands worn by karsevaks in 1992 to strings of prayer beads and saffron scarves. Kumar's is the fifth generation that has lived and worked on the same spot and he explains that each generation has known that this is the place where Ram was born and that there was a temple. "What will the court's judgment change? Nothing," he says smiling benignly. "Every Hindu knows in his heart that this is the Ramjanmabhoomi and it will not be anything else."

The security is heavy: two rings of fencing, one yellow, one barbed, guarded by village chowkidars, home guards, the PAC, Rapid Action Force and CRPF. CCTVs hover over, ominously overseen by armed men on watchtowers. At the entrance, every object on one's person including belts and pens is removed. There are five full-body checks. A group of women from Gujarat is on a pilgrimage. They will go from here to Nepal. "We've come to take Ram's darshan. There used to be a mosque nearby but went long ago," explains Sushilaben Kanojia of Rajkot.

After walking for several minutes inside what feels like a labyrinth, devotees are deposited 10 feet away from a statue of Ram, Sita, Laxman and Bharat, a fence separating them from visitors. A sign reads 'Don't Wait Here'. The sanctum sanctorum is enveloped on all sides by a tent. This is where the Babri Masjid once stood. Not just the mosque, not even rubble is visible any more. Obviously, there is no Muslim worship here.
:tdown:


The first and only time that TOI saw or heard the word Babri all day was in a cramped two-room house where a 90-year-old man with a hearing aid was being harangued by journalists. 'Babri Masjid Reconstruction Committee' read the hand-painted words on the doorway to Mohammed Hashim Ansari's house. One of the litigants, and the last surviving of the six who were on the same petition, Ansari demands that the court give its verdict soon. "At least in my lifetime," he says pleadingly, adding, "All of Ayodhya's Muslims are waiting for this."

Bangle-seller Mohammed Arif's family has lived here in the old city for four generations. "I was here when they broke the mosque and I saw the city aflame," he says softly and with no anger. "Everyone knows what happened. It was on TV. We don't want to stir up trouble. If that means not referring to the area as Babri any more, so be it," he says. Arif and his family have little interest in the verdict. "They can build a church if they want, I don't care," he says. But they're all watching TV intently on the pavement outside his shop. "For news of trouble," says his teenaged daughter Saira.

"There are two parallel forces in the country, one that supports anarchy and one that supports the rule of law," says Khalid Ahmed, who heads the Helal Committee which offers legal help to the two disputing sides. "The first one gave its judgment on December 6, 1992, when it tore down the mosque, killed 17 Muslims in Ayodhya and burnt down 450 shops, punishing Muslims for the sins of their forefathers. We are still waiting for the judgment of the other force," says Ahmed.


Read more: Ayodhya’s verdict: This is Ramjanmabhoomi - The Times of India Ayodhya?s verdict: This is Ramjanmabhoomi - The Times of India
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom