Prevent moves that can fracture historic ties with Bangladesh: Foreign Minister Momen to India

[Chhatrapati]

When fellow Muslims suffer at the hands of majority Hindus in India and Muslim mosques are destroyed, then of course, it is not inconsequential to all other Muslims in all the countries. This Hindu act propels many such things to happen in India's neighboring countries where Hindus are in minority.

The GoB has to take care of communal harmony and Hindu acts in India is making it difficult. Note that not only physics, but also human society reacts on the principle of "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction".

Oh yeah sure, so when's your bleeding heart ministers going to condemn the Xinjiang concentration camps? Never I presume. Spare me that brotherhood stuff. It's not about some nonexistent brotherhood but the incurable itch some BDs have for India. Hopefully, it won't be detrimental to the relations.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Without malice I would like to say a few words:

- Am I not correct to say that Ram was a mythological figure and not a historical one? How then he was born as a baby in this mortal world and there was a Ram Mandir built at his very birth place?
- For the sake of argument, let me say he was a mortal and a human being. But, he was a Prince born to Raja Jashoratha and Queen Kaushalya. As far as I understand a Queen gives birth to her baby in the comfort of the Palace Harem surrounded by Kabiraj/Doctors and many palace maids.
- Now, tell me why Hindus should claim Ram was born in a jungle that they claim as his birthplace when he was supposed to be born in the Palace Harem?

Can someone show us in the vicinity of Babari mosque a piece of Palace structure, for example, a single brick or a stone? This is absent because Ram was not a historical figure, not a living being. Yet, superstitious Hindus claim he was born in the very place where the Babari mosque was built by Emperor Babar.

Babar came to Bengal with an expedition to fight Sultan Nusrat Shah when the defeated Pathan remnants of north India, after losing in the Battle of Panipath in 1626 AD, fled and took shelter in Bengal. Babar ordered this Mosque to be built on his way to Bengal. Babar has no history of destroying Hindu structures unless it was a wartime necessity.

He did not face enemy in Ayudh and had no reason to destroy a Mandir to make place for a Mosque. Land was not in short supply in the then Hindustan because the population was very low. No reason he did it when there were virtually trillions of acres of free land without Mandirs on it.

Moreover, destroying a strong structure takes money and time. So, was it necessary to take this additional trouble of destruction?

Nepal PM Oli believe that Ram was born in Nepal! Nepal is a Hindu state. What to make of this so called Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

Without malice I would like to say a few words:

- Am I not correct to say that Ram was a mythological figure and not a historical one? How then he was born as a baby in this mortal world and there was a Ram Mandir built at his very birth place?
- For the sake of argument, let me say he was a mortal and a human being. But, he was a Prince born to Raja Jashoratha and Queen Kaushalya. As far as I understand a Queen gives birth to her baby in the comfort of the Palace Harem surrounded by Kabiraj/Doctors and many palace maids.
- Now, tell me why Hindus should claim Ram was born in a jungle that they claim as his birthplace when he was supposed to be born in the Palace Harem?

Can someone show us in the vicinity of Babari mosque a piece of Palace structure, for example, a single brick or a stone? This is absent because Ram was not a historical figure, not a living being. Yet, superstitious Hindus claim he was born in the very place where the Babari mosque was built by Emperor Babar.

Babar came to Bengal with an expedition to fight Sultan Nusrat Shah when the defeated Pathan remnants of north India, after losing in the Battle of Panipath in 1626 AD, fled and took shelter in Bengal. Babar ordered this Mosque to be built on his way to Bengal. Babar has no history of destroying Hindu structures unless it was a wartime necessity.

He did not face enemy in Ayudh and had no reason to destroy a Mandir to make place for a Mosque. Land was not in short supply in the then Hindustan because the population was very low. No reason he did it when there were virtually trillions of acres of free land without Mandirs on it.

Moreover, destroying a strong structure takes money and time. So, was it necessary to take this additional trouble of destruction?

Religion is about belief. For you Rama might be a mythical creature but for Hindus Rama is a god. Hindus can also claim that Allah does not exist as no one ever saw him and Mecca was once a hindu temple.

Also Babri mosque is not something of great importance to muslims neither it is a pilgrimage site. I believe muslims has been given a separate place for mosque.

 

[Bengal71]

There has been too much hype about Babri masjid, it's a non-issue in the hosts of issues Muslims are facing. Only issue is it's destruction by the hindu mob. Apart from that it doesn't really matter whether it's there or built elsewhere.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

A temple and a diety, in particular, cannot be owned by anyone, be it a group of people or government especially large temples.

You're obfuscating again. Temples and places of worship can be and are routinely owned by trusts or registered charities. My archaic English sheds light on archaic interpretations of law, nothing more. Deities certainly cannot be owned by anyone because they're not tangible assets. They're not even intangible assets.

 

[Bilal9]

Wait wait...it gets better...

This ancient mythological figure was somehow declared the plaintiff in the modern day legal proceedings.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...andir-deoki-nandan-agarwal-1617449-2019-11-09

"Suit 5 lists both Ram and the place it considers to be hisjanmabhoomi as plaintiffs (as "juridical persons"*), and asks that the entire premises be declared their property."

And lo! The law-givers in the mighty secular republic did spaketh decisively, and the denizens of the secular republic did rejoice for church and state did remain separate.

Well spoken My Good Sir.

However per Nepalis I thought Ram was born somewhere in Nepal. Indians should not claim Ram as their own then?

Mr. Momen blamed “vested interests” for trying to highlight a series of developments in Dhaka which indicated increasing differences between the neighbours. It was reported in these columns earlier that outgoing High Commissioner Riva Ganguly Das could not meet Sheikh Hasina despite repeated efforts. Diplomatic sources from Dhaka said the meeting did not materialise because of the threat of COVID-19

“What’s wrong if Pakistan dials us? Why should there be any problem if they make a telephone call? After all we both live in the same world,” said Mr. Momen blaming the media for “spicing up” reports on the call during which both the leaders discussed the COVID-19 scenario.

This is all ye need to know.

 

[bluesky]

This is what one of the Archeologist named KK Mohammed found, "He discovered a Purna Kalasha structure shaped in form of a Ghada (water pitcher) part of the Ashtamangala Chinha in Hinduism which is found on the base of 12th and 13th century temples.

What does this finding mean? Does it mean that Ram was not a deity but a mortal who was born in that jungle where KK found a Ghada structure? Ask KK to prove Ram was a mortal.

Nepal PM Oli believe that Ram was born in Nepal! Nepal is a Hindu state. What to make of this so called Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

Nepal is also wrong. Since Ram was a Deity and not a mortal, therefore, question does not arise of his birth on this Earth. Ask both India and Nepal to provide the years of reign of Raja Dasharath and the year of Ram's birth.

Ram is just another Hindu Deity without being born a mortal. He is the main character in the Ramayana which is a story book like Arabian Nights. Now, Muslims should seek out Aladin's grave somewhere in a Hindu Mandir and destroy it.

 

[Black_cats]

No stupid bongs were doing excavation on the site. And it's not a movie.
This is what one of the Archeologist named KK Mohammed found, "He discovered a Purna Kalasha structure shaped in form of a Ghada (water pitcher) part of the Ashtamangala Chinha in Hinduism which is found on the base of 12th and 13th century temples.

He adds that at an excavation in the western side of the Babri Masjid, the team uncovered various terracotta sculptures." There is a long discussion on Ayodhya verdict in PDF. Go through it, I'm not interested in this discussion any further.

Please put your propaganda somewhere else. There are no such proof of temple under the mosque or it was demolished to build the mosque.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sc...abri-masjid-was-built-by-demolishing-a-temple

No evidence of temple demolition

The judgment notes that the temple identified by the ASI dates back to the 12th century – about four centuries before the first Mughal emperor Babur came to India from Central Asia. “No evidence is available to explain what transpired in the course of the intervening period of nearly four centuries,” writes the Supreme Court.

Moreover, there is no evidence to show that this 12th-century structure has anything to do with the mosque itself. “The ASI report does not conclude that the remnants of the pre-existing structure were used for the purpose of constructing the mosque,” holds the court.

The court sums up why archeological evidence does not back up the Hindutva argument that the Babri Masjid was constructed after demolishing a temple.

“The ASI report has left unanswered a critical part of the remit which was made to it, namely, a determination of whether a Hindu temple had been demolished to pave way for the construction of the mosque.”

As a result, medieval history actually played little part in the Supreme Court’s judgment. “A finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI,” ruled the court. Instead, “title to the land must be decided on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial.” Eventually, the court decided the case not by relying on whether a temple was demolished but which side had possession of the Babri Masjid.

The verdict was given to Hindus on ground Muslim could not show exclusive possession of the site before 1857. But same did not apply to hindus.

https://scroll.in/article/943177/ay...e-exclusive-possession-of-site-but-not-hindus


Ayodhya verdict is silent on why Muslims must prove exclusive possession of site – but not Hindus

The court has deprived Muslims of the disputed plot because they couldn’t show exclusive possession before 1857.

 

[Chhatrapati]

You're obfuscating again. Temples and places of worship can be and are routinely owned by trusts or registered charities. My archaic English sheds light on archaic interpretations of law, nothing more. Deities certainly cannot be owned by anyone because they're not tangible assets. They're not even intangible assets.

You should've read the fine print. The temples and its properties are not owned, only controlled by charities and trusts as power of attorney. The Diety is a legal minor, with a guardian being the respective controller of the temple. Point being, Diety does have rights like a minor, the laws are set on behalf of the Deity on the religious practices. In this particular case, previous worship of the Diety in the place, and any unique religious practices.

What does this finding mean? Does it mean that Ram was not a deity but a mortal who was born in that jungle where KK found a Ghada structure? Ask KK to prove Ram was a mortal.

The dispute is not about if Ram existed or not, it's about who owns the property.

Nepal PM Oli believe that Ram was born in Nepal! Nepal is a Hindu state. What to make of this so called Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

That claim is funny, the first King of Nepal, Prithvi Narayan Shah took a pilgrimage to Ayodhya with gifts, even the founder of their Kingdom doesn't believe it.

 

[Bilal9]

You should've read the fine print. The temples and its properties are not owned, only controlled by charities and trusts as power of attorney. The Diety is a legal minor, with a guardian being the respective controller of the temple. Point being, Diety does have rights like a minor, the laws are set on behalf of the Deity on the religious practices. In this particular case, previous worship of the Diety in the place, and any unique religious practices.


The dispute is not about if Ram existed or not, it's about who owns the property.


That claim is funny, the first King of Nepal, Prithvi Narayan Shah took a pilgrimage to Ayodhya with gifts, even the founder of their Kingdom doesn't believe it.

The word is 'Deity', not 'Diety'.

 

[bluesky]

The dispute is not about if Ram existed or not, it's about who owns the property.

Even about owning a property there are specific laws. As far as I know, whoever may be the title-holder, the occupier will be given verdict in his favor if he has held it for at least 12 years.

How many centuries have past after the Babrai Mosque is being under the occupation of the Muslim community? It is already a little less than 500 years if you consider Babar came to Bengal at the head of his expedition team in 1528 AD. Now it is 2020. So, do your math.

 

[Sam.]

Why Bangladeshi obsessed about what happened inside India. You chose to broke away from India hence have no say in what happens in India. This is clearly meddling in India's internal affairs so next time won't cry when we repeat the favor.

 

[Black_cats]

Why Bangladeshi obsessed about what happened inside India. You chose to broke away from India hence have no say in what happens in India. This is clearly meddling in India's internal affairs so next time won't cry when we repeat the favor.

Thats hindutva extremism and we have every reason to raise our voice for it as it has opposite effect in our country.

 

[Sam.]

Thats hindutva extremism and we have every reason to raise our voice for it as it has opposite effect in our country.

Ahh making mandir which is same as Mecca and madina to Hindus is extremism and that too will effect Bangladeshis then next time whatever we do in your country is justified by your same logic. I will be here to post on that stuff as the way you guys going say good bye to your economic development and be ready for security headache.

South wing hears all and soon will act.

 

[namefield_empty]

Ahh making mandir which is same as Mecca and madina to Hindus is extremism and that too will effect Bangladeshis then next time whatever we do in your country is justified by your same logic. I will be here to post on that stuff as the way you guys going say good bye to your economic development and be ready for security headache.

South wing hears all and soon will act.

It is India's graciousness that we don't highlight the atrocities the Tribal ethnicities and Hindu Bangladeshis have to endure on a daily basis there. Let me assure you that the day we decide to act on it, there won't be any shortage of stuff implicating the bigots.

Unlike the Bangladeshis and Pakistanis who are still flogging a dead horse.