http://www.deccanherald.com/content/602462/muslim-outfits-sceptical-court-settlement.html
Muslim organisations, including Babri Masjid Action Committee were today sceptical about the Supreme Court's suggestion for talks to resolve the Ayodhya dispute, saying attempts at out-of-court settlement in the past have been unsuccessful. "We are ready with Chief Justice (of India) mediating... we trust him. We are also ready we if he nominates a team for hearing the matter. But out of court settlement is not possible. If SC passes an order in this regard, we will look into it," said Zafaryab Jilani, Convenor of the Committee which is a party to the case.
His comments came against the backdrop of the apex court earlier in the day asking parties concerned to sit together to arrive at a consensus on Ayodhya issue, which has been dragging for decades. "It is a sensitive and sentimental issue and it's best that it is settled amicably," the SC observed. Jilani said that going by his experience of last three decades, he feels that the matter cannot be settled outside the court and referred to unsuccessful negotiation attempts made during the tenures of former Prime Ministers Chandrashekhar and P V Narasimha Rao. "Let them hear us, we are prepared. But we are not ready for out of court settlement," Jilani said.
"In 1986, talks started between the then Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamkoti and President Muslim Personal Law Board Ali Miyan Nadvi but it failed. "Later in 1990, Prime Minister Chandrashekhar, UP Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and Bhairon Singh Shekhawat talked but no results came. PM Narasimha Rao also constituted a committee and attempts of talks were made through Congress leader Subodh Kant Sahai but in 1992 the mosque was demolished," he said.
He said after the demolition, the then Muslim Personal Law Board President Rabe Hasan Nadvi had sought a written proposal from Shankaracharya of Kanchi in which he said Muslims should leave claim on three mosques, which was not acceptable. The Secretary General of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Maulana Wali Rahmani, said, "We have trust in the Chief Justice and if he is there we are ready for talks." "Talks were held earlier also but it can be initiated again. But talks should not be long," he added.
Maulana Khalid Rashid of the AIMPLB alleged that the attempts in the past to resolve the issue were foiled by political parties. "Negotiation have been made in the past a number of times between the two parties. But each time, political parties foiled our attempts...(So), we are of the view that let the Supreme Court decide once and for all," Maulana Khalid Rashid of the AIMPLB said. Rashid, however, said the Board respects the gesture of the CJI and the sentiments of Hindus.
"If the parties wants me to sit with mediators chosen by both the sides for negotiations, am ready to take up the task. Even the services of my brother judges can be availed for the purpose," Chief Justice J S Khehar, who headed the SC bench, said today. The Allahabad High Court, had in its verdict on September 30, 2010, directed three-way division of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. The verdict was challenged in the apex court.
Could you give some reading materials? I am secluded right now, can't talk to many people, preparing for exams.
All this is related from Fakir Sanyassi rebellion to vellore mutiny to 1857 war of independence to first world war and then how the British divided Indians among Indians on the basis of religion, caste and clans.
http://indianexpress.com/article/in...-an-ayodhya-roadmap-out-of-his-court-4579530/
Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suits, pending since 1949, as a matter of “sentiments and religion”, the Supreme Court Tuesday appealed for an amicable resolution of the dispute, with Chief Justice of India J S Khehar expressing his readiness to even moderate a settlement between the two sides laying claim over the site in Ayodhya.
“Give a bit, take a bit. Make an effort to sort it out. These are issues best decided jointly…these are issues of sentiments and religion. The court should come in the picture only if you cannot settle it…if the parties wants me to sit with mediators chosen by both the sides for negotiations, I am ready to take up the task,” said Justice Khehar.
The CJI stated that he would not hear the case in court if the parties wanted him to help them in mediation. “You want me, I am ready to do it. You don’t want me, I won’t. If you want my brother judges, you can take them but first try to sit with each other and resolve it. After all, these are issues of sentiments. And if you want some principal mediator, we can arrange that,” the judge responded as BJP MP Subramanian Swamy mentioned the matter for early hearing.
Swamy had submitted that the batch of cases on the tile suits were pending in the apex court for the last six years and although the pleadings were complete, neither a date nor a bench for hearing the dispute had been fixed.
At present, there is a “status quo” by the apex court on the Allahabad High Court order of three-way division of the disputed site. By a 2:1 majority judgment, the Allahabad High Court had in 2010 ordered for the three-way division of “roughly 15,000 square feet site” occupied by the mosque before its demolition on December 6, 1992 — one-third for the Sunni Waqf Board, one-third for the Nirmohi Akhara and one-third to the party for Ram Lalla.
After Swamy’s mention, the CJI, who shared the bench with Justices D Y Chandrachud and Sanjay K Kaul, responded that he would give it a thought as to when this matter could be taken up for hearing by a three-judge bench.
“However, we think these matters are best decided outside court. You sit together and have a discussion. If you want any assistance, you can come to us anytime. These are very sensitive issues. These are issues that need to be resolved. If all of you want to sit across the table and resolve, we can effectuate it,” Justice Khehar told Swamy.
The CJI added that the “first attempt should be to sit with each other” and make attempts to resolve it outside court.
“You must fresh attempts to arrive at a consensual decision. If required, you must choose a moderator to end the dispute. If the parties wants me to sit with mediators chosen by both the sides for negotiations, I am ready to take up the task,” he said.
Swamy, on his part, said that he had approached the Muslim community members who had replied that judicial intervention was required to solve the matter. The bench then asked Swamy to consult the parties and inform it about the decision on March 31.
Last year, the apex court had allowed Swamy to intervene in the matters pending since 2010 relating to the Ayodhya title dispute with his plea seeking construction of Ram temple at the site of the demolished disputed structure.
In his petition, Swamy claimed that under the practices prevalent in Islamic countries, a mosque could be shifted to any other place for public purposes, such as constructing roads, whereas a temple once constructed cannot be touched.
He has also sought directions to expedite the disposal of several petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict of three-way division of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya on September 30, 2010.
*******************************************
This is that place only where the Marathas and Hindustanis fought together irrespective of thier religion in 1857 and now the truth is in front of us.
1859
After clashes over the possession of the site, the British administration erected a fence to separate the places of worship. The inner court was to be used by Muslims and the outer court by the Hindus. The arrangement couldn’t last long as Mahant Raghubar Das filed a suit in 1885 seeking permission to build a canopy on Ram Chabootra.
