‘Verdict makes me feel like a 2nd-class citizen’

[Areesh]

It was an interim report. The final report was submitted later and was taken into account by the court.

Interim report???

One of the questions the court framed was “whether the building has been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same.” Pursuant to this question, it asked the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a dig at the site. This was done in 2003, during the time when the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government was in power at the Centre. Not surprisingly, the ASI concluded that there was a “massive Hindu religious structure” below, a finding that was disputed by many archaeologists and historians.

Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case

 

[Bang Galore]

Court should rely on facts and science for justice, not the might of the majority.

One of the facts was that the suit filed by the Sunni Waqf Board was barred because of limitation and a finding of adverse possession in the favour of the Hindu litigants.

What do you think should be the next step under law?

 

[Von Hölle]

Given India is 80% Hindus, there is no chance for your hypothetical orgasm to happen. Given that what Hindus endured thousand years of barbaric Islamic occupation (apart from some mughal kings) and plundering, one should thank Hindus for accepting the idea of Secular republic rather than going Pakistan way.


"Shah Bano" case, ringing any bells.

This is the mentality, which prevents Indian from being truly secular..some people think they are doing another community a big favor by following secular ideals.

 

[fallstuff]

One of the facts was that the suit filed by the Sunni Waqf Board was barred because of limitation and a finding of adverse possession in the favour of the Hindu litigants.

What do you think should be the next step under law?

The law should run its course. If the Indian Supreme Court uphelds the Panchayet style verdict, it should still be respected by all parties for the sake of Law and Order.

 

[arihant]

If it was illegal by Islamic law then how Indian Judicial System made it legal and gave 1/3rd land for its re-construction?

The truth is totally opposite. Babri masjid's 2/3 land is illegaly and unjustifiably snatched from muslims to serve the appetite of hard-line hindutwa forces.

Fighter

Actually its not 1/3rd of land. It is 1/2 of land that is given to muslim while rest is given to Hindus.

Nirmohi Akhara's land was used by Hindus to do the puja because British prohibited Hindus entry in the Masjid after 1857 Mutiny. Thus Nirmohi Akhara was always in possession and owner of the 1/3rd without any dispute.

The case actually is of 1855-57 Mutiny where British prohibited Hindus to enter Masjid to stop the cycle of riots that could broke out. Instead of that they asked to owner of outeryard who was in possession of land, to allow Hindus to worship through Chabootra.

Now, according to Hindus this is scared place and it must be return back. But Court can't rule what is scared and what is not. What they decided that as Hindus and Muslims were in joint possession of the structure at least in or before 1855, they are declared join owners too. In real, there is no record of ownership of land but there is records of land revenue where both parties use to pay to British which implied that both were in possession of land.

Since both were in possession, both are given half-half land. Now the real problem is that how court decided which is birth place of Rama. Here according to fact that Hindus use to work at the same place in 1857 as reported in riots report of British Magistrate. While Muslims use to give their offerings at the left side of the center dome i.e. at the first dome. Even in the dividing the way ruling has come, it divides in the manner which was already present in the year before 1855. Hindus would be allowed to worship in the center dome while Muslims will be allowed in the left or first dome.

Court accepted that it was built on the ruins of Temple and therefore it is non Islamic structure. But because Muslims use to pray here, they must get the possession of atleast 1/3rd. The only significant thing is that center dome has been given to Hindus. Otherwise there is no debate who use to own even in the 18th century if we forget the pre Babur rule.

 

[Fighter488]

@fighter488

you must understand that the place is one of the most sacred places of hinduism(like kabba sry if my spelling is wrong) would you allow a temple in mecca near the kabba ? Sorry if I sound blunt, as a hindu, I think we have made a great sacrifice(which is good ) by alloting place for a mosque in the MOST SACRED PLACE of hinduism, you realize there was a temple before right? technically our MOST SACRED PLACE was snatched away from us by babar......and we were only taking back 1/3 of it. I thought of all people, indian muslims would understand the significance. How would you feel if the christians destroy the kabba, and build a church over it....? I know this is provocative, so I apolosize in advance.....

And the realization came only 60 years ago? Where was it during all this period. No body protested? No one raised the issue. Did you mean to say RAM CHANDRA JI become relevent to Hindus only 60 years ago?

 

[arihant]

But I think the persons who were responsible for the shahadat of Babri Masjid should have got punishment but I think they were not...

Actually thats different case and probably all will be punished. Not only those who demolished it or were present in the Ayodhya itself but it will include those also were out of station and were pretaining to give hate speeches.

The reason for all this delay is that our judiciary was not as powerful as today. I think if those are not punished than there is no need to built a temple here. It's better to create a monument describing about those who lost the life till today due to this.

 

[Bang Galore]

The law should run its course. If the Indian Supreme Court uphelds the Panchayet style verdict, it should still be respected by all parties for the sake of Law and Order.

That's a given. It would have gone to the supreme court no matter what the decision.
Why I asked a question earlier was because of the fact that once the judges had ruled the Waqf Board's case was barred by limitation & if adverse possession was found in favour of the Hindu litigants, then in 9 times out of 10 the court would have handed over complete control to the party with possession. The fact that it did not do that in this case has also been a point of criticism from some lawyers and would be the grounds on which the Hindu litigants could approach the Supreme Court. The Waqf Board would only have a case if their claim was admitted by the court. When their suit stands dismissed(even if on technical reasons), the case is as good as lost. The 1/3rd division awarded to Muslims should be seen in this context too. ( I am making no comments on the soundness or otherwise of the judgment passed, just pointing out the complexities involved)

 

[Mirza Jatt]

I heard a muslim representative on NDTV saying that he would have been happier if the whole land was given to the Hindus,than alloting 1/3 of the land to each.it was like surrendering to the Hindus.so he isnt happy with the verdict.

 

[arihant]

This is a repost from a diffeent thread

From BBC
BBC NEWS | South Asia | 'No sign' of Ayodhya temple

I think Judges have more knowledge in us. Either report is false or something different to the actual site. I am not sure but Judges have taken ASI report to prove that this is Ram janambhoomi. If you don't know in the 18-19th century Muslims of Ayodhya itself called the Babri Masjid as Masjid as Janasthan (Mosque of Birth Place). It is secular India where even to prove anything where you have tones of evidence it takes 60 years. Well I am neither Hindu nor Muslim but what I believe is that court verdict is given a way to both community to decide how to come closure. The verdict is no way perfect and doesn't reflect win or loose for any sect.

 

[ambidex]

And the realization came only 60 years ago? Where was it during all this period. No body protested? No one raised the issue. Did you mean to say RAM CHANDRA JI become relevent to Hindus only 60 years ago?

Fighter 488.

I can not understand your agony. Why there is such fuss when both parties were saying that they will accept the court's verdict.

Waiting for your reply.
Regards

 

[Fighter488]

As some one said - In a Hindu majority country, the Hindus have to wait for 60 years and counting to build a temple on one of their most sacred places and still it is not secular.

What a joke.!!
And do explain how Democracy and secularism got busted yesterday..?Waiting for the reply.

When Hindus have to put thier case on faith and belief then most probably, any international judicial system, would not be able to help them sort this case soon!! 60 years is stil too early to take a quantum leap from SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC and ALL INCLUSIVE INDIA to HINDU RULED AND CONTROLLED INDIA!

When Highcourt judges are putting thier weight on flimsy emotions rather rationality, logic, facts and truths then it really become a GREAT JOKE! You are right!

And where has Hindu faith determined the case?. It is the evidence produced by the ASI that decided the case.

And when ASI camew in to picture? AFTER BABRI MASJID demolition. There were reports right after Dec 6, 1992 that karsewaks have planted ENOUGH EVIDENCE for any future ASI INVESTIGATION!

Even then ASI did not say it WAS a temple!

Fighter

 

[VermillionTilak]

I agree with you partially. It is the most sacred place for the followers of Hindu faith. Its just another Mosque for the Indian Muslims.

However, your blunt part is what makes the minoriy faith follower rather uncomfortable. There was no temple accoridng to the interim ASI report before the report had a 180 turnaround.

Sikh didn't get any justice on the 1984 riots. Justice is yet to be delivered also on the Bomaby and Gujrat riots. However, justice was delivered based on a mumbo jumbo ASI report.

Fighters concern is real. If you are the majority you can have your way in India.

I've given you proof of the so called "mumbo jumbo" pictures and videos of what was indeed a temple. You still have not replied, and instead keep bringing unrelated topics into the discussion.

 

[arihant]

I think although word Belief has been used, it is only used for central structure. Other things have been backed by evidence. Even belief has been backed that Hindus use to worship here at least or before 1855

This is wrong belief that site has been divided in 2/3 and 1/3. Nirmohi Akhara use to 1/3rd at least or since 1857 when British asked them to allow Hindus to worship from here as British prohibited Hindus to enter in central dome where they use to worship at least or before 1857 to stop the another round of riots cycle. Although this could not be proved since when Hindus were worshiping in the central part of Masjid.

Below is map of dispute site. If you see orange part is actually undisputed by most of the party since Nirmohi Akhara are in possession of that site since or before 18th century as reported by French Travelers.

Rather making it sensational, we should think about all aspects.

 

[KS]

When Hindus have to put thier case on faith and belief then most probably, any international judicial system, would not be able to help them sort this case soon!! 60 years is stil too early to take a quantum leap from SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC and ALL INCLUSIVE INDIA to HINDU RULED AND CONTROLLED INDIA!

Only because Hindus are this much tolerant and this land is secular that Muslims are even allowed to appeal to the SC to plead this case.

So please dont overshoot yourself.Just because the verdict was not in your favour doesnt mean you are being victimised.It can also mean plainly your case is wrong.

When Highcourt judges are putting thier weight on flimsy emotions rather rationality, logic, facts and truths then it really become a GREAT JOKE! You are right!

Keep aside your emotions and go thru this thread.you will find an answer to all your questions.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/74817-practical-questions-babri-masjid-verdict.html

And when ASI camew in to picture? AFTER BABRI MASJID demolition. There were reports right after Dec 6, 1992 that karsewaks have planted ENOUGH EVIDENCE for any future ASI INVESTIGATION!

Even then ASI did not say it WAS a temple!

Fighter

ASI was alwys in the picture.
Again you are wrong - the idol of Ram Lalla was placed on 23 rd December 1949 and not on Dec 6 1992.All the Judges have concurred on this.

And the ASI report infact says that the ruins of a temple predating a mosque have been found at the site.