Bhairava
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 5,160
- Reaction score
- 0
Karan actually Bhutan is Buddhist Country...And Even in Nepal the Maoists have abolised Hinduism as the State religion.
Verdict makes me feel like a 2nd-class citizen
- Thread starter Fighter488
- Start date
Karan actually Bhutan is Buddhist Country...And Even in Nepal the Maoists have abolised Hinduism as the State religion.
justanobserver
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,192
- Reaction score
- 0
Bhutan is Buddhist
You better go back to sleep.
Fighter488
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,050
- Reaction score
- 0
You are right to a great extent here.
The problem is that how India is projected by Hindus and how it is practiced. This gap is daunting and humiliating for most of the people living in this country, including Hindus.
karan.1970
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 14,781
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
Sorry.. My bad...
About Nepal, and hinduism being abolished as state religion.. That being true, but these things dont die that easy. The political story is still incomplete there.. But then Nepal still fits the parallel of Vatican to Christianity more than India for Hinduism..
Either way, its a non issue..
justanobserver
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,192
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm all for France-style secularism in India, are you?
Novice09
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 2,802
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
Issues clear...
That is the reason why I prefer talks
---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------
I'm all for France-style secularism in India, are you?
my both hands are up to support you
Uniform civil code
same law
I'm all for France-style secularism in India, are you?
I hope India won't require another renaissance movement for that. I wholehearted support it. Present Indian secularism at best can be described as tokenism.
arihant
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,815
- Reaction score
- 0
Although I believe in One God, I feel that all religious places should be locked and be placed condition to open it. Condition should be, improve the development, society, culture, reduce poverty and then come back open the doors.
Before God needs to you, you are needed by those poor people who are on the street. If God only wanted to offer the prays he would not have created us. The need for us on this earth is to improve the life of the people rather improving the structure of Temple or Masjid. This would be true secularism but than again this could be extremist too.
Before God needs to you, you are needed by those poor people who are on the street. If God only wanted to offer the prays he would not have created us. The need for us on this earth is to improve the life of the people rather improving the structure of Temple or Masjid. This would be true secularism but than again this could be extremist too.
arihant
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,815
- Reaction score
- 0
My Humble request to both parties would be not to built anything like Temple or Masjid but surely punished those who destroyed it.
I would be happy if central govt. could make it museum for the public of India as well as world. May be it can be dedicated to Myth Character Rama and its victories if not about Puja. Everytype of puja or offerings but be banned. It should also mention about harmony between both sects including how it progressed from worst to harmony.
I would be happy if central govt. could make it museum for the public of India as well as world. May be it can be dedicated to Myth Character Rama and its victories if not about Puja. Everytype of puja or offerings but be banned. It should also mention about harmony between both sects including how it progressed from worst to harmony.
As far as administration goes, he did have many qualities. He wasn't an inept ruler - the last Mughal ruler about whom that can be said.
However, as far as religious intolerance and persecution go, the historians (even the so-called pseudo-secular ones) that he was extremely intolerant and indulged in a lot of persecution of other religions and indulged in forced conversions. You can open any mainstream Indian history book and it will say that. About no other Mughal emperor is anything like this said in them. This is one of the primary reasons for the downfall of the Mughal empire after Aurangzeb - he alienated the majority Hindu rulers and populace.
It was the misfortune of India that Aurangzeb became the emperor instead of his murdered brother, Dara-Shikoh, who by all accounts was much more tolerant.
It is disappointing the way you glorify Aurangzeb and absolutely refuse to believe that he indulged in religious persecution and intolerance. It is also disappointing the way you use sentences like "Hindus never tire to project Aurangzeb as the ultimate evil" and then you cry foul about wrong generalizations about Muslims.
If this is the brand of secularism that you want India to have, then I strongly differ. You don't bury your head about past atrocities and pretend as if they never happened. You reconcile with them. If 50 or 100 years down the line, you were told that the Gujarat riots were nothing more than a natural expression of Hindu rage and retaliation over the Godhra train burning, how would you feel? You have to face history and then move on. What Aurangzeb did is not the responsibility of today's Muslims but all these denials etc show you in a poor light. Muslims can be wrong, just as much as Hindus can be.
justanobserver
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,192
- Reaction score
- 0
Justice Khan justifies partition of land in Ayodhya
If exclusive ownership is claimed but joint ownership is proved, a suit can be decreed for joint ownership, Justice S.U. Khan held in his separate judgment, broadly agreed to by Justice Sudhir Agarwal in a separate judgment in the Ayodhya title suits case.
Quoting a Bombay High Court ruling, he said a suit for exclusive possession could be turned into a suit for partition and possession of such share as might be determined to belong to the plaintiff if it was found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the whole share but only a part of it.
Justice Khan, quoting an earlier judgment, said that though there was no specific prayer made by the plaintiff seeking partition, this should not come in the way of granting a decree for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiff. Denial of such a relief would only lead to another suit. Multiplicity of proceedings should normally be avoided as the same tends to delay justice.
The judge said that in view of the finding rendered by him, all the three parties (Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara) are entitled to a declaration of joint title and possession to the extent of one-third each and a preliminary decree to that effect is to be passed.
He said: In the matter of actual partition it is only desirable but not necessary to allot that part of property to a party which was in his exclusive use and occupation. Accordingly, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances it is held that in actual partition, the portion where the idol is presently kept in the makeshift temple will be allotted to the Hindus, and the Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted land, including Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi. However, to adjust all the three parties at the time of actual partition, slight variation in the share of any party may be made to be compensated by allotting the adjoining land acquired by the Central government.
Justice Khan, in his 285-page judgment, said: My judgment is short, very short. Either I may be admired as an artist who knows where to stop, particularly in such sensitive, delicate matter or I may be castigated for being so casual in such a momentous task. I have not delved too deep in the history and the archaeology. This I have done for four reasons. First, this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits. Second, I was not sure as to whether at the end of the tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded). Third, having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians. Fourth, the Supreme Court, in Karnataka Board of Waqf Vs. Government of India, has held as far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims.
Justice Khan said:
As this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it is decided by the Supreme Court, I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomised the character of Ram is tyag [sacrifice].
When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters.
However the Koran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed.
Under the sub-heading of demolition, I have admired our resilience. However we must realise that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed.
A unique position
Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message, opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible, or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority (after Indonesia, India has the highest number of Muslims in the world). In other countries, either the Muslims are in huge majority, which makes them indifferent to the problem in question, or in negligible minority, which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand.
If exclusive ownership is claimed but joint ownership is proved, a suit can be decreed for joint ownership, Justice S.U. Khan held in his separate judgment, broadly agreed to by Justice Sudhir Agarwal in a separate judgment in the Ayodhya title suits case.
Quoting a Bombay High Court ruling, he said a suit for exclusive possession could be turned into a suit for partition and possession of such share as might be determined to belong to the plaintiff if it was found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the whole share but only a part of it.
Justice Khan, quoting an earlier judgment, said that though there was no specific prayer made by the plaintiff seeking partition, this should not come in the way of granting a decree for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiff. Denial of such a relief would only lead to another suit. Multiplicity of proceedings should normally be avoided as the same tends to delay justice.
The judge said that in view of the finding rendered by him, all the three parties (Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara) are entitled to a declaration of joint title and possession to the extent of one-third each and a preliminary decree to that effect is to be passed.
He said: In the matter of actual partition it is only desirable but not necessary to allot that part of property to a party which was in his exclusive use and occupation. Accordingly, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances it is held that in actual partition, the portion where the idol is presently kept in the makeshift temple will be allotted to the Hindus, and the Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted land, including Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi. However, to adjust all the three parties at the time of actual partition, slight variation in the share of any party may be made to be compensated by allotting the adjoining land acquired by the Central government.
Justice Khan, in his 285-page judgment, said: My judgment is short, very short. Either I may be admired as an artist who knows where to stop, particularly in such sensitive, delicate matter or I may be castigated for being so casual in such a momentous task. I have not delved too deep in the history and the archaeology. This I have done for four reasons. First, this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits. Second, I was not sure as to whether at the end of the tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded). Third, having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians. Fourth, the Supreme Court, in Karnataka Board of Waqf Vs. Government of India, has held as far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims.
Justice Khan said:
As this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it is decided by the Supreme Court, I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomised the character of Ram is tyag [sacrifice].
When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters.
However the Koran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed.
Under the sub-heading of demolition, I have admired our resilience. However we must realise that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed.
A unique position
Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message, opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible, or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority (after Indonesia, India has the highest number of Muslims in the world). In other countries, either the Muslims are in huge majority, which makes them indifferent to the problem in question, or in negligible minority, which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand.
arihant
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,815
- Reaction score
- 0
I think your weak history proves that Indians are against Mogul emperors. If you go back again there was Emperor Akbar who is quoted in our all history book as one of the most quality emperor enough though he did killed Rajput Kings but it was in war. As called everything is fair in love and war. But the other emperor used Religions as their extreme that is why they are quoted negatively in our stream.
I think along with with Auregzab, Sikandar Lodi is also said to be one of the most intolerable kings.
I think along with with Auregzab, Sikandar Lodi is also said to be one of the most intolerable kings.
Side-effect
-Harris Khalique
In 1992, 150,000 Kar Sevaks (volunteers) led by the BJP leader L K Advani marched to the historic town of Ayodhya, district Faizabad, the heart of Avadh, now Uttar Pradesh, and razed the Babri Mosque. The ensuing Hindu-Muslim riots across Indian cities including Delhi and Mumbai took no less than 2000 lives.
The incident demonstrated the limitless possibilities for the growth of religious fundamentalism and communal violence in the country and brought shame to the face of the modern Indian state which prides itself in the values of secularism and religious tolerance. Gujarat pogrom of 2002 besides other clashes and tensions between the majority and the largest minority across the length and breadth of the country were to a large extent rooted in the illegal and criminal demolition of the Babri Mosque.
The case which was decided on Thursday, September 30, 2010, was launched in 1992 and sought to determine the rightful title-owner of the plot, whether the site was the birthplace of Lord Rama, and whether the former mosque was built at the site of an ancient Hindu temple.
It was a mammoth task for the three-member Lucknow bench of Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) High Court for they knew in their hearts that while they have to establish a fair judgement, it will have huge political ramifications, which could result in further loss of lives. They had to pass a verdict which was legally, politically and morally sensitive. This happens in all such cases anywhere and that is the reason why many of us maintain that the man carrying the scales can't be blindfolded.
To cut history short, Hindus claim that Mir Taqi, a general of Babar's army, built the mosque in his leader's name in the sixteenth century upon the foundations of a temple which he destroyed. The temple was built in the eleventh century to commemorate the birthplace of Lord Rama, an incarnation of the Almighty and a king. Interestingly, while the dispute remained, there were no riots between the two communities until the arrival of the British.
The first violent show was witnessed in 1853. Since then, the site has remained a basis for perpetual discord and has seen different decisions taken by various administrations with respect to the use of the place and its worship rights. It will also be significant to note that before the 1940s, Muslims of the area would call it Masjid-e-Janamasthan (Mosque of the Birthplace) respecting the Hindu claim and true to the spirit of peaceful coexistence that ran through in the times of the Avadh dynasty and King Wajid Ali Shah. Unfortunately, with Siraj-du-Daula of Bengal and Ranjit Singh of Punjab, Wajid Ali Shah remains one of the most maligned adversaries of the British.
After the demolition of the mosque in 1992, the case took a new turn impacting both history and communal relations in different ways. The claimant of the property, the Federal Sunni Waqf Board, rejected the Hindu argument that a temple ever existed at this site and asked to rebuild the mosque. There were renewed inquiries into history and different versions were churned out. The justified insecurity of the Muslim minority at the hands of Hindu zealots defined the course their legal battle would take.
On September 30, the High Court has come out with a balanced and futuristic judgement by dividing the land. A mosque, a temple and a memorial can be built adjacent to each other. Indian politicians must move on if they are interested in a peaceful and prosperous future.
The writer is an Islamabad-based poet, political analyst and advisor on public policy. Email: harris. khalique@gmail.com
Side-effect
-Harris Khalique
In 1992, 150,000 Kar Sevaks (volunteers) led by the BJP leader L K Advani marched to the historic town of Ayodhya, district Faizabad, the heart of Avadh, now Uttar Pradesh, and razed the Babri Mosque. The ensuing Hindu-Muslim riots across Indian cities including Delhi and Mumbai took no less than 2000 lives.
The incident demonstrated the limitless possibilities for the growth of religious fundamentalism and communal violence in the country and brought shame to the face of the modern Indian state which prides itself in the values of secularism and religious tolerance. Gujarat pogrom of 2002 besides other clashes and tensions between the majority and the largest minority across the length and breadth of the country were to a large extent rooted in the illegal and criminal demolition of the Babri Mosque.
The case which was decided on Thursday, September 30, 2010, was launched in 1992 and sought to determine the rightful title-owner of the plot, whether the site was the birthplace of Lord Rama, and whether the former mosque was built at the site of an ancient Hindu temple.
It was a mammoth task for the three-member Lucknow bench of Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) High Court for they knew in their hearts that while they have to establish a fair judgement, it will have huge political ramifications, which could result in further loss of lives. They had to pass a verdict which was legally, politically and morally sensitive. This happens in all such cases anywhere and that is the reason why many of us maintain that the man carrying the scales can't be blindfolded.
To cut history short, Hindus claim that Mir Taqi, a general of Babar's army, built the mosque in his leader's name in the sixteenth century upon the foundations of a temple which he destroyed. The temple was built in the eleventh century to commemorate the birthplace of Lord Rama, an incarnation of the Almighty and a king. Interestingly, while the dispute remained, there were no riots between the two communities until the arrival of the British.
The first violent show was witnessed in 1853. Since then, the site has remained a basis for perpetual discord and has seen different decisions taken by various administrations with respect to the use of the place and its worship rights. It will also be significant to note that before the 1940s, Muslims of the area would call it Masjid-e-Janamasthan (Mosque of the Birthplace) respecting the Hindu claim and true to the spirit of peaceful coexistence that ran through in the times of the Avadh dynasty and King Wajid Ali Shah. Unfortunately, with Siraj-du-Daula of Bengal and Ranjit Singh of Punjab, Wajid Ali Shah remains one of the most maligned adversaries of the British.
After the demolition of the mosque in 1992, the case took a new turn impacting both history and communal relations in different ways. The claimant of the property, the Federal Sunni Waqf Board, rejected the Hindu argument that a temple ever existed at this site and asked to rebuild the mosque. There were renewed inquiries into history and different versions were churned out. The justified insecurity of the Muslim minority at the hands of Hindu zealots defined the course their legal battle would take.
On September 30, the High Court has come out with a balanced and futuristic judgement by dividing the land. A mosque, a temple and a memorial can be built adjacent to each other. Indian politicians must move on if they are interested in a peaceful and prosperous future.
The writer is an Islamabad-based poet, political analyst and advisor on public policy. Email: harris. khalique@gmail.com
Side-effect
Similar threads
