Implications of the verdict

[rcscwc]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Implications of the verdict

HC has given a very clear verdict, leaving little scope for conjectures. It has
surprised VHP, being much beyond their expectations. After all, there was a real risk of HC trying to appear secular.

It has left Congi clueless. They seem to be in a daze. Karunanidhi has been struck dumb. Reds too are silent. Wind has been taken out of their sails.

Sickular trio of Mulayam, Laloo and Paswan are not disclosing their cards, but they must be scheming about how to exploit the judgement. Even they seem to be stymied.

But recall that none of these sso called secularists has ever declared : There shall be a masjid there.

Laloo-Paswan strategy

It is a heaven sent opportunity for the duo to frighten or cajole the muslims into their camp. They will, of course, blame Congi and Central Govt, for their inability to to protect "secular" cause. If that happens, Congi might be pressed making some "secular" noises like a possible law for masjid. It cannot do it openly, but hints can be dropped. Otherwise Congi has no alternatives, and it rout in Bihar is gauranteed.

What about Nitish and NDA? A consolidation of muslims behind Laloo-Paswan will defintely bring in pressures. BJP has nothing lose, but Nitish might lose a lot. Will he now be a bit defensive about his opposition to Narendra Modi? Likely, but not gauranteed. In response to muslim consolidation, BJP too might try for a Hindu consolidation. After all, Yadavs are not "secular" enough to disown Ram Lalla. After all, they too are Hindus. What has Laloo got to offer the OBCs now? Nothing more.
They have got their share of pie.

Bihar election will tell a lot.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Good analysis by "rcscwc". But the verdict baffles a layman like me. I tend to go with the comments of eminent Lawyer P.P.Rao, who said "What is the basis on which the HC has divided the land among the parties? Prima facie, it appears to be a judgment of a panchayat, and not based on pleadings and issues raised in the suits." Since at least two litigants have already expressed their desire to go on appeal to SC, perhaps we may have to wait a few generations more to see the Grand Temple for Sri Ramachandra in his own Capital Ayodhya !

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[rcscwc]

Good analysis by "rcscwc". But the verdict baffles a layman like me. I tend to go with the comments of eminent Lawyer P.P.Rao, who said "What is the basis on which the HC has divided the land among the parties? Prima facie, it appears to be a judgment of a panchayat, and not based on pleadings and issues raised in the suits." Since at least two litigants have already expressed their desire to go on appeal to SC, perhaps we may have to wait a few generations more to see the Grand Temple for Sri Ramachandra in his own Capital Ayodhya !

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

Pal, any other judgement would have been categorised as "pachayat" verdict. Is it based purely on faith? NO. HC has considered many documents, some of them of muslim origin, PLUS ASI findings. Even Khan, J has accepted that the masjid was built on the "ruins" of a Hindu religious structure. How was it reduced to ruins? There is ample evidence that the SITE has been helde to be special by Hindus even centiries ago. Such a site was abandoned to elements to be reduced to rubble? Take into account that it was built in stone.

But I too agree that that the basib id partition of a small parcel land, about 2.7 acres, is not clear, except that a tidbit was to be offered to the muslims.


Consider. The HC has decided that:

1. Ram Lalla remains where He is.
2. That the site is the "actual" birthplace.
3. The masjid was built on a place a which is sacred to Hindus.

It would be impossibly hard to for SC to disagree with them.
After that the basis of partition does not exist, not at all.

A potential dead snake has been taken off the neck of the SC. HC is sitting tight and smug: After all we are not the last word!!

PS: Mouni Baba aka Narsimha Rao opened his mouth just once and put his foot into it with : We will rebuild the mosque!! In 7 /12/92 TOI I saw it.

Question : Who built the make shift temple?

Ans: Narsimha Rao. By 4 PM the UP govt was dismissed and the area was tightly cordoned. On morning of 8/12 there was the Temple!! Howzzat?? Check it, verify it.

 

[Nara]

Implications of the verdict
[....]
Bihar election will tell a lot.

This post shows the out-and-out political nature of the issue. This is not a simple legal issue for the courts to settle. What may have started as a land dispute with potential political implications was transformed into the monster it is today by the politicians, mainly BJP/Hindutva Pariwar, but by all others as well.

Now, they all want the judiciary to settle the issue. But they are unwilling to respect the verdict unless it is in their favor. Already everyone has started scheming to see how the verdict can be politically exploited. Religion and politics -- a dangerous cocktail indeed. Very sad state of affairs.

 

[suresoo]

Implications of the verdict
What about Nitish and NDA? A consolidation of muslims behind Laloo-Paswan will defintely bring in pressures. BJP has nothing lose, but Nitish might lose a lot. Will he now be a bit defensive about his opposition to Narendra Modi? Likely, but not gauranteed. In response to muslim consolidation, BJP too might try for a Hindu consolidation. After all, Yadavs are not "secular" enough to disown Ram Lalla. After all, they too are Hindus. What has Laloo got to offer the OBCs now? Nothing more.
They have got their share of pie.

Bihar election will tell a lot.

There are many in the BJP who want to move beyond Mandir-Masjid issue. This will be a good opportunity for them to sign off on winning note.
BJP has been losing middle class urban vote (which always belonged to them) consistently in the last few election cycles.

For the Hindu Mahasabha also this is the best settlement they can get. They should call for negotiated settlement based on this verdict. They should not take a maximalist position, it would be counter-productive IMO.

thanks,

 

[hariharan1972]

This post shows the out-and-out political nature of the issue. This is not a simple legal issue for the courts to settle. What may have started as a land dispute with potential political implications was transformed into the monster it is today by the politicians, mainly BJP/Hindutva Pariwar, but by all others as well.

prof nara-ji,

if that's how you read the discussion opener, may i submit, with all my humility that your post too is reflecting only "part of the politicisation" albeit the bit that's convenient for a non-believer like you.

it was actually the "secular" (so called) congress fresh with the blood stains of the 1984 sikh riots that allowed the shilanyas to be performed for which the locks were opened in 1986.

and dont we all know that it was done to placate the hindu hardliners who were raising the issue about legislating to please the muslim hardliners who wanted rajiv gandhi to overturn the sc ruling on shah bano.

point is that congress is equitably obscurantist with both hindus & muslims while bjp is pro-hindu. which is irksome to what is 'believed' to be "secularism".

the failure of congress to solve it for 4 decades is easily forgotten while the role of bjp in "milking" the issue for it's political advantage is often criticised. i hold the congress more culpable than bjp.

Now, they all want the judiciary to settle the issue. But they are unwilling to respect the verdict unless it is in their favor. Already everyone has started scheming to see how the verdict can be politically exploited. Religion and politics -- a dangerous cocktail indeed. Very sad state of affairs.

this is an interim judgement and no party for however flimsical the reasoning is, be prevented from exercising it's legal rights.

as i see, this is the difficult time for the congress. moment the parties file the appeal with the sc, congress will heave a sigh of relief.

it should hope that under the able rule of 'raul' gandhi, india will be sufficiently christianized in the next 6 decades that the sc ruling would take, for the issue to lose it's inflammable character. it can really hedge it's bet on the supreme court declaring that both ram & allah were actually manifestations of christ.

speaking more factually, the majority view "apparently" has been made on the question of faith rather than question of facts. the judgement has to be read in full for a proper view on this, but if it actually turns out that the honble judges have indeed relied on faith rather than fact, one can safely assume that the judgement will be set aside in supreme court.

so what can be a possible solution ?

i have infact 3, with one being a multi-choice

a) build a school / hospital / park / museum at the disputed site

b) temple for rajnikanth

c) temple for beloved muka.

what say

 

[kunjuppu]

hari,

my 'umble' suggestion would be set up a grand temple for periyar. and conduct a grand kumbabhishekam presided by all the sankaracharyas.

that would insult each and everyone and prove that india is equally secularist and 'pseudo' secularist HA, i have almost forgotten that word. hope you are still having heydays with the pseudos ....

 

[kr subramanian]

I feel that the court has given a base for further proceedings with this verdict. At this juncture where 40% of people have born after the demolition this decision is suitable. The atmosphere (political) has changed a lot that every political party wAnts to somehow get rid of this issue. This is the suitable time for them . Hope they will be wise

 

[Nara]

a) build a school / hospital / park / museum at the disputed site

b) temple for rajnikanth

c) temple for beloved muka.

what say

Hari, (a) is way too reasonable for a liberal democracy, you know the kind of democracy practiced in India and the U.S. (b) is way too main-stream. And, (c) is already done, been there and done that. So I have to go with K on this one, what sweet irony to have a temple for Periyar and have Brahminical "Mutt" heads do the pooja.

On a serious note, I hope you realize Congress party is way down there with BJP in my view, barely above BJP, above though, they have Manmohan Sing in their midst and that should count for something.

Cheers!

 

[rcscwc]

This post shows the out-and-out political nature of the issue. This is not a simple legal issue for the courts to settle. What may have started as a land dispute with potential political implications was transformed into the monster it is today by the politicians, mainly BJP/Hindutva Pariwar, but by all others as well.

Now, they all want the judiciary to settle the issue. But they are unwilling to respect the verdict unless it is in their favor. Already everyone has started scheming to see how the verdict can be politically exploited. Religion and politics -- a dangerous cocktail indeed. Very sad state of affairs.

It would mean a very heavy shutting the eyes to deny that this issue dates back to centuries. BJP leant it a political support, while no other party was ready to do so. The issue came to a head and finally it looks that it can be settled. To say that only BJP has politicised it would be out right wrong. Which other party has kept away from it? Only difference is that BJP has been honest: There SHALL be a temple. Other parties do not have the honesty to say : There SHALL be no temple but only the masjid. Clear. By muted opposition to Ram mamdir movement they try to appease muslims. But by outright support for masjid require a lot of courage.

Mandir has been BJP agenda. Once the issue is settled, agenda dies off!! But do you think that it will not be an indirect agenda for our sickulars even after the mandir is built? Parties like SP, RJD etc cannot last without muslim votes. So they will keep it as an agenda, mind you for votes, not for rebuilding of Babri masjid.

Which party was really interested in a solution? None except BJP. Congress right from 1949 has done nothing but knee jerks. OK, permit the murtis, but lock the doors. OK, now unlock the doors, but nothing beyond that. OK, we permit shilanyas, but no building please. OK, UP govt of Kalyan Singh has been dismissed, so muslims should be happy. OK, we have permitted a makeshift temple [please Hindus] but not a grand temple [please Muslims] please. Acquired all the lands and froze the issue. Muslims be pleased, no temple. Hindus, note that acquisition is not indefinite, so hope for a mandir!! See the hypocrisy of all this?

 

[KRS]

This is a response to both Sri Hari's and the Professor's postings.

I agree with the Professor on this. India is lucky to have Sri Manmohan Singh as her current PM. Congress just lucked out.

While I appreciate the boldness of the verdict, I am not at all in agreement with it. That whole disputed place, in my opinion should have been taken out of the hands of both religions. A national museum perhaps could have been sanctioned, highlighting and chronicling the dispute and presenting the facts.

Land on either side of the area could have been sanctioned to both religions to build a temple or a mosque, with the knowledge that no one can pin point the exact ground zero for Sri Ram's birth location and nor can one establish the location had a functioning mosque in recent history. While I think that the Hindus have a better case in claiming it, I still think that it is unwise to turn back history.

I think that the court has missed a chance to bring together the community.

The lore of Rama's birthplace could still have been preserved by the Government building a grand temple adjacent and a functioning mosque if the muslims so wanted.

Anyways, I think that the museum could be planned to highlight the teachings of Mahatma, Sri Ambedkar, and many others who preached religious tolerance.

An opportunity sadly missed.

Regards,
KRS

Hari, (a) is way too reasonable for a liberal democracy, you know the kind of democracy practiced in India and the U.S. (b) is way too main-stream. And, (c) is already done, been there and done that. So I have to go with K on this one, what sweet irony to have a temple for Periyar and have Brahminical "Mutt" heads do the pooja.

On a serious note, I hope you realize Congress party is way down there with BJP in my view, barely above BJP, above though, they have Manmohan Sing in their midst and that should count for something.

Cheers!

 

[rcscwc]

This is a response to both Sri Hari's and the Professor's postings.

I agree with the Professor on this. India is lucky to have Sri Manmohan Singh as her current PM. Congress just lucked out.

While I appreciate the boldness of the verdict, I am not at all in agreement with it. That whole disputed place, in my opinion should have been taken out of the hands of both religions. A national museum perhaps could have been sanctioned, highlighting and chronicling the dispute and presenting the facts.

Land on either side of the area could have been sanctioned to both religions to build a temple or a mosque, with the knowledge that no one can pin point the exact ground zero for Sri Ram's birth location and nor can one establish the location had a functioning mosque in recent history. While I think that the Hindus have a better case in claiming it, I still think that it is unwise to turn back history.

I think that the court has missed a chance to bring together the community.

The lore of Rama's birthplace could still have been preserved by the Government building a grand temple adjacent and a functioning mosque if the muslims so wanted.

Anyways, I think that the museum could be planned to highlight the teachings of Mahatma, Sri Ambedkar, and many others who preached religious tolerance.

An opportunity sadly missed.

Regards,
KRS

KRS, you are late by a few years. HC could have been petitioned to do what you wish, but was not petitioned.

Central govt had acquired all that property, but not for a public cause. Moreover it was not a party to the suit. The HC treated mostly as a title suit, AS ON 6 Dec 1992. It could not go beyond those parameters. So sooner we drop such cliches the better it is. It only helps to make the muddy waters muddier.

Like it or not, Raja Ram Viraajman is a party to the suit and has been recognised as such, not by this bench but much earlier than 1992.

It is better to reconcile to a few hard realities. Lord Rama Viraajman cannot be ousted even by the SC, not now. No Govt has any guts to do so. The appeals will mostly deal with two aspects:

Is partition justfied, given that the HC has accepted it as the janmbhumi?

Was all the evidence considered? Mind you, till today ASI report is confidential, but not NOW, as it is part of the evidence. Rest assured the report would mercilessly examined by independent scholars across the globe and plethora of conclusions would be drawn.

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Implications of the Verdict

In my view Hindus have a case. It appears that Hindus have been protesting
for centuries for their cause.Unfortunately India was under MUSLIM rulers for centuries and then under BRITISH RULE.Hindus could expect some relief only after INDIA got independence.
Unfortunately there was no leader from UP taller than Jawaharlal NEHRU.
Nehru was not believer in religion.While SARDAR PATEL AND K.M.MUNSHI who were in Nehru's cabinet took initiative to renovate the "SOMANATH TEMPLE"
and constructed another temple closeby they forgot about AYODHYA, VARANASI, MATHURA, KANCHIPURAM (WHERE ADI SANKARA established a MUTT)When The new temple was constructed near Somnath temple, K.M.Munshi asked our embassies to send 'water' from all the rivers in the world.Mr.K.M.panickker who was India's ambassodor in CHINA protested
but was overruled.The leaders at that time could have convinced all people in INDIA and restored the "Honour" of followers of HINDU FAITH.WE lost a GOLDEN opportunity.
I was told by knowledgable people( I have no proof) that HINDU Religious leaders could convince local MUSLIMS in AYODHYA and were about to succeed in their proposal which was as indicated below:
Hindus will remove the existing stucture brick by brick and construct
another "BABRI BUILDING" 8 kilometers away from the present site.
Hindus will construct a temple for "LORD RAMA" in the existing site.
I assume at this stage BJP wanted to enter the scene so that they will get sympathy of HINDUS.Congress party did not like the idea and succeeded in preventing the deal between Hindu leaders and Muslim leaders.
This made BJP to enter into the scene with all the force in its command.
This resulted in the BIGGEST BLUNDER OF DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE and complicated the issue.THERE ARE GOOD AND REASONABLE PEOPLE IN ALL RELIGIONS.
Yesterday I saw in a tamilnewspaper'DINAMANI' or DINAMALAR that one muslim who is VICE-CHANCELLOR of Pondicherry university has expressed his opinion that Muslims should hand over the onethird portion also to HINDUS
and start a new chapter in HINDU-MUSLIM unity in INDIA(READERS give their opinion below every news).
If all political parties keep away from this issue, it may not be difficult
to come to a solution acceptable to all communities in INDIA.
to be continued.

 

[sangom]

While the Hon. HC has given its judgement, one can see enough scope for further litigation. Let us consider the main issues and how each Hon. Judge has pronounced on it:

(Freestyle English translation from Malayalam for the information of the members of this forum only; not to be taken as authoritative: E&OE)

1.Is the Land Under Dispute (LUD) the birthplace of Sri Rama?

a) Justice Sharma: Yes
b) JJ Sudhir Aggarwal & S.U. Khan: No clear answer; their views are to be inferred from what they say about the other issues.

So, on this most crucial point it is not a "clear" majority judgement.

2. Was there a historic tradition of belief by Hindus that it was the birthplace of Sri Rama and was there a tradition of worship at that place?

a) Justice Sharma: Worship was being done.

b) Justice Khan: The Hindus believed that a vast area denoted the birthplace of Sri Rama until the masjid was built. The LUD is a small portion of that vast area. The belief (of birthplace of Sri Rama) is not connected with the small parcel of the LUD.

However, at some point of time after the masjid was built, the Hindus started claiming that the actual birthplace was within the LUD.

c) Justice Aggarwal: As per the Hindu belief and claims, the birthplace of Sri Rama is below the main minaret of the masjid.

3. Was the destroyed structure a mosque?

a) Justce Sharma: It was not constructed in accordance with Islamic beliefs and hence it did not have the nature of a mosque.

b) Justice Khan: It was built as a mosque either by Babar or by someone else under his (Babar's) decree. But there is no evidence as to whether the land (LUD) on which the mosque was built belonged to Babar or the person who built the mosque.

c) Justice Aggarwal:The destroyed structure had always been considered a mosque and looked after; muslims accordingly offered prayers there.

4. When was the destroyed structure built and by whom?

a) Justice Sharma:Babar built it but when (in which year) is not clear.

b) Justice Khan: It was built either by Babar himself or on his orders.

c) Justice Aggarwal: It has not been proved that the structure was built during the reign of Babur in 1528. However no evidence has been found to disprove this claim. hence it is not possible to say when and by whom it was built. But it is definite that the structure had been built before Joseph Typhen Taler's visit to audh between 1766 and 1771.

5. Whether the destroyed structure was built after destroying an existing temple?

a) Justice Sharma: The structure was built on the ruins of another structure which existed on that spot. The earlier structure was a hindu temple as per the evidence adduced by the ASI.

b) Justice Khan: Temple has not been destroyed for erecting the mosque. But some of the remains of a temple, which existed much before the mosque was built, have been used in building the mosque.

c) Justice Aggarwal:The mosque was built after destroying a religious place of non-Islams, i.e., a Hindu temple.

6.Whether the idol was placed in the night of 22-23 of December 1949, or, was it there even earlier?

All three Justices have opined that the idol was placed on the said date and was not there before.

7. Whether the plaints for ownership of the land are time-barred?

a) Justice Khan has not given his decision on this point.

b) Justice Sharma: The petitions of Sunni Waqf Board, Gopal Singh Visarad and Nirmohi Akhada are time-barred. The petition of the Late Devki Nandan Aggarwal on behalf of Ram Lalla (the idol of Sri Rama) alone is valid.

c) Justice Aggarwal: Only the petition of the Sunni Waqf Board is time-barred; others are valid.

8.What is the ownership status of the LUD?

a) Justice Sharma: the hindus had common right of worship of the idols of Charan, Sita Rasoi and the other idols situate within the LUD. The outer courtyard was completely in the custody of the Hindus and they were using that for worship. They were also worshipping within the inner courtyard of the premises (the destroyed structure).Hence it cannot be deemed to be (part of ) the mosque.

b) Justice Khan: The Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi came into being prior to 1885 and Hindus were offering worship there. It was a unique and unheard of thing that while the muslims offered their prayers within the mosque, Hindus worshipped within the compound walls of the mosque.

Though Muslims and Hindus had been using different portions of the LUD for their convenience
and had occupancy, there was no official partition. Therefore the two parties jointly held occupancy of LUD.

Both sides could not prove as to when their ownership right started (came into effect). Therefore in terms of Section 110 of the Evidence Act, only joint occupancy exists.

c) Justice Aggarwal: the disputed structure was not in the sole use of the Muslims. After 1856-57 the outer courtyard was used by the Hindus alone while the inner courtyard was used by both the communities for worship.

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

It is not clear as to why MUSLIMS TRY TO CONSTRUCT MOSQUE VERY CLOSE TO RELIGIOUS PLACES OF FOLLOWERS OF OTHER FAITH.Recently there was a controversy about construction of a MOSQUE where twin towers (which was
destroyed by terrorists.) in NEWYORK.
For argument sake followers of other faith (this will never happen) destroy the holy shrines in MECCA and construct PLACES OF WORSHIP of their choice, Will all muslims in the world keep quiet. Will international followers of Muslim religion allow followers of other faith to construct their SHRINES very close to the present SHRINE IN MECCA?
Near the entrance to QUIDABMINAR in DELHI there used to be a BOARD put up by Brish Rulers that the quidabminar was constructed out of stones/Pillars brought after destroying HINDU/Jain Temples.I am not sure whether the board still exists.I have seen it till 1995.
TILL this date no hindu or jain has demanded removal/destruction of quitabminar.
Immediately after INDIA got independence, the RULERS removed all statues of BRITISHERS to MUSEUM and changed the names of ROADS, Areas, HOSPITALS etc .IF there was justification then HINDUS DEMANDS to restore their HONOUR which got affected during foreign rule deserves favourable consideration.

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

As per the views of Dr.R.Nagaswami former Director of Archaeology, TAMILNADU
who was an important witness in the case there are evidences to show that a
Hindu shrine of NORTH INDIAN STYLE constructed in 10th century existed in the premises where Babar had constructed the demolished structure.

 

[hariharan1972]

I agree with the Professor on this. India is lucky to have Sri Manmohan Singh as her current PM. Congress just lucked out.

krs sir, my view is yes and no.

mms is indeed internationally respected statesman, but in my view has eroded the prestige of the office of the pm significantly.

he is kept on a leash by 10 janpath, south kolkatta and gopalapuram in this particular order.

while vajpayee was perceived as a weak pm externally, internally he was the "most acceptable" face within the bjp, despite the recent indictment by liberhan commission.

rahul gandhi recently replied that he has other jobs than just being the pm. true and the joke these days is that the other job is "to control the pm".

i am a bit confused because

you say this

While I appreciate the boldness of the verdict, I am not at all in agreement with it.

and then followup with this

I think that the court has missed a chance to bring together the community.

the jury is still out on whether the judgement is a case of judicial overreach or judicial sagacity.

i am almost tending towards the latter and would have preferred that the honble judges not made too many strident references about "faith".

i seriously think that the summary of the verdict isnt the right way to interpret the verdict which has to be read for it's fine print.

but for those in haste, the reference to "faith" gives an impression that the conclusion is "only" based on faith.

in actual it may quite be possible that the matter of faith has been used only for a collateral purpose.

That whole disputed place, in my opinion should have been taken out of the hands of both religions. A national museum perhaps could have been sanctioned, highlighting and chronicling the dispute and presenting the facts.

given the "manandhal mahadevi illayel maranadevi" stance of both parties, such a verdict may be viewed as lacking in "judicial courage".

i dont think it is good jurisprudence to "decide" to "not decide" on a title suit. having said that, the honble judges have in my view made best use of available evidence and 'balanced' the judgement keeping in mind the emotive nature of the issue.

i think this is nearly the best judgement but for the fact that i feel that no portion of the actual site of the mosque should have been awarded to the hindus.

given the general construct of hinduism, i feel that it is unnecessary to insist on a "precise spot" to be the birthplace of lord ram.

lord ram isnt afterall lord muka to insist on gopalapuram or cit nagar.

 

[hariharan1972]

k sir & prof nara-ji,

thanks for your "cheeky" suggestion of a temple for periyar. but i suppose you would also know that the currency of periyar is a bit outdated.

that's why i insist that it should be a temple for lord muka.

here's the deal.

a) they have the money, courtesy a raasa and his 60k cr

b) kalaignar tv which struggles to compete with sun tv and jaya tv for daily dose of "spiritual content" could then easily telecast "daily aaradhanais" to lord muka.

c) ram is widely known as "maryadha purush" and epitomises "eka pathini" vow, viewed very sacred in india. muka who has lived a life of such "rationality" going against every known tenet of hinduism is best suited to replace ram. he is the maryadha purush - you had to just see the invites for the tamizh semmozhi maanadu (*) - and holder of record for "ekappatta pathinis"

d) the temple for lord muka can also be used to encourage "classical dances" such as the semi-naked ones in "maanada mayilaada". since lord muka is a "paaraattu priyar", monthly programmes with "kuthaataa dances" could be held to placate him.

all in all, a winning proposition and so i'd still say a grand temple for lord muka.

(*) தமிழே தமிழுக்காக நடத்தும் தமிழ் செம்மொழி மாநாட்டிற்கு தமிழ் உங்களை அழைக்கிறது

 

[rcscwc]

Already the Laloo Paswan combine is talking of consolidation of muslim votes behind them. They are now confident that that their casteist-divisive agenda wil score over the developement card of Nitish Kumar and NDA.

 

[R. Ramanujan]

The verdict is very very strange indeed. Judiciary is mixing faith. Well I'm of the opinion that the land should not be partitioned. give it to hindus or muslims. i don't know wat was there in 1500 or before that. neither any one can prove conclusively abt it. as far as ASI report is concerned it can be fabricated. noted historian irfan habib pointed out that a slab went missing from lucknow looks similar to the one that hindu mahasabha claims to have been found in garbha graha. they placed the idols beneath the tomb in 1949 and claim that it appeared automatically. in 1992 tHey demolished the central tomb and placed the idol there. they now partitioned the land 2:1 in favour of hindus which since 1500 was a place of worship of muslims. the court ignored the demolition which was obviously a criminal act. u first decide that whom the land belongs to. then give the possession to them. and as far as mulayam yadav and lalo yadav are concerned they are masters of muslim vote bank. it would be better for muslims to ignore such ppl. nandrigal.

 

[sangom]

TILL this date no hindu or jain has demanded removal/destruction of quitabminar. Immediately after INDIA got independence, the RULERS removed all statues of BRITISHERS to MUSEUM and changed the names of ROADS, Areas, HOSPITALS etc .IF there was justification then HINDUS DEMANDS to restore their HONOUR which got affected during foreign rule deserves favourable consideration.

Shri Krishnamurthy,

I concede that you have a very valid argument.

 

[sangom]

I feel the best course of action would have been to restore status quo ante 1992 if, as the judgements say, both Hindus and Muslims had been using the premises for worship without any serious problems. (I don't know about this aspect, though.)

If things were being carried on without skirmishes till 1992, then BJP is to be held responsible for creating an unwanted issue.

 

[rcscwc]

Cool down. Mind discussing the poiltical implications. Or even social outcome?


PS: You don't know what happened 500 years. But you don't even know what happened in Dex 1992!! By 4 PM 6 dec, Kalyan Singh was dismissed. The site was under the control of the central govt. Do you kbow this? By 7 Dec a make shift temple in a shed was there. Mahasabha diddit? Under the nose of the central govt?? Narsimha Rao got it DONE.

Seen the temple at Ayodya? How would see, sitting in your famous ar chair? i did, physically.

Look at this.

Website for this image A very rare photo.

See it carefully. Where is the debris? Is the site level or not? Where did the thousands of debris go? Did the Mahasabha took it away in its pockets?

 

[R. Ramanujan]

Even the present day tirumala tirupati devasthanam was built on ruins of jain and buddhist temples

http://indiafirsthand.com/2010/06/05/thirumala-venkateswara-temple-from-buddhism-to-hinduism/

Now lets us hyphothitically assume in our wildest imagination that they come back and demolish the structure and put a statue of buddha in the garbha graha. spreading a belief that a old buddhist monestry was there and it goes to court and they do 50:50+give the garbha graha to buddhist then how would vaishnava brahmins feel.

its very simple. just putting ourselves into their shoes.

A very similar case to this is the hagia sophia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia)
view of the Ultra Radical VHP http://vhp.org/category/faq/faqs/

 

[rcscwc]

Don't derail the thread please. Start a new one on that. You seem to be a rabble rouser, seeing a controversy where there is none.