Implications of the verdict

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri Hari,
My response in 'blue' below:

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".
From where I sit, Sri MM Singh has only done India proud. Now, I do not agree with the politics of Congress in general, but one, who looks at him, I hope would agree that he only wants the best for India, unlike some other recent PMs. I think that he is not just a puppet, he has influence on the 'family'. Whenever I see him here in USA on TV, I only feel pride for my mother country.

i am a bit confused because

you say this



and then followup with this



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.
Please refer to my previous response above to Sri rcscwc Ji. Correcting pre independence issues in terms of overturning history is what I am objecting to. In my opinion, this will open up the Pandora's box. Please wait and see how the politicians manipulate this verdict.




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 agree, and therin lies the problem. This is not a 'temple' issue. This is a 'power' issue with two communities' sentiments being exploited by vested interests. The court's decision, in my humble opinion, has short term wisdom.

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.

I agree with your statements above. It is sad that it had to come to a court decision, the politicians have poisoned the well.

Regards,
KRS

 

[RKB]

Whether you are convinced are not, it has now been established the site is the birth place of Lord Rama by faith and only a old temple was demolished in a place where Muslims also had a faith in 1992. The proof is the 'faith' now as per Court of Law. You can make arguments only in SC hereafter to establish anything against it.

Now MUKA also is entering the fray. Is it not AArivalayam is the place of Raja Raja? Shall we dispute it in the Chennai High Court. Remember that HC will look for proof from faith. IF MUKA could ensure harthal or demonstration with good number for Kapaleeshwarar temple place, we have to do in much larger scale to prove our case. Is it possible? Where all these things are leading us?

Dear Sri rcscwc Ji,

My response below in 'blue':



I am sorry sir, there is no evidence about the exact location of Lord Rama's birth. What could have be established is that the muslims could have destroyed a Ram Mandhir there and built a mosque over it. Even if this is established, current India belongs to everyone if there is no ownership documents. This is why I said that I do not agree with the court's decision.

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri suresoo Ji,

My response below in 'blue':

This is a great solution for a Problem that does not exist! If there is need for building a national Museum i'm sure there is free available land in India to do the same.
Sir, you have completely missed my point and that is exactly why the 'Problem' exists. The real issue is not about whether Hindus should have a temple there or a mosque should be erected. The issue is that neither side seems to accommodate, not willing to compromise, as responsible members of a secular society. Muslims would not give in, probably thinking that it would open the flood gates and the Hindus want to make sure that the muslims know that India is their country. This is what really behind this issue. I respectfully submit that this issue has been exploited with the common folks' sentiments on both sides.


The 3 litigants (who's views are only important in this court case) hold that land dear and want full possession to do whatever they want to do. For people with Grand Museum / Hospital idea, the question i have is, If you have acquired a land and hold it dear and some 3rd person comes in to claim the land, would you give away the land for common good?
Please correct me, as I may not know the facts. Who owned the land in question on the day of India's independence?

In such cases, the court is the correct mediator and both parties/communities should have the maturity to accept it.
I was watching NDTV on the EVE of the verdict, The Host/Guests were saying how the Indian Judiciary is the Best and middle the line before the verdict. When the verdict went against their views they started blaming it as Panchayat Rule!!
I do not care about what others may say. I think that the verdict is not good. I am looking forward to SC's verdict. But I do not believe in any extra judicial actions by any parties on this. Everyone should abide by the verdict whether some of us may consider it as wrong.

IMO, this is a good verdict and should be used as the basis for any settlement.
Okay, this is your opinion. I have no issues with your wish.

thanks,

Regards,
KRS

 

[R. Ramanujan]

well harini mam i never said that judiciary takes decisions by itself.
as far as problems of unemployment r concerned no doubt we will have them at every stages but i only wanted to say that there r more imp issues facing the nation which deserves its attention. we should apply ttime, energy and efforts in construction directions.

as far as the role of media is concerned some times they run a parallel judiciary. they come to certain conclusions and run a parallel campaigns to support it. sometime they act very responsibly. its all for the TRPs. im no fool to realise it.

as far as pak's r saying that india is facing a plethora of problems well i say atleast we have the money.
the god in the 20th century is money not ram,allah,guru nanak, jesus its money.
if u have money ur lyf will have honey and if u don't have money ur lyf will be funny.
as far as casteless society is concerned i know its pretty much impossible. But we will make it irrelevant by leading through example. im only reiterating on not using it as a tool for groupism or social interaction. thats it. we r doing more harm than favour by vigourously practicing. this is 20th century.key words are adapting and adjusting we should c the bigger picture and formulate our strategies accordingly.whether we want unity among hindus or otherwise.(americans can teach us a lot in this regard keep changing their skins according to situations to suit their requirements. )
u seem to have preconceived notions abt urban ppl. pls don't generalise ppl. majority r much more responsible than u think baring a few. and as far as the future is concerned the whole country will be urbanised and industralised.just look at gurgaon. its transformed frm a village to hitek city. ppl priorities have changed. they take to property dealing frm traditional farming. the culture has been diluted. they have allowed it to be. and in such an environment u have to live with everyone. isnt it harini mam.

ரொம்ப நன்றிகள்.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri RKB sir,

Sorry. It is not established that 'the site is the birth place of Lord Rama by faith' by the court. The court only affirmed the 'belief' by the Hindus that it is the birth place of Lord Rama to base it's decision. So, it is not about establishing the loci of Lord Rama's birth place, but rather to give respect to the Hindu's belief as such. And I think that this is a sentiment not based on facts of actual location and so will be overturned by SC.

Again, to remind you, I speak as a practitioner of Hinduism.

Regards,
KRS

Whether you are convinced are not, it has now been established the site is the birth place of Lord Rama by faith and only a old temple was demolished in a place where Muslims also had a faith in 1992. The proof is the 'faith' now as per Court of Law. You can make arguments only in SC hereafter to establish anything against it.

Now MUKA also is entering the fray. Is it not AArivalayam is the place of Raja Raja? Shall we dispute it in the Chennai High Court. Remember that HC will look for proof from faith. IF MUKA could ensure harthal or demonstration with good number for Kapaleeshwarar temple place, we have to do in much larger scale to prove our case. Is it possible? Where all these things are leading us?

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Mr.RKB,
I agree that I have no legal background and you seem to have the same in
good measure.I come to this conclusion after reading your postings in many threads.
I really admire your capacity in confusing others by bringing in various irrelevant local issues not connected to the MAIN Topic under discussion.
LET US AGREE TO DISAGREE as your way of looking at issues is contrary to my way of thinking.
As regards "adverse possession" perhaps you may be aware that HON.Supreme Court Judge Mr.Markanteya Katju had already urged the GOVERNMENT of INDIA
to come out with a legislation as adverse possession gives undue legal
validity to an illegal act of someone who is taking possession from a lawful owner.Government of India will take its own time to bring in this legislation.
The surprising aspect of this court judgement is not recognising the title of both NIRMOKHI AKHARA and THE SUNNI...Board inspite of adverse possession and having gone to court. The court has recognised the title of 'LORD RAMA'
(Refer to the article By J.Venkatesan in 'The Hindu' newspaper 04/10/2010)
under Article 25 of the Constituition of India.Still they have not allocated the entire site to "LORD RAMA" but given one third of the disputed site to each
LITIGANTS.
Regards,

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Mr.rcscwc,
Mutawalis are generally the managers or administrators of Wakf Board properties.Here Sunni Wakf board is already a litigant in this case.I am unable to follow as what you want to convey?It is also not clear whether this lacunae was brought on record either in Lower court or High Court.WILL IT NOT BE TOO LATE IN THE DAY TO TAKE SUCH OBJECTIONS NOW?

 

[rcscwc]

RKB Sir, What is the muslim faith? That it was a masjid, one among thousands? What was or the significance of just one masjid? Compared to that Janambhumi is one and only place!! EWill you compare a roadside temple with kaba?? Can you, rather can you dare to?

Sorry, you talk of the faith of the muslims in that so called masjid, which the HC has held that has been built on a mandir.

 

[Raghy]

It is good to see the verdict was received without any public unrest. The litigants may even settle the dispute amicably. This is really promising.

Oldest litigant begins Ayodhya truce effort - The Times of India

Cheers!

 

[suresoo]

Dear KRS Ji,
Its possible i have missed your POV again, but i will state my views for clarity

Sir, you have completely missed my point and that is exactly why the 'Problem' exists. The real issue is not about whether Hindus should have a temple there or a mosque should be erected. The issue is that neither side seems to accommodate, not willing to compromise, as responsible members of a secular society. Muslims would not give in, probably thinking that it would open the flood gates and the Hindus want to make sure that the Muslims know that India is their country. This is what really behind this issue. I respectfully submit that this issue has been exploited with the common folks' sentiments on both sides.

The Real issue is who holds the title to the piece of land. By magnifying this to Hindus vs Muslims we are playing into Politicians hands.
None of the litigants represents all of Hindus or Muslims views, by asking them to accommodate/compromise we are putting too much pressure on them. If we take the Hindu Mahasabha (one of litigants/counsel) there is so much pressure on them from seculars/hardliners to cede ground, I'm sure the story is same with other litigants too.

Please correct me, as I may not know the facts. Who owned the land in question on the day of India's independence?

In 1993 Indian Parliment passed a Law stating "All Religious Institutions will stand unchallenged based on their status as of 15-AUG-47" and gave exception to Ayodhya because a case is already pending in court.
Otherwise Independence day is not the D-Day when it comes to land disputes. Just because a Masjid stood there is not a reason a Muslim should hold the title.
The Majority judgment states, The Wakf Board nor Akhara can claim title due to time limitation (Meaning no individual held the title). The only person left standing is "Ram Lalla". The HC could have said all land belongs to "Ram Lalla", there is a possibility the SC can take that line.

IMO, this is a good verdict and should be used as the basis for any settlement.
Okay, this is your opinion. I have no issues with your wish.

I like this judgment because, Allahabad HC being the lowest court of Appeal could only treat this as a 'civil suit' and pass judgement on title suit. There was no need for them to look at the emotions of the case.
An Hindu deity (because of how we define a deity) can become a petitioner in a case, The are many court cases in India and few cases in UK were a Hindu deity is the petitioner.
The SC has powers to widen the scope and i'm afraid that will bring a lot of unwanted baggage.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri suresoo Ji,

My response in 'blue':

Dear KRS Ji,
Its possible i have missed your POV again, but i will state my views for clarity


The Real issue is who holds the title to the piece of land. By magnifying this to Hindus vs Muslims we are playing into Politicians hands.
None of the litigants represents all of Hindus or Muslims views, by asking them to accommodate/compromise we are putting too much pressure on them. If we take the Hindu Mahasabha (one of litigants/counsel) there is so much pressure on them from seculars/hardliners to cede ground, I'm sure the story is same with other litigants too.
If the title ownership is in question, it is pretty obvious how the land should be divided. On August 15 1947, when India became sovereign, Muslims had the rights to the mosque and the Hindus to their part of their worship space. Even if Babur demolished an ancient temple there, history should not be corrected by the likeness of this verdict. And a verdict with full of reasoning was indeed handed over (From Wikipedia on the Masjid):
A Faizabad District Judge on a plaint filed by Mahant Raghubar Das gave a judgment on 18 March, 1886. Though the plaint was dismissed, the judgment brought out two relevant points:
"I found that Masjid built by Emperor Babur stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya. It is most unfortunate that Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo. In such a case as the present one any innovation would cause more harm and derangement of order than benefit."


In 1993 Indian Parliment passed a Law stating "All Religious Institutions will stand unchallenged based on their status as of 15-AUG-47" and gave exception to Ayodhya because a case is already pending in court.
Otherwise Independence day is not the D-Day when it comes to land disputes. Just because a Masjid stood there is not a reason a Muslim should hold the title.
The Majority judgment states, The Wakf Board nor Akhara can claim title due to time limitation (Meaning no individual held the title). The only person left standing is "Ram Lalla". The HC could have said all land belongs to "Ram Lalla", there is a possibility the SC can take that line.
This is exactly the type of reasoning that leads to some Hindus to think that the current India as a country should belong to them. August 15, 1947 is very important because that is when Modern India was born, with self rule that subsequently led to the adoption of a secular constitution (in general). This is a very dangerous precedence setting verdict. Please read this analysis: http://countercurrents.org/choudhary041010.html
By the way, if I am recollecting the events correctly, it was the Hindus who illegally and surreptitiously at the dead of night installed the idols right inside the mosque, even though they were given the space to worship separately.


I like this judgment because, Allahabad HC being the lowest court of Appeal could only treat this as a 'civil suit' and pass judgement on title suit. There was no need for them to look at the emotions of the case.
An Hindu deity (because of how we define a deity) can become a petitioner in a case, The are many court cases in India and few cases in UK were a Hindu deity is the petitioner.
The SC has powers to widen the scope and i'm afraid that will bring a lot of unwanted baggage.
Obviously, the lower court has ruled based on political implications. I think this ruling opens up a Pandora's box and the SC ruling may well create additional issues. I do not think that the title case should have even be heard, let alone ruled. By the way, what about the Jains who also claim the land? ASI findings are immaterial to the case, in my opinion.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Political analyst S.Gurumurthy has written a three part article on this subject in "The New Indian Express " on 2,3,4th of this month, which will help understanding the legal implications of the verdict. Similarly Janatha Party President Subramanian Swami has also written his opinion on 4 Oct in the same news paper which gives his view on the verdict.

Regards,
Brahmanyan.

 

[rcscwc]

A very curious shift of views.

Till a few weeks ago, all the "secularist forces" were calling for a respect of the Court Judgement. Now those very elements are becoming increasingly reluctant to accept the verdict.

"Communal forces" had always declared that they would take the verdict to the SC, later to parliament, later as an election issue. They still are to budge from that.

Haha. Who is the hypocrite??

 

[hoover]

rcscwc,
you are correct.
I have reconed that in media also, esp. in national media, in every discussion there are two sides one the psudo secualrs including the anchor and second is the so called right wing. On discussions of NDTV Barakha dutt and so many of other channels perform their right to bash the so called saffrons. The reson is, this saffron side is so intellectual, meek and defensive that they fall pray to the uproar of the psudo secular side. BJP is the opposition party but it spends much time in answering allegations of other parties including congress; instead of compelling them to do so.

 

[hoover]

the verdict is given in 9000 pages and 13000 pages of testimonies. It is clear and right in my views. It is pretty much study and openions. It is not question what future cource it will set up. Whatever it may be this inefficiant and identityless republic has to face it. What secular side have said if it was the site of any other religion than Hindus who are so self distructive. and if these psudo seculars are so secular then why they are spending so much time and energy in talking 'trivial' issues like mandir masjid.

 

[sangom]

A very curious shift of views.

Till a few weeks ago, all the "secularist forces" were calling for a respect of the Court Judgement. Now those very elements are becoming increasingly reluctant to accept the verdict.

"Communal forces" had always declared that they would take the verdict to the SC, later to parliament, later as an election issue. They still are to budge from that.

Haha. Who is the hypocrite??

Shri rcscwc,

It is well-known that in India "secularism" means "anti-hinduism". So, no wonder that the "secularists" find it very uneasy to honour the judgment!!

 

[Iyyarooraan]

The Verdict

It is a political coup by a judicial machinery. But the atmosphere after the verdict is astounding. The so called secularists are being told to 'shut up'. For a change, the pseudo-secularists like congress, etc. are sulking and may be moping at the verdict, the Muslims on whom the fallacy of secularism has been built, are threatening the 'merchants'. Maybe it augurs well for the nation. Please let us pray for a real good turn in our history.

 

[Harini]

I don't understand as to what problem the money you say that we have has solved for us. I came to know from a reliable source that one of the main reason for the inflationary trends is that Pak assumes responsibility to print Rs500/- notes for India! Your secular God is a fake God sir.

as far as pak's r saying that india is facing a plethora of problems well i say atleast we have the money.
the god in the 20th century is money not ram,allah,guru nanak, jesus its money.
ரொம்ப நன்றிகள்.

 

[Harini]

Mr.S.Gurumurthy is neither a legal expert not an Economist. He seldom face people directly with his views. He has got a coterie of some CAs and Journalists portraying themselves as the intellectual wing of the Hindutva and mostly they make criticism of their own people thinking that it is necessary for other to think them as think tanks.

Political analyst S.Gurumurthy has written a three part article on this subject in "The New Indian Express " on 2,3,4th of this month, which will help understanding the legal implications of the verdict. Similarly Janatha Party President Subramanian Swami has also written his opinion on 4 Oct in the same news paper which gives his view on the verdict.

Regards,
Brahmanyan.

 

[sangom]

I don't understand as to what problem the money you say that we have has solved for us. I came to know from a reliable source that one of the main reason for the inflationary trends is that Pak assumes responsibility to print Rs500/- notes for India! Your secular God is a fake God sir.

Harini,

You are correct. I feel China is helping in this and the best printing technology is available in HK.

 

[R. Ramanujan]

rcscwc well they say that they will accept and respect wat ever the court decides then when the court decides they say its horrible decision. slam it. its not only hypocritic but contradictory.(that means u expected the court to act in a certain way. well then u run dummy courts on indian streets ha ha) anyways speculating on courts verdict is not fair on the judges.
Donno wats wrong with intellectuals or seudo secularists watever u may call them. why they r confused. well i say stick to one thing.

 

[suresoo]

Now the congress party has come out with the response.
Kapil Sibal says
1) The Govt will not not enter into negotiations because its a private land issue.
2) Just because some group was praying there for long time does not mean they posses the land!

 

[R. Ramanujan]

i have heard that up govt have acquired lots of acres of land in ayodya surrounding the ramjanma bhoomi to develop it for religious tourism. dont know whether it has been stalled/implemented/scraped.
also there is no unity among hindu parties. the nirmohi akhada wants whole share and hindu mahasabha/vhp which is responsible for construction wants whole control. amazing. probably monetary benefits of a grand ram temple in everyones mind.
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...o-entire-67-acre-plot/articleshow/6694774.cms)
no party wants to compromise on that. taking credit could also be one.

 

[Nara]

Pseudo secularism

First, I would like to cite a political analysis of the verdict by Neerja Chowdhury, she makes some really good points.

I don't know wide spread this phenomenon is in India, but from the opinions expressed here I get a feeling that TBs don't like the kind of secularism practiced in India. In fact I should say they hate it as the word "secularism" hardly ever gets mentioned without the epithet "pseudo".

What is secularism anyway? And, what makes the secularism practiced by Indian politicians, pseudo?

I searched the web and found secularism defined in many ways. The predominant view is, it seems to me, that to be secular, at the very minimum, the state must not favor a particular religion over other competing religions. One could further expand on this concept and say, the state must protect the rights of its citizens to freely choose and practice whatever religion they want to practice, including the rights of free-thinkers and atheists.

If the principles around which a nation organizes itself includes secularism, then, the nation must provide its state with the power and the obligation to deliver on this principle of secularism for all its citizens. In a democracy, the rights of the dominant religion is automatically protected through the ballot box. But, minority religious practices need protection from the tyranny of the majority. This is why we have constitution, and the Indian constitution does provide these rights that cannot simply be taken away by majority fiat.

Now, secularism demands staying true to these principles. Anyone who provides such protection to minorities, whatever may be the motivation -- vote bank or otherwise - is promoting secularism, not a pseudo one. This is how democracy works. Anyone who tries to diminish these protections in the name of the dominant religion cannot accuse those who provide such protection as "pseudo" secularists. Anyone may reject secularism for one reason or another. But, they don't get the right to claim that those who provide protection for minority religion, for whatever reason, is a "pseudo" secularist.

Whatever may be the motivation, the very fact that the entire nation is obsessed with what is supposed to be nothing more than a simple land dispute, shows this is a political issue. It crys out for a political solution. But our Indian politicians are only interested in milking the issue, not solving it amicably -- not that politicians of other nations are any different, some are even worse. In this context, I hope the court decision, however flawed it may be in a legal sense, brings some sort of closure. Even though the decision rejected some of the central claims of the Muslims, the Muslims seem to be holding their peace. This needs recognition and appreciation.

Cheers!

 

[rcscwc]

Now the congress party has come out with the response.
Kapil Sibal says
1) The Govt will not not enter into negotiations because its a private land issue.
2) Just because some group was praying there for long time does not mean they posses the land!

Very clever. Denies Hindu claims, but does not support muslim claims. What you call running with both teams. Or batting whichever side is fielding.

i have heard that up govt have acquired lots of acres of land in ayodya surrounding the ramjanma bhoomi to develop it for religious tourism. dont know whether it has been stalled/implemented/scraped.
also there is no unity among hindu parties. the nirmohi akhada wants whole share and hindu mahasabha/vhp which is responsible for construction wants whole control. amazing.

State cannot acquire any land for religious purpose. It is temporarily in possession of those acres.
Nirmohi akhada and Ram Lalla Viraajman, through Ravi Shankar, want full control of whole of that land.

The muslim claim is not clear in this regard.

First, I would like to cite a political analysis of the verdict by Neerja Chowdhury, she makes some really good points.

I don't know wide spread this phenomenon is in India, but from the opinions expressed here I get a feeling that TBs don't like the kind of secularism practiced in India. In fact I should say they hate it as the word "secularism" hardly ever gets mentioned without the epithet "pseudo".

What is secularism anyway? And, what makes the secularism practiced by Indian politicians, pseudo?

I searched the web and found secularism defined in many ways. The predominant view is, it seems to me, that to be secular, at the very minimum, the state must not favor a particular religion over other competing religions. One could further expand on this concept and say, the state must protect the rights of its citizens to freely choose and practice whatever religion they want to practice, including the rights of free-thinkers and atheists.

If the principles around which a nation organizes itself includes secularism, then, the nation must provide its state with the power and the obligation to deliver on this principle of secularism for all its citizens. In a democracy, the rights of the dominant religion is automatically protected through the ballot box. But, minority religious practices need protection from the tyranny of the majority. This is why we have constitution, and the Indian constitution does provide these rights that cannot simply be taken away by majority fiat.

Now, secularism demands staying true to these principles. Anyone who provides such protection to minorities, whatever may be the motivation -- vote bank or otherwise - is promoting secularism, not a pseudo one. This is how democracy works. Anyone who tries to diminish these protections in the name of the dominant religion cannot accuse those who provide such protection as "pseudo" secularists. Anyone may reject secularism for one reason or another. But, they don't get the right to claim that those who provide protection for minority religion, for whatever reason, is a "pseudo" secularist.

Whatever may be the motivation, the very fact that the entire nation is obsessed with what is supposed to be nothing more than a simple land dispute, shows this is a political issue. It crys out for a political solution. But our Indian politicians are only interested in milking the issue, not solving it amicably -- not that politicians of other nations are any different, some are even worse. In this context, I hope the court decision, however flawed it may be in a legal sense, brings some sort of closure. Even though the decision rejected some of the central claims of the Muslims, the Muslims seem to be holding their peace. This needs recognition and appreciation.

Cheers!

Muslims are holding their peace as they walked into a jam. Earlier they too were wanting every one to respect the verdict, but now do not want to do so.

Had the Hindu claim been rejected, these very secularists would have gone to town.

One muslim party is going to file an appeal by the end of this month.

PS: Legal hair splitting should be left to the concerned lawyers. Prashant Bhushan, a famous lawyer, was criticising the legality, when Ravi Shankar asked him to come the SC to put forward his views. He has quoted 40 HC judgements, a dozen SC judgements in his 12,000 pages of evidence. Verdict too 8,000 pages. How many people have gone through that?

The operative part of the judgement in 20 pages can hardly be understood by a layman. Claims, counter claims and cross claims have accepted and rejected, partly or fully, in the verdict.