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."
I think you are referring back to 1947, because your intellect says we hit the reset button on that day? Otherwise, can you show me the legal resoning for saying 'status quo' as of 1947?
The case is argued in court by competent lawyers from both sides and a Judgment passed. I do not see arguments made with reference to that date.
The Muslim board claim to the land is also based on usage of the land for 400 years (as of 1949).
One of the judges had even questioned regular usage.
Even Congress Party (check Kapil Sibal interview on channel18) has taken the stand that "Just because someone was praying at a site for years (meaning before and after 1947) does not give that title to the land.
The judgement in 1886 says, a crime was commited 400 years back but no remedy possible considering the sensitivity of the case. So status quo should be maintained. An Indian court has passed a Judgement in 2010 and it supercedes the judgement in 1886.
We are ruled by a Consitutuion and not by intellectual convenience of the time.
If you remember, the sangh parivar was the last to sign on to the notion. "The Court will be the final arrbitor". The Muslim board and the seculars always said court solution is final.
----------------------------------------------
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 had quoted the legalities involved in this case, you seem to think this may lead Hindus to claim exclusive claim based on those laws. I feel your reasoning is unfounded.
I'm not able to access the link today, but i read it 2-3 days back. Assuming you are referring to 'S Choudhary' (formerly a US Professor). (Side Note: I had listened to some of these US Professor and i feel they have a hollow view. They don't understand the dynamics of Indian Politics/Society but try to superimpose american leftist views on Indian society )
He tries to link 'demolition of Masjid' with this case. There is a criminal case pending on demolition and this judgement cannot prejudice that by taking a stand. And he talked about 1947, which is again irrelavent.
=================
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.
No, I do not see that HC judgement is based on political implications, can you show what political implications were considered? Please do not throw mud on the judiciary without any substantiation.
The SC will have no choice, if one of the litigants approaches them. Only the Govt can pass a Law to prevent that (That needs a Lot of leadership). This Govt has shunned any responsibility.
I'm very upset with Leftist trying to discredit ASI. ASI is one of the talented organization in India and have done a wonderful job in rewriting our history. They were recruited by the court and they did their job (Experts were bought in from Canada/Japan). Just to discredit them because they did not follow preferred version of history (like here
Praful Bidwai on the Ayodhya excavation) is disgusting.
The courts were asked the question by one of the litigant, 'Did a temple exist before?'. None of the litigants opposed the need for that question. Now, the court is bound to answer that question.
They could have just said, its beyond courts capability to ascertain that.
But all three judges decided to go scientific and called ASI for their expertise. Now you are saying Science is irrelevant.
