Implications of the verdict

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri rcscwc Ji,
Somnath decision to build a temple, using private funds was supported by Gandhi Ji, and so it happened. By the time this idea was promoted, the land in question was not owned by the muslims. So it was a legal administrative action.

I have not read anywhere that the muslims vigorously objected to the rebuilding of the temple, especially as they received funds to build a mosque.

But this situation is completely different and I agree with you that Congress party over time used the situation to its advantage. But I do not agree that BJP was a bystander. They have equal culpability, if not more.

My stance is not about politics. As I have explained above in my posting to Sri sureeso Ji, seems like the court took the easy way out, bringing in the ASI studies etc. to base it's decision. This is just sad.

On a different note, Sir, I have an appeal for you. Some of us (myself and Professor Nara Ji have posed some questions to you on different topics. You have every right to say that you are not going to respond, but at least do so please. The Forum members will appreciate it. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

KRS ji
Somnath issue was resolved by an administrative action, not by a court. Period. And muslims were very much unhappy too.

Who permitted and idols in Ayodhya? Not RSS or VHP. Congi govt. Who allowed them to remain there for decades? Congi govt. Who unlocked the doors? Comngi? Who permitted the shilanyas? Congi govt. Who had the make shift temple built overnight? Congi govt. Who stoppede Congi from taking next step? None. But they did not have that last ounce of courage. It could have taken an administrative action and claimed all the credit. But they did not. Lack of courage, sir, not secularism.

Why can't a legislative action now to overturn the HC verdict? After all Congi govt had overturned the SC verdict in Shah Bano case.

Like it or not, religious sentiments play a big role. Going purely by law and constitution, UCC should have been there yesterday.

 

[RKB]

It is good that Ram gets some part of the land to settle down,

because now,

Sita is running a travel agency,

Maruti is making cars,

Laxman might retire after the series against Australia,

Shatrughan has joined BJP,

Raavan is already a commercial flop and

there is peace in Lanka!!!!

 

[rcscwc]

KRS ji
Kindly get your facts in order. Sunni Wakf filed the suit in 1961. It is an interloper. Consider.

a. Under Islamic law, only the Mutawalli of the Masjid is authorised to initiate legal action.

b. The Mutawalli of the Babri structure is Mir Javad Hasan, a descendant of Mir Baqi and resident of a village 10 km. away from Ayodhya where Mir Baqi's Mazaar is situated.

c. Mir Javad Hasan has refused to join the Waqf Board suit.

d. He is maintaining himself out of 40 acres of land given by the British for military and political service rendered to them by his forefathers.

e. He has demanded the transfer of the "masjid" to his village so that he can offer prayers there, and the Janmabhoomi reverts to the Hindus.
f. His right to Mutawalliship has been recognised by the Sunni Waqf Board itself in its report dated 10th December, 1949 and Office Note dated 25th November, 1948 sent by the Waqf Board to him.
​

Thus Mutawalli being the only proper person to act in law for a mosque, the Sunni Waqf Board is an interloper, and cannot file a case for wresting the Ramjanmabhoomi.

Original mistake of the HC was that it allowed the wakf board to argue. It had no title in 1947 or in 1992.


Civil judge Faizabad holds that the disputed structure is not Waqf property at all
The City Civil Judge of the Faizabad court has given a preliminary finding that the disputed structure was not a Waqf property as no proper notification has been made under the law declaring it to be a Waqf property. This was on April 21, 1966.

Sunni wakf has no feet to stand upon. Mutwalli is not a party. Going STRICTLY by LAW you swear upon, there is no legally recognised muslim contender. in the suit. On that alone SC can uphold the HC verdict.

 

[Harini]

Comical Perspectives

prashanth kk <[email protected]>
Subject: S Gurumurthy on Ayodhya Verdict
To: "swadeshijagran googlegroups" <[email protected]>
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]Verdict — a prologue
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/columnists/verdict-%E2%80%94-a-prologue/211591.html[/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=arial,sans-serif]ASI report was crucial to judges’ deliberations[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif]http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/columnists/asi-report-was-crucial-to-judges%E2%80%99-deliberations/211869.html[/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=arial,sans-serif]Division will escalate dispute[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif]http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/columnists/division-will-escalate-dispute/212091.html[/FONT]

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri rcscwc Ji,
My response is in 'blue':

KRS ji
Kindly get your facts in order. Sunni Wakf filed the suit in 1961. It is an interloper. Consider.
Sir, please don't pass your opinion as fact. The courts have accepted the Sunni Wakf boards as representing the interests of muslims and this a long standing tradition from British days. Please get your facts in order.

a. Under Islamic law, only the Mutawalli of the Masjid is authorised to initiate legal action.

b. The Mutawalli of the Babri structure is Mir Javad Hasan, a descendant of Mir Baqi and resident of a village 10 km. away from Ayodhya where Mir Baqi's Mazaar is situated.

c. Mir Javad Hasan has refused to join the Waqf Board suit.

d. He is maintaining himself out of 40 acres of land given by the British for military and political service rendered to them by his forefathers.

e. He has demanded the transfer of the "masjid" to his village so that he can offer prayers there, and the Janmabhoomi reverts to the Hindus.
f. His right to Mutawalliship has been recognised by the Sunni Waqf Board itself in its report dated 10th December, 1949 and Office Note dated 25th November, 1948 sent by the Waqf Board to him.
​

Thus Mutawalli being the only proper person to act in law for a mosque, the Sunni Waqf Board is an interloper, and cannot file a case for wresting the Ramjanmabhoomi.

The operative word used here is 'Under Islamic Law'. They did not file the suit under any Sharia Law. They filed it under Indian civil code. Besides the whole argument is false. The Mutawallis represent the interests of Wakf Board and not the other way around. It is like arguing that a temple manager has more representation than the trustees of the temple on matters of a temple's interest. Does not make sense.

Sir, I also have an issue with your response above. I saw the same response verbatim, from a blog titled 'Ayodhya - Minority is always right'. Are you the author of that blog? If not, please give a citation to the author, whenever you cut and paste, giving the impression that you are the author. For our members' benefit, I am posting the blog address:
The Rediscovery of India » Blog Archive » Ayodhya: The Minority is Always Right

Original mistake of the HC was that it allowed the wakf board to argue. It had no title in 1947 or in 1992.


Original mistake by HC. Sir the title to the Masjid was given to the Wakf Board by the British, as a historical site of a mosque, by implication.
Civil judge Faizabad holds that the disputed structure is not Waqf property at all
This does not even merit a discussion.
The City Civil Judge of the Faizabad court has given a preliminary finding that the disputed structure was not a Waqf property as no proper notification has been made under the law declaring it to be a Waqf property. This was on April 21, 1966.
Ditto

Sunni wakf has no feet to stand upon. Mutwalli is not a party. Going STRICTLY by LAW you swear upon, there is no legally recognised muslim contender. in the suit. On that alone SC can uphold the HC verdict.

Sorry Ji, your arguments do not hold water. As far as I can see, the HC judgement is flawed at many levels.

Regards,
KRS

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Yesterday's Paper(DINAMALAR/11/10/2010) carried a news item about AYODHYA verdict.Dr.R.NAGASWAMY retd DIRECTOR of ARCHAELOGY Government Of Tamilnadu who was a witness in AYODHYA case has given his views.
www.dinamalar.com//News_Detailasp?id=1037718

 

[rcscwc]

Sorry KRS ji

I gave you facts and figures and verifiable data. My points a to f is NOT my opinion, Sirji, they are on record.

IF the British gave title to the wakf board, they did not produce it. Because it does not exist. Fact is different.

There is no record of the Babri Masjid as a Waqf in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act of 1936 or its re-enacted version of 1960.

In the Settlement Reports since 1861, no plot or sub-plot has been shown as Waqf.


Sirji, some hard taraka is needed from you, else I will not respond. I should not have responded even now, but well, I did.

 

[rcscwc]

In fact the suits of akhada and sunni wakf have been dismissed clearly, but of Ram Lalla is upheld. Still the land has been divided in three parts. What is legality of giving the akhada and wakf even an inch? See Gurumurthy's series linked above.

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

A REPUTED MUSLIM SCHOLAR HAS GIVEN HIS VIEWS.WILL THE concerned parties to the dispute listen to his sage advice.?

 

[suresoo]

Dear KRS Ji,

I do not have anything to say about Indian Secularism except that both Gandhi Ji and Nehru Ji as well as Sri Patel believed in the concept of the State not sponsoring any religion with State funds. But we all know how certain religious travels are subsidized by the State etc.

Interesting to see the names Gandhi, Nehru and Patel on the same line. It might be true they held that belief on Paper. But they were 3 different personalities!

Just for general musing, i present
Weekend Reading: Gandhi, Nehru and Patel | Retributions
Indian history would have taken a different turn had Patel (with popular support) been elected the President.

My response originally about the merits of the judgement itself. As I have said before, as of August 15, 1947, the Waqf Board had the ownership. So I don't understand the Court's judgement; seems like they have decided that mere possession is the law.

I think we can agree to disagree here. I still feel a standing masjid does not mean "Right to the Property".
Even the Modi government took down temples on 'poramboku neelam'
Modi’s temple demolition irks VHP, Congress alike

This judgement using historical bygones is what I am questioning. Next, is India going to try the descendants of Aurangazeb, for the crimes he has committed? Where to draw the line, based on past atrocities?

The judgment is not about paying for past deed (sins). Its based on past beliefs (The Belief Lord Ram was born there).

thanks,

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri rcscwc Ji,

First, let us stop these threatening words from you. If you do not respond to my posting, as you have not to some others here, it only reflects on your decency and character. It is no big loss, in my opinion if you do not respond.

Secondly, you are correct. The Sunni Wakf Board, did not register (or flubbed) on the 1936 registration. It was because the Sunnis and the Shia were not in sync as to who owned the property. Mutawalli was Shia, based on who built the mosque, but the Sunni Wakf board had interest, because Babar was Sunni, and the mosque was built with his funds.

This is why, the court judged the way they did, giving a substantial portion of the grounds to the Wakf board.

By the way, irrespective of any information is available in public, it is but only decent to give credit to an author, when you cut and paste his words. In my opinion, this can not be just brushed aside as you did. This, sir, further shows light on your character as a person who posts using some other person's words as his own, without giving due respect to the author. Shame on you, sir.

If you want to discuss things here in a civilized way, you are welcome.

Otherwise, I suggest that you stick to the Forums that allow people like you to post.

Regards,
KRS

Sorry KRS ji

I gave you facts and figures and verifiable data. My points a to f is NOT my opinion, Sirji, they are on record.

IF the British gave title to the wakf board, they did not produce it. Because it does not exist. Fact is different.

There is no record of the Babri Masjid as a Waqf in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act of 1936 or its re-enacted version of 1960.

In the Settlement Reports since 1861, no plot or sub-plot has been shown as Waqf.


Sirji, some hard taraka is needed from you, else I will not respond. I should not have responded even now, but well, I did.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri suresoo Ji,
My response is in 'blue'

Dear KRS Ji,

Interesting to see the names Gandhi, Nehru and Patel on the same line. It might be true they held that belief on Paper. But they were 3 different personalities!

Just for general musing, i present
Weekend Reading: Gandhi, Nehru and Patel | Retributions
Indian history would have taken a different turn had Patel (with popular support) been elected the President.
What this has to do with the issue at hand? How is it pertinent to the topic?


I think we can agree to disagree here. I still feel a standing masjid does not mean "Right to the Property".
Even the Modi government took down temples on 'poramboku neelam'
Modi’s temple demolition irks VHP, Congress alike
So, what law did the standing Masjid violated and when?

The judgment is not about paying for past deed (sins). Its based on past beliefs (The Belief Lord Ram was born there).
So, if belief is the basis of any legal judgement? How about as a Jain, I believe that what ASI found was a Jain structure? Don't you think that this is a slippery slope?

thanks,

Regards,
KRS

 

[rcscwc]

The judgment is not about paying for past deed (sins). Its based on past beliefs (The Belief Lord Ram was born there).
So, if belief is the basis of any legal judgement? How about as a Jain, I believe that what ASI found was a [COLOR=#da7911 !important][COLOR=#da7911 !important]Jain[/COLOR] structure? Don't you think that this is a slippery slope?[/COLOR]

This falls in the catefory of kutarka. I heard someone saying, not here, that the land should be given for a temple, mosque and a CHURCH!! How does church come into the picture?

If some xian claims it was a xian structure that ASI, can that be tark or kutark? Jain structure?? Could be, but first analyse what WAS FOUND. What artifacts at what levels were found. But traces of a Jain or Buddhist temples WERE not found.

Don't make unfounded statements, but put on your logic cap.

ASI report was on FACTS, which are bound to be finely scrutinised by experts all over the world. So it had to be objective and LOOK objective too.

Dr. Nagarajan testified it was a temple.

Fortunately the court stopped at historicity of the temple only and did not try to determine that of Rama himself.

 

[KRS]

Folks,

From Wikipedia on Babri Masjid:

Jain account
According to Jain Samata Vahini, a social organization of the Jains, "the only structure that could be found during excavation would be a sixth century Jain temple".
Sohan Mehta, the General Secretary of Jain Samata Vahini, claims that the demolished disputed structure was actually built on the remnants of an ancient Jain temple, and that the excavation by ASI, ordered by Allahabad High Court to settle the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute, would prove it.
Mehta quoted writings of 18th century Jain monks stating Ayodhya was the place where five Jain tirthankars, Rishabhdeo, Ajitnath, Abhinandannath, Sumatinath and Anantnath stayed. The ancient city was among the five biggest centers of Jainism and Buddhism prior to 1527.[11]

Regards,
KRS

 

[rcscwc]

1. Wiki is of limted value. Anyone can edit it. Don't be surprised if tommorrow this page is hacked to claim that a Parsis temple was there or a xian church.

2. Seventtenth century account of a Jain monk vs a number of muslim accounts which say there was a Hindu temple. It is not to deny that there was a Jain temple in Ayodhya.

3. Jains have claimed that Sita was Ram's sister, not his wife. There are instances where Jains have distorted many accounts.

4. ASI did not come across any trace of a Jain temple. Not at that site. A search elsewhere might reveal a Jain temple.

5. That alleged masjid has always been known as Masjid Janamsthan.

Lastly, welcome if Jains too join the appeal or file a fresh suit for title. They too might get a part.

Huh. Is there any claim that there was Greek temple at Janmbhumi? I will not be surprised.

 

[rcscwc]

Dear Sri rcscwc Ji,



Secondly, you are correct. The Sunni Wakf Board, did not register (or flubbed) on the 1936 registration. It was because the Sunnis and the Shia were not in sync as to who owned the property. Mutawalli was Shia, based on who built the mosque, but the Sunni Wakf board had interest, because Babar was Sunni, and the mosque was built with his funds.

I am not interested in apolgetics why the wakf could not register it, but fact is that it is not registered even today. Period.
As for funds, the original temple too was built by funds of, inter alia, my ancestors. And they had not plundered it from others.

This is why, the court judged the way they did, giving a substantial portion of the grounds to the Wakf board.

That is surprising part of the verdict. Most indefensible. Wakf board does not own it, has title and its case was rejected way back in 67, and still it was heard!! Not only that it was given a potion of land too!! Strange judicial logic. That is why I say that if the Greek church lays a claim, it too get a few square yards.

By the way, irrespective of any information is available in public, it is but only decent to give credit to an author, when you cut and paste his words. In my opinion, this can not be just brushed aside as you did. This, sir, further shows light on your character as a person who posts using some other person's words as his own, without giving due respect to the author. Shame on you, sir.

If I give facts then I don't need to give credit. If and when I give some experts' opinion I shall.

Anyone can deposit Rs 50 and peruse the revenue records. Account of ASI reportse available.

 

[suresoo]

@KRS response is in 'blue'
@suresoo points is in 'black'

Dear KRS Ji,
I thought we are winding down this debate, hence was posting some closing points and general musings. From your response, it looks like you had just rolled up your sleeves.

Interesting to see the names Gandhi, Nehru and Patel on the same line. It might be true they held that belief on Paper. But they were 3 different personalities!
Just for general musing, i present
Weekend Reading: Gandhi, Nehru and Patel | Retributions
Indian history would have taken a different turn had Patel (with popular support) been elected the President.
What this has to do with the issue at hand? How is it pertinent to the topic?
I could have shown how Nerhu and Patel did not follow that rule in Practice. I also decided this has no relevance to this debate hence was closing this point with some juice. I'm not sure, if the flavor or the Juice itself upsets you!

==============================

I think we can agree to disagree here. I still feel a standing masjid does not mean "Right to the Property".
Even the Modi government took down temples on 'poramboku neelam'
Modi’s temple demolition irks VHP, Congress alike
So, what law did the standing Masjid violated and when?

This is a Legal question. The Questions in front of court and the verdict are
"Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 28
2.Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in suit upto 1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949 as alleged in the plaint?
4.Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Ram in particular have perfected right of prayers at the site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for more than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as alleged by the defendants?
10. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse possession as alleged in the plaint?
15. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit from 1528 A.D. Continuously, openly and to the knowledge of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its effect?
28. “Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of the disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its possession?”

These issues are decided against the plaintiffs. "

You can read into the judgment and say the HC judgment is flawed because it overlooked the law in this regard. If you do so, i will respond with why they overlooked.
You had made statements like "HC judgment is flawed at many levels", can you please state them point by point and show which laws were subverted. Otherwise i request you to use other words to register your displeasure on the judgment.

========================================

The judgment is not about paying for past deed (sins). Its based on past beliefs (The Belief Lord Ram was born there).
So, if belief is the basis of any legal judgement? How about as a Jain, I believe that what ASI found was a Jain structure? Don't you think that this is a slippery slope?

And i do think this is kutarkam. We are trying to find a compromise / legal solution between two parties (Hindus and Muslims). You are bringing a third party into it and how does this help.

Okay lets take this slippery slope, For intellectual reasoning we should look at the root cause of the problem and fix it rather than a superficial fix
for this i would need to know what you think about

1) What is about Muslims that they always want to build a Masjid over other religions sacred places like
Near Ground Zero, Over Ram Janmabhoomi. Mosque in Vatican and total intolerance to other religious structures in say Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?

2) The SC verdict in 'shah bano case' and subsequent Parliamentary maneuver to discount the SC verdict? Primarily want to know if you think the SC verdict is also flawed?

3) The Islamic law that was followed in India during mughal occupation
Anglo-Muhammadan law: a digest ... - Google Books
(page 36)
"The rules laid down for the treatment of infidel subjects (Zimmis) could not be applied in its entirety. In strictness, the Hindus being idolators and polytheists should not have been admitted to the status of Zimmis at all; but should have been either converted or exterminated; supposing this idea was to be abandoned as it was at a very early period, they should at least have been burdened with a special capitation tax (Jezya) and should have been restricted to the humblest edifices and the most unostentatious form of public worship"

4) The British laws that followed (Page 40 of same Book), which states Muhammadan laws to be followed wherever it was practiced. And Hindu shasthras only if Muhammadan laws were not practiced.

I hope we don't take this slippery slope.

thanks,

 

[rcscwc]

It appears that KRS is opposed to the mandir, per se. Had some traces of a Jain temple been found by ASI, he would stake his claim for land, masjid be damned.

 

[RKB]

But the Jains are Hindus as per our Constitution.

It appears that KRS is opposed to the mandir, per se. Had some traces of a Jain temple been found by ASI, he would stake his claim for land, masjid be damned.

 

[rcscwc]

But from his posts it is clear that he would rather that a Jain or Buddhist temple was underneath. That has not happened, and he knows it. Last, he rather have a masjid.

 

[hoover]

I appreciate all members efforts.
so much information and legal angles are coming from them. It is in accordance of Brahmin nature. Arguement is oxygen.

 

[rcscwc]

I am not the only one to detect kutark here.