Forums
Ayodhya - Printable Version

+- Forums (https://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian Politics, Business & Economy (https://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Indian Politics (https://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: Ayodhya (/showthread.php?tid=879)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Ayodhya - Guest - 10-08-2010

Fundamental issue in Ayodhya case



by Dr.Subramanian Swamy



T.R. Andhyarujina is a highly respected and accomplished lawyer who is very skilled in court craft. His major point in his Op-Ed [“A Verdict that legitimises the Masjid demolition,” The Hindu, Oct.5, 2010] is that the 8,700-plus pages judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the Ayodhya dispute implicitly condones the 1992 demolition of the Babri Mosque structure because the Court did not take judicial notice and draw adverse inference [in fact no reference] against the directly or de facto affiliated parties (in the litigation before the Bench) in that destruction.



I do not dismiss this point because the structure was indeed unauthorisedly demolished and therefore the culprits and the planners of this demolition, whoever they are, have to be brought to book to uphold the rule of law. For this purpose, there is an ongoing criminal case in a special CBI-designated Sessions Court.



In this context, the question is whether every court will have to take judicial notice of this alleged illegal violent event even after the Supreme Court of India has taken such notice. Mr. Andhyarujina himself quotes the Supreme Court judgment [reported in (1994) 6SCC376] in which the court, while absolving the Hindus as a community of the blame, nevertheless held that “Hindus must bear the Cross for it.” This was an extraordinary judicial observation and has profound implications for all communities whenever religious premises are destroyed.



The fact nevertheless remains that throughout the last several centuries, Hindus have deeply held as sacred as Ram's birthplace that exact spot where the Babri Masjid once stood. This is recorded in many official and judicial proceedings.



In 1885, for example, Mahant Raghubar Das, in a Suit No. 61/280 of 1885 filed in the Court of the Faizabad Sub Judge against the Secretary of State for India (who was based in London), prayed for permission to build a temple inside the perimeter of the mosque. His suit was dismissed on March 18, 1886, but in his Order the Sub-Judge, an Englishman, stated: “It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance.” Since the British as policy never sought to disturb the communal and social status quo in India as evidenced, for example, on the ‘Sati question,' the judge took the easy way out and dismissed the suit.



Temple did exist



It is now well established by GPRS-directed excavations, done under the Allahabad High Court monitoring and verification in 2002-03, that a large temple did exist below where that Babri Masjid structure once stood. Inscriptions found during excavations describe it as a temple of Vishnu Hari who had killed the demon king Dasanan [Ravana]. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) confirmed these findings on investigations that were directed by the High Court.



A fundamental question arises: Can a temple and a masjid be considered on a par as far as sacredness is concerned? Relying on two important apex judgments that hold the field today, the answer is: No. A masjid is not an essential part of Islam religion, according to a majority judgment of a Constitution Bench of India's Supreme Court (op.cit. 1994), whereas according to the House of Lords, U.K. (1991), the temple is always a temple even if in disuse or ruins.



In the famous Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India case [reported in (1994) 6 SCC 376], the Supreme Court of India observed: “It has been contended that a mosque enjoys a particular position in Muslim law and once a mosque is established and prayers are offered in such a mosque, the same remains for all time to come a property of Allah … and any person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in such a mosque, and even if the structure is demolished, the place remains the same where namaz can be offered “ [para 80].



The Constitution Bench then rejected this contention, stating: “The correct position may be summarised thus. Under Mohammedan law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession. A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India”(para 82).



Thus what was wrong with the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 was that it was unauthorised by law and hence a criminal offence. Otherwise any government can deprive Muslims of the Babri Masjid, which would be lawful if the government decides to do so in the interest of public order, public health and morality (Article 25 of the Constitution). This is the position in Islamic law as well since in Saudi Arabia the authorities demolish mosques to lay roads. Even the mosque where Prophet Mohammed used to pray was demolished.



Nataraja statue case



A temple however is not in the same category as a mosque in law. When I was Union Law and Justice Minister, this question of the status of a temple – even if in ruins or without worship – came up before me in November 1990 in a case of a smuggled-out bronze Nataraja statue that was up for sale in London. The Government of India under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had decided to file a case in the London trial court in 1986 for recovery. The Nataraja statue had by then been traced to a temple in ruins in Pathur, Thanjavur district. A farmer named Ramamoorthi had unearthed it in 1976 while digging mud with a spade near his hut.



When the news spread, touts of an antique dealer reached Ramamoorthi, paid a small sum, and smuggled it out to London, where in 1982 it was sold to a private company. In turn, the buyer sent it to the British Museum for appraisal and possible purchase. By then the Government of India was on to it and asked the British government to take action. The Nataraja idol was seized by the London Metropolitan Police, the company sued the police in court for recovery, but lost the case. An appeal was filed in the Queens Bench, which was dismissed on April 17, 1989. The buyer company went to the House of Lords.



On February 13, 1991, when I was Union Law Minister, the landmark judgment dismissing the buyer's final appeal [see (1991) 4 All ER 638] was delivered. The Bench consisting of Justices Purchas, Nourse, and Leggatt concluded: “We therefore hold that the temple is acceptable as party to these proceedings and that it is as such entitled to sue for the recovery of the Nataraja” [page 648 para g]. Thus a disused temple in ruins became a party, and we as Siva bhaktas as de facto trustees thus recovered the Nataraja idol.



No such ruling anywhere in any court exists for a mosque for the simple reason that a mosque in Islam is just a facilitation centre for reading namaz, and has no essentiality for Islam as a religion.



It can therefore be demolished and/or shifted in India under the Constitution as any building can — but of course authorisedly for a public purpose such as public health, public order or morality. The Union Government is committed by virtue of its affidavit filed in the Supreme Court in 1994 to do so if it is found that a temple structure exists below the mosque site. It must hence perform now and deliver on its commitment on oath sworn in the Supreme Court.



This is the fundamental truth in the Ayodhya dispute that is being constantly evaded by those criticising the Allahabad High Court Judgment.



( The writer is a former Union Law Minister and the Convenor of the Legal and Parliamentary Cells of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha.)

[url="http://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/fundamental-issue-in-ayodhya-case/"]http://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/fundamental-issue-in-ayodhya-case/[/url]

Ayodhya - Guest - 10-09-2010

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/newdelhi/Nirmohi-Akhara-to-approach-SC/Article1-610232.aspx"]Nirmohi Akhara to approach SC[/url]
Quote:The Allahabad HC had ruled that the site where idols of Hindu Gods were placed was the birthplace of Lord Ram, and the land be distributed among the three litigants.



But, the Nirmohi Akhara claims the rights to ownership and shaibati (to offer prayers) over the entire disputed land.



“Our stand has been consistent. We are seeking restoration of ownership and shaibati rights. We have been offering prayers there right from the beginning,” Chopra said.



The Akhara too favours a negotiated settlement to the dispute but emphasises that talks between the main parties would only succeed.



“As far as the title suit is concerned, Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board are the main parties,” Chopra said.


Ayodhya - Capt M Kumar - 10-09-2010

The role played by "independent experts" — historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim — has come in for criticism by one of the Allahabad High Court judges in the Ayodhya verdict.



While the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed objections raised by the experts to the presence of a temple, it was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny.







Read more: How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-Allahabad-HC-exposed-experts-espousing-Masjid-cause/articleshow/6716643.cms#ixzz11q3Sx9Dp

Ayodhya - Bharatvarsh2 - 10-09-2010

Guru Nanak says:

Quote:ਆਸਾ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥

आसा महला १ ॥

Āsā mėhlā 1.

Aasaa, First Mehl:





ਖੁਰਾਸਾਨ ਖਸਮਾਨਾ ਕੀਆ ਹਿੰਦੁਸਤਾਨੁ ਡਰਾਇਆ ॥

खुरासान खसमाना कीआ हिंदुसतानु डराइआ ॥

Kẖurāsān kẖasmānā kī▫ā hinḏusaṯān darā▫i▫ā.

Having attacked Khuraasaan, Baabar terrified Hindustan.





ਆਪੈ ਦੋਸੁ ਨ ਦੇਈ ਕਰਤਾ ਜਮੁ ਕਰਿ ਮੁਗਲੁ ਚੜਾਇਆ ॥

आपै दोसु न देई करता जमु करि मुगलु चड़ाइआ ॥

Āpai ḏos na ḏe▫ī karṯā jam kar mugal cẖaṛā▫i▫ā.

The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mogal as the messenger of death.





ਏਤੀ ਮਾਰ ਪਈ ਕਰਲਾਣੇ ਤੈਂ ਕੀ ਦਰਦੁ ਨ ਆਇਆ ॥੧॥

एती मार पई करलाणे तैं की दरदु न आइआ ॥१॥

Ėṯī mār pa▫ī karlāṇe ṯaiʼn kī ḏaraḏ na ā▫i▫ā. ||1||

There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord? ||1||





ਕਰਤਾ ਤੂੰ ਸਭਨਾ ਕਾ ਸੋਈ ॥

करता तूं सभना का सोई ॥

Karṯā ṯūʼn sabẖnā kā so▫ī.

O Creator Lord, You are the Master of all.





ਜੇ ਸਕਤਾ ਸਕਤੇ ਕਉ ਮਾਰੇ ਤਾ ਮਨਿ ਰੋਸੁ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

जे सकता सकते कउ मारे ता मनि रोसु न होई ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥

Je sakṯā sakṯe ka▫o māre ṯā man ros na ho▫ī. ||1|| rahā▫o.

If some powerful man strikes out against another man, then no one feels any grief in their mind. ||1||Pause||





ਸਕਤਾ ਸੀਹੁ ਮਾਰੇ ਪੈ ਵਗੈ ਖਸਮੈ ਸਾ ਪੁਰਸਾਈ ॥

सकता सीहु मारे पै वगै खसमै सा पुरसाई ॥

Sakṯā sīhu māre pai vagai kẖasmai sā pursā▫ī.

But if a powerful tiger attacks a flock of sheep and kills them, then its master must answer for it.





ਰਤਨ ਵਿਗਾੜਿ ਵਿਗੋਏ ਕੁਤੀ ਮੁਇਆ ਸਾਰ ਨ ਕਾਈ ॥

रतन विगाड़ि विगोए कुतीं मुइआ सार न काई ॥

Raṯan vigāṛ vigo▫e kuṯīʼn mu▫i▫ā sār na kā▫ī.

This priceless country has been laid waste and defiled by dogs, and no one pays any attention to the dead.



http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=360&english=t&id=16507#l16507

Quote:ਤਿਲੰਗ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥

तिलंग महला १ ॥

Ŧilang mėhlā 1.

Tilang, First Mehl:





ਜੈਸੀ ਮੈ ਆਵੈ ਖਸਮ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਤੈਸੜਾ ਕਰੀ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥

जैसी मै आवै खसम की बाणी तैसड़ा करी गिआनु वे लालो ॥

Jaisī mai āvai kẖasam kī baṇī ṯaisṛā karī gi▫ān ve lālo.

As the Word of the Forgiving Lord comes to me, so do I express it, O Lalo.





ਪਾਪ ਕੀ ਜੰਞ ਲੈ ਕਾਬਲਹੁ ਧਾਇਆ ਜੋਰੀ ਮੰਗੈ ਦਾਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥

पाप की जंञ लै काबलहु धाइआ जोरी मंगै दानु वे लालो ॥

Pāp kī jañ lai kāblahu ḏẖā▫i▫ā jorī mangai ḏān ve lālo.

Bringing the marriage party of sin, Babar has invaded from Kaabul, demanding our land as his wedding gift, O Lalo.





ਸਰਮੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਦੁਇ ਛਪਿ ਖਲੋਏ ਕੂੜੁ ਫਿਰੈ ਪਰਧਾਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥

सरमु धरमु दुइ छपि खलोए कूड़ु फिरै परधानु वे लालो ॥

Saram ḏẖaram ḏu▫e cẖẖap kẖalo▫e kūṛ firai parḏẖān ve lālo.

Modesty and righteousness both have vanished, and falsehood struts around like a leader, O Lalo.





ਕਾਜੀਆ ਬਾਮਣਾ ਕੀ ਗਲ ਥਕੀ ਅਗਦੁ ਪੜੈ ਸੈਤਾਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥

काजीआ बामणा की गल थकी अगदु पड़ै सैतानु वे लालो ॥

Kājī▫ā bāmṇā kī gal thakī agaḏ paṛai saiṯān ve lālo.

The Qazis and the Brahmins have lost their roles, and Satan now conducts the marriage rites, O Lalo.





ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨੀਆ ਪੜਹਿ ਕਤੇਬਾ ਕਸਟ ਮਹਿ ਕਰਹਿ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥

मुसलमानीआ पड़हि कतेबा कसट महि करहि खुदाइ वे लालो ॥

Musalmānī▫ā paṛėh kaṯebā kasat mėh karahi kẖuḏā▫e ve lālo.

The Muslim women read the Koran, and in their misery, they call upon God, O Lalo.





ਜਾਤਿ ਸਨਾਤੀ ਹੋਰਿ ਹਿਦਵਾਣੀਆ ਏਹਿ ਭੀ ਲੇਖੈ ਲਾਇ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥

जाति सनाती होरि हिदवाणीआ एहि भी लेखै लाइ वे लालो ॥

Jāṯ sanāṯī hor hiḏvāṇī▫ā ehi bẖī lekẖai lā▫e ve lālo.

The Hindu women of high social status, and others of lowly status as well, are put into the same category, O Lalo.



ਖੂਨ ਕੇ ਸੋਹਿਲੇ ਗਾਵੀਅਹਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਰਤੁ ਕਾ ਕੁੰਗੂ ਪਾਇ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥੧॥

खून के सोहिले गावीअहि नानक रतु का कुंगू पाइ वे लालो ॥१॥

Kẖūn ke sohile gavī▫ah Nānak raṯ kā kungū pā▫e ve lālo. ||1||

The wedding songs of murder are sung, O Nanak, and blood is sprinkled instead of saffron, O Lalo. ||1||





ਸਾਹਿਬ ਕੇ ਗੁਣ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਗਾਵੈ ਮਾਸ ਪੁਰੀ ਵਿਚਿ ਆਖੁ ਮਸੋਲਾ ॥

साहिब के गुण नानकु गावै मास पुरी विचि आखु मसोला ॥

Sāhib ke guṇ Nānak gāvai mās purī vicẖ ākẖ masolā.

Nanak sings the Glorious Praises of the Lord and Master in the city of corpses, and voices this account.





ਜਿਨਿ ਉਪਾਈ ਰੰਗਿ ਰਵਾਈ ਬੈਠਾ ਵੇਖੈ ਵਖਿ ਇਕੇਲਾ ॥

जिनि उपाई रंगि रवाई बैठा वेखै वखि इकेला ॥

Jin upā▫ī rang ravā▫ī baiṯẖā vekẖai vakẖ ikelā.

The One who created, and attached the mortals to pleasures, sits alone, and watches this.





ਸਚਾ ਸੋ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਚੁ ਤਪਾਵਸੁ ਸਚੜਾ ਨਿਆਉ ਕਰੇਗੁ ਮਸੋਲਾ ॥

सचा सो साहिबु सचु तपावसु सचड़ा निआउ करेगु मसोला ॥

Sacẖā so sāhib sacẖ ṯapāvas sacẖṛā ni▫ā▫o kareg masolā.

The Lord and Master is True, and True is His justice. He issues His Commands according to His judgment.





ਕਾਇਆ ਕਪੜੁ ਟੁਕੁ ਟੁਕੁ ਹੋਸੀ ਹਿਦੁਸਤਾਨੁ ਸਮਾਲਸੀ ਬੋਲਾ ॥

काइआ कपड़ु टुकु टुकु होसी हिदुसतानु समालसी बोला ॥

Kā▫i▫ā kapaṛ tuk tuk hosī hinḏusaṯān samālsī bolā.

The body-fabric will be torn apart into shreds, and then India will remember these words.





ਆਵਨਿ ਅਠਤਰੈ ਜਾਨਿ ਸਤਾਨਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਭੀ ਉਠਸੀ ਮਰਦ ਕਾ ਚੇਲਾ ॥

आवनि अठतरै जानि सतानवै होरु भी उठसी मरद का चेला ॥

Āvan aṯẖ▫ṯarai jān saṯānvai hor bẖī uṯẖsī maraḏ kā cẖelā.

Coming in seventy-eight (1521 A.D.), they will depart in ninety-seven (1540 A.D.), and then another disciple of man will rise up.



http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=722&english=t&id=31081#l31081


Quote:ਬਾਬਰਵਾਣੀ ਫਿਰਿ ਗਈ ਕੁਇਰੁ ਨ ਰੋਟੀ ਖਾਇ ॥੫॥

बाबरवाणी फिरि गई कुइरु न रोटी खाइ ॥५॥

Bābarvāṇī fir ga▫ī ku▫ir na rotī kẖā▫e. ||5||

Since Baabar's rule has been proclaimed, even the princes have no food to eat. ||5||



ਇਕਨਾ ਵਖਤ ਖੁਆਈਅਹਿ ਇਕਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਪੂਜਾ ਜਾਇ ॥

इकना वखत खुआईअहि इकन्हा पूजा जाइ ॥

Iknā vakẖaṯ kẖu▫ā▫ī▫ah iknĥā pūjā jā▫e.

The Muslims have lost their five times of daily prayer, and the Hindus have lost their worship as well.





ਚਉਕੇ ਵਿਣੁ ਹਿੰਦਵਾਣੀਆ ਕਿਉ ਟਿਕੇ ਕਢਹਿ ਨਾਇ ॥

चउके विणु हिंदवाणीआ किउ टिके कढहि नाइ ॥

Cẖa▫uke viṇ hinḏvāṇī▫ā ki▫o tike kadẖėh nā▫e.

Without their sacred squares, how shall the Hindu women bathe and apply the frontal marks to their foreheads?





ਰਾਮੁ ਨ ਕਬਹੂ ਚੇਤਿਓ ਹੁਣਿ ਕਹਣਿ ਨ ਮਿਲੈ ਖੁਦਾਇ ॥੬॥

रामु न कबहू चेतिओ हुणि कहणि न मिलै खुदाइ ॥६॥

Rām na kabhū cẖeṯi▫o huṇ kahaṇ na milai kẖuḏā▫e. ||6||

They never remembered their Lord as Raam, and now they cannot even chant Khudaa-i||6||





ਇਕਿ ਘਰਿ ਆਵਹਿ ਆਪਣੈ ਇਕਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਪੁਛਹਿ ਸੁਖ ॥

इकि घरि आवहि आपणै इकि मिलि मिलि पुछहि सुख ॥

Ik gẖar āvahi āpṇai ik mil mil pucẖẖėh sukẖ.

Some have returned to their homes, and meeting their relatives, they ask about their safety.



ਇਕਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਏਹੋ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਬਹਿ ਬਹਿ ਰੋਵਹਿ ਦੁਖ ॥

इकन्हा एहो लिखिआ बहि बहि रोवहि दुख ॥

Iknĥā eho likẖi▫ā bahi bahi rovėh ḏukẖ.

For some, it is pre-ordained that they shall sit and cry out in pain.





ਜੋ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਸੋ ਥੀਐ ਨਾਨਕ ਕਿਆ ਮਾਨੁਖ ॥੭॥੧੧॥

जो तिसु भावै सो थीऐ नानक किआ मानुख ॥७॥११॥

Jo ṯis bẖāvai so thī▫ai Nānak ki▫ā mānukẖ. ||7||11||

Whatever pleases Him, comes to pass. O Nanak, what is the fate of mankind? ||7||11||



http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=417&english=t&id=19235#l19235


Ayodhya - Guest - 10-10-2010

I wonder, how our ancestors survived Islamic brutality ?



I get terrified seeing some punk on street.

Ayodhya - Guest - 10-11-2010

http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=816&Itemid=42

An Insight into the Ayodhya Dispute



http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=537&Itemid=103

The Supreme Court Order of 1994



http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=566&Itemid=103

Misleading Reports on the Ayodhya Excavations

Ayodhya - G.Subramaniam - 10-11-2010

The main reason why Ayodhya cant be repeated in Kashi and Mathura is the ever increasing muslim %, which in turn leads to more muslim striking power



The time to have liberated all shrines was in 1948

Ayodhya - Bharatvarsh2 - 10-13-2010

Dr. Koenraad Elst speaks about the Ayodhya verdict 1 of 6



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9FmXTKGPrg&playnext=1&videos=4e5h5eimzz8&feature=mfu_in_order



Dr. Koenraad Elst speaks about the Ayodhya verdict 2 of 6



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR4jrHA7qAY&playnext=1&videos=G9OCdn9Srps&feature=mfu_in_order



Dr. Koenraad Elst speaks about the Ayodhya verdict 3 of 6



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2-EUwqI1MY&p=41D4EE1090C09CB1&index=3&playnext=2



Dr. Koenraad Elst speaks about the Ayodhya verdict 4 of 6



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWbqDky7-zs&p=41D4EE1090C09CB1&index=4&playnext=3



Dr. Koenraad Elst speaks about the Ayodhya verdict 5 of 6



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZvQr9m_ZMQ&p=41D4EE1090C09CB1&index=5&playnext=4



Dr. Koenraad Elst speaks about the Ayodhya verdict 6 of 6



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJQfdez9xIY&feature=related

Ayodhya - Capt M Kumar - 10-13-2010

Nirmohi Akhara, a key party in the Ayodhya legal battle, wants former president A P J Abdul Kalam, spiritual gurus Baba Ramdev and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as well as the leading Deoband Islamic seminary to help achieve a negotiated settlement.



"Now that the torch of peace and harmony has been lit in Ayodhya, we want popular spiritual leaders of both Hindus and Muslims to come forward and strengthen efforts for an out-of-court final settlement without allowing the dispute to be re-ignited before the Supreme Court where it could just hang fire indefinitely again," Ram Das of the Akhara told mediapersons in Ayodhya Wednesday.



Read more: 'Rope in Kalam, Deoband clerics, Ramdev for Babri talks' - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rope-in-Kalam-Deoband-clerics-Ramdev-for-Babri-talks/articleshow/6744785.cms#ixzz12HfsGDnb

Ayodhya - Guest - 10-14-2010

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Bukhari-loses-temper-beats-up-journalist/H1-Article1-612975.aspx"]Bukhari loses temper, beats up journalist[/url]
Quote:Mohd Abdul Waheed Chisti, a reporter with a local Urdu daily Dastan-e-Awadh, raised a question regarding the ownership of the disputed site before the construction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya.



On this question Chisti was threatened by the Imam.



"Get him out of this conference, Bukhari shouted while accusing the journalist of working against the interests of the Muslims.



The Imam said “chup, gala kat doonga” (Silent, I will chop off your neck). The Imam carrying on his tirade said “yeh personal law board ka bhi agent hai (he is agent of All India Muslim Personal Law Board).



Shouting in anger Bukhari said “kya samajh rakha hai, mard hoon, thik kardonga (What he has thought of himself, I am a man will fix him)".



Bukhari said “tum jaise gadharon ko bardasht nahin karoonga, chup Maulana baith ja, tum jaise is mulk me panap nahin painge” (will not tolerate traitor like you, people like you will not survive in the country).



Bukhari's supporters then thrashed Chisti. People like him will "not be tolerated by Muslims at any cost," the Shahi Imam said.



Earlier referring to High Court verdict in Ayodhya case, [color="#FF0000"]Bukhari said the community would not accept it and it would be challenged in the Supreme Court.[/color]



He also blasted the Congress of creating confusion in the community over the issue.

Had some Hindu priest used same language, he would have been behind bar by now. Bhukari is Congress/Pakistan lap dog, no consequence for him.

Ayodhya - G.Subramaniam - 10-16-2010

IMHO, the Supreme court will refuse to hear the appeal, that is the most likely scenario

Ayodhya - Guest - 10-17-2010

Quote:Muslim body to move SC

October 17, 2010 10:49:15 AM

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/290274/Muslim-body-to-move-SC.html"] link[/url]

Pioneer News Service | Lucknow



The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) executive committee that met at Nadwatul Uloom on Saturday decided to move Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya issue.



AIMPLB spokesperson SQR Ilyas said that Mohd Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant in the title suit, had also agreed to accept the Board’s decision. “The reconciliation efforts are his personal endeavours and the AIMPLB is not involved in them in any way. Ansari has communicated to us that he will abide by the Board’s decision,” Ilyas said.



The Board said the judgement delivered by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court contained many infirmities and so an appeal in the apex court was necessary. “It (the verdict) was delivered on the basis of the faith of the majority group while the evidence and even the faith of the minority group were overlooked,” said Yousuf Hatim Muchala, a member of the AIMPLB executive committee, while pointing out that the Indian Constitution guaranteed equality to all.



To a query that [color="#FF0000"]Islam also relies on faith and so the claims of Hindus cannot be ignored, Muchala remarked: “Islam is a Qabil-e-Ehtiram religion and is based on facts. It is not Qabile-e-Ibadat (based on faith). We cannot gift the land of any mosque or demolish it to construct a temple.”[/color]



However, AIMPLB assistant general secretary Maulana Abdul Raheem Qureishi said the Board was never against moves for reconciliation. [color="#FF0000"]“The only condition is that the proposals should be within the parameters of the Indian Constitution and Shariah and should uphold the dignity of Muslims,”[/color] he said.



Qureishi ignored another query regarding the support extended by Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav on this issue. “The AIMPLB is a non-political body and does not take into account any such statements. Our domain is limited to social issues and [color="#FF0000"]Shariah[/color],” he said.



Qureishi, however, decried the recent incident involving New Delhi’s Shahi Imam Sayyed Ahmed Bukhari wherein he reportedly instigated his supporters to assault a scribe. “No one has the right to assault anyone and we condemn such incidents. However, as Imam Bukhari is not a member of the AIMPLB, we did not discuss this issue,” he remarked.



Earlier, the AIMPLB executive committee meeting, chaired by its president and rector of Nadwatul Uloom, started at 11 am in Lucknow on Saturday. Heavy police bandobast was made outside the Islamic seminary by the district administration. No journalist was allowed inside the meeting hall.


Ayodhya - Guest - 10-17-2010

[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='17 October 2010 - 05:30 AM' timestamp='1287273156' post='108902']

IMHO, the Supreme court will refuse to hear the appeal, that is the most likely scenario

[/quote]

In India, NO. Anyone can buy these judges, Congress will pay them to do work.

Ayodhya - G.Subramaniam - 10-21-2010

From milligazette



We will never accept second class citizenship

By Zafarul-Islam Khan, The Milli Gazette

Published Online: Oct 20, 2010

Print Issue: 16-31 October 2010



The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has grossly overstepped its limits proving what we knew all-along that some people were more equal than others even in the eyes of law in this secular and democratic country. What was de facto until yesterday is de jure today. The court was supposed to basically decide the title suit of the disputed land. It did so but relying not on evidence and history but on aastha, faith, and said so unabashedly.



This verdict has smashed our trust in the Indian judiciary. It reveals it as a Hindu and politicised system, not one strictly bound by law and constitution. The verdict has left the Babri issue an open wound for all time to come and any temple built on the site by this sleight of hand will always be seen by us, Indian Muslims, as a monument of injustice and unfairness.



I have been proud of our judiciary and have been saying so openly to the whole world. We considered it a safety valve for the country’s myriad problems and one reason why the Indian Muslim was so law-abiding and peaceful. Now that trust stands smashed and shattered.



Babri was never a land ownership issue. It is a ploy of the majority community fanatics whose plan is to marginalise the minorities, especially Muslims, to force them to accept the status of second class citizens in their own country. Until that aim is fulfilled, they will keep finding one issue after another. These fanatics have a very long list of monuments including Taj Mahal and Delhi's Jama Masjid, which they claim either stand on the sites of "razed" Hindu temples or are "Hindu" monuments whose names were changed by Muslim rulers (Taj Mahal, they claim was Tejo Mahlaya). Pre-British historical records, including the books written by Hindus themselves have no such indication. The Hindutva list is very elastic and includes anything from three to three thousand monuments, mainly mosques. The idea is to perpetually keep Muslims occupied in mandir-masjid issues, polarise the Hindu voters in favour of the BJP and show the Muslims their place as second class citizens in their own country. The example of one of the first three mosques demanded by Hindutva zealots shows that they will not be content with any compromise short of complete surrender to their dictates. Under a mutual settlement overseen by the local court and district authorities, Muslims of Mathura had handed over about half of the land of the Mathura Eidgah (a masjid) in October 1968 to a trust headed by Hari Dalmia, head of the VHP. The matter was closed and a magnificent temple was built on the land given by the Muslims while their dilapidated mosque does not even have a proper approach. Yet, despite that solemn agreement, they are now demanding the other half of the site on which the actual Eidgah stands today. Let the fanatics know we are equals, we will never accept to live as second class citizens.

Ayodhya - Guest - 10-26-2010

[size="5"]FAITH AND LAW AS BASIS IN AYODHYA JUDGMENT[/size]

October 26, 2010 by janamejayan



[size="4"]SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY[/size]

[The author is a former Union Law Minister and also the Convenor of the Legal and Parliamentary Cells of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha].



True and devout Hindus believe that Bhagvan Sri Rama was born in Ayodhya, the then capital of a flourishing kingdom of the Suryavamsa dynasty. Rama is venerated as Maryada Purushottam, and worshipped by Hindus. Regarded as an avatar of Vishnu, Sri Rama was also the first truly national king of India, supra region, varna, and jati. That is why even poet Iqbal called him ‘Imam-e-Hind’.

The exact spot of the palace where Rama was born has been and remains firmly identified in the Hindu mind, and is held as sacred. This is the very area where stood from 1528 till December 6, 1992 a structure that came to be known as Babri Masjid, put up in 1528 by Babar’s commander Mir Baqi.



In fact, Baqi was a Shia Muslim, and hence he intended it to be a place for Shias to read namaz. Today, interestingly, the Shia clerics have made it clear to Hindu organizations that they would agree to have the site restored as a Ramjanmabhoomi. It is the Sunni Wakf Board, which entered the legal dispute as late as 1961, that has been litigating in the court claiming the title to the land on which the structure once stood.



This claim framed as Issue No.20 in Suit No.4 [filed by the Sunni Wakf Board against Gopal Singh Visharad] has now been rejected by all three judges of the said Ayodhya Dispute Bench. The issue was framed as follows:



Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the building was constructed by Mir Baqi who was a Shia Muslim.

Whether the Mutwalli of the mosque not having joined in the suit, the said suit is not maintainable for relief of possession of the disputed structure [a “structure” since it cannot be strictly called a mosque by Sunni edicts-- because it did not have the mandatory minarets and wazu (water pool)].



All three Judges held that the Sunni Waqf Board has no locus standi and that their Suit for title and possession is not maintainable and thus stood dismissed. As far as the successor and descendant Mutwalli of today, also a Shia, is concerned, he lives in Ayodhya and wants to build a masjid across the Saryu river thus vacating the 67 acres of the Ramjanma bhoomi for a Ram temple. The Sunni Muslims are therefore sheer interlopers in this dispute.



That a Ram temple existed and or that there is a sacred spot known as Ramjanmabhoomi, is attested by many sources.



In Skanda Purana [Chapter X, Vaishnav Khand] the site is vivdly described. Valmiki Ramayana also describes beautifully. Less than two decades before Mir Baqi carried out the horrible demolition of the Ram Temple, Guru Nanak had visited the Ramjanmabhoomi and had darshan of Ramlala in the mandir at the spot.



There are many commentaries on this visit which are a part of the Sikh scriptures. Guru Nanak himself records in 1521 the barbarity of Babar’s invasions [in Guru Granth Sahib at p.418]. In Akbar’s time, Abul Fazal wrote the Ain-i-Akbari in which he describes Ayodhya’s fame as the place of “Ram Chandra’s residence who in Treta age combined spiritual supremacy and Kingship” [Tranlated by Col. H.S. Jarrett and published in Kolkata in 1891].



In Chapter X of the Report of the Archeological Survey of India, NW., and Oudh (1889) it is mentioned (p.67) that Babri Mosque “was built in AD 1528 by Mir Khan on the very spot where the old temple of Janmasthan of Ram Chandra was standing.”



Hindus have throughout foreign occupation of India have deeply held as sacred that exact spot where the Babri Masjid once stood, as is recorded in many official and judicial proceedings. In 1885, for example, Mahant Raghubar Das in a Suit No 61/280 of 1885 filed in the Court of the Faizabad Sub-Judge against the Secretary of State for India (who was based in London), prayed for permission to build a temple on the chabutra outside the mosque. His suit was dismissed on March 18, 1886.



However, in his Order the Sub-Judge, an Englishman, however stated: “ It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance.” Since the English as policy never sought to disturb the social status quo in India as evidenced, for example, on the ‘Sati’ question, the Judge took the easy way out and dismissed the Suit.



It is now well established by GPRS- directed excavations done under the Allahabad High Court direction and the subsequent monitoring of, and verification by the ASI in 2002-03 through excavations, that a large temple did exist below where that Babri Masjid structure once stood. Inscriptions found there also describe it as a temple of Vishnu Hari who had killed the demon king Dasanan [Ravana].



The Sunni Wakf Board does not accept these findings as meaning anything. They question how the Judges could have held that faith was more important in deciding the issues than proven facts. Now the All India Muslim Law Board[AIMLB] has decided to enter as an impleaded party in appeal in the Supreme Court to challenge this basis of the High Court judgment. But ironically, AIMLB’s own basis is in safeguarding the Sharia law, which is faith based and not proven fact basis.



It does not however matter if all this was indeed so or not, since the law as it prevails today i.e., under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code[IPC], faith in the sacredness of the site is prescribed as follows: “Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” The offence under Section 295 IPC is cognizable and non-bailable, as well as non-compoundable.



That is, an offence under criminal law is committed if a body of persons hold something as sacred. It does not matter if the majority does or does not hold so. Nor can a court decide what is sacred and what is not. It can recognize that which is held sacred and no more. Only a body of persons can identify what is sacred. This was my argument in the Supreme Court while successfully blocking the destruction of the Rama Setu, held sacred by a billion Hindus. The Supreme Court accepted this argument.



This is the position in international law and which was argued skillfully by Senior Counsel G. Rajagopalan on behalf the Hindus before the Lucknow Bench. The Judges took note of his arguments and referred to it in their judgments. In particular, Justice Agarwal rhetorical asks as to how do we know that Christ was born in a particular spot in Bethlehem in Israel? Because four centuries after Christ’s resurrection, the mother of King Constantine of the Roman Empire dreamt that Christ was born there. This has been accepted on faith by all Christians today and that particular spot is regarded by all Christians as the birthplace of Christ.



Similarly, Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock in Israel is held sacred by Muslims because some Imams dreamt that Prophet Mohammed came on a horse there and ascended to heaven. This has now become the universal Islamic faith today, and thus Muslim demand from the Israelis that Al Aqsa be handed to them on that basis.



Recently, the Prime Minister, Dr. Man Mohan Singh asked the UNESCO to grant Heritage status to Manjuli island on the river Brahmaputra because it is held sacred by the people who believe that Lord Krishna and his Gopis danced there.



Even the atheistic DMK pleaded in the Supreme Court that the Madurai-based annual Jallikattu festival ban imposed by the Animal Welfare Board on ground of cruelty to bulls that are given a free run in a village while people taunt and poke at these bulls, resulting in injury and pain to the animals. The DMK-led state government’s counsel argued that banning would be taken by the Tamil masses that the Gods were angry with the people and that pestilence would follow. Thus, subject to some restrictions, the Supreme Court lifted the ban!



Hence, it has never been unusual for the Courts to regard faith as a basis for judicial decisions contrary to the ill-informed criticism on this score of the Ayodhya dispute judgment.



The fundamental question on the Ayodhya dispute before us is thus this: Can a temple and a masjid be considered on par as far as sacredness is concerned ? Relying on two important court judgments that hold the field today, the answer is: no, they are not ! A masjid is not an essential part of Islam, according to a majority judgment of a Constitution Bench of India’s Supreme Court.



In the famous Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India case[reported in (1994) 6 SCC 376], the Supreme Court had observed: “ It has been contended that a mosque enjoys a particular position in Muslim law and once a mosque is established and prayers are offered in such a mosque, the same remains for all time to come a property of Allah…and any person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in such a mosque, and even if the structure is demolished, the place remains the same where namaz can be offered .”[para 80].



The Constitution Bench rebutted this contention. The Bench stated: “ The correct position may be summarized thus. Under Mohammed law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession…A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India.”[para 82].



Thus what was wrong in the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 was that it was unauthorized by law and hence a criminal offence. Otherwise any Government, if it decides to do so in the interest of public order, public health and morality [Article 25 of the Constitution], deprive the Muslims of the Babri or any other Masjid, it is within law.



This is the position in Islamic law as well since in Saudi Arabia the authorities demolish mosque to lay roads. Even the mosque where Islam’s Prophet Mohammed used to pray was demolished for a road to pass through !



But then what of a temple? Is it in the same category as the mosque in our jurisprudence? When I was Union Law and Justice Minister, this question of the status of a temple–even if in ruins or without worship–had come up before me in November 1990 in a case of a smuggled out bronze Nataraja statue which was up for sale in London.



The Government of India when Rajiv Gandhi was PM had decided to file a case in the London trial court in 1986 for recovery. The Nataraja statue had by then traced to a temple in ruins in Pathur, Thanjavur district. A farmer named Ramamoorthi had unearthed it 1976 while digging mud with a spade near his hut.



When the news spread, touts of an antique dealer by name Ahmed Hussein reached him and paid a small sum and smuggled it out to London, where in 1982 they sold it to Bumper Development Corporation Private Limited. In turn the said Corporation sent it to the British Museum for appraisal and possible purchase. By then the Government of India was onto it and asked the UK government to take action.



The Nataraja idol was seized by London Metropolitan Police, and thus the Corporation sued the Police in court for recovery but lost the case. An appeal was filed in the Queens Bench [our High Court level] which was dismissed on April, 17 1989. So, the Bumper Corporation went to the House of Lords [our Supreme Court level]. On February 13, 1991 when I was Law Minister, the judgment came which is truly landmark dismissing Bumper’s final appeal [ see (1991) 4 All ER 638].



The UK Apex Court upheld the Indian government’s position that because of the prana prathista puja a temple is owned by the deity, in this case Lord Shiva, and any Hindu can litigate on behalf of the deity as a defacto trustee. The Bench consisting of Justices Purchas, Nourse and Leggatt concluded : “We therefore hold that the temple is acceptable as party to these proceedings and that it is as such entitled to sue for the recovery of the Nataraja.” [page 648 para g].



Thus even if a temple is in ruins as was in this case, or as the ASI had found in Ramjanmabhoomi, a destroyed Ram Temple, any Hindu can sue on behalf of Lord Rama in court for recovery!



This is a re-affirmation of a 1925 Privy Council judgment in P.N. Mullick vs. P.K. Mullick case, wherein it was held that a Hindu idol in a temple “has a judicial status with a power of suing and being sued.”



No such ruling exists for a mosque for the simple reason that a mosque is just a facilitation centre for reading namaz, and has no essentiality for Islam religion. It can be demolished and/or shifted as any building can and are being so in Arab countries and Pakistan.



That is, the Ram Temple on Ramjanmabhoomi has a superior claim to the site than any mosque. This the fundamental truth in the Ayodhya dispute. This truth will apply to Kashi Vishvanath and Brindavan temples and other similarly placed sites as well.



Hindus can accept, if the Muslims community agrees, the shifting or the building of a new masjid to some other site beyond the Saryu River. It is important to note that as of now there are eight mosques in Ayodhya which the ASI has taken over since these had no one coming there to read namaz. Hence what use will another mosque in the Ramjanmabhoomi area be? The response for the proposal to build a mosque on the Ramjanmabhoomi site of 67 acres should be a resounding No !



If however the Muslim hardline organizations want to re-build the Babri Masjid in the Ramjanmabhoomi area, then the Hindus will have to resist and if necessary launch a struggle. A temple cannot be equated to a mosque. Therefore, as with the Shah Bano case precedent, Government should honour its affidavit or be forced by agitation, if necessary, to bring an amendment to the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act of 1993 to bar constructing any structure other than those connected with a temple for Sri Rama.



This response would also be consistent with the assurance given by the Narasimha Rao government on a sworn affidavit before the Supreme Court in 1994, and which is recorded in the Ismail Faruqui judgment [cited above; refer page 427]. The Solicitor General of India stated on oath that if “a Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished structure, the Government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community.”



That will be the fit atonement of the entire people of our nation for tacitly tolerating for so long the demolition of Ram Temple on the orders of Babur of Afghanistan. Babri, after whom the mosque is named, incidentally was a 9 year boy in Kabul who was a “special “ intimate of Babur.



If such an amendment is not brought forth, Hindus should wage a fierce democratic struggle for the next 3 ½ years to force the government to do so or weld a solid Hindu vote so that in the next General Election a Hindu Front supported by the Hindu Dharmacharyas, VHP and RSS can obtain an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha and foster Hindu renaissance in the country as Swami Vivekananda in 1893, Sri Aurobindo in 1909, and Swami

Chandrashekarendra Sarasvati in 1947 had wanted.



http://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/faith-and-law-as-basis-in-ayodhya-judgment/