Ayodhya

[Guest]

abdul,

though i admit that its hard for some hindu to believe that today we are living in 2003 and aryan's time is over.but its their wish they want to go back into time. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

It is our country too. Please try to remember that

Of course . How can we forget. Unfortunately very few Indian Muslims remember that Hindus were once(and still are) citizens of Afghanistan, Pakistan, B'Desh. The late Ali Mian(Maulana syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi) of Lucknow, wrote to the Emir of Kuwait not to allow the building of Gurudwaras in Kuwait. I presume that was a temporary lapse of memory that he was an Indian.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/ch1.html"]http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/ch1.html[/url]



Arnold Toynbee, one of the great historians of the present century, while delivering the Azad Memorial Lecture, said:



“As I have been speaking, some vivid visual memories have been flashing up in my mind’s eye. One of these is a mental picture of the principal square in the Polish City of Warsaw some time in the late nineteen twenties. In the course of the first Russian occupation of Warsaw (1614-1915) the Russians had built an Eastern Orthodox Christian Cathedral on this central spot in the city that had been the capital of the once independent Roman Catholic Christian country, Poland. The Russians had done this to give the Poles a continuous ocular demonstration that the Russians were now their masters. After the reestablishment of Poland’s independence in 1918, the Poles had pulled this cathedral down. The demolition had been completed just before the date of my visit. I do not greatly blame the Polish Government for having pulled down that Russian Church. The purpose for which the Russians had built it had been not religious but political, and the Purpose had also been intentionally offensive. On the other hand, I do greatly praise the Indian Government for not having pulled down Aurangzeb’s Mosques: I am thinking particularly of two that overlook the ghats at Benares, and of one that crowns Krishna’s hill at Mathura.





“Aurangzeb’s purpose in building those three Mosques was the same intentionally offensive political purpose that moved the, Russians to build their Orthodox Cathedral in the city centre at Warsaw. Those three Mosques were intended to signify that an Islamic Government was reigning supreme, even over Hinduism’s holiest of holy places. I must say that Aurangzeb had a veritable genius for picking out provocative sites. Aurangzeb and Philip II of Spain are a pair. They are incarnations of the gloomily fanatical vein in the Christian- Muslim-Jewish family of religions. Aurangzeb - a poor wretched misguided bad man spent a lifetime of hard labour in raising massive monuments to his own discredit. Perhaps the Poles were really kinder in destroying the Russians self-discrediting monuments in Warsaw than you have been in sparing Aurangzeb’s Mosques. Anyway, it is Aurangzeb, and not the Hindu holy ground on which his Mosques are planted, that suffers from their very conspicuous presence...





“Aurangzeb’s Mosques are not outstandingly beautiful works of Indian Muslim architecture. But the standard of all Moghal works is high. I have noticed the loving care with which the Indian archaeological service looks after such world-famous masterpieces as the Taj Mahal, and the forts at Agra and here in Shahjehanabad (Delhi). Not only the Islamic world but the whole world ought to feel grateful to India for this. But the careful preservation of public monuments is perhaps not so meritorious when these are supremely beautiful, as it is when they do not have this intrinsic appeal. The British rulers of India followed their Muslim predecessor’s practice of perpetuating the memory of their fleeting presence by leaving monuments behind them. Unfortunately for the British, the style of their epoch in India was no longer the Moghal’s, it was the Victorian Gothic. If any of my countrymen still had a say in determining the policy of the Indian Ministry of Public Works, I suspect that they might press for the demolition of some of’ these Philistini reminders of the British phase in the history of India. But not so the Indian authorities. They are, so far as I know, being as tender to these British monstrosities as they are to the Taj.” (One World and India, compiled by National Book Trust, pp. 59-61).



So the construction of mosques on Hindu holy sites pained even a scholar like Toynbee. He would not object if the Hindus had removed these political insults as the Poles had removed the Russian insult.

[acharya]

Here are some key dates in the history of Ayodhya.



1528

Mughal Emperor Babar's nobles destroy a Rama temple and construct Babri mosque on it in Ayodhya, the birth place of Lord Rama.



1859

British colonial rulers annexe mosque site and create separate Muslim and Hindu places of worship, building a wall to put an end to rising tension

between followers of the faiths.



1885

The first case was filed in 1885 by Raghubar Das, mahant of the Ram Janmasthan, seeking permission to build a temple on the site.



1949

Government proclaims site a disputed area and locks gates to the mosque after Muslims claim Hindu faithful broke in and installed idols of Lord Rama.



1950

The second case was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad in January 1950 seeking permission for worship.

The third legal battle for the contentious piece of land in Ayodhya began when Ramchandra Paramhans filed a suit on December 5, 1950, seeking permission to

worship without hindrance the deities at Ram Janambhoomi. The civil judge of Faizabad combined both the petitions on February 1, 1951.



1961

Ansari filed a suit on December 16, 1961, under the banner of Sunni Central Boards of Waqfs, seeking delivery of the mosque and the

removal of the idols. Though the legal war of attrition between Ansari and Paramhans has now been going on for more than four decades, off the battlefield, they

are the best of friends.



1983

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) launches a campaign to build a temple on the disputed site.



1984

Committee is set up to "liberate" Rama's birthplace and build temple. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Lal Krishna Advani, assumes leadership

of campaign.



1986

Lower court judge orders gates of the disputed site opened to allow Hindus to worship there. (1985: Rajiv Gandhi had to appease Muslims by overturning Supreme Court decision on Shah Bano alimony case. Muslims took processions against SC ruling in 1985. The 1985 ruling in the case of Shah Bano Begum v. Mohd Ahmed Khan precipitated a storm of debate about the existence and future of personal laws in India. As is well known, this judgment found that Muslim men had to pay support to their divorced wives in spite of the fact that this was not traditionally required according to Muslim personal law as it had been interpreted in India. The Muslim outcry against this ruling was overwhelming, forcing the government, which had originally supported the Supreme Court's ruling, to overturn it with new legislation reimplementing the more conservative interpretation of the personal law. Some even blame this ruling and the political struggles which followed it for the resurgence of communal passions and politics during the last decade. Curiously, however, the Supreme Court had already decided that Muslim men must pay maintenance to their divorced wives in spite of their personal law in several cases prior to Shah Bano (Bai Tahira, Fuzlunbi). What made the Shah Bano opinion so threatening to the Muslim community? This decision led to a controversy and in order to dilute the judgment in the Shah Bano case, the Muslim Women's Bill, later to become the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was passed by Rajiv Gandhi's Parliament. Women's organisations are critical of the Act. They are opposed to it primarily because it denies Muslim women the option of exercising their rights under the provisions of secular legislation, which the CrPC is. Hasina Hashia, member of the AIMPLB and an associate professor in Jamia Millia Islamia university, is categorical that Muslim women are not entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period and that Section 125 CrPC cannot apply to them. [url="http://www.flonnet.com/fl1814/18140890.htm;"]http://www.flonnet.com/fl1814/18140890.htm;[/url] [url="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/3499/act17.htm;"]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/3499/act17.htm;[/url] [url="http://www.wluml.org/english/publications/dossiers/dossier20/indianislamandreform.htm)"]http://www.wluml.org/english/publications/...mandreform.htm)[/url]



1989

Congress government, under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, allows first foundation stone to be laid for construction of a Hindu temple near the mosque.

Hundreds killed in rioting by Muslims.



1989

The last case was filed in July 1989 by retired high court judge D N Agarwal claiming ownership of the disputed land. In July 1989, the Allahabad

high court clubbed all five suits (1885, 1950, 1950, 1961, 1989) into one and ruled that a three-judge bench would hear the combined suit and

further, that until verdict was given, status quo had to be maintained.



1990

Advani, then BJP president, begins Rath Yatra to win support for building temple. (The Then Prime MinisterVP Singh implented old Mandal Commision report to get the votes of backwardr tribes/castes by splitting Hindu tribes and religions as response to Devilal's waiver of loans to agriculturists. Mandal commission report implementation led to riots and strikes and suicides by young students that belonged to the tribes and castes classified as advanced. To stop this restlessnes and death, Advani attempted to divert the attention of Hindu students from tribal distinctions to Ram temple.)



1992

Dispute reaches climax when the mosque is brought down using sledgehammers, crowbars and bare hands. Rioting erupts and some 3,000 people are

killed. (And thousnads of temples in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and India were destroyed and desecrated)



1994

Supreme Court rules status quo must be maintained at Ayodhya until lower court decides on clutch of title suits. Since 1950, at least five suits filed for

ownership of site by Hindu and Muslim groups with no ruling.



1998

BJP rides to political centre-stage on manifesto supporting building temple. To form coalition government with secular allies, BJP says it will abide by

court ruling.



1998

Supreme Courts makes government "statutory receiver" of undisputed land surrounding mosque site. Legal experts say this gives government obligation to

maintain status quo.



Jan 2002

Right wing parties, saying courts are taking too long, set a deadline of March 15 to start construction.



Feb 2002

Violence erupts in Gujarat after burning to death of 55 Hindu women and children in attack in Godhra on a train carrying Hindu activists from Ayodhya, a well

planned and supportred by Islamic Jihadis, to stop March 15 plan.



Mar 2002

NEW DELHI, MARCH 13: The Supreme Court today forbade any "religious activity’’ on the 67-acre acquired land in Ayodhya even after the Centre came

out in support of the ‘‘symbolic’’ puja proposed to be held there on March 15. (The Attorney General interpreted the law and gave his opinion to SC. The secularist NDA members said, " though

Sorabjee told us that it was his personal view and interpretation of thelaw, we made it clear that on such a sensitive issue, there was no room for a personal opinion. It has deeply hurt the PM and the NDA government’s secular image.

This indicates that to keep the secular image they would interpret the law accordngly to suit their needs to get the minority votes.)

Ayodhya, March 15: The ``mahant,'' who, on March 14, declared that he would ``kill'' himself if not allowed to perform the``puja'' on the acquired land, agreed to perform it outside the acquired land in Ram Kot Mohalla today. He would then proceed to the disputed site for a ``darshan'' at the makeshift Ram temple, he had declared. But, a few hours later, as the procession, permitted by the administration in violation of Section 144 of the Cr.PC, traversed the 500 metres from the ``karsevakpuram'' to the ``akhara,'' Paramhans fell in line with the administration's decision to end the procession and perform the ``puja'' and ``daan'' right there. The ``daan'' of the two Dholpur stone slabs was received not by the Faizabad Divisional Commissioner, A. K. Gupta, as announced earlier, but by Mr. Singh. The Leader of the Opposition, Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-Indian, launched a scathing attack on the Government in the Lok Sabha today, accusing it of ``betraying the hopes and expectation of the people and failing the nation,'' while Somnath Chatterjee of the CPI(M) of the state of Bengal supporting the Muslim stand wondered whether the country would survive as a secular nation, he said.``Secularism is dead as long as this Government is in power.'' He termed the Government's decision to send a member of the Prime Minister's Ayodhya cell to receive the ``shila'' from the VHP today a ``constitutionalsacrilege.''



Nitish Kumar Parmar, a Hindu and a nephew of sitting Congress MP from north Gujarat Pravin Rashtrapal, was stabbed to death in sensitive Shahpur locality of Ahmedabad, police said.



Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, the chief minister of the communist state of Bengal, admitted that the Indo-Bangla border was being used by Islamic terrorist outfits and smugglers and this was nothing new. It was not possible for the state government alone to prevent north Bengal being used by the insurgents as free corridor until and unless the borders were being protected properly by the BSF personnel, he said. The chief minister also said that a total of 30 persons have been arrested over the past two years in the state on charges of being operating as ISI agents. The culprits involved in the attack on the train at Godhra in Gujarat did not cross over to Bangladesh through Indo-Bangla border in West Bengal. However, the chief minister said, “we have completed around 70 per cent of the border roads. But fencing is far from complete.”

Hyderabad, March 15: After Friday prayers Muslims attacked police and ten people were stabbed in old city. (vaartha)



PTI [ SUNDAY, MARCH 17, 2002 12:29:16 PM ] ISLAMABAD: Over 800 militants, arrested following the ban on five jehadi groups imposed by President Pervez Musharraf on January 12, have been released under the newly formulated

conditional amnesty after the detainees signed an undertaking, promising not take part in extremist activities. The released activists belonged to the Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Sipah-e-Sehaba of Pakistan, (SSP), Sipah-e-Muhammad and Harkatul Mujahideen. Of the five outfits, Jaish and Lashkar were blamed by New Delhi for various terrorists attacks, including the one on December 13 on the Indian Parliament.

[Guest]

The Fate of the temples in Karachi, crossposted from Indian Culture(posted by Reggie). We never hear of the destruction that has been wrought on the temples in Pakistan.



Info on Hindu temples in Pakistan.



Note - marauding Islamic jehadis are now known as "colonialists."



[url="http://www.dawn.com/weekly/review/review8.htm"]http://www.dawn.com/weekly/review/review8.htm[/url]

The Hindu community, the largest of Pakistan's minorities, is quite proud of its history and religion. They have made their presence felt in trade, education and the arts. Hindus in Karachi comprise a fragile number of around 300,000. These include around 80,000 caste Hindus and around 200,000 scheduled castes.Hindus in Karachi belong mostly to the Rajput and Gujarati communities.



Though the Hindu population is scattered in and around the old city areas of Karachi, its largest presence is felt around the Swami Narayan temple, where around 5,000 people reside. The temple is said to be 150 years old and probably one that was built with a proper residential plan.



Temples in Karachi have a history dating back to the pre-partition era. There are even some temples that boast of their existence from the 14th and 15th century. It is then tragic to note that history has been unkind to them as today they lie in shambles.



Many structures have periodically been targeted by fanatics; they have been ransacked, burnt and severely damaged. The community says mistrust between Hindus and Muslims intensified during the days before and after partition. The Hindu community laments that it has not been treated with the equality that was promised to them by the Father of the Nation. Nonetheless they find solace in their prayers at their places of worship.



The most well-known temples in service these days in Karachi are Swami Narayan, Mahaveer Hanuman, Shree Ratneswar Mahadev, and a few others, including the one underneath the Native Jetty bridge.



According to a survey there are at least a dozen more temples that have nearly disappeared either due to migration of Hindus from those areas, or due to encroachments as a result of over-construction in those localities. Among these temples is the famous case of the 200-year-old Shri Punch Mukhi Hanuman Mandir, which was encroached upon in connivance with KMC officials. Even today, a few outstanding but abandoned temples can be seen in the outskirts of Karachi, in Malir, Chowkandi, Keamari, and the old city pockets of Lyari.







Apart from Swami Narayan temple on M. A. Jinnah Road, one can also see great activity in the courtyard of Shree Ratneswar Mahadev temple at Kothari Parade. People recall the good old days when the sea used to touch the Shree Ratneswar temple in Clifton. Its glorious history dates back to some 1,200 years when the colonialists were mesmerized by its beauty on the shores of the Arabian Sea

[Guest]

Mr. Abdul,



You are right, demolition of a Mosque or any other religious structure is not waranted. The nation and its unity are its citizen's duty and to preserve peace and harmony is everybody's business.



To be frank, I never had heard about the Babri Structure and Ram Janam Bhomi issue. I became aware when Rajiv Gandhi opened the gates and Advani did his rath Yatra. I had always known that Jama Masjid was built upon a temple to degrade Hindus and their religion. To this day while climbing the steps leading to the magnificant Mosque are etched with figures of Hindu deities. For all these ages, the Muslim leaders never thought that maybe they needed to revamp the stairs as it could hurt their Hindu brothers' sentiments.



Mr. Abdul, Babri Structure was never a Mosque. I had the pleasure of asking many Muslims and clergies who have categorically stated that a Mosque that does not have facilities to do "vazoor" are not Mosques. But here we have sooo many claiming it to be a Mosque. How many Indian Muslims had any clue about this particular Mosque? Hardly any.



I do not wish to engage in a debate. Just like your beliefs cannot be questioned, my beliefs cannot be questioned as well. We must together seek a solution. Solution does require compromise and must be built upon truth and righteousness. These factors have diminished, thanks to self proclaimed leaders of Muslim community in India.



All evidence has proven that yes indeed a temple did exist. And that is the truth regardless of all ifs, buts, how, etc. It is logical for the land to be handed over to Hindus. Please recall that you will speak of law proclaiming all religious sites to be status quo. But this issue pre-dates the ruling thus not applicable.



Mr. Abdul, there are 3000 sites all over the country where temples were wrecked and Mosques built upon them. To do this, showed prejudice, bigotry and hatered by the culprits of humanity. But in this day and age why should we blame their actions to Muslims of today? Well why not?



Why shouldnt we blame this generation for the deeds of their past? Aren't Germans today reminded of their Nazis? Arent Americans reminded about Vietnam? Arent Russians reminded about evil Communism? What are you trying to say Mr. Abdul, that we should simply forget our history? Sorry sir, the Sword Of Islam was not very kind to us Hindus. Countless of my fore-fathers died in the holocaust that followed Islam in India. Please dont ask us to forget it.



You yourself should not forget either what the Muslim rule brought with it. It should be learned so it never happens again. It is the bitter truth and we should accept it and learn from it.



Of all the 3000 sities we Hindus asked our Muslim brothers to hand over the land so we could make our temple. We even said we will forget the rest 2999 sities. What was the response? "If we hand over Babri Masjid tomorrow it will be jama Masjid". Do you as a Indian Muslim seriously believe that? Where is the brotherhood?



I understand Mr. Abdul it is hard to explain the Hindu issue to your community, either a Fatwa will be placed or you will be un-heard if you are righteous on this issue. Mr. Abdul, problem does not lie with us Hindus, the problem lies with your community and their petty thinking. Its time that you forget Mohammed and Hadiths and follow the Quran.



Quran clearly states that you as a Muslim irrespective of which nation you are living in and in whatever community, your duty is for betterment of society and brotherhood, well then what is beneficial for us Indians today?



Solution is simple, hand over the land to Hindus and let them make their temple. If now they do insist on 2999 sites well I will support them. Why? Why not. If they are right and they have the evidence then law, and truth are with them.



Even today in US American Indians have rights to their culture, and land, so why not Hindus? Mr. Abdul, there wasn't a single protest when the first Mosque built by Mohammed was demolished by Saudi Royals for building a grand palace. And here we Hindus are seeking our Kabba.



I could go on Mr. Abdul, but I await your reply. Please keep in mind, just like Sharia does not require law neither does Hinduism and its beliefs. Faith is faith.



Gill

Jai Hind

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/ch2.html"]The Struggle in Three Phases[/url]



1.1 The Hindus have been waging unremitting struggle for centuries to repossess the birthplace of Sri Rama. It is indisputably clear that in the year 1528 Babur ordered his commander Mir Baqi to erect a mosque at Ayodhya to make the spot a “place of descent of angels”. It is the widely shared belief of Hindus that Mir Baqi established the mosque after demolishing the Temple of Sri Rama situated at the place of his birth known as Ramajanmabhoomi. Whether Mir Baqi did actually demolish the preexisting temple and thereafter constructed the mosque is a matter of evidence which is discussed separately. However, the chronology of Ramajanmabhoomi brings out the unremitting struggle of the Hindus to recapture their holy place. This struggle itself indicated their pre-masjid reverence for the site. The struggle was in three phases.





Firstly, by military expedition and war diplomacy, when barbaric aliens were ruling the country and there was no Rule of Law;





Secondly, by legal means, when the British established their model of Rule of Law (from 1885);





And thirdly, by mass movement from 1984, (alongwith legal steps) when Rule of Law became insensitive to their legitimate plea even under indigenous dispensation.





The ceaseless struggle to re-establish their rights and rebuild the temple at the Janmabhoomi implies their continued and persistent attachment to the site and such an attachment has no other explanation except that it was in continuation of an older tradition, namely a pre-Babar tradition, namely, their devotion to the place where Sri Rama was born. The chronology reveals that the Hindus never ceased claiming the site and brings out their relentless struggle to regain it.







The first Phase: military expedition and war diplomacy





2.1. There is clear and irrefutable historical proof available to establish that the Hindus had repeatedly attempted to recover the Janmabhoomi by military efforts and war diplomacy which were the only means available to fight the lawless alien rulers. There are unrecorded traditions of many military expeditions by the Hindus between 1528 and 1707 for repossessing the Janmabhoomi. For the present purpose the chronology is limited to the recorded history.





Battles for Ramajanmabhoomi in recorded history and war diplomatic efforts





2.2. The recorded history shows that at least from 1735 the Hindus had consistently at tempted to recapture the Janmasthan and re-establish the Rama temple as the following chronology establishes.





2.3. A document enclosed with a letter dated 12th August, 1855 from Wazid Ali Shah, the king of Oudh, to the British Resident Major James Outram, carrying the seal of the Qazi of Faizabad, in the year 1735 A.D., mentioned that a serious clash had taken place over the Masjid “built by the emperor of Delhi” (apparently a conflict of the kind that took place later in 1855) between Hindus and Muslims, during the time of Burhan-ul-Mulk Saadat Ali Khan, the first Nawab of Oudh (1707-1736) over the possession of this mosque (NAI, Foreign, Political Proceedings, 28th December, 1855, No.355, Enclosures No.5).





2.4. The Maratha documents show that one of the main objectives of Maratha operations and policy in North India was the liberation of the sacred cities of Ayodhya, Kashi and Prayag. In the year 1751, Maratha armies led by Malhar Rao Holkar, at the invitation of Safdarjang, the second Nawab of Oudh, defeated the Pathan forces in Doab. Immediately after his victory Malhar Rao Holkar requested Safdarjang to hand over Ayodhya, Kashi and Prayag to the Peshwa (A.L.Srivastava: The First Two Nawabs of Oudh).





2.5. Again, when, in 1756, the third Nawab Shujauddaula invited Maratha help against impending Afghan invasion, the Maratha agent at the Court of Oudh demanded the transfer of these three holy places including Ayodhya and the negotiations lingered on for more than a year on this one point. Ultimately, in July 1757, Shujauddaula agreed to transfer the holy cities of Ayodhya and Kashi to the Maratha leader Raghoba. But the transfer could not be implemented as Maratha armies got entangled in the conquest of the Punjab which ultimately led to the tragedy of Panipat (1761 A.D.).





2.6. But Peshwa Balaji Bajirao’s eagerness to acquire Ayodhya is reflected in one of his’ letters dated 23rd February, 1759 to Dattaji Scindia, his General in the North, wherein the Peshwa reminds Scindia that “Mansur Ali’s son (i.e. Shujauddaula) had promised to Dada (i.e. Raghoba) to cede Benares and Ayodhya and instructs him to take hold to those places alongwith Prayag (Cf. J.N. Sarkar: Fall of the Moghul Empire, Vol. II, Calcutta 1934, pp. 231-233).





2.7. Historians, Dr. A.L. Srivastava, Sir J.N. Sarkar, G.S. Sardesai and Dr. Hari Ram Gupta, who have studied this period of history very deeply, have concluded that “Had the Bhau (Sadashiv) emerged successful from Panipat, within a few years Kashi, Prayag and Ayodhya would have been emancipated” (Hari Ram Gupta: Marathas and Panipat, Chandigarh 1961, p.292).





2.8. In 1767, an Austrian Jesuite traveller, Joseph Tieffenthaler, found that in spite of the Mughal kings’ efforts to prevent them, the Hindus had re-occupied the courtyard, raised the Rama Chabootra thereon, and were worshipping and celebrating Ramanavami there as well as under the domed structure (History and Geography of India (in French) by Joseph Tieffenthaler P.253-54).





2.9. In 1854, a British scholar, Edward Thornton, recorded in his Gazetteer exactly the same situation as Tieffenthaler had found (Gazetteer of the territories under the Government of East India Company, pp-739-40).





2.10. In 1855, there was a big armed encounter in which nearly 300 Muslims under Shah Ghulam Hussain took possession of the Babri mosque and tried to fix doors on it. On protest from Hindus, armed clashes started. Muslims attacked Hanumangarhi, but were driven back with considerable loss. Then the Hindus counter-attacked, stormed the Janmabhoomi and killed 70 Muslims. Shah Ghulam Hussain jumped over the wall and fled (Hadiqai-Shahada by Mirza Jan, 1856, pp. 4-7). The Gazetteer of Faizabad District shows that the Hindus were in possession of the Ramajanmabhoomi at the time of the fight in 1855. It says: “When the Muslims mounted an attack in 1855, they took possession of the Ramjanmabhoomi and attacked the Hanuman Garhi, but were repulsed. The king’s army (Nawab Wajid Ali Shah’s army) stood by. The Hindus retook the Ramjanmabhoomi and the structure there.”





2.11. In 1856, the Muazzin of the Babri mosque admitted, in a petition before the British authorities, that the courtyard had been in possession of the Hindus for hundreds of years and that now they were interfering with the domed structure as well (Petition by Muhammed Asghar dated 30.11.1858 in Case No.884 to the British Government).





2.12. In 1934, serious Hindu-Muslim armed encounter occurred in and around the Babri mosque, occasioned by a cow-slaughter incident. Many people were killed and the structure seriously damaged. The damaged structure was repaired by the British Government which recovered the cost of the repair by a punitive fine on the Hindus (Sri Ramajanmabhoomi Historical and Legal Perspective, by Justice Deokinandan Agarwala: Cited in Ramjanmabhoomi/Babri Masjid: Historical Documents, legal opinions and judgement by The Bar Council of India Trust, pp. 5-6).





2.13. The above chronology establishes a vital truth, namely, that the Hindus have been relentlessly fighting to re-establish and keep their rights over the Janmasthan and that till 1855 they seem to have been in possession of it.





The Second Phase: Legal Battle for Ramajanmabhoomi





Even as military expeditions and war diplomatic efforts were continued by Hindus, not just from Ayodhya but from other parts of the country as well, after the British government and its judicial administration took shape and an element of Rule of Law was introduced in governance, the Hindus tried to invoke the law to re-establish their rights. The first such an effort was in the year 1885.





3.1. On 25th May, 1885 Mahant Raghubardas appealed to the Faizabad District Judge that an order be given for the construction of Temple on the Ramajanmabhoomi. On 18th March, 1886 the District Judge, an Englishman, passed the following order:



“I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the Masjid built by Emperor Babar stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west and south. It is clear of habitants. It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to agree with the grievances. All that can be done is to maintain the party in status quo. In such a case as the present one any innovation may cause more harm and derangement of order than any benefit”.



It is the only attempt prior to the incident of 1934 to re-possess the Janmabhoomi by legal means, and that failed not because the Hindu case lacked merits but for other extraneous reasons.







The Judiciary grants right of worship to the Hindus in the year 1950:





After the idol of Rama had appeared on the night of 22nd and 23rd December, 1949 inside the main building, which had remained locked since 1934, the judicial proceedings for re-possession of Rama Janmasthan recommenced.





3.2. On 29th December, 1949, the District Magistrate of Faizabad, Shri K.K. Nayar, appointed the then Municipal Chairman as the receiver of the property. Iron rods and doors were fixed around the sanctum sanctorum, but pooja was performed everyday.





3.3. On 16th January, 1950 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad and Paramahans Ramachandra Das filed two civil suits in the City Civil Court of Faizabad for injunction against removing the idol, and for pooja rights.





3.4. On 19th January, 1950 an interim injunction was granted. By an order dated March 3, 1951 this temporary injunction was confirmed and blanket restraint on order prohibiting the removal of the idol and upholding the Petitioner’s right to offer worship before the deity was granted. While confirming the injunction, the Civil Judge of Faizabad recorded:



“...at least from 1936 onwards the Muslims have neither used the site as a mosque nor offered prayers there and... the Hindus have been performing their pooja etc. on the disputed site.”









Allahabad High Court regrets delay and directs in the year 1955 that the cases be decided “forthwith”





3.5. A writ was filed against the above order 3 years later, in the year 1953. On 26th April, 1955 the unrestricted right of the Hindus was upheld by the High Court when disposing the writ petition. Significantly, the High Court stated:



“It is very desirable that a suit of this kind is decided as soon as possible and it is regretted that it remained undecided after four years. The delay appears to be principally due to the fact that the record of the proceedings in the trial court was summoned by this court in the year 1953 on the application of the present appellants; had that not been done, the suit would probably by now have been decided.





“...We however consider it extremely desirable that the suit should be disposed of at once and we accordingly direct that the record of proceedings is to he sent back to the lower court forthwith with a direction to the Learned Civil Judge to expedite the hearing.”









And yet the same case is pending even today





3.6. This was in the year 1955. At that time the High Court felt that had the appellants not appealed against the Order and the records had not been brought to the High Court, the matter would have been decided. The High Court could not tolerate the suit remaining undecided even by 1955, yet the very case remains undecided even today - 38 years after the Allahabad High Court had regretted that it was remaining undecided and felt constrained to direct it to be decided forthwith, and 43 years after the original suits were filed in the year 1950. Not only the above-mentioned two suits, but also two more suits which were filed in the year 1959 are still pending.







The Sunni Waqf Board enters the scene twelve years later, in 1961, by frivolous litigations





3.7. In December 1961, the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs filed a suit in the Civil Court of Faizabad. This was the only substantive litigation against the Hindus’ case on Ramajanmabhoomi. On this depended the entire chorus of judicial verdict as the solution. This suit was later consolidated with the three suits that had been filed in the year 1959 and were originally pending in the District Court. They were later transferred and all four suits are pending before the High Court. The Waqf Board suit was filed after the limitation period had ended in law after the 1949 event. This suit was from day-one a frivolous litigation whose only object was to delay the judicial determination of the issue.







The Mutawalli of the Babri structure, a Shia, wants the structure shifted and the Ramajanmabhoomi given to the Hindus





3.8. The Waqf Board Suit is void ab initio as, under the law, only Mutawalli of the Masjid is the authorised individual to initiate legal action. The Mutawalli of the Babri structure is a Muslim resident of a village, 10 miles from Ayodhya, and is a descendant of Mir Baqi. But he has declined to join the suit. The hereditary Mutawallis of the Babri Masjid have stated that the mosque was constructed by Mir Baqi and even today, his heir Mir Javvad Hasan is maintaining himself from the 40 acres of land situated in the village where Mir Baqi’s Mazaar is situated. They have demanded the transfer of the mosque to that place so that they could offer prayers therein and the Janmabhoomi site could peacefully revert to Hindus. The present Mutawalli is the same Mir Javvad Hasan whose right to Mutawalliship was recognised by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqfs vide report dated December 10, 1949 and office note dated November 25, 1948 sent by the Board to Mir Javvad Hasan. Being a Shia, Javvad Hasan did not care to reply to the Sunni Waqf Board.

[Guest]

Mr. Tovishal writes



"but it must be built because its a place of worship of a religion which we should respect as per GITA says,respect others too and we should make clear to muslims that hindus are not LIKE BABAR king.





Mr. Tovishal, Gita does not mention this at all. Gita clearly states Sanatan Dharam, all so-called religions, athiests, etc. can pray to any form any being any structure, eventually they are all sanatan dharmis and are done directly to Parmatama, Vishnu.



Gita no where states that we must respect all religions, there is no such concept. We respect because that is human nature and right thing to do.



As for Mosque even being built, why should we? Even after clear cut evidence, Muslims are still holding back. And yet we Hindus should show brotherhood? Yes we are not like Babar, we wont go around demolishing Masjids, but why should we make them either?



Gill

PS: Brotherhood, words or just Secular's Twisted Fantasy? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

[Guest]

A demolished temple underneath Babri structure



by Dr. R. Nagaswamy, Former Director of Archaeology, Tamil Nadu



Organiser, November 2, 2003



Under the orders of the Allahabad High Court, the excavation at the disputed site of Ayodhya to ascertain whether ther was any temple structure in the Babri structure area. The report has since been opened and the contents revealed (The HINDU, August 25, 2003). According to the report, a massive structure of 10th century, of stone and brick lies buried beneath the site in addition to a carved sculpture and motifs. A large number of pillar bases were found in the excavation conducted under the supervision of the Special Officer appointed by the court. The ASI in its first part of the report has expressed its opinion and the second carries technical data like drawings, sketches, etc.



Even as the excavation was under way, the contesting parties were giving contradictory views and reports. Predictably, the pro-Mosque party has instantaneously dubbed the present ASI report vague and self-contradictory. The High Court has given six weeks time for both the parties to give their opinion. As evident, both the parties were approaching the subject from a preconceived conclusion but as the Ayodhya issue is of national importance, it may be legitimate for non-committed scholars also to study the report in detail together with stratigraphic evidence and photographs of the sculpture and pillar bases.



No one need to doubt the report of the highly competent department like ASI but it would help public opinion from a neutral stand to understand the intricacies of the result. The ASI needs to facilitate this study by publishing immediately, the reports with drawings, photograp[hs, etc. for public assessment, with the approval of the Court. Assuming that the ASI opinion mentioned in the report is correct, a historic judgment in an earlier case, regarding the legal right of a ruined temple, delivered by the London High Court deserves attention. "As long as even a single slab belonging to the ancient ruined temple is found in the site, the temple continues to exist in the eye of law and has its right to claim its possession." It was with reference to an ancient Hindu temple that had been ruined and remained without worship for long.



The Appeal Court in London, presided over by three senior judges, to which the case was taken upheld this judgement. But the case taken to the Privy Council and the apex court also upheld the judgement. Thus, three foreign courts that command greatest respect in the world of judiciary held that the presence of even one slab in the site empowers the ancient temple to be treated as an existing entity in the eye of law, irrespective of whether the temple was in ruins or was not under worship. This decision of the London High Court was delivered hardly fifteen years ago when the then Congress Government headed by late Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister of India, who enthusiastically supported and got the case filed in the London High Court in the now famous London Nataraja case. The writer appeared in the case as an expert witness on behalf of the Government of India.



One of the Pivotal arguments in the case, advanced by the Indian Government was "once a temple, it remains always a temple". The history of the case is as follows: A group of bronze idols including a Nataraja, was found in a land behind a ruined Chola temple at Pattur, in Tanjore District. The idols were found by a labourer, who sold the Nataraja to an antique dealer. The image was smuggled out of India and was caught in London by the Scotland Yard Police. The Government of India filed a case in the London High COurt claiming the Nataraja as a property of the ruined temple.



Among the various legal points raised in the case, a few are relevant. What constitutes the Hindu temple? Is it the structure, or the space around it or the enshrined image? When the tmple has been ruined and worship ceased, whether it coule claim ownership? The court agreed that not only the building and the image but also the consecrated space around the religious building constitutes the temple. The temple ritual treatises mention various causes of ruin such as vegetation on the buildings, fire, floods, earthquakes and the like besides destruction by enemy during invasion. Having examined the ritual and historical position, the court came to the decision "so long as even one stone slab belonging to the ancient temple is found in the site, the temple continues to exist in the eye of law. Any ruined temple could be brought back to worship at any point of time by purificatory rites."



The ASI, which is aware of this judgement, may be expected to appraise the Allahabad High Court while submitting the opinion and further clarifications the opinion of other Archaeologists, who study the report from an objective angle may also be of assistance in this case. It would also help to dispel the view that the ASI report is "vague and contradictory" as calimed by the other side. Whatever be the case, one thing seems to be certain that the vexed question of this case seems to be nearing an end.



Temple or Tomb -- The CIrcular Structure Discovered at Ayodhya



A purvabhimukha (facing east), partly damaged, circular structure of burnt bricks has been recently excavated by ASI between the trenches E8 and F8 at Ayodhya (Vide the ASI Report 2002-2003).



The bricks used here are of two sizes 28 X 21 X 5.5 cm and 22 X 18 X 5 cm. The bonding material was mud mortar. On its eastern side. there is a rectangular opening, 1.32 m in length and 32.5 cm in width, which was the entrance of the structure. A calcrete block, measuring 70 X 27 X 17 cm. has also been found here, fixed as the doorsill.



An extremely important feature of this structure is the provision of a gargoyle (paranala) made in its northern wall. The ASI Report records that it is 0.04 m wide and 0.53 m long projecting 35 cm from the northern wall of the structure. It is 'V' shaped so that water may drop a little away from the wall.



The elevation suggests that this structure was built on a raised platform, viz. adhishthana. The gargoyle, or the drain, was provided on the norther side. The structure may be dated to 9th-10th century AD (The ASI carried out C-14 determination from this level and the calibrated date ranges between 900 AD and 1030 AD).



This was an independent miniature shrine. The architectural peculiarities suggest that, in all probability, it was a Shiva temple where a Sivalingam was in worship, for example, the gargoyle has been provided to drain out the milk and water offered in the abhisheka ceremony. Noticeable is the fact that gargoyle is given on the northern side as is prescribed in the Vastu texts.



It is amazing that, in spite of all these architectural features available in situ, of the Sultanate Period, Irfan Habib is calling it Muslim tomb. Nothing can be more absure than this identification because in India tombs were never built on a circular plan. It was either a square or octagonal in plan and there is not a single example of circular brick tomb.



Secondly, it is too small a structure for a tomb, from inside it is only 4.4 ft. square. Neither could it accommodate a grabe in its interior, nor a Qiblah-Mihrab on its western wall. Qiblah was an integral and essential part of tomb-structure during the Sultanate Period (1192-1526 AD) as is illustrated by numerous examples all over northern India. Thirdly, there is no trace of an arch required for sonstructing dome over the tomb. There are no nook shafts to bear them and no structural trace to suggest any lateral thrust of the mihrab. It may be noted that the sub-structure of the mihrab is built massively on the edges and the four corners, to counter the lateral thrust. One wonders, if it was a tomb without any arch or dome, and without even a grave.



Thus, on the one hand the dimensions of this structure are too small for a tomb and on the other the gagoyle was never used in tombs, while it was an integral feature of the sanctum of Siva temples to drain out the water poured on the Shivalinga. The gargoyle is there and to deny its existence is to cast aspersions not only on 25 excavatyors, both Hindus and Muslims, of the ASI, 2 judges, and 500 policemen but also on a dozen nominees of the concerned parties, who were constantly present during the excavations.



It may be mentioned in this connection that a similar brick temple, circular in plan of the 8th-9th century AD has been recently excavated by the writer at Govisana (Kashipur, Uttaranchal). It also has a similar gargoyle in the north and it has also a rectangular projection on the east.



Irfan Habib will do well, therefore, to substantiate his claim by citing a single example of a circular brick tomb of the Sultanate Period in India. Otherwise, his identification will remain bogus and completely rejected on academic grounds.

[Guest]

[quote name='Kaushal' date='Nov 5 2003, 03:13 AM']

It is our country too. Please try to remember that

Of course . How can we forget. Unfortunately very few Indian Muslims remember that Hindus were once(and still are) citizens of Afghanistan, Pakistan, B'Desh. The late Ali Mian(Maulana syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi) of Lucknow, wrote to the Emir of Kuwait not to allow the building of Gurudwaras in Kuwait. I presume that was a temporary lapse of memory that he was an Indian. [/quote]

<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />



BABAR's followers are still alive today in India. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

Hi Abdul,



[quote name='Abdul' date='Nov 4 2003, 10:57 AM']They only way out of this is to build a non-denominational structure on the site regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation. This will help the people of Ayodhya far more than a temple or masjid.[/quote]



I understand where you coming from, and must say I agree with you in principle.



I might have agreed with your resolution, for good, but it's not about you and me anymore. It's now an issue of 'izzat' (Abh yeh izzat ka sawal hain!) for the whole Hindu community. The IM community is challenging us on our own turf and we can't just sit & watch. Not acceptable at all!



For long we, Hindus, have been compromising on everything under the sun but now we are saying 'Enough is enough.' Learn to live with it! (Not you presonally!)

Also Muslims fear that if a temple is built there then many other masjids will be in danger as it will set a precedent. It will be easy for some group like Shiv Sena to claim some place or other is holy in some way and a mosque is there so lets go do a "Babri Masjid" on it.

Have you noticed the other side of the coin?



If we don't build a temple at this RJB then it sets another precedent. This will set in the idea that keep the pressure on the Hindus and they would let it off the hook because they can't play dirty.



Now we can't let this go this way. In Ayodhya, there has to be a temple, no ifs & buts anymore!

[Guest]

removed by postor

[Guest]

Of course . How can we forget. Unfortunately very few Indian Muslims remember that Hindus were once(and still are) citizens of Afghanistan, Pakistan, B'Desh. The late Ali Mian(Maulana syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi) of Lucknow, wrote to the Emir of Kuwait not to allow the building of Gurudwaras in Kuwait. I presume that was a temporary lapse of memory that he was an Indian.

There are just as many Hindus and Christians and others who are anti-Indian to the core. These exist even today in the literati. What happens in Pakistan, etc is not my concern I only care about India. If Hindus are persecuted elsewhere, then they can seek refuge in India, their ancestral homeland or do something to stand up for themselves in these other countries



Surely a man of your formidable intellect Kaushal, should realize this and see that being a Indian Muslim does not automatically make one a traitor?

[Guest]

Mr. Abdul, Babri Structure was never a Mosque. I had the pleasure of asking many Muslims and clergies who have categorically stated that a Mosque that does not have facilities to do "vazoor" are not Mosques. But here we have sooo many claiming it to be a Mosque. How many Indian Muslims had any clue about this particular Mosque? Hardly any.

I do not know much about this particular structure. Probably most IMs do not either. As I had said before, the problem is not with people, it is with the politics. Neither side wants to let go so we have to find a solution that is acceptable to both sides.

I do not wish to engage in a debate. Just like your beliefs cannot be questioned, my beliefs cannot be questioned as well. We must together seek a solution. Solution does require compromise and must be built upon truth and righteousness. These factors have diminished, thanks to self proclaimed leaders of Muslim community in India.

There should be a compromise wherever there is a conflict of interests because both Hindus and Muslims live here. We cannot kick you out and you cannot kick us out so we must manage our disputes in a civilized and mutually agreeable fashion. You are quite welcome to question my beliefs. Heavens knows I question them myself all the time. As I said before, I do not care if Ram was bornthere or not, if the Hindu community believes it to be so, then that is enough for me. If you ask Muslims to prove many things they will not be able to.

All evidence has proven that yes indeed a temple did exist. And that is the truth regardless of all ifs, buts, how, etc. It is logical for the land to be handed over to Hindus. Please recall that you will speak of law proclaiming all religious sites to be status quo. But this issue pre-dates the ruling thus not applicable.

It is not about law alone, but doing what is right and what is just. After reading a lot of what had been posted on this thread, I would tend to agree that a temple should be built on the site.

Mr. Abdul, there are 3000 sites all over the country where temples were wrecked and Mosques built upon them. To do this, showed prejudice, bigotry and hatered by the culprits of humanity. But in this day and age why should we blame their actions to Muslims of today? Well why not? Why shouldnt we blame this generation for the deeds of their past? Aren't Germans today reminded of their Nazis? Arent Americans reminded about Vietnam? Arent Russians reminded about evil Communism? What are you trying to say Mr. Abdul, that we should simply forget our history? Sorry sir, the Sword Of Islam was not very kind to us Hindus. Countless of my fore-fathers died in the holocaust that followed Islam in India. Please dont ask us to forget it. You yourself should not forget either what the Muslim rule brought with it. It should be learned so it never happens again. It is the bitter truth and we should accept it and learn from it.

There is no society in the world today that is innocent of atrocities against someone. The Muslims who invaded India were barbarians of the highest order and I hope all Indians become aware of what was done in the middle ages in the name of Islam. Hindus have suffered insufferably in hands of Muslims. I understand your anger and need to blame. I feel it too. My ancestors were most likely converted at the tip of a sword. My ancestors also suffered. I am not an arab or a Central Asian, I am an Indian like you are, just of a different belief. I did nothing to you or your ancestors. You cannot hold someone guilty for the sins of their fathers. There is also nothing to show my ancestors did anything wrong to yours. In anycase should I hold you responsible for anti-Muslim pogroms? Even if your father took part in murder of Muslims I would not hold you responsible. if we keep doing that, then it will never end and we will be unable to move on. Present day Americans and germans are not responsible for the sins of their previous generations either. I don't ask you to forget history. We must never forget, or we will be doomed to repeat. Only think we can do is seek justice. If this is not acheivable then we must forgive and move on after ensuring it can never be repeated. More than anyone, I accept the bloody history of Muslim rule in India. I knwo what Muslims are capable of. This is why I stated earlier I am more safe in a non-Muslim India than a Muslim Pakistan. One just has to look there to see what can happen. :thumbdown

Of all the 3000 sities we Hindus asked our Muslim brothers to hand over the land so we could make our temple. We even said we will forget the rest 2999 sities. What was the response? "If we hand over Babri Masjid tomorrow it will be jama Masjid". Do you as a Indian Muslim seriously believe that? Where is the brotherhood?

Personally I don't think it will happen. What I am telling you that many IMs are afraid that if we agree with this, tomorrow you will change your mind and start on other majids. How do you address this fear? The clergy have IMs under their thumb. The first thing to do is break this control. IMs like any Muslims are sheep who follow the shephard(Imams) and are hostage to their agendas.

I understand Mr. Abdul it is hard to explain the Hindu issue to your community, either a Fatwa will be placed or you will be un-heard if you are righteous on this issue.

I understand, or I am at least trying to understand the Hindu issue, but unfortunately the IM leaders do not care about the feelings of Hindus. They are trying to enrich themselves and do not even care about the muslim masses. The clergy knows that if the masses get educated and think for themselves support will fall away from the Imams. This is the problem. If the issue wasn't politicized no IM would even care.





[/QUOTE]Quran clearly states that you as a Muslim irrespective of which nation you are living in and in whatever community, your duty is for betterment of society and brotherhood, well then what is beneficial for us Indians today? Solution is simple, hand over the land to Hindus and let them make their temple. If now they do insist on 2999 sites well I will support them. Why? Why not. If they are right and they have the evidence then law, and truth are with them. Even today in US American Indians have rights to their culture, and land, so why not Hindus? Mr. Abdul, there wasn't a single protest when the first Mosque built by Mohammed was demolished by Saudi Royals for building a grand palace. And here we Hindus are seeking our Kabba. [QUOTE]



It is better all around if Hindus and Muslims come to a mutual agreement here. If it was my decision, I would say build the temple. You do not need to tell me about Koran. By stating the above you are reinforcing the fear of IMs that if a temple is built at Ayodhya, many other masjids will be at risk.



I am an Indian, Mr Gill, I do not care what happens anywhere else in the world, Saudi or America, unless it affects India or Indians. This may be a land of Hindus but it also land for many other faiths including Islam. by taking an extremist position we will not get anywhere

[Guest]

Kaushal - Deepan as I warned about 12 hours ago, I have edited the message. We discourage stereotyping of any ethnic or religious group and use of epithets



Jai Hind Mr. Abdul,



Indian Muslims are part of India, no doubt. Even though they are converts when their ancestors converted, they still have loyality towards the other Muslim countries.



Indian Muslims are asked to let go of their identity [of Hinduism]. Everyday they try hard to be different and relate to their Arab masters. Why I say this? In Indonesia met countless people who had Hindu names yet were and are Muslims. Yudishtar, name is Hindu but he was Muslim. He clearly stated that name is their identity, belief is belief.



The way Indian Muslim leaders and their community are behaving, just like Pakis who have no culture, history, or anything. Even their existence is depended on anti-India outlook.



You views about this matter are satifactory, atleast you see the truth, but temple is not the solution. Solution is for people like you to go to your community's grass roots, the common man, and educate them. Teach them.



As for your fears about more Masjids being the target, if 50 years since independence still has not eased the Indian Muslim's mind, or a Muslim President, then these people have the right to be scared. My advice, dont feel secure, go to Pakistan or Bangladesh or any other Muslim nations.



If you are expecting appeasing views, its too late, we Hindus [30%among 100% Hindus] are simply sick and tired. ...[edited]...



When BJP came to power there was huge outcry, oh Muslims are no longer safe etc. what happened? Nothing. Its a lame excuse that this sets the precedent of future mosques being targetted. There are laws. If they dont work, too bad its your and my system.



How shamefull, for 50 years or so I have seen only one Indian Muslim who has spoken about the nation and whats important for a common man, Abdul Kalam, other than that Indian Muslims are too busy potraying themselves as victims and outsiders....[edited]...



Mr. Abdul, "This may be a land of Hindus but it also land for many other faiths including Islam. by taking an extremist position we will not get anywhere"



I am not taking a strong position I am taking the position of right, god, Allah are with truth, always.



Good luck with your community Mr. Abdul and Jai Hind. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />



PS: Dr. something about "Dalits problem" I will engage with you soon, need to do some more research. Jai Bhavani <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

Deepan, I would request that you refrain from using objectionable language. You can make your point just as easily without the use of such language. And also we discourage generalizations about a community. Pl. refrain from generalizations. I would request that you edit your comments and language. If not i will have to edit it for you.

[Guest]

If Hindus are persecuted elsewhere, then they can seek refuge in India, their ancestral homeland or do something to stand up for themselves in these other countries

I hope you realize what you are saying. I could turn the tables on you and say exactly the same thing about IM, but I wont. I would never ask them to go seek refuge in another country. My aim as always is to work out the differences between the 2 communities

Surely a man of your formidable intellect Kaushal, should realize this and see that being a Indian Muslim does not automatically make one a traitor?

I am not sure whether my intellect is any more formidable than yours and even more important the extent of our intellects is not really relevant to the topic at hand, but that aside, where have i said that ?



Pl. read my post in the traitors topic



[url="http://india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=68"]http://india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=68[/url]



Posted: Oct 5 2003, 08:19 PM and then come back and tell me what you find objectionable about my views on traitors. One of my sentences in that post,

The charge of traitor is a very serious charge and should not be bandied about lightly.

In any event this topic is on Ayodhya. Let us stick to topic. The issue boils down to whether the Hindus canbuild a Ram temple on the Ram Janmasthan site. I whole heartedly support the building of an appropriate temple to the Maryada Purushottam.

[Guest]

[quote name='Kaushal' date='Nov 6 2003, 09:34 AM']



[/quote]

If Hindus are persecuted elsewhere, then they can seek refuge in India, their ancestral homeland or do something to stand up for themselves in these other countries

I hope you realize what you are saying. I could turn the tables on you and say exactly the same thing about IM, but I wont. I would never ask them to go seek refuge in another country. My aim as always is to work out the differences between the 2 communities

I agree and that is what I am saying. Stand up and deal with the issues and if you cannot, then leave. Same standards apply to IMs. We can either engage the Hindu community or leave. Right now we are doing the former.





As far as treason goes, You had pointed out that some Indian Muslims had acted against the interests of India and other Indians. While I do not dispute that, I wanted to make the point that plenty of Indian Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc have also done the same. Yet we do not doubt the loyalty of these communities as a whole. Only the loyalty of Muslims is in doubt as is apparent in some posts. This is very hurtful to those of us who have nothing but love for India. All traitors must be dealt with appropriately regardless of their religious affiliation.

In any event this topic is on Ayodhya. Let us stick to topic. The issue boils down to whether the Hindus canbuild a Ram temple on the Ram Janmasthan site. I whole heartedly support the building of an appropriate temple to the Maryada Purushottam.

After reading through the information you and Acharya posted, it is morally difficult to disagree.

[Guest]

All traitors must be dealt with appropriately regardless of their religious affiliation

I have no problem with this statement. Pl. feel free to post names of traitors (or those you think are traitors) in the traitors thread and why you think they are traitors. You may be surprised that we may be in agreement depending on the individual case.



In future , when you accuse me of making a statement, please quote the exact statement, that you object to. That way there is no confusion. I have never implied all IM are traitors because some are. Most are law abiding, but there are a few who have committed acts of widespread destructiion in India . see also my post in the Great Indian Political debate on the use of generalizations and inductive logic,



[url="http://india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5&st=0"]http://india-forum.com/forums/index.php?sh...howtopic=5&st=0[/url]

There are also faulty examples of inductive logic. For example to say that most terrorists in the world today are muslims and therefore most muslims are terrrorists is not correct. In the same way to say that(for example) most communists in India are Bengalis does not necessarily mean that most Bengalis are communists(even in the state of WB).

Posted: Sep 28 2003, 07:08 PM

[Guest]

[quote name='Abdul' date='Nov 6 2003, 05:48 AM']

What happens in Pakistan, etc is not my concern I only care about India. If Hindus are persecuted elsewhere, then they can seek refuge in India, their ancestral homeland or do something to stand up for themselves in these other countries

[/quote]

Abdul,

you said you don't care if hindus are killed in pakistan/bangladesh and they should stand up theirself there.

ok i agree with this then tell me why indian muslims care when india talks about teaching pakistan a lesson?...why they don't say "pakistan murdabad" after friday prayer?...why IM don't declare pakistan a ENEMY of india publicaly?....

why IM cry when Govt. of india takes action against organisations like SIMI?



I didn't saw any IM mullah saying lets invade pakistan and kill those terrorists.

and when VHP and bajarang-dal and shiv-sena prepared brigades to invade POK and kill jehadis , why muslims didn't supported them?



why don't you accept that IM has affection to countries pak and bangladesh?