Ayodhya

[Guest]

that good thing donot seems possible.Even if muslims gave the land to build temple the NGO and psedo-secularists(congress,CPI...etc.) will increase ho-halla that muslims was forced to do that.



as far as muslim mullah in india are concerned, first they need updation,they need to seperate themselves from their paki bhai.

[acharya]

Yadav comes clear on Babri, says not with BJP
Monday December 8 2003 00:00 IST
LUCKNOW: Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav has tried to make peace with the minority community, clarifying his stand over the Babri demolition affidavit, setting at rest fears that he had gone soft on the BJP.

``They are waiting for me to make one move that will allow them to cash in on the situation. They (read the BJP) want me to pave the way for a chargesheet so that they can resign and whip up communal passions across the country,'' Mulayam said in his reply to the clarification sought by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on the Ayodhya issue. These forces have just won elections in three states and I do not want to give them a chance in UP too. This time, I am keeping my eyes and ears open.'' The board has asked Yadav to file an affidavit on the review petition pending in the Supreme Court to ensure that Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani is not absolved of conspiracy charges in the Babri demolition case. It also demanded that a fresh notification be issued in the Ayodhya case and that the case be shifted from the Rae Bareli court back to Lucknow.

The chief minister, on his part, assured the Muslim community and the personal law board, in particular, that there was no change in his stand regarding the Babri issue but said he was treading cautiously this time because he did not wish to ``fall into the trap of communal forces''.

The chief minister, meanwhile, tried to counter charges of his leaning towards the BJP and said: ``There cannot be a bigger abuse when people say that I have joined hands with communal forces. Muslims should not doubt my intentions and my determination to fight against communal forces. I will never compromise on my principles _ whether my government runs for three months or three years.''

Addressing a seminar organised by the board on the issue on Sunday, senior member Syed Shahabuddin said Muslims expected the Mulayam Singh government to protect their interests on the Ayodhya issue. ``The government should take necessary legal steps to ensure the trial of L K Advani for conspiracy charges in the demolition case and we also expect this government to issue a fresh notification, bringing the Babri trial back to Lucknow from the Rae Bareli court.

The chief minister should also initiate steps to acquire the temple construction material until the final verdict in the case is given,'' he said.

Chairman Maulana Rabey Hasni Nadwi said the board was firm on its stand of accepting the court verdict on the Babri dispute. ``We are always open for talks but there should be no pre-conditions or even hidden conditions. A dangerous political trend is developing in the country and we want to preserve the feeling of brotherhood at all costs,'' he said.

``For the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, however, it is a tool for deriving political mileage for the BJP and dividing the country on religious lines. There is talk of bringing legislation for temple construction in Ayodhya but this is not as simple as it may seem. Muslims will definitely challenge any such move because we are committed to respecting the court verdict in the matter,'' Shahabuddin said.

[Guest]

Oh Bhai Ram Mandir bana ke nahin? How hard is it to make a temple when 300 million people demand it? Each carry a brick and some cement and just place it and whoom you have a temple. Who is crazzy enough to fire bullets on 300 million people? Mulayam? Maybe! <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

RSS-Jamait-i-Ulema hold first-ever meet over Ayodhya
New Delhi: As Lok Sabha polls draw nearer, back-channel activities have been launched to resolve the decades-old vexed Ayodhya tangle and other issues of communal discord with Sangh Parivar top brass holding first-ever talks with influential Muslim leadership in New Delhi in this connection.

RSS chief K S Sudarshan, its spokesman Ram Madhav and VHP President V H Dalmiya met Jamait-i-Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Mehmood Madani and its two other top leaders Niaz Farouqi and Maulana Nomani four days back.

Aiming to "clear misunderstandings" about each other, the Hindu-Muslim religious leadership discussed among other topics the Ayodhya issue and how to solve it, sources privy to the meeting told PTI.

During the three-hour long meeting, in which the conceptions of both sides were aired frankly, the leaders "agreed that Ayodhya issue should be resolved through talks," the sources said about the face-to-face, arranged by Founder-President of Universal Association for Spiritual Awareness N K Sharma.

"The talks were aimed at building mutual trust and understanding over contentious issues, including Ayodhya," the sources said, adding the leaders agreed to meet again.

Significantly, two days after the meeting, RSS spokesman Ram Madhav expressed hope on Friday that a "solution to Ayodhya was expected soon" as "talks are on."

When contacted about the development, Madhav confirmed that the meeting had taken place and said it was aimed at "building understanding" between the two communities.

Although he admitted that the Ayodhya issue "came up for discussion" at the meeting, Madhav said RSS was not involved in talks over this issue and that it was being handled by VHP.

He said he had the feedback that VHP was holding talks with Muslim groups and these were progressing "well" and cited this as the reason for his optimism about an early negotiated resolution of the dispute.

To a question, the RSS spokesman said the government may also be involved in such talks.

Maulana Madani, when asked about the meeting, said it had a pre-decided agenda but various issues came up during "detailed and frank" discussions.

"There are a lot of misunderstandings among Hindus and Muslims about each other. The meeting deliberated upon ending these differences between the communities in national interest," he said.

<b>Pointing to the government's aim of making the country a developed nation by 2020, the Jamait-Ulema-e-Hind chief said the communities needed to end their petty differences if the national goal was to be achieved</b>.

When asked about the Ayodhya issue, he said the meeting did not "concentrate" on it but added that there was no issue which could not be resolved through talks.

[Guest]

<b>Temple tangle: RSS backs Muslim body </b>
Hemendra Singh Bartwal
New Delhi, February 14

With an eye on an early resolution of the Ayodhya issue through a mutually acceptable settlement, the RSS has intensified efforts to promote Hindu-Muslim goodwill. The move is also linked to the BJP's prospects in the coming elections.

The RSS’s latest move is to promote an organisation of ‘liberal’ Muslims, the Rashtrawadi Muslim Andolan. The organisation is expected to work towards bringing like-minded members of the minority community closer to Hindus and influence them in favour of permitting the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site.

At the two-day meeting of this body, which began here on Thursday, RSS chief KS Sudarshan urged Indian Muslims to adopt a "nationalistic" outlook by taking pride in their land of birth. He is also said to have assured the over 150 delegates that the RSS would fully support all attempts to bring the Muslim community into the national mainstream.

Some of them reportedly urged him to open the Sangh's daily 'shakhas' to Muslims, but the request was not acceded.

[G.Subramaniam]

I repeat Ayodhya is a symptom of islamism, not the root cause
Solve the problem of islamism and Ayodhya becomes solvable

Wasting time on Ayodhya is foolish, instead of working to discredit the mullahs

Per the fundamental tenet of islam, it is obligatory to harass the kafir
Hence roadside namaz, illegal cow slaughter, attacks on hindu processions etc

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Feb 14 2004, 04:48 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Feb 14 2004, 04:48 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Some of them reportedly urged him to open the Sangh's daily 'shakhas' to Muslims, but the request was not acceded. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What BS. RSS never closed its shakhas for anybody.

[Guest]

<b>BMMCC rejects proposal of Ayodhya Jama Masjid Trust</b>
Press Trust of India
New Delhi, February 18

The Babri Masjid Movement Coordination Committee (BMMCC) on Wednesday said the proposal of the Ayodhya Jama Masjid Trust to situate its Jama Masjid across the river Saryu was meant to build the Muslim community to give up its claim over the Babri Masjid.

"The BMMCC has taken note of the latest plan of the Government-sponsored and much-hyped Ayodhya Jama Masjid Trust to situate its Jama Masjid across the Saryu on the land to be acquired by the Union for allotment to the Trust.

"This change of place only shows that the Trust stands let down by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) which insists that no Masjid can be constructed within the 'sacred place'," BMMCC Convenor Syed Shahabuddin said in a statement in New Delhi.

He said the Committee was of the view that the change of construction plan did not change the "game plan" to place the entire acquired area of over 71 acres at the disposal of the VHP and its Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.

"Therefore, the real purpose of the Jama Masjid Trust is to seduce the Muslim community to give up their claim on the Babri Masjid," he said.

Shahabuddin said the Committee would like to plan on record that an out-of-court settlement between the handpicked "representatives" of the two communities, which envisages surrender by the Muslims of all their rights in the acquired area, will have to be endorsed by the Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court and then by the Supreme Court.

"The BMMCC is confident that a managed settlement will not deceive the judiciary even if the RSS and the Union Government jointly apply all their strength," he said.

The Committee called upon the Government to respect the rule of law and let the judicial process run its course and then implement the final judicial verdict.
,[<i>for shahbano case he was against judiciary, and now he is for, what a jerk he is</i>]

[Guest]

http://hinduunity.org/ayodhya/ayodhya.html

[Guest]

All India Muslim Personal Law Board to go by SC order

Is this the same Board that defied SC order during Shah Bano case?

[G.Subramaniam]

There is another SC verdict that the Sunnis have refused to obey
In varanasi, there is a graveyard belonging to Shias and sunnis were illegally burying their dead in it
The SC asked that the graveyard be returned to the Shias and the Sunnis threatened to riot if this was enforced and for 30 years the supreme court verdict is not yet implemented since the sunnis objected

Incidentally in the Ayodhya negotiations the Shias agreed to relocate the mosque
and the mosque did belong to the Shias

[SSridhar]

Reverse Ayodhya - this time in Spain

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vatican Warns Catholics Against Marrying Muslims
Shasta Darlington • Reuters


VATICAN CITY, 15 May 2004 — The Vatican warned yesterday Catholic women to think hard before marrying a Muslim and urged Muslims to show more respect for human rights, gender equality and democracy.

Calling women “the least protected member of the Muslim family”, it spoke of the “bitter experience” Western Catholics had with Muslim husbands, especially if they married outside the Islamic world and later moved to his country of origin.

The comments in a document about migrants around the world were preceded by remarks about points of agreement between Christians and Muslims but they seemed likely to fuel mistrust between the world’s two largest religions.

<b>The document said the Church discouraged marriages between believers in traditionally Catholic countries and non-Christian migrants.</b>

It hoped Muslims would show “a growing awareness that fundamental liberties, the inviolable rights of the person, the equal dignity of man and woman, the democratic principle of government and the healthy lay character of the state are principles that cannot be surrendered.”

When a Catholic woman and Muslim man wanted to marry, it said, “bitter experience teaches us that a particularly careful and in-depth preparation is called for”.

<b>It said one possible problem was with Muslim in-laws and advised future mothers that they must insist on Church policy that children born of a mixed marriage be baptized and brought up as Catholics.</b>

If the marriage is registered in the consulate of a Muslim country, the document said, the Catholic must be careful not to sign a document or swear an oath including the shahada, the Islamic profession of faith, which would amount to converting.

The document highlighted the contrasting approaches the Vatican has taken in recent years toward Islam, which has emerged as a strong rival for souls, especially in Africa.

Pope John Paul has broken ground in dialogue with Muslims and even prayed in a mosque in Damascus. He won plaudits in the Muslim world for his strong opposition to the Iraq war.

But Vatican officials and leading Catholic prelates have expressed increasingly critical views about the spread of Islam and the challenge this poses for Catholicism.

The Vatican’s top theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, said earlier this week the West “no longer loves itself” and so was unable to respond to the challenge of Islam, which was growing because it expressed “greater spiritual energy”.

<b>The migration document also discouraged churches from letting non-Christians use their places of worship.

This issue arose last month when Muslims in Spain asked to be able to pray in Cordoba cathedral, which was once a mosque. A senior Vatican official said this would be “problematic”.</b>

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<b>The Great Evidence of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir</b>

[Guest]

Here comes traitor's new agenda to build mosque and temple by bribing some mahant. They will keep mosque next to temple for future riots and don't let build temple on Janam bhumi.
<b>Trust to build temple, mosque in Ayodhya</b>
Press Trust of India
Ayodhya, May 29

Managing Trustee of Sri Raj Rajeshwar Sitaram Trust, Shivendra Sahi, on Saturday said the Trust would construct a temple devoted to Lord Ram and a mosque on a land situated about 300 metres away from the acquired land here and two former Prime Ministers are expected to take part in foundation laying ceremony slated for August 7.

Sahi told reporters the proposed temple and mosque will be built with the active cooperation of different communities.

<b>Sahi said the former Prime Ministers, VP Singh and Chandrasekhar, are expected to participate in the foundation laying ceremony.</b> <!--emo&:thumbdown--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' /><!--endemo-->

He said there was about 200 bighas of land belonging to the Trust situated in Ayodhya on which the temple and mosque besides a medical college and an engineering college will be built for the benefit of the people.

He said he hoped the project will help create conducive atmosphere and communal harmony in the country and promised the Trust will abide by the court verdict on the Ayodhya temple dispute. "It will be our endeavour to contribute in the beautification plan of Ayodhya in the coming days," he added.

A delegation of the Trust had called on VP Singh recently and invited him to visit Ayodhya in August next.

Sahi said he had a meeting with eminent saint and mahants in Ayodhya and he paid obeisance at the famous Hanumangarhi Temple, Kanak Bhawan and Nageshwar Nath Siva Temple in Ayodhya.

[Guest]

Ayodhya: Shahabuddin Argument

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->At the discussion on Ayodhya which Newstrack organised on 1 August Shahabuddin produced yet another argument.  I had just quoted a signed statement he had distributed to the press as late as 15 June 1989 in which he had said.  “But the Hindu chauvinists are totally confused about their own case……  “Whatever the Hindu chauvinist case, the Muslim community has, without any legal obligation, offered, as a moral gesture, to demolish the Babri Masjid -- if it is proved that a temple stood on the site of the Babri Masjid and it was pulled down to construct the mosque.  As the point at issue accordingly was whether there had been a temple at the site, I said, we should focus on the archaeological evidence to settle the matter.

Shahabuddin said that he stood by the statement.  His argument was that The temple just could not have been pulled down as pulling down a place of worship to construct a mosque is against the Shariat.  Incredulous, The principal correspondent of Newstrack, Manoj Raghuvanshi, later asked Shahabuddin whether in that case no temple had been demolished by Muslim rulers.  "It is not a historical fact", said Shahabuddin, “that a standing temple in peace time was demolished by any Muslim ruler".  "Assertions to the contrary", he said, "are all chauvinist propaganda”; Even with the hedging -- "standing temple", “in peace time” -- that was quite a lump to swallow.  “You mean even Sonmath was not demolished”.  Raghuvanshi asked, "Sonmath was disintegrated," said <b>Shahabuddin, and reaffirmed his thesis that temples could not have been demolished because pulling them down to build mosques was against the Shariat. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Nor can Shahabuddin's claim that Shariat forbids the destruction of temples etc. in peace time be sustained in view of what the Prophet himself commanded and did.  His earliest biographers -- Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa’d, for instance -- record instance after instance in which idols and temples were smashed, destroyed and burnt down at his orders.  </b>The temples of al-Uzza, al-Laat, and al-Manaat -- the three goddesses who are subjects of the Satanic verses in the Quran -- the temples around Ta’if, those of Fils and Ruda in Tayys -- are all reported by them to have been destroyed on the direct orders of the Prophet.  Similarly, the biographers report the Prophet's joy when converts came and reported to him that they had destroyed this temple or that, or smashed to smithereens this idol or that.  These were not instances when during a battle an army over-ran a site which happened to be a temple.  These were instances of persons or tribes having come over to Islam, and then, as part of their new commitment, destroying the places of worship.

Nor, it must be noted, was the Prophet less stem about some refractory party setting up even a mosque.  His orders at Dhu Awan are well known.  Ibn Ishaq reports that as the Prophet approached the town, the devotees approached him saying, “We have built a mosque for the sick and needy and for nights of bad weather, and we would like you to come to us and pray for us there".  The Prophet.  Ibn Ishaq records, said that "he was on the point of travelling, and was preoccupied, or words to that effect, and that when he came back, if God willed, he would come to them and pray for them in it”.  But at Dhu Awan, upon hearing about the mosque, he summoned the followers, “and told them to go to the mosque of these evil men and destroy and burn it".  That is exactly what the followers then did.  A revelation came down from Allah and sanctified the destruction25.

I just do not see where Shahabuddin derives his cumenical rule from
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As we saw, Shahabuddin’s latest argument is that no Muslim ruler could ever have destroyed a temple to build a mosque as doing so is prohibited by the Shariat. The Shariat is derived pre-eminently from what the Prophet himself did and said.  So, the question is; how does that argument fare in the light of what the Prophet himself did<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

From What If Rajiv Hadn't Caved In To The Zealots?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i><b>What if the Babri Masjid had not been unlocked by Rajiv Gandhi in 1986? </b></i>

<b>MH: </b>It’d be very hard to dispute the interconnection between the Shah Bano case and the opening of the Babri locks. The sequence of events would have been much different if this dormant symbol was not reinvented by some very clever person or persons and turned into use as a trumpcard. If these two incidents had not happened, the bjp would not have emerged as a political force that it did. Despite very substantial presence of the rss and its very extensive networks, till the mid ’80s, the ideas of Hindutva or Sangh’s divisive ideology was not gaining any acceptance in the intellectual climate.

<b>BP: </b>First of all, it has been a functioning temple at least since 1949. The gates were not opened out of conviction but as a counterpoise to having given in to the mullahs in the Shah Bano case. It was not dormant but had always been a live symbol and issue. History shows that Hindus had never given up their demand on the site. Legal cases had been going on, only to be forever delayed. Justice delayed is justice denied. The lid of Hindu patience was blown off which resulted in the demolition of Babri. A section of Hindu society got tired of this snail-paced judiciary and pulled down the disputed structure. The rest is history. Rajiv Gandhi’s opening the doors or leaving them locked would possibly have affected the chain of events very little.

<b>KF: </b>It is very clear that it was a functioning mosque till 1949 when statues were smuggled in. But the fact is that there were no riots between 1949 and 1986 when the then PM was misguided by some over-smart advisors that this act would placate the Hindus who had been fed the lie of "Muslim appeasement". The Congress would not have lost the trust of the common man—Muslim, Hindu or others.

<b>MH: </b>What is certain is that but for this issue, the process of eclipse of the BJP brand of politics would have been complete. From a Congress hegemony, despite the results of 1984, we were headed towards a genuine multi-party system. This mobilisation allowed the BJP to create a substantial constituency that has remained intact to a very large extent because they were able to capture political power in some states—and thanks to the wider acquired legitimacy because of erstwhile socialists like George Fernandes and other so-called secular leaders—from a party of two MPs when the gates were unlocked. This would not have been possible otherwise.

<b>BP: </b>The gates would in any case would have had to be opened at some point in time or the other. It was a historical inevitability. Those who say that the BJP would not have emerged as a political power are living in a fool’s paradise and indulging in wishful thinking. In 1984, the BJP was reduced to two seats because of the Delhi riots and the Congress-sponsored pogrom of Sikhs and the fear psychosis that had been built up in the country. The BJP already was a potent force and its rise to power was inevitable.

<b>KF: </b>Look at the tremendous cost that has been paid by the country. The lives of many innocents, regardless of religion, including children and women, would not have been lost because of resulting riots and chaos.

Apart from the atmosphere of fear and insecurity, the whole country’s collective energy would not have been dissipated and diverted to a local issue that has not only created a tremendous rift among communities who had lived peacefully for centuries, but also cost us loss of international face. India would have shone even brighter, because real issues such as education, poverty, reforms in personal laws, population, economic growth could have been focused on instead.

BP: The real lesson of history is que sera sera—what is to happen, shall happen. Events at an appropriate time will break through a different door even if the first remains locked! The difference is only technical rather than real.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<i>Based on separate conversations. For full texts, please click here: Mushirul Hasan (MH), Balbir Punj (BP), Kamal Faruqui (KF), Syed Shahabuddin (SS) </i>

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

x-post from other thread:

What If Rajiv Hadn't Unlocked Babri Masjid?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>What If Rajiv Hadn't Unlocked Babri Masjid?  </b>
<i>Fundamentally, his decision didn't alter the Ayodhya equation. But, then, his successors didn't continue his equitable and pragmatic Ayodhya policy. </i>

KOENRAAD ELST


 

In 1985, prime minister Rajiv Gandhi gave in to the Muslim zealots in the Shah Bano affair. Overruling a secular court’s decision that repudiated wife Shah Bano was entitled to alimony from her ex-husband, he enacted a law abolishing the alimony provision in conformity with the Sharia. Since India, unlike purely secular states, already had religion-based civil codes, this concession merely brought the minor matter of alimony under the purview of the prevailing arrangement. More importantly, it prevented riots.
Only months later, Rajiv restored the balance by giving the Hindus something as well: he ordered the locks on the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya removed. Until then, a priest had been permitted to perform puja once a year for the idols installed there in 1949. Now, all Hindus were given access to what they consider the birthplace of Rama, the prince posthumously deified as an incarnation of Vishnu.

Fundamentally, this decision didn’t alter the Ayodhya equation. Architecturally, the building was and remained a mosque while functionally, it had been and continued to be a Hindu temple. That is why in my opinion, not taking this decision wouldn’t have changed the Ayodhya developments except in their timing. The different players, their strategies and resolve all remained the same. The Babri Masjid Action Committee and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad would have gone about their "business" just the same.

However, the VHP would have been forced to continue pushing the rather petty demand for removing the locks rather than move on to the more ambitious and mobilising the next step of planning the construction of a new temple. Most probably, the BJP would likewise have reaped smaller dividends from such a campaign. In 1989, it might not have jumped as high as 86 seats. Conversely, the Congress might not have lost the north Indian Muslim vote to the Janata Dal. In 1989, it could have remained just strong enough to cobble together a coalition rather than leave the initiative to the unwholesome and unstable Janata-BJP-Communist combine. So, at the level of party politics, Rajiv’s decision may have made a big difference.

On the other hand, the presence or absence of locks might have made little difference to the kar sevaks who brought the structure down in 1992. Then again, with a Rajiv Gandhi government returning to power in 1989, there might have been no reason for this extreme move. The Hindus might by then have gotten their sacred site without a fight.

After all, in a situation where both Hindus and Muslims were laying claim to the site, Rajiv’s decision in 1986 was important because it allowed for only one interpretation: he favoured the Hindu claim. This was logical, for the site has a sacred significance for Hindus as the putative birthplace of Rama, while it had no special status for Muslims. Historical documents confirm that Hindus continued to go on pilgrimage to the site all through the centuries of Muslim occupation, while no Muslim ever went on pilgrimage there.

Admittedly, a Muslim lobby had been formed which insisted on reoccupying this Hindu sacred site. The existing Congress culture notoriously knew how to deal with such problems: give the Muslim lobbyists some ministerial posts, some public largesse for their institutes or a raise in the Haj subsidies and they will come around. A small application of this approach was the annulment of Syed Shahabuddin’s announced march on Ayodhya in 1988 in exchange for the governmental ban on Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses. A similar but bigger concession might have annulled the Muslim claim on the Ayodhya site. It would not have been the most principled policy, but it would have avoided a lot of communal blood-letting.

This pragmatic approach was thwarted midway. This time the intellectuals played a crucial role.


After the locks had been removed, India’s Marxist intellectuals unchained all their devils in order to prevent the full restoration of the site as a Hindu pilgrimage centre. In particular, they started insisting that there had never been a Hindu temple at the site before a mosque had been imposed on it.
This was a strange claim to make, for two reasons. Firstly, it was untrue. Until then, all parties concerned had agreed that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a temple. What is nowadays rubbished as "the VHP claim" was in fact the consensus view. Thus, in court proceedings in the 1880s, the Muslim claimants and the British rulers agreed with the Hindu claimants on the historical fact of the temple demolition, but since it had happened centuries earlier, they decided that time had sanctioned the Muslim usurpation and nullified the Hindus’ legal claim. Further, numerous documents and several archeological excavations confirmed the history of the temple demolition (with the court-ordered excavations of spring 2003 removing the last possible doubt).

Secondly, the question of the site’s history was besides the point. The decisive consideration for awarding the site to the Hindus, both for the Hindu campaigners themselves and for Rajiv, was not the site’s sacred status in the Middle Ages, but its sacredness for Hindus today. It is the Hindus of 1986 or indeed of 2004 who have been going on pilgrimage to Ayodhya, and they are as much entitled to find a Hindu atmosphere there, complete with Hindu architecture, as Muslims are entitled to find an Islamic atmosphere in Mecca. The VHP has been blamed for politicising history, but it was its opponents who complicated matters by bringing in history, and false history at that.

Nonetheless, the Marxist historians had their way. In their shrill manifestoes, these secular fundamentalists denounced the Hindus’ perfectly reasonable expectation that a Hindu sacred site be left in the exclusive care of the Hindus. They did this with such titanic vehemence that the pragmatists were thrown on the defensive.

Rajiv didn’t give up, though. In 1989, he allowed the shilanyas ceremony, in which the first stone of the planned temple was put in place. In 1990, as opposition leader, he made Chandra Shekhar’s minority government organise a debate on the issue obviously on the assumption that this would confirm the Hindu claim. And so it did, for the anti-temple historians showed up empty-handed when they were asked to provide evidence for an alternative scenario. In a normal course of events, i.e. without the interference of secularist shrieks and howls, this would have set the stage for the peaceful construction of a new temple in the 1990s, with some compensation for the Muslim community, the conflict would have been forgotten by now. Instead, the sore has continued to fester. In 1991, Rajiv was murdered, his successors didn’t continue his equitable and pragmatic Ayodhya policy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<i>(Elst, Belgian Indologist, is the author of Ayodhya : The Case Against the Temple.) </i>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

And then I read a few days ago somewhere - I think it was A Roy or someone like that - now they are spinning it - ok so you dug some ground and now you have found remnants of a temple there - but i am sure if you dig some more you will find some buddhist temple. The whole garbage ends with a dorkish ques -> how deep will you dig or something like that ..

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Aug 18 2004, 07:27 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Aug 18 2004, 07:27 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> And then I read a few days ago somewhere - I think it was A Roy or someone like that - now they are spinning it - ok so you dug some ground and now you have found remnants of a temple there - but i am sure if you dig some more you will find some buddhist temple. The whole garbage ends with a dorkish ques -> how deep will you dig or something like that .. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was A Roy. I think someone around here had posted that link. I think a large part of A Roy article was picked up some other article I had read a while back by one of those Sabrangi types who had concocted at the end of his article something like - 'also found in the ruins by the archeaology dept.: one Japanese Minolta camera' taking a 'dig' at the findings.

[Guest]

Koenraad Elst's website..

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.org/

This article does a good demolition job on the lies being woven around by dorks like ARoy etc..

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.org/book...nale/index.html

In one place I was laughing so hard my neighbour came to check it out.. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, some of these papers clumsily let out the truth indirectly. The Marxist-controlled Chennai daily The Hindu of June 11 claimed the ASI “is reported to have said in its progress report that no structural anomalies suggesting the existence of any structure under the demolished Babri Masjid had been found in 15 of the new trenches dug up at the site”, - but those 15 were not the only ones investigated. So, at the very end of the article, there was an almost laconic addition: “Structural anomalies were, however, detected in 15 other trenches, the report said.” But the impression the paper sought to convey, was summed up in the title: “’No evidence of structures in some trenches’”. It is as if someone is hit by two bullets, one scratching his arm but the other lethally penetrating his heart, and a newspaper reports: “Man repeatedly shot at; one bullet harmless”.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->