Ayodhya

[Guest]

[url="http://www.newkerala.com/news2/fullnews-40910.html"]Court calls for amicable settlement of Ayodhya dispute[/url]

Lucknow, Sep 14 : The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court Monday called upon the rival parties to explore the possibility of a last-minute amicable settlement of the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.newkerala.com/news2/fullnews-41302.html"]Verdigris blackening carved stones for Ram temple[/url]

[Guest]

[url="http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Kalyan-to-visit-Ayodhya/681142/"]Kalyan to visit Ayodhya[/url]

Lucknow: With just 10 days left for the court verdict on Ayodhya title suits, temple movement leader Kalyan Singh on Monday said he would visit the disputed site on September 16 to seek blessings of Lord Ram and discuss the issue of building a temple with saints and VHP leaders .



“On September 16, I along with Jankranti Party president Rajvir Singh and otherswould visit Ayodhya and would also hold discussions with saints and VHP leaders over the temple construction”, the former BJP leader, who floated the Jankranti Party after quitting the saffron outfit, said.

[Capt M Kumar]

He said Rajiv Gandhi was indirectly responsible for demolition of Babri Masjid as he tried to play one community against the other.



"From Shah Bano case to opening up of the Masjid on VHP's request to launching his election campaign from Faizabad calling it Ram's land, he was playing Hindus against Muslims and vice-versa," he said.



He, however, refused to accept that BJP is a spent force and saw Bihar elections as a litmus test for the party.



Read more: Rajiv Gandhi was indirectly responsible for demolition of Babri Masjid: French author - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india...z0zcodMBE2

[Guest]

What will happen to CommonWealth Game? Any outcome will effect situation in India.

[Guest]

[url="http://news.rediff.com/interview/2010/sep/15/ayodhya-muslims-ready-for-out-of-court-settlement.htm"]Ayodhya: 'Muslims ready for out-of-court settlement'[/url]

An application has been filed before the Lucknow [ Images ] Bench of the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction to both parties to settle this matter amicably so as to avoid any controversy that might follow the judgment. While the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is not in favour of an out-of-court settlement, the Muslim community feels that in the interest of peace and harmony, they are willing to settle the matter out-of-court.

[G.Subramaniam]

Where can I find a photo of demolition of Ayodhya and where can I find picture of current Ayodhya makeshift temple

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/uttarpradesh/Don-t-wait-for-verdict-"]Don’t wait for verdict, Azam tells Muslims[/url]

he expelled Samajwadi Party MLA Mohd Azam Khan today called upon the Muslim community not to wait for High Court verdict in Babri Masjid-Ramjanma Bhoomi case, even as a favourable verdict would not help them. He said even if Muslims win the case the central government was not in a position to restore possession to them. They (Muslims) should wait for good time, he said.

“Musalmaan waqt ka intezar kare, waqt insaf karega”, Khan pontificated.



Talking to HT here on Thursday, Khan said the Muslim community should not get emotionally swayed by verdict, which is coming on September 24, and maintain peace and harmony.



Khan said, “after demolition of Babri Masjid a temple was constructed which still existed there and no government has power to remove it and restore possession to Muslims, even if they win the case”.

[ramana]

Similar article from Swapan Dasgupta in Telegraph....



LINK

TWENTY YEARS TOO LATE - A turning point in Indian history when history refused to turn

Swapan Dasgupta





In January 1993, barely a month after the Babri structure built by one of Babur’s commanders in 1528 was demolished, Girilal Jain, a former editor of The Times of India, made a spirited intervention in the pages of the weekly, Organiser, run by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. In view of the Allahabad High Court’s scheduled judgment, on September 24, on the title suit of the disputed site that has been pending for over 50 years, it is instructive to revisit that debate.



“The structure as it stood,” Jain wrote, “represented an impasse between what Babur represented and what Ram represents... In fact, in my opinion, no structure symbolised the Indian political order in its ambivalence, ambiguity, indecision and lack of purpose, as this structure. The removal of the structure has ended the impasse and marks a new beginning.”



Jain wasn’t alone in viewing the events of December 6, 1992, in Ayodhya as the Indian equivalent of, say, the storming of the Bastille. Both the votaries of Hindutva and the beleaguered defenders of the Nehruvian order were united in viewing the demolition as a point of rupture. For the former, the change would herald a Hindu reawakening; for the secularists, it threatened to destroy India’s pluralism and transform the country into a de-facto confessional State.



Both sides of the confrontation, it would now seem, were guilty of hype. India wasn’t transformed into a Hindu Pakistan and the Constitutional edifice established in 1950 remained strong and intact. To borrow A.J.P. Taylor’s description of the 1848 revolution in Europe, the Babri demolition was a turning point in Indian history when history refused to turn.



This is not to suggest that the temple movement, an event that L.K. Advani prophesied in 1990 would become the “greatest mass movement” in history, was a passing show, creating the proverbial ripples on the surface. The series of events beginning with the opening of the locks in 1986, the Ram shila pujas and Advani’s rath yatra, right down to the abstruse dispute over 2.77 acres of land and the final demolition, made a profound impression on public opinion. Apart from the spate of Hindu-Muslim riots, the churning over Ayodhya contributed immeasurably to the end of Congress dominance, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s emergence as the principal non-Congress party, the creation of a nebulous Hindu vote bank and a strengthening of Muslim religious identities.



But the movement didn’t turn India upside down. Like the furore over the Mandal Commission report, the Ayodhya movement resulted in political turbulence and even a substantial measure of regroupment. But its consequences weren’t revolutionary. As the six years of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance indicated, the upheaval triggered a change of government five years after the demolition; it didn’t lead to a regime change.



With the benefit of hindsight it would seem that the contemporary misreading arose from the premise that the Ayodhya movement was overwhelmingly an explosion of faith and sublimated Hinduness. The implication was that a new religiosity had penetrated the popular psyche and begun influencing secular life.



That veneration of the epic hero of the Ramayan and the desire to commemorate the spot where local belief suggested he was born played a role in motivating religious Hindus to back the movement is undeniable. It is difficult to envisage any other post-Independence movement when so many Hindu religious figures across the land, ranging from the heads of important mutts to neo-literate purohits of village shrines, came together for a common purpose. This heady emotionalism was unquestionably the main factor behind the mobilization of rural India (and particularly women).



However, what sustained the movement, and gave it an extra- religious dimension, was the support it received from the Hindu middle classes. It was this middle class groundswell in both the cities and the small towns that led many contemporary observers to suggest that the Ram temple had become the metaphor for a more far-reaching transformation.



In retrospect, it would seem that the middle class endorsement of a movement that appeared to liberal India as being retrograde and antediluvian was located in a specific context. By the late-1980s, the pillars on which the Nehruvian order was constructed had developed deep cracks. Particularly evident was the bankruptcy of the socialistic approach based on the licence-permit raj. By the time Indira Gandhi fell to the assassins’ bullets, the public sector-led, State-regulated economy was yielding diminishing returns, unable to cope with rising expectations for a better life. Rajiv Gandhi emerged as a ray of hope but his record was soured by his Shah Bano retreat and the stench of corruption from the Bofors deal. To urban India, the system had run out of steam. The physical mortgaging of India’s gold reserves in 1990 epitomized the bankruptcy of an economic system.



The Ayodhya agitation encapsulated protest, millenarianism and modernity under one roof. It didn’t usher in Hindu National Socialism as its aesthetic detractors were convinced it would (leading to some facile comparisons of inept boy scouts in khaki shorts with Hitler’s stormtroopers). But it drove a stake through the heart of an incapacitated socialism.



In the past two decades — Advani has helpfully reminded us that the high court verdict will coincide with the 20th anniversary of his rath yatra — India has changed far more than politicians are willing to acknowledge. The sense of Hindu dejection and defeat that was so marked in the early-1980s — a consequence of India’s overall underperformance — has given way to a cockiness that comes from a sudden rise in economic prosperity. Whereas in 1990, historical memories of temple destruction rankled, today’s mood is governed by the belief that the future belongs to India. The optimism may be based on a bubble but it is nevertheless real.



The high court verdict isn’t going to be the last word in the Ayodhya saga. The disappointed parties are bound to appeal to the Supreme Court and the political class as a whole feels that the dispute should be put into a judicial slow cooker for another decade. There is a functioning makeshift Ram temple that has existed at the site since the ‘mysterious’ appearance of the idol in 1949, and it is inconceivable that this state of affairs will change in the foreseeable future, whatever the court decides later this month. As long as the denominational status quo in the Ayodhya site is maintained, India is unlikely to experience another bout of civil unrest and sectarian conflict.



Yet, there are two sides to the dispute. If the Hindu middle classes that nurtured and sustained the Ayodhya agitation are focused on worldly matters, a section of the Muslim community has also been infected by a globalized mood of victimhood which, in turn, has bred a nothing-to-lose assertiveness. In the event the court rules in favour of the Sunni Waqf Board and overturns the 1940 Privy Council judgment in the Shahid Ganj Gurdwara case,:?: it is entirely possible that a radical section of the Muslim community may feel that a further reference to the Supreme Court is just a ploy to deny it overdue justice. Whether this frustration will trigger a wave of radicalization is not known, but the danger is real and could in turn lead to a countervailing response. :?:



As always, the Ayodhya bomb carries with it many deadly delayed fuses. It has been that way for the past 482 years, ever since a conquering Mughal general rode roughshod over the feelings of the vanquished.

[G.Subramaniam]

Reminder, does anyone have pictures of makeshift temple in Ayodhya

[Guest]

[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='17 September 2010 - 06:39 AM' timestamp='1284685262' post='108354']

Reminder, does anyone have pictures of makeshift temple in Ayodhya

[/quote]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Allahabad-HC-to-take-up-plea-to-postpone-Ayodhya-verdict/H1-Article1-601136.aspx"]Allahabad HC to take up plea to postpone Ayodhya verdict[/url]

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, hearing the Ayodhya title suits, will take up petitions for the postponement of Ayodhya verdict on Friday. The bench received three petitions to defer the verdict citing law and order problems and the upcoming Commonwealth Games. The court on Tuesday passed the order on the application of Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, the defendant of a suit moved on Monday pleading that the title suit verdict, slated to be pronounced on September 24 next, be deferred.

[ramana]

HC rejects postponement



Looks like the powers that be want the decision released before a certain date. I think the Kasmir unret, PRC in Gilgit, Omababa's visit are all too coincidental. It might be to paint BJP inot a corner so it can't oppose things being set in motion by INC.

[Guest]

Actually, judge is going to retire by end of this month, delay means, new judge had to start some process again. It means more delay.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/284166/Muslim-outfits-meet-today-to-mull-strategy.html"]Muslim outfits meet today to mull strategy[/url]

Concerned over the sensitivity of the Ayodhya title suit verdict to be delivered on September 24, major Muslim organisations will on Sunday discuss measures to maintain communal harmony and explore the possibility of reaching out to the BJP to handle the situation in a mature manner.



While the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JuH) has convened a meeting of its national executive on Sunday to frame a response to the verdict and maintain peace whichever way the court decides on the crucial issue, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has also convened a high-level meet of different Muslim organisations to discuss similar issues.



Both these organisations are party to the title suit. The JuH has welcomed the statements from RSS and senior BJP leader LK Advani on the issue and will also discuss whether to join hands with the party in maintaining peace after the verdict on the title suit is delivered.



Rajya Sabha member and prominent Muslim leader Maulana Mahmood Madani told The Pioneer, “Both the communities should abide by the court verdict and resist from expressing happiness or protest over the title suit judgement… the door for appeal in the Supreme Court will be open for the aggrieved party.”

They are still at "whether"

[Guest]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/284163/Secular-modernists-pose-greater-threat.html"] link[/url]

The Ram devotees were asked to produce a birth certificate testifying that the figure they venerated actually existed; the dispute over the religious antiquity of the disputed site was sought to be settled by a show of hands in the Indian History Congress; a Left ideologue argued that Ram was chosen over Krishna and Shiva for ‘liberation' because he was ‘upper' caste; another Left activist was reported as saying that the disputed site should be converted into a non-denominational, public urinal; and, a cultural organisation linked to the CPI(M) organised an exhibition highlighting some obscure belief that Sita was actually Ram's sister.

The secular modernists were different. They tried to steer the debate into another direction by a campaign of mockery and derision which included posters saying, “Sharam se kaho hum Hindu hain.” To my mind, their smug condescension and haughtiness were significant factors in triggering Hindu anger in the late-1980s and early-1990s and, indeed, preventing a negotiated settlement. The Ayodhya explosion had a strong anti-elitist bias which stemmed from the fury of the outlanders.

[Capt M Kumar]

In a surprise move, one of the three judges of the Allahabad High Court's special Ayodhya bench on Monday issued a dissenting note on the order issued by his two co-judges and allowed postponement of the verdict on the long-pending Babri Masjid/Ramjanmabhoomi row.



Justice Dharma Veer Sharma also disagreed with his co-judges of the Lucknow bench of the court -- Justice S U Khan and Justice Sudhir Aggarwal -- on the question of exploring an out-of-court settlement on the issue and rooted for mediation or conciliation.



Read more: Ayodhya: Judge issues dissenting note, favours conciliation - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india...z103tncNAP

another article: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100920/js...958123.jsp

[ramana]

What if the court rules in favor of the Mandir? Is the excess precautions just for that? If it rules in favor of the Masjid, the others are hardly in a position to riot with MHA Chidambaram already pontifcating about saffron terror and all that!

[ramana]

Op-Ed inPioneer, 20 Sept.,2010

Ayodhya verdict must not disturb peace



The Union Government has done well to issue, much in advance, an appeal to the people to maintain peace and communal harmony irrespective of which way the Allahabad High Court’s verdict goes on the title suit of the land where the disputed Babri structure stood and where a resurrected Ram temple now exists. Millions of Hindus believe that Ram was born at the site in Ayodhya and a temple commemorating the birth of Maryada Purushottam existed prior to its destruction in 1528 by Babur’s army and the construction of what came to be known as Babri Masjid by Mir Baqi. The subsequent tussle for control over the land is far too well-documented and known to merit repetition; suffice to say that Hindu anger spilled over on December 6, 1992, when the disputed structure was demolished. In the intervening two decades, tempers have calmed down and a new generation of Indians has come of age in a society that is increasingly aspirational and less driven by issues that are to do with religion and religious identity. Hindu feel more confident and consequently less threatened; Muslims have come to realise that economic growth and development are far more important for their community’s welfare than violent bickering over a mosque that had fallen into disuse and which was never considered specially significant. Even the politics of caste and religious identity that dominated popular discourse and voting trends in the closing decade of the last century has yielded space to a different brand of politics centred on good governance. Hence, in this changed milieu there is really little cause to worry about popular response to the High Court’s verdict. What lends credence to this view is the great maturity shown by the RSS and the VHP which, even before the Government issued its appeal, declared that the Sangh Parivar would react to the judgement in a considered manner and within the democratic framework of constitutionalism. Moreover, both sides have acknowledged that Friday’s ruling can be contested in the Supreme Court and, hence, there is no reason to get carried away needlessly or betray misplaced emotion. In brief, neither triumphalism nor defeatism is called for. Having eschewed the option for a negotiated settlement and opted for a court-mandated resolution, neither side can now afford to cavil at the High Court’s judgement.



Seen in this context, there is no need to get hyper-active on the security front through massive deployment of paramilitary forces and by bringing normal life to a halt, especially in Uttar Pradesh. The State Government should take appropriate measures and ensure adequate security to prevent mischief-makers from instigating hoodlums, seeking to reignite flames that have long been put out. More importantly, the intelligence agencies should focus on collecting information that is reliable and actionable, and pass it on to the authorities responsible for maintaining law and order. It would also help if political parties, irrespective of their ideological difference, were to deploy their cadre with the intention of helping law-enforcement agencies and keeping hot-heads in control. Friday poses a litmus test for Indian society as a whole: If we are able to deal with the judgement without any adverse fallout than we would be seen as a responsible society.