Ayodhya

[Guest]

[quote name='ramana' date='30 September 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1285860337' post='108574']

Mudy a few questions:



1) Who or what is Nirmohi Akhara? How do they get an equal share of the holy grounds?

Nirmohi Akhara is a Hindu religious denomination following its own religious faith and customs [1]. It is one of the 14 akharas recognized by the Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad and belonging to the Vaishnava sampradaya [2]. It is headed by Mahant Bhaskar Das.

The group has been in light in connection with the Ayodhya debate since 1959 when it filed a suit to take over the disputed site of Babri Mosque. [3]

Nirmohi Akhara filed a suit in January 1885 with the sub-judge of Faizabad, seeking consent to construct a temple for the Indian God Rama in the area called the Ram Chabutra, adjacent to the Babri Mosque. The sub-judge held then that two large religious structures in close proximity could potentially be a threat to public order. Permission was denied by the court, though the Nirmohi Akhara has since kept up its effort to reclaim the land and construct the temple.[4]

[color="#FF00FF"]If you check 1817 British record of Oudh [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=8KQIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA5&dq=mahant+oudh&hl=en&ei=GBGUTOLvDcL7lwet4fyrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=mahant%20oudh&f=false"]link[/url], Nirmohi Akhara was controlling this area.[/color]





2) How could Babar or his minions use materials from a ancinet temple wihtout destoryin git? And the court has said its haraam per Koran to build a mosque on another religious site. Thats is great precedent.



[color="#FF00FF"] It means Jama Masjid, Mosque in Varanasi and others are Haram. [/color]



3)Wouldn't the use of material from ealrier religious structures be sufficeint proof of the haraamness of more recent Islamic structures?



[color="#FF00FF"]Yes, start from Qutab Minar, Varanasi, Jama Masjid, Mathura. That is Ashok Singhal agenda since beginning. [/color]

[/quote]

[Guest]

Some headlines --

Verdict key step towards building Ram temple: Advani

Ayodhya was Ram's birthplace, mosque against Islamic tenets: Court

Judgement has paved way for Ram temple construction: RSS

VHP welcomes Ayodhya verdict, demands temple in entire area

Disputed Ayodhya land will be shared by three

Wakf Board to move SC against HC order

Verdict will act as catalytic agent for unity: Modi

[Guest]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/286756/Ayodhya-was-Rams-birthplace-mosque-against-Islamic-tenets-Court.html"] link[/url]

Ayodhya was Ram's birthplace, mosque against Islamic tenets: Court

September 30, 2010 9:29:16 PM

IANS | Lucknow

The disputed site at Ayodhya is, indeed, the birthplace of Lord Ram and Mughal emperor Babar built a mosque there against the tenets of Islam, said the majority ruling by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court Thursday.



"The disputed site is (indeed) the birthplace of Lord Ram," said the brief, two-page official synopsis of the court, answering a poser: "Whether the disputed site is the birthplace of Bhagwan Ram?"



The court also ruled that the place of birth must also be construed as a juristic person as also a deity. "It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birthplace of Lord Rama as a child."



The verdict also sought to answer another question on whether the disputed building was a mosque, when it was built and by whom.



"The disputed building was constructed by Babur -- the year is not certain -- but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque," the court ruled.



"The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological [color="#FF0000"]Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure[/color]."



According to the majority ruling, the spirit of divine remains ever present everywhere and at all times for anyone to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his/her own aspirations.



"It can be shapeless and formless also."



On the issue of the disputed site, the ruling said it is established that the property in suit is the site of the birthplace of Ram and Hindus in general had the right to worship other idols and objects of worship that existed on the property.



[color="#FF0000"]"It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan (birthplace) that is a birthplace as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial,"[/color] it added.



[color="#FF0000"]"It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard."[/color]

[Guest]

Two judges for dividing Ayodhya land, but one favoured temple

PM appeals for peace, asks people to guard against rumours

Ram Janmbhoomi Trust welcomes Ayodhya verdict

Wakf Board to move SC against HC order

Bury the dispute now, don't go to apex court: Ayodhya residents

Happiest moment of my life: Uma Bharti

We should all welcome the verdict: Cong

[acharya]

Summary of the Ayodhya title dispute judgement delivered by Allahabad

High Court today.



1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram?

The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a

juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of

divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of

divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to

invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and

it can be shapeless and formless also.





2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom?

The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not

certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot

have the character of a mosque.



3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple?

The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure

after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has

proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.



4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of

December 22/23rd, 1949?

The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in

the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.





5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?

O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow

and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and O.O.S. No.3 of

1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and

others are barred by time.





6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyard?

It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi

of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship

Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed

upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have

been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place

as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right

since time immemorial.



After the construction of the disputed

structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed

structure on 22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard

was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping

throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they

were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed

structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence

against the tenets of Islam.

- Info. from an e group

[dhu]

[size="6"]Thief will always be Thief[/size]

[Guest]

October 01, 2010 4:53:03 AM

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/286960/INNOVATIVE-VERDICT.html"]INNOVATIVE VERDICT[/url]

Pioneer News Service | Lucknow

It is lord Ram’s birthplace, rules HC quoting ASI

Gives one-third land to Muslims for mosque

Majority decision comes after 60 yrs



The makeshift temple of lord Ram at Ayodhya belongs to Hindus and the Babri masjid was an illegal construction, this was the sum and substance of a historic judgement delivered by the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court on Thursday.



Considering the sensitivity and emotion attached to the disputed land, the court came out with a balancing order that ruled that 2.77 acre land comprising the disputed site should be divided into three equal parts and be given to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party representing ‘Ram Lala Virajman’ (Ram deity).



The majority 2-1 verdict of the court, said to be running into nearly 8,000 pages, comes after nearly 60 years of tortuous litigation over who holds the title to the disputed site. Still, the order may not be the last word and the issue may land up in the Supreme Court.



As an anxious nation awaited the court verdict in the highly-sensitive issue with lakhs of security personnel deployed in Uttar Pradesh and other sensitive places across the country, the order of Justices SU Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and DV Sharma became public just before 4.30 pm amid high drama.



The judges wrote three separate judgements, but the majority verdict held that the area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure where the idol of lord Rama is presently situated belongs to Hindus.



The decision to apportion the land among Hindus, Muslims and Nirmohi Akhara was a majority verdict of Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal, while Justice Sharma, who was due to retire, gave a clear ruling favouring the temple.



With the majority view prevailing, the judges also made it clear that the place where the makeshift temple is situated (along with idols) will remain with Hindus where they can perform worship unhindered.



The Akhara was entitled to hold possession of Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar while Muslims would have to settle with the outer courtyard area of the 2.7 acre disputed territory. This seems to be the reason the Sunni Central Wakf Board announced its resolve to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court. The HC even ordered status quo for three months, giving no rights to any parties to disturb the present position at the disputed area.



Justice Khan, who noted that there existed ruins of temple at the site where mosque was constructed, did not agree with the contention of Muslims that the same was built by Babar or by Mir Baqi. He noted that no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque but agreed with the popular belief that the disputed site was where lord Ram was born.



Justice Agarwal who concurred with Khan’s view, clearly held “the area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of lord Ram as per faith and belief of Hindus belong to plaintiffs (party on behalf of lord Ram) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants.”



He also observed that the area within the inner courtyard, except some portion, belongs to members of both the communities, Hindus and Muslims, since it was being used by both for decades and centuries.



Justice Agarwal said the open area within the outer courtyard shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara and the party for lord Ram since it has generally been used by the Hindus for worship at both places.



In his findings on issues, Justice Agarwal said the parties of the Muslim side have failed to prove that the property in dispute was constructed by Babar in 1528 AD.



Justice Sharma, writing a separate judgement, observed that the disputed site is the birthplace of lord Ram. “Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as a spirit of divine worshipped as lord Ram as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for anyone to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also,” he said.



Differing with the other two judges, he also ruled that the disputed structure was constructed on the site of the old structure after demolition of the same. “The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure,” he said.



He said the idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure on the intervening night of December 22 and 23, 1949. With regard to the status of the disputed site, inner and outer courtyard, Justice Sharma said, “It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janmabhoomi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship ‘charan’, ‘Sita Rasoi’, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit.”



He said, “It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janmasthan, i.e., a birthplace, as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.” He observed, that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam as [color="#FF0000"]it did not have any minarets nor and the building in question had images of Hindu gods and goddesses, thus indicating the presence of a pre-existing temple[/color].

[Guest]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/286955/Order-paves-way-for-grand-temple-RSS.html"]Order paves way for grand temple: RSS[/url]

October 01, 2010 4:59:58 AM

PNS | New Delhi:

Welcoming the historic verdict which among other things allotted the hitherto-disputed portion of land where the idols of Lord Ram and other Gods had been placed to the Hindus, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat on Thursday said: [color="#FF0000"]“The verdict has paved way for the construction of Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. The judgement should, however, not be seen as a victory or defeat of any particular group. This is because it has always been the contention of all those crusading for Ram Mandir cause that a temple be constructed there as a symbol of our national values and not just for the sake of Gods. This is essential for all of us.”[/color]



“It is not a question of victory or defeat. But, we consider this verdict as a victory of our national identity. That's why I once again appeal to all sections of people -including Muslims - to use the verdict as an opportunity to forget things of the past and to display national unity, by involving themselves in the work of Ram Mandir construction,” Bhagwat said.



The RSS chief also urged the Hindus to show restraint in expressing their happiness over the verdict. He asked them to maintain calm, be cordial towards all and not to say or do anything that would hurt others. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

Tamil Nadu CM M Karunanidhi said: “…the judgement would satisfy both the parties.” AIDMK supremo and

Opposition leader J Jayalalithaa said, “Judges have delivered an admirable verdict considering the extremely sensitive and potentially inflammatory nature of the dispute and its long trail of religious conflict. It is a judgement that opens the door to the path of reconciliation.”



SP Spokesperson Mohan Singh said, “The verdict is more political and less judicial… The judgement has ignored the title suits and instead decided to divide the land among the three parties.”

The CPI(M) said, “This verdict requires to be fully studied. There may be questions on the nature of the verdict.” CPI national secretary D Raja said, “The issue should not be taken to the street either in joy or in disappointment.”

CPI knows what it means, next free Mathura and Varanasi.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/286952/Muslim-pleaded-for-Nirmohi-Akhara-in-1959.html"]Muslim pleaded for Nirmohi Akhara in 1959[/url]

October 01, 2010 5:04:24 AM

Biswajeet Banerjee | Lucknow

The verdict of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has brought cheers among the sants of Nirmohi Akhara, who were among the first to file title suit in the Faizabad court, almost 50 years ago.



“We respect court order. Justice has been done to us,” Mahant of the Nirmohi Akhara Bhaskar Das told The Pioneer.



Though he is very eloquent about getting possession of the one-third of the disputed land, he is circumspect over sharing land with the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, which has also been given the ownership of one-third land, including the place where Ram Lalla exists. “I cannot say now what we will do. We have to discuss the matter with the sants of our sect and then only I can tell whether we would join hands with Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas,” he said.



Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas have long been at loggerheads. The Nirmohi Akhara does not like the VHP-dominated Nyas and had opposed them.



Bhaskar Das, the Mahant of Nirmohi Akhara, was the man who had filed the first petition seeking ownership rights of the land in Ayodhya where Hindus claim a mosque was built on a Ram Temple. It was 1959 when Bhaskar Das, in his early 30s, filed the case on behalf of Mahant Raghunath Das, who was heading the Trust Panth Mahanandi Nirmohi Akhara at that time.



“I was young at that time and the Maharaj ji (Mahant of the Trust) had entrusted me the job of getting the petition filed. Every day I used to travel to Faizabad court and sit with the advocate for hours and watch the petition being typed meticulously,” Das told this reporter as he reminisces the time when the first petition was filed.



He said: “You know who filed the petition on our behalf for the first time? He was a Muslim, one Siddiqui sahib.”



Nirmohi Akhara is a religious denomination following its own religious faith and customs and is one of the 14 akharas recognised by the Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad. The akhara belongs to the Vaishnav sampradaya.



Nirmohi Akhara filed a suit in January 1885 with the sub-judge of Faizabad, seeking consent to construct a temple for Lord Ram in the area called the Ram Chabutra, adjacent to the Babri mosque. The sub-judge held then that two large religious structures in close proximity could potentially be a threat to public order. Permission was denied by the court, though the Nirmohi Akhara has since kept up its effort to reclaim the land and construct the temple.



Why Nirmohi Akhara filed this petition? “In 1949 when Government locked the gates of the temple after idols of Lord Ram appeared there mysteriously, we petitioned the local administration to give us the ownership right because revenue records of the land were in the name of Nirmohi Akhara since 1940. When we did not get any response from the administration, we decided to move the court in 1959,” the Mahant of the Nirmohi Akhara said.

[Guest]

[dhu]

He said: “You know who filed the petition on our behalf for the first time? He was a Muslim, one Siddiqui sahib.”

India is full of jokers like this Mahant of the Nirmohi Akhara Bhaskar Das. Joker has problem with VHP but not with loud-speaker mosque on Janamsthan.

[Guest]

[quote name='dhu' date='01 October 2010 - 07:37 AM' timestamp='1285898349' post='108601']

India is full of jokers like this Mahant of the Nirmohi Akhara Bhaskar Das. Joker has problem with VHP but not with loud-speaker mosque on Janamsthan.

[/quote]Nirmohi Akhara are actual care taker of Janamsthan.

VHP is combination political and religious. Both have different purpose. VHP joined in 65 with funds, lawyers and political power. VHP will move to next target Kashi and Mathura

[Guest]

[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Hindu-Mahasabha-to-challenge-Ayodhya-verdict/articleshow/6659750.cms"]Hindu Mahasabha to challenge Ayodhya verdict[/url]

LUCKNOW: Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, one of the early litigants in the Ayodhya title suits, on Thursday said it would challenge the Allahabad High Court order to divide the "Ramjanambhoomi" land in three parts.



"We have decided to challenge the decision to divide the Ramjanambhoomi land in three parts", said state president of ABHM Kamlesh Tiwari.



"Our fight for the Ramjanmbhoomi was acknowledged by the entire bench unanimously", he said.

He said the legal battle was initiated by Mahasabha president of Faizabad Gopal Singh Visharad in Janauary 16, 1950.

[rhytha]

Lets monitor the media's spin on the verdict. Media seems to be a bigger loser with the verdict being equal-equal and no fireworks from Hindus-Muslims, loseing an oppurtunity to market thier airtime rates with no news happening.. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Lets start with how 'the gandu' siddarth varadarajan spins his leftist yawn... <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case



Siddharth Varadarajan



If left unamended by the Supreme Court, the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgment are likely to be extremely damaging



New Delhi: The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has made judicial history by deciding a long pending legal dispute over a piece of property in Ayodhya on the basis of an unverified and unsubstantiated reference to the “faith and belief of Hindus.”



The irony is that in doing so, the court has inadvertently provided a shot in the arm for a political movement that cited the very same “faith” and “belief” to justify its open defiance of the law and the Indian Constitution. That defiance reached its apogee in 1992, when a 500-year-old mosque which stood at the disputed site was destroyed. The legal and political system in India stood silent witness to that crime of trespass, vandalism and expropriation. Eighteen years later, the country has compounded that sin by legitimising the “faith” and “belief” of those who took the law into their own hands.



The three learned judges of the Allahabad High Court may have rendered separate judgments on the title suit in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi case but Justices Sudhir Agarwal, S.U. Khan and Dharam Veer Sharma all seem to agree on one central point: that the Hindu plaintiffs in the case have a claim to the disputed site because “as per [the] faith and belief of the Hindus” the place under the central dome of the Babri Masjid where the idols of Ram Lalla were placed surreptitiously in 1949 is indeed the “birthplace” of Lord Ram.



For every Hindu who believes the spot under the central dome of the Babri Masjid is the precise spot where Lord Ram was born there is another who believes something else. But leaving aside the question of who “the Hindus” referred to by the court really are and how their actual faith and belief was ascertained and measured, it is odd that a court of law should give such weight to theological considerations and constructs rather than legal reasoning and facts. Tulsidas wrote his Ramcharitmanas in 16th century Ayodhya but made no reference to the birthplace of Lord Rama that the court has now identified with such exacting precision five centuries later.



The “faith and belief” that the court speaks about today acquired salience only after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bharatiya Janata Party launched a political campaign in the 1980s to “liberate” the “janmasthan.”



Collectives in India have faith in all sorts of things but “faith” cannot become the arbiter of what is right and wrong in law. Nor can the righting of supposed historical wrongs become the basis for dispensing justice today. In 1993, the Supreme Court wisely refused to answer a Presidential Reference made to it by the Narasimha Rao government seeking its opinion on whether a Hindu temple once existed at the Babri Masjid site. Yet, the High Court saw fit to frame a number of questions that ought to have had absolutely no bearing on the title suit which was before it.



One of the questions the court framed was “whether the building has been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same.” Pursuant to this question, it asked the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a dig at the site. This was done in 2003, during the time when the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government was in power at the Centre. Not surprisingly, the ASI concluded that there was a “massive Hindu religious structure” below, a finding that was disputed by many archaeologists and historians.



The territory of India — as of many countries with a settled civilisation as old as ours — is full of buildings that were constructed after pre-existing structures were demolished to make way for them. Buddhist shrines made way for Hindu temples. Temples have made way for mosques. Mosques have made way for temples. So even if a temple was demolished in the 16th century to make way for the Babri Masjid, what legal relevance can that have in the 21st century? And if such demolition is to serve as the basis for settling property disputes today, where do we draw the line? On the walls of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi can be seen the remnants of a Hindu temple, perhaps even of the original Vishwanath mandir. Certainly many “Hindus” believe the mosque is built on land that is especially sacred to them. The denouement of the Babri case from agitation and demolition to possession might easily serve as a precedent for politicians looking to come to power on the basis of heightening religious tensions.



Even assuming the tainted ASI report is correct in its assessment that a Hindu temple lay below the ruins of the Babri Masjid, neither the ASI nor any other expert has any scientific basis for claiming the architects of the mosque were the ones who did the demolishing. And yet two of the three High Court judges have concluded that the mosque was built after a temple was demolished.



From at least the 19th century, if not earlier, we know that both Hindus and Muslims worshipped within the 2.77 acre site, the latter within the Babri Masjid building and the former at the Ram Chhabutra built within the mosque compound. This practice came to an end in 1949 when politically motivated individuals broke into the mosque and placed idols of Ram Lalla within. After 1949, both communities were denied access though Hindus have been allowed to offer darshan since 1986. In suggesting a three way partition of the site, the High Court has taken a small step towards the restoration of the religious status quo ante which prevailed before politicians got into the act. But its reasoning is flawed and even dangerous. If left unamended by the Supreme Court, the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgment are likely to be extremely damaging.

The only damage is siddhart vararajan's stomach not able to accept this verdict. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

no fireworks from Hindus-Muslims,

Friday went peacefully, now I will be more worried because well planned reaction will come.

Watch Ramlila, Diwali days.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/286992/Sahmat-slams-Ayodhya-verdict-finds-it-gravely-disturbing.html"]Sahmat slams Ayodhya verdict, finds it 'gravely disturbing'[/url]

Coming together under the umbrella of Sahmat (Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust), they questioned the court's premise to base its judgment on the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which had claimed that remains of a temple were found beneath the mosque.



"The judgment delivered by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute has raised serious concerns because of the way history, reason and secular values have been treated in it," said [color="#FF0000"]a joint statement signed by eminent personalities like Romila Thapar, D.N. Jha, K.N. Panikkar, Irfan Habib, Zoya Hasan, M.K. Raina and Madan Gopal Singh.[/color]



".. the view that the Babri Masjid was built at the site of a Hindu temple, which has been maintained by two of the three judges, takes no account of all the evidence contrary to this fact turned up by the Archaeological Survey of India's own excavations -- the presence of animal bones throughout as well as of the use of ‘surkhi' and lime mortar (all characteristic of Muslim presence) rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque," the statement said.



It also alleged that the ASI's findings were fraudulent.



"The ASI's controversial report which claimed otherwise on the basis of ‘pillar bases' was manifestly fraudulent in its assertions since no pillars were found, and the alleged existence of ‘pillar bases' has been debated by archaeologists."

Regular commies are back, they will lit fire now.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/287020/Ayodhya-triumph-of-Truth.html"]Ayodhya: triumph of Truth[/url]

October 02, 2010 12:25:35 AM

Sandhya Jain

Justice delayed is not necessarily justice denied. The main issues have now been sorted out and Muslim activists should know that going in for long-drawn appeals at the egging of pseudo-secular ideologues would hardly constitute reconciliation



If there is a clear winner in the vexatious dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi, it is Truth (satya), which has triumphed in the face of formidable obstacles placed by cussed political actors nurturing communal vote banks, aided and abetted by an army of rapidly secular (read viciously anti-Hindu) fellow travellers in media, academia, and of course, the west-centric activists/busybodies.



Thursday’s fractured verdict, unsurprising for a court judging around 20 different issues over a span of six decades, is laudable for the fact that the three-judge bench exuded unanimity on the essential issues — that the disputed spot was the birthplace of Sri Ram; that a temple preceded the mosque removed by mob action on December 6, 1992; and that Lord Ram would not be dislodged from His abode. From 1528 to 1992 to 2010, it has been a long journey. The delivery of the judgment virtually on the eve of Diwali is fraught with poignant symbolism.



The judgment has taken the friendless Hindu community towards closure, even though the verdict divided the land among the Hindu Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhara, and Sunni Central Waqf Board. The central dome, where Ram Lalla Virajman, is housed has been given to the Hindu Mahasabha.



[color="#FF0000"]Sites known as Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutra have been given to Nirmohi Akhara, a Panchayati Math of Ramanandi Bairagi panth, founded by Swami Ramanand at Varanasi in the 14th-15th centuries. The panth claims direct descent from Swami Ramanuja; its greatest proponent was Gosain Tulsidas, who immortalised the Lord in the Ramcharitmanas, written in the reign of Emperor Akbar. Gosain ji popularised the enactment of Ramlila in public, and personally participated in the performances. The panth appeared at Ayodhya sometime after 1734 AD[/color].



There was no way such a contentious case could be perfectly unanimous. Thus, Their Lordships Sudhir Agarwal and Dharam Veer Sharma dismissed the title suits filed by the Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara as time barred, being filed in 1961 for an event which took place in 1949; this automatically confirmed the title on the Ram Janmabhoomi petitioners.



Justice DV Sharma further ruled that the building constructed by emperor Babur was built against the tenets of Islam (being a place of dispute) and did not have the character of the mosque (being without minarets). It was constructed over a massive Hindu religious structure as proved by the Archaeological Survey of India; Hindus have been worshipping the place as Janmasthan (birthplace) and making pilgrimages there from time immemorial. The murtis were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of December 22/23, 1949.



Justice Agarwal noted there was no clear evidence when the mosque was built and by whom, but it existed when Joseph Tieffenthaler visited Oudh area between 1766 and 1771. Justice SU Khan agreed the mosque was built by Babur, but on the ruins of a temple, and some temple material was incorporated in the mosque. While Justice Sharma conferred the entire land on the Ram Janmabhoomi petitioners, Judges Aggarwal and Khan distributed it among the three disputants arguing that Hindu pujas and Muslim namaaz were offered in the same premises for many years; there was no formal partition of the land between them; hence they were held to be in joint possession. The last namaaz offered in the Masjid was on December 16, 1949.

....



[color="#FF0000"]The greatest vindication at Ayodhya is of the Archaeological Survey of India, whose experts work diligently to excavate and preserve the truth of our heritage in the face of extreme nastiness from arid Lib-Left academicians who grab state funding and western patronage to denigrate India’s civilisation and culture.[/color] At Supreme Court direction in 2003, the ASI worked under the glare of a hostile media disinformation campaign, to unearth the truth that recovered the Ram Janmabhoomi as a Hindu heritage and validated Hindu civilisational memory.



Special gratitude is owed [color="#FF0000"]to late Prof BR Grover, who single-handedly researched the medieval archives in Faizabad and discovered that Mughal-era revenue records listed the site as Masjid-e-Janmasthan — a direct reference to Sri Ram. Late Prof Swaraj Gupta assisted Prof BB Lal in his seminal work in Ayodhya, and had the brainwave of bringing a radar team to scan the surface below the ruins. The finding that there were man-made structures below prompted the apex court to order excavations; the rest is history…[/color]



The most positive aspect of the judgment is that a peaceful settlement can be reached without political parties or Parliament. Both the Hindu Mahasabha and Sunni Wakf Board are aggrieved and plan to move the Supreme Court. The Muslim community would do well to resist overt and covert incitement by badly beaten and bruised secular fundamentalists who could barely conceal their rage in television studios.



Muslims must accept with grace the basic letter and spirit of the judgment — that the land belongs to Sri Ram. The Sunni Wakf Board is open to negotiations, which is welcome, as it is difficult to perceive a situation in which the apex court will overturn this verdict and order ouster of Ram Lalla Virajman. We could borrow a solution from the old Arab practice (enshrined in Islamic law) wherein compensation can be offered to aggrieved parties. This would bring closure to all without aggravating the sentiments of any community.



--The writer is a columnist and author

[Guest]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/286980/Peace-prevails-a-day-after-Ayodhya-verdict.html"]Peace prevails a day after Ayodhya verdict[/url]

Nearly 7,000 troublemakers were arrested in Mumbai as a preventive measure, he said

...





In Uttar Pradesh, a three-tier security vigil ( land, air and river) continued to be maintained in and around 18 districts that have been identified as "hyper-sensitive" -- Lucknow, Faizabad, Gonda, Balrampur, Bahraich, Gorakhpur, Mau, Azamgarh, Varanasi, Allahabad, Kanpur, Agra, Aligarh, Bareilly, Moradabad, Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar

and Meerut.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Mulayam-stirs-Ayodhya-pot-says-Muslims-hurt/H1-Article3-607078.aspx"]Mulayam stirs Ayodhya pot, says Muslims hurt[/url]

"I am disappointed at the judicial verdict that gives precedence to faith over law and evidence,” he said. “This does not augur well for the country, the Constitution and the judiciary itself. Muslims in the country are feeling cheated. There is a sense of despair in the entire community.”

Ground work for bums.